# Kung Fu Federation



## 7starmantis (Feb 9, 2005)

I stumbled on this site, thought I would bring it here for some discussion. What do you guys think of it?

http://www.internationalkungfu.com/

  7sm


----------



## Dronak (Feb 9, 2005)

Well, I'm far from an expert here and maybe this is obvious glancing at the site, but it appears to me that they're stressing kung fu as a sport.  That's not necessarily bad, but I do wonder if something will be lost in the attempt to standardize it for sport competitions.


----------



## j_m (Feb 9, 2005)

Dronak said:
			
		

> Well, I'm far from an expert here and maybe this is obvious glancing at the site, but it appears to me that they're stressing kung fu as a sport. That's not necessarily bad, but I do wonder if something will be lost in the attempt to standardize it for sport competitions.


I agree for the most part. They even refer to kung fu specifically *as* a sport.

To me, they are trying to take kung fu in the wrong direction. But hey, you can get a black sash in 3 years!!



jm


----------



## clfsean (Feb 9, 2005)

*cough* crap *cough*

:mp5:


----------



## still learning (Feb 9, 2005)

Hello, It a start of something.  Hope it goes well. ....Aloha


----------



## Trainwreck (Feb 9, 2005)

I wouldn't call it a good start for people who want to practice kung-fu for the sake of self-defense, but it has potential.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 10, 2005)

Yeah, in my opinion its things like this that perpetuate misinformation and misunderstanding of real kung fu. With the amount of misconceptions out there, even among the "kung fu" practitioners, this is only going to serve to increase the confusion and stereotypes surrounding CMA. There is nothing sport about what I do and to set a box around it and makes rules for competition only ruins and weakens all the hard work put in. I just dont see anything positive coming from this except maybe more people hearing the words kung fu or wushu, but there are plenty of people who know those words and have no idea what they mean.

 7sm


----------



## j_m (Feb 10, 2005)

Have you ever seen good Tae Kwon Do? Now, have you ever seen "Olympic" Tae Kwon Do?? The are *not* the same thing. Now 95% of the worlds population thinks of the Olympic sport when they hear the term. Personally, I would not like to see the same thing happen to kung fu. Kung fu *is not *a sport, nor should it be treated like one. If they want to promote a sport they should not use the term "kung fu". (we all know kung fu doesn't really mean martial art anyway, right?) Look what's become of the real Chinese term for "martial art". Wu Shu, to most people, does not mean what it used to mean. 



jm


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I stumbled on this site, thought I would bring it here for some discussion. What do you guys think of it?
> 
> http://www.internationalkungfu.com/
> 
> 7sm


What do you think of the list of masters? Did it say that they were members or not?


----------



## sifu Adams (Feb 10, 2005)

let me add a diferant twist to this.  I don't know anything about IKF and I agree I don't wont anyone telling me that my art needs to change to fit a set of rules. However,  I think everyone is off when it comes to the Oylmpics.  The Oylmpics is something I feel could help Matial arts grow.  We all know that tournament are diffent than a street/real fight.  But is that what our 5-6-7 year olds and up are wonting it for?  How many of your student quit your school to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, or other sports?  How many of you have a young student that you think would be a great martial artest?  What keeps them in the martial arts.  We are not living in the 1800 or 1900 any more.  Maybe we need to think of the Oylmpics as a challange. In sted of 30 differnt styles of Martial arts trying to get into the Oylmpics we should join to gather and offer a mixed martial arts that combineds all the styles.   Maybe the rules we set help us teach the world a correct way martial arts is to be done.  We show them forms and katas, weapons and sparing the don't limmit you to playing a game of tag with you feet.  the tournaments I have, are open to all styles, and when it comes to sparring we allow grabing, controled takedowns, and sweeping, and ground fighting. I here people all the time saying "TKD is no good", "80% fo fights go to the ground but 100% start standing up", "my style is better than that style", "that move wont work", but are they willing to prove it?  I tell my students the if they let a TKD student kick them in the head they need to go back and learn think about what they forgot and improve it, not avod it.  

 My thoughs is we as martial artist in all styles need to get together and lay down the rule of the "sport" martial arts before we go any farther. If we did I think we would have more students taking class and working harder for a goal that they to could be in the oylpics some day, and we can do it without losing the roots of the martial arts.


----------



## j_m (Feb 11, 2005)

sifu Adams said:
			
		

> let me add a diferant twist to this. I don't know anything about IKF and I agree I don't wont anyone telling me that my art needs to change to fit a set of rules. However, I think everyone is off when it comes to the Oylmpics. The Oylmpics is something I feel could help Matial arts grow. We all know that tournament are diffent than a street/real fight. But is that what our 5-6-7 year olds and up are wonting it for? How many of your student quit your school to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, or other sports? How many of you have a young student that you think would be a great martial artest? What keeps them in the martial arts. We are not living in the 1800 or 1900 any more. Maybe we need to think of the Oylmpics as a challange. In sted of 30 differnt styles of Martial arts trying to get into the Oylmpics we should join to gather and offer a mixed martial arts that combineds all the styles. Maybe the rules we set help us teach the world a correct way martial arts is to be done. We show them forms and katas, weapons and sparing the don't limmit you to playing a game of tag with you feet. the tournaments I have, are open to all styles, and when it comes to sparring we allow grabing, controled takedowns, and sweeping, and ground fighting. I here people all the time saying "TKD is no good", "80% fo fights go to the ground but 100% start standing up", "my style is better than that style", "that move wont work", but are they willing to prove it? I tell my students the if they let a TKD student kick them in the head they need to go back and learn think about what they forgot and improve it, not avod it.
> 
> My thoughs is we as martial artist in all styles need to get together and lay down the rule of the "sport" martial arts before we go any farther. If we did I think we would have more students taking class and working harder for a goal that they to could be in the oylpics some day, and we can do it without losing the roots of the martial arts.


I, for one, do not feel like the Olympics have anything "good" to offer martial arts.  But, this is not what the topic was about.  The topic was about a so-called federation trying to _unify_ kung fu by trying to get it into the Olympics and also by several other means.

If you, or anyone, wants to take _martial arts_ to the Olympics... that's fine.  But you have to understand that once you begin definig set rules and watering things down it no longer is a _martial art_.  It's just a _martial sport_.  If that's what you do in your martial arts, then fine.  What most of us are saying is that is *NOT* the root of our martial arts... which, in this particular case, is kung fu.  Kung fu is not a sport and I think promoting it as one is a very bad idea.  I'm not into sports... I'm into kung fu.  They are two seperate things I believe they should remain that way.

I admire your enthusiasm to spread and promote martial arts.  But that's not how I want to spread or promote mine.  Don't get me wrong.  I really like to interact with other martial artist of all kinds (physically as well as intilectually).  But I still think turning any of it into some sort of "organized sport" *will *make it eventually lose it's roots.

FWIW,



jm


----------



## rox (Feb 11, 2005)

I don't see a problem with competition if you are allowed NOT to do it.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 9, 2005)

I think its great! Its clear that what they are trying to do is set an international standard for kung fu competition AS DISTINCT from wushu. (note that wushu forms are specifically excluded from the taolu rules.) 

 I think competetion is good for the martial arts. I'm suspicious of schools that won't compete because their art is "too deadly". I agree that competetion is NOT fighting, hell everybody knows that. But it gives us a chance to gather and test our skills in a spirit of fellowship. 

  If its not a sport then what the hell is it?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 9, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> If its not a sport then what the hell is it?


 Kung Fu


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 9, 2005)

Why not....everything has has become a sport with rules.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 9, 2005)

Competition and "Competition*s*" are different things. Competition is a good thing, but this is done within the school, in a real scenario, not at a "competition" (tournement) with rules which only further bad habits. The very nature of kung fu makes it impossible to judge like that in an olympic setting. Whats the point? You think to spread kung fu is to put it in the olympics where it will be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misconstrued? 

 I think its the worst thing that could happen, but thats my own opinion.

 7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 9, 2005)

Why do you feel that the very nature of kung fu makes it impossible to judge in an olympic setting?  

 What competition within the school are you talking about?

 Again I repeat, the purpose of tournaments is to get together, see what other martial artists do and strut our stuff a little.  How does that promote bad habits?  

 I think bad habits are more likely to arise from schools that refuse to participate, and degrade into mutual admiration societies.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Why do you feel that the very nature of kung fu makes it impossible to judge in an olympic setting?


 You judge an athlete at a tournement or the olympics by sight. Most of the power generation and even attacks of kung fu are hard to see. What about absorbing a hit and yielding to it? Contact is made, do you give the point to the attacker? Even if the one being "hit" absorbs it and returns the strike and does damage? Are you going to break them up after certain points or hits? Kung Fu is continuous working off the energy and movements of the opponent. Using it for such an event would encourage training for specific events and rules such to get the point, not practice true kung fu. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> What competition within the school are you talking about?


 Fighting. No rules, no judges, no set boundries, just pure fighting. We fight ALOT in my school and even have others join us. Just this past week we had a guy from a local Karate club and a guy from a local Judo club come and fight with us, full contact. While there are still a few rules with that (which still in my opinion is not true kung fu) we weren't trying to get a point, or impress a judge, just use what we train. Its focus was pure application and education. We could stop and dicuss something if we needed to as well. The focus wasn't winning, getting points, or impressing judges, which usually tends to make people train for that. Why train for something that wont impress the olympic judges? 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Again I repeat, the purpose of tournaments is to get together, see what other martial artists do and strut our stuff a little. How does that promote bad habits?
> 
> I think bad habits are more likely to arise from schools that refuse to participate, and degrade into mutual admiration societies.


 I'll respond to these later when I get time, gotta run.

   7sm


----------



## clfsean (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Why do you feel that the very nature of kung fu makes it impossible to judge in an olympic setting?


Examples... 

Tang Fung Hung Ga
Wong Fei Hung Hung Ga
Taiwanese Hung Ga

Chan CLF
Hung Sing CLF
Buk Sing CLF

Jook Lum SPM
Chow Ga SPM
Iron Ox SPM

Songshan Shaolin
Bak Siu Lum

etc.... 

How can somebody judge different variations of a CMA when there is no single style CMA? In Olympic sports, the competition routines are standardized & categorized. You can't do that with TCMA. 

HOWEVER... you can do it if you strip everything that makes a CMA specific to itself, set standard techniques across the board & say this is it... oh, wait.... the PRC already did that. It's referred to as Modern Wushu... 




			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Again I repeat, the purpose of tournaments is to get together, see what other martial artists do and strut our stuff a little. How does that promote bad habits?


If you look at the majority of tournies today, all you get are... (paraphrasing one of your statments)... 



> mutual admiration societies


Look at who comes & goes, who wins & who doesn't. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> I think bad habits are more likely to arise from schools that refuse to participate, and degrade into mutual admiration societies.


Nah... bad habits arise when Student "A" from school "1" sees Student "B" from school "2" doing something that makes Student "B" win, but has no martial value or use,but looks really damn good. Student "A" then takes Student "B" 's bad technique to practice & continues down the road from there changing things to make them "tournie winners" as opposed to techniquese proper to that style.


----------



## Darksoul (Mar 10, 2005)

-I have to agree with the dissenters on turning kung-fu into a sport. Maybe they could have a simple fighting category, regardless of style, and see who wins, though how you would judge that is a debate in itself. The point of kung-fu, when you're actually using it, is to defeat the opponent, avoid or diminish any damage to yourself, and walk away alive. People have many reasons to train, but ultimately, when it comes down to using kung-fu, its about survival. In training, sure you can have competitions within schools, between students. And cross training with students from other schools to practice what you know is a really good idea.


A---)

p.s. maybe we should start a new thread on how to better promote the ma's


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

I agree with the last few posts as well. Training on what catches the attention of the judges, looks cool, and gets points, is not true training. Its not applicable to true self defense, and goes against what CMA is all about, as does "strutting our respective stuff" in reality. 

7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree with the last few posts as well. Training on what catches the attention of the judges, looks cool, and gets points, is not true training. Its not applicable to true self defense, and goes against what CMA is all about, as does "strutting our respective stuff" in reality.
> 
> 7sm


Don' forget about the strnge and/or colorful uniforms that starting to look like band/parade ones.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree with the last few posts as well. Training on what catches the attention of the judges, looks cool, and gets points, is not true training. Its not applicable to true self defense, and goes against what CMA is all about, as does "strutting our respective stuff" in reality.
> 
> 7sm


 There are many reasons why one might study the martial arts.  Self defence is one of them.  Another is the sport aspect, and another is desire to bust some mad moves.  All of these are legitimate. If all you're into is self defence, that's fine, but there's no reason to invalidate the other reasons.  At the end of the day, its just freakin' hobby.  

 I don't agree that "Strutting our stuff" goes against what CMA is about.  CMA has a long tradition of exhibition. I believe that the forms at one time were the equivalent of parade drill...a way for armies to demonstrate their martial prowess in public.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

> How can somebody judge different variations of a CMA when there is no single style CMA? In Olympic sports, the competition routines are standardized & categorized. You can't do that with TCMA.


 I agree its a problem,  and its this problem that wushu was developed to deal with (as you pinted out.)  However wushu created a NEW problem--the compulsory forms eclipsed the traditional forms. Also, in mixed wushu/traditional tournaments, wushu had an unfair advantage, since their forms were developed specifically to win tourneys.  This organization appears to be trying to right those wrongs.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

> Fighting. No rules, no judges, no set boundries, just pure fighting. We fight ALOT in my school and even have others join us. Just this past week we had a guy from a local Karate club and a guy from a local Judo club come and fight with us, full contact. While


 You fight full contact, no restrictions??? I find this hard to believe. How come people don't die?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> There are many reasons why one might study the martial arts. Self defence is one of them. Another is the sport aspect, and another is desire to bust some mad moves. All of these are legitimate. If all you're into is self defence, that's fine, but there's no reason to invalidate the other reasons. At the end of the day, its just freakin' hobby.
> 
> I don't agree that "Strutting our stuff" goes against what CMA is about. CMA has a long tradition of exhibition. I believe that the forms at one time were the equivalent of parade drill...a way for armies to demonstrate their martial prowess in public.


Bust some mad moves???????

A hobby, like model building?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> There are many reasons why one might study the martial arts. Self defence is one of them. Another is the sport aspect, and another is desire to bust some mad moves. All of these are legitimate. If all you're into is self defence, that's fine, but there's no reason to invalidate the other reasons. At the end of the day, its just freakin' hobby.
> 
> I don't agree that "Strutting our stuff" goes against what CMA is about. CMA has a long tradition of exhibition. I believe that the forms at one time were the equivalent of parade drill...a way for armies to demonstrate their martial prowess in public.


 There are many reasons why people study, however there are also many levels of skill and understanding people reach. A sport trainer which views kung fu as a "freakin hobby" will reach one level while a dedicated fighter will reach a different one altogether. Kung fu is different than other "sport" styles, and does not lend itself to the sport aspect. The best sport kung fu hobbiest in the world with the highest level of sport kung fu skill would stand in a league not even comparable to those who train true, hard, and dedicated. There are different reasons for it, so thats ok but they should also understand what they are doing and what skill they have. Kung Fu is not a hobby to me it is a way of life, it is a part of my life and its something that has changed my life tremendously. It reaches into every area of my life, not just fighting. I'm not invalidating your reason to study, but starting an olympic sport of kung fu would most deffinitely invalidate my reasons for studying. 

 Strutting our stuff does go against the philosophy of kung fu whether you choose to believe it or not. What kind of sources could you post to site your CMA having long traditions of exhibition? 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> You fight full contact, no restrictions??? I find this hard to believe. How come people don't die?


 Oh sorry, no restrictions except those emposed on us by the laws of the United States of America.....seems I left that out 

 Not all of our students fight full contact, and I dont go full contact with most of our students. There are a select group of us who are in the advanced group that have the skill to fight full speed and power and not really seriously injure each other. Obviously we aren't trying to kill each other as we would then be without a training partner. Have you never seen full contact fighting? I said no rules and no set boundaries...that is correct. Believe it or not, there are those who train hard and full contact, most dont view it as a "freakin hobby" though. 

    7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Bust some mad moves???????


  Yeah, thats right, bust some mad moves!

 (Throws a kiu sau!)


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

But Kung Fu is a misnomer...ALL martial arts are Gong Fu!


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> But Kung Fu is a misnomer...ALL martial arts are Gong Fu!


 Lets keep this thread on topic, this is not the place for that argument.

 7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

> Strutting our stuff does go against the philosophy of kung fu whether you choose to believe it or not. What kind of sources could you post to site your CMA having long traditions of exhibition?


  I believe we've had this argument before.  

  Kung Fu has been used: 

  1) In miltary parade drill, starting back in Feudal times and continuing today with the Taiwanese military.
  2) In Chinese opera
  3) By Chinese Street performers.  
  4) In films.
  5) Most recently, it has been co-opted by the hip-hoppers and b-boys. 

  Kung fu has ALWAYS had a performance element.  To say otherwise is to hide your head in the sand. 

  I've said it before and I'll say it again:

  Martial arts is NOT about kicking *** --Its about looking COOL while kicking ***!


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

I posted this on another thread, but its relevant here, so I'll post it again:

 There's an interesting article on kung fu history at :
http://cclib.nsu.ru/projects/satbi/...atyi/dross.html

   Quoted from that article:
  "Unfortunately, those who criticize its performance elements do not fully understand the history of their own arts. Postures and techniques were indeed altered to make them more pleasing to the eye and acrobatic moves such as the butterfly twist were created (it is not a traditional movement). However, while contemporary Wu-Shu is the most drastic example of technical modification it is not unique. There is a long history of the use of martial arts for performance and the modification of techniques for performance purposes. 

  For example, the Qing Imperial Court's official performers utilized a wide variety of skills which were derived from traditional martial art practice. Strong men would wield heavy halberds (Gwan Do) and there were demonstrations of the flying fork (Fei Cha) . In addition, strictly military arts such as archery and wrestling (Shuai-Jiao) were both popular court entertainment. 

  Traditional Chinese opera also made extensive use of martial arts skills for entertainment. The opera recreated great battles and its performers had to be able to use traditional weapons and engage in elaborate staged fights . For this reason, those raised in the opera received training very similar to that a martial artist received. In addition, as discussed previously, many martial artists also joined traveling opera troops. These men often taught members of the troop martial arts for protection. Thus, in the opera the line between fighting art and performance art was often blurred. 

  Today, traditional martial arts are still influenced by these performance traditions. The so-called "hard" Chi-Kung tricks such as brick breaking, wire bursting, nail beds, and the bending of spears and swords are all products of the street performance tradition. They require both conditioning and discipline to perform but have virtually nothing to do with real fighting. Many of the tumbling techniques, leaping kicks and balancing moves found in traditional forms are similarly inspired. Some assume that the Chinese public was more familiar with the martial arts and thus more discriminating than western audiences but in reality the common peasant or laborer was just as impressed by these tricks."


----------



## clfsean (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Martial arts is NOT about kicking *** --Its about looking COOL while kicking ***!


I'll go along with that. :uhyeah: 

However the nature of martial arts isn't to show off. That's human nature. 

There's a difference...


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *InvisibleFist.....*Martial arts is NOT about kicking *** --Its about looking COOL while kicking ***!


And this is on subject? What if it is your....(against forum policy with his word)....being kicked.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> I believe we've had this argument before.
> 
> Kung Fu has been used:
> 
> ...


 I actually asked for sources, not a list of your opinions. Not one of your reasons listed has a connection to true kung fu. Films? Chinese Opera? Are you kidding with this stuff? Because someone takes something from kung fu or any martial art style and uses it for show doesn't mean that kung fu or said martial arts style is performance based. Your looking at what people use to perform as the whole of kung fu....thats just simply naive. 

  Your quote about looking cool portrays your understanding of kung fu quite well.

  7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I actually asked for sources, not a list of your opinions. Not one of your reasons listed has a connection to true kung fu. Films? Chinese Opera? Are you kidding with this stuff? Because someone takes something from kung fu or any martial art style and uses it for show doesn't mean that kung fu or said martial arts style is performance based. Your looking at what people use to perform as the whole of kung fu....thats just simply naive.
> 
> Your quote about looking cool portrays your understanding of kung fu quite well.
> 
> 7sm


 Didn't say that it was performance based, just that it had performance elements.    This is just prima facia obvious.  



> Not one of your reasons listed has a connection to true kung fu. Films? Chinese Opera?


 So are you saying that Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, and Lau Kar Leung are not doing TRUE kung fu.

 Look, Mantis, ALL I'm saying is that gung fu is a room with many mansions. Stage kung fu is part of our tradition.  Thats the way it is.  Kung fu is ALSO a serious self defence system, but there's no reason to DENY the performance aspect.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Didn't say that it was performance based, just that it had performance elements. This is just prima facia obvious.


 OK, wow...um, aside from your own opinions, do you have any sources that you could site to show performance "elements"? You should spend some time researching Chinese culture and history a bit, it gives great insight into kung fu. Kung Fu is for no one other than the practitioner, performance is for others. I can understand that _your_ intrest in kung fu is about performance, but does that make all of kung fu about performance? Thats rather arrogant isn't it? May I ask how long you have been studying CMA?



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> So are you saying that Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, and Lau Kar Leung are not doing TRUE kung fu.


 I dont have to say it, Jackie says it himself. Listen, the fact that kung fu can be used for performance, or that you can perform with kung fu, doesn't make kung fu have elements of performance within it, and it certainly doesn't make it worthwhile to create an olympic sport for it. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Look, Mantis, ALL I'm saying is that gung fu is a room with many mansions. Stage kung fu is part of our tradition. Thats the way it is. Kung fu is ALSO a serious self defence system, but there's no reason to DENY the performance aspect.


 Part of whose tradition? Tradition is very different from saying kung fu has performance elements, or that kung fu is just a freakin hobby. Your traditions may differ from mine, that is ok, tradition does not = kung fu. Kung Fu is many things, but performance just goes against its nature. Look at push hands in taiji.....oxymoron. Is it good and can it help you develop skill if done correctly? Certainly! Is it worthwhile and does it further the art to have push hands competitions? Absolutely not( most of the time). 

 Looking cool, busting mad moves, impressing chicks, winning competitions, kicking ***, these are all fine, but they all contain ego. Ego is the number one killer of good kung fu. 

  7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 11, 2005)

There is the use of that three letter word again.
I am offended with that word...but hey, when I had used another.....geez.

I have to sadly agree with InvisibleFist to a degree that some Kung Fu is being used as perfomance (or has/with performance elements) nowdays. I dont think he is stating that ALL Kung Fu is like that. This is what is luring young people to it. The same as pathetic "Authentic Shaolin Kung Fu Monks/Temples", re-opening on curtailing a name. Luring on the art of fighting with little or no comprehension in its Buddhism. Given that the origin of its uses, Kung Fu, even the name is not correct to state a martial art. Given to state a skill in the 'ol days. So why can't there be performing Kung Fu/like Wu Shu? If there can be rules in UFC and open a event of that, then why can't Kung Fu do the same? (Not attempting to cross thread, using an example) And such that Kung Fu stylists cannot conform, have the skills, or control, to a few rules and call it Ultimate?

However, I disagree with InvisibleFist on this:
Kung fu has ALWAYS had a performance element. To say otherwise is to hide your head in the sand. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Martial arts is NOT about kicking a--,,, Its about looking COOL while kicking s!


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 11, 2005)

The argument is not if kung fu can be used for performance, or even if people today use kung fu as performance. Its not even if people in history used kung fu for performance. 
 The discussion is whether or not kung fu contains performance elements, which if we are going to discuss rationally, we need to define what we mean by performance elements. 

 Invisiblefist, would you mind clearifying what you consider performance elements to be? In my opinion, nothing about kung fu is for performance, nothing at all. The fact that people take parts of kung fu and perform with them, doesn't change that fact. 

 7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The argument is not if kung fu can be used for performance, or even if people today use kung fu as performance. Its not even if people in history used kung fu for performance.
> The discussion is whether or not kung fu contains performance elements, which if we are going to discuss rationally, we need to define what we mean by performance elements.


 Actually, the argument is whether the Kung Fu federation and Olympic Kung fu is a good or a bad thing. 



> Invisiblefist, would you mind clearifying what you consider performance elements to be? In my opinion, nothing about kung fu is for performance, nothing at all. The fact that people take parts of kung fu and perform with them, doesn't change that fact.


 Butterfly kicks, Lotus Kicks, Imitating the movements of Taoist immortals, Pretending to be the monkey king, and climbing up your staff like its a tree.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 11, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Actually, the argument is whether the Kung Fu federation and Olympic Kung fu is a good or a bad thing.


 Actually thats the original topic of this thread, not the argument that was at hand, but thank you for trying.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Butterfly kicks, Lotus Kicks, Imitating the movements of Taoist immortals, Pretending to be the monkey king, and climbing up your staff like its a tree.


 I wouldn't consider most of those kung fu, so I guess we have nothing left to discuss. 

 7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 11, 2005)

You don't consider 8 drunken immortals Kung fu?  You don't consider monkey king staff Kung fu?  

 I don't get it...if your approach is totally streetfighting OK, thats fine.  But why do you want to kick everybody else out of the kung fu boat.  

 BTW,  what about pretending to be an insect?


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 11, 2005)

> OK, wow...um, aside from your own opinions, do you have any sources that you could site to show performance "elements"? You should spend some time researching Chinese culture and history a bit, it gives great insight into kung fu.


 You should check out Dr Meir Shahar, he's one of the few serious scholars researching the history of kung fu.  Here's a link for you to check out.  It doesn't have to do so much with "performance" per se, but it does concern the complex interrelation between Chinese Martial arts and Qing-era popular culture (opera, novels...the stuff that would later become kung fu movies.)  Kung fu the martial art and kung fu the performance art (the "fist of legend") are not as separate as you assume. 

 Here's a link to some abstracts:

http://www.aasianst.org/absts/1996abst/china/c52.htm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 11, 2005)

Also Check out:[size=-1] "*Theater* *of* *Combat**:* *A* *Critical* *Look* *at* *the* *Chinese* *Martial* *Arts*," Journal of
 Asian Martial Arts, 1:4, 1992[/size]


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 11, 2005)

Here's an excerpt from the work I just cited:

  "
 Theater of combat: A critical look at the Chinese martial Arts, by Charles Holcombem, Historian.
 Vol. 52 No. 3 May.1990, Pp.411-431
 Copyright by Michigan State University Press



 Some martial arts enthusiasts themselves admit that "the relationship
 between the martial arts and entertainment has a long history in China."
 [63] Martial entertainments are known from the beginning of the written
 record. One of China's oldest books, the Book of Songs, documents an early
 division of theatrical performances into civil and military; the Rites of
 Chou describes a "dance with bows and arrows"; and texts and stone reliefs
 from the Hah dynasty attest to martial acrobatic performances. [64] These
 intertwined traditions of theater and the martial arts came together in
 their most peculiar form in the "butting game" (chiao-ti hsi) of the Ch'in
 and Han dynasties.

 The eighteenth century T'u-shu chi-ch'eng, an encyclopedia in 10,000
 sections (chuan) that is one of the largest and most complete ever compiled
 anywhere, lists this butting game as its first entry under the subject of
 boxing. In the original form of this game, people donned cow's horns and
 butted one another, in commemoration of a mythological event from the time
 of the Yellow Emperor. [65] Eventually, however, it became a generic name
 referring to games of combat such as wrestling, acrobatics and other
 assorted forms of entertainment. This transformation was in progress in 209
 B.C., when the second emperor of Ch'in "made merry with games of butting
 and comedic actors." In this, one of their earliest manifestations, the
 martial arts appear to have taken the form of faintly ridiculous
 entertainment. [66]

 When true drama evolved in China during the Sung (960-1279) and Yuan
 (1279-1368) dynasties, military entertainments composed a popular part of
 the new theatrical tradition. Stage-fighting was a principal attraction in
 the famous Peking Opera of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and
 fantastic acrobatic feats were a regular and expected part of performances.
 67]

 Robert Fortune, an Englishman, witnessed one such performance in rural
 China sometime between 1853 and 1856, and left the following account:

 An actor rushed upon the stage amid the clashing of timbrels, beating
 of gongs, and squeaking of other instruments. He was brandishing a
 short sword in each hand, now and then wheeling round apparently to
 protect himself in the rear, and all the time performing the most
 extraordinary actions with his feet, which seemed as if they had to do
 as much of the fighting as the hands. People who have seen much of the
 manoeuvering of Chinese troops will not call this unnatural acting.
 [68]

 As Fortune noted, such stage fighting was an accurate, if exaggerated,
 portrayal of actual Chinese fighting techniques. It would be a mistake,
 however, to dismiss this theatrical tradition as a mere imitation of the
 real martial arts. Image and reality have reflected each other for
 millennia, and real martial artists have often found the most practical use
 for their skills in earning a living as entertainers.




 In late imperial times Boxers toured the countryside, fighting in
 competitions at market fairs as a way of life. An eighteenth-century
 satirical novel, The Scholars, provides an excellent description of a
 typical knight-errant (ywhsia) hero who is "seen at his best in a sword
 dance," and who turns out to be something of a fraud. Today, in Beijing,
 martial arts experts can still be found performing breathing exercises and
 splitting bricks with their heads in sideshows at amusement parks. [69] If
 the actual moves of the martial arts are enmeshed in the theatrical
 tradition, the image of the martial arts hero comes from another source
 altogether. This is the knight-errant, champion of the down-trodden, who
 roams the land righting injustice with his practiced sword arm. [70]


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 11, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> You don't consider 8 drunken immortals Kung fu?  You don't consider monkey king staff Kung fu?
> 
> I don't get it...if your approach is totally streetfighting OK, thats fine. But why do you want to kick everybody else out of the kung fu boat.
> 
> BTW, what about pretending to be an insect?


 Lets keep things honest here. I dont consider alot of the fancy movements and technqiues performed by many people including "shaolin monks" true kung fu, that is correct. I never said my appraoch was total streetfighting, again you are beginning to twist my words. Also, I know no one who pretends to be an insect, I assume that was a crack about mantis kung fu, a little transparent aren't we? 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> You should check out Dr Meir Shahar, he's one of the few serious scholars researching the history of kung fu. Here's a link for you to check out. It doesn't have to do so much with "performance" per se, but it does concern the complex interrelation between Chinese Martial arts and Qing-era popular culture (opera, novels...the stuff that would later become kung fu movies.) Kung fu the martial art and kung fu the performance art (the "fist of legend") are not as separate as you assume.
> 
> Here's a link to some abstracts:
> 
> http://www.aasianst.org/absts/1996abst/china/c52.htm


 Kung Fu is much older than Qing era and thus that arguemnt is quite moot in my opinion. Dont assume that because something can be used as a performance, that the base of it is performance, or even that the true form contains performance qualities. Your source is weak for this arguement here.

 As a point of policy, posting 4 times in a row when you could combine said posts is looked at rather poorly. In the future, you may wish to use the "edit" feature to add to a post which hasn't been responded to or even read by others. 

  See, I just edited my own post here for an example.
 Lets return this thread to its original topic, if you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to start another thread on the topic.

    7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 11, 2005)

Hmmn, that was interesting InvisibleFist. However, I think that you mis-interpreted some of the meaning. There were performances, but that was for:

1.) Hiding methods from others?

2.) Hodong themselves from Governemnt Forces?

2.) Entertainment of troops?

True, per the opera and town shows like a carnival act, but given that these were to make money.

But it will take Occidentals, to view a demostration of maartial skill as a perforamnce the same it took one to beleive Kung Fu was an actual martial art. The term had first appeared in a Jesuit Missionary's writing. Therefore, like the term King Fu", "performances", is used out of context.

Surely, you are not saying that a martial art was developed for "entertainment performances"?

You may have to define performance as performing a fighting ability or "stage demo/act"

And this was somewhat interesting, where did you get these terminologies?
_Butterfly kicks, Lotus Kicks, Imitating the movements of Taoist immortals, Pretending to be the monkey king, and climbing up your staff like its a tree._


----------



## clfsean (Mar 11, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> And this was somewhat interesting, where did you get these terminologies?
> _Butterfly kicks, Lotus Kicks, Imitating the movements of Taoist immortals, Pretending to be the monkey king, and climbing up your staff like its a tree._


Those are techniques/skills found in CMA...


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 11, 2005)

Messing with him to see HIS response.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 11, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Messing with him to see HIS response.


 Lets keep our discussions honest. True response to true questions, I dont like this backhanded stuff to see someones response. 

 7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 12, 2005)

Honest-I wanted to see his response.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 12, 2005)

They're all real CMA techniques.  The Taoist immortals are from 8 drunken immortals (yes, its a REAL form) the staff climbing appears in several monkey forms.  Butterflys and lotuses are spectacular jumping kicks with little martial value.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 12, 2005)

Getting back to the original topic.  I beleive tournaments are good, because it gives us a chance to watch other styles do their forms, cross hands with people who don't fight exactly like us (very important) and meet other CMAers. They also provide motivation to step up training in preparation for the event.  I DON"T beleive that tourneys should be the end all and be all in ones training.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 12, 2005)

I habe to agree. if they do it with other orders under a set of rules, CMA's should be able to.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 13, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Getting back to the original topic. I beleive tournaments are good, because it gives us a chance to watch other styles do their forms, cross hands with people who don't fight exactly like us (very important) and meet other CMAers. They also provide motivation to step up training in preparation for the event. I DON"T beleive that tourneys should be the end all and be all in ones training.


 Getting the chance to see other styles forms is interesting, but you dont need a tournement to do that. Plus, what forms are you seeing and by whom? Your going to see flashy, posed forms that will attract attention and get high scores. Your not going to see every form of a system, and most likely not going to see an extremely high skilled player even at that. You may see a good tournement player, but can that same player turn around and use that same form in a pure self defense situation? If not, do they really understand the form? Forms are but one tiny part of CMA. 

 You get to "cross hands" with people who dont fight exactly like you? Again, this could, and should, be done without a tournement to initialize it. What kind of fighting do you get at a tournement? Do you get true self defense, pure application? Not at all, you get flashy, quick, sometimes opposite from principle fighting which will get a point and win a match. That whole philosophy goes against CMA principles of fighting. Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying tournements are all bad, just that they dont accomplish all the myriad of things people try to say they do. Its simply a day of fun and play, and if you realize that, it can be cool. 

 Tournements dont provide motivation to step up training that is not included in the tournement. It only provides motivation to step up training of pretty forms, geared "sparring", and such. The treu applicatino goes out the window, and if you think it doesn't count how many people are disqualified every tournement for "excesive face contact" or contact outside the target areas, or just exsesive force.

 The Olympic goal for Kung Fu or CMA would be simply these things, and that isn't promoting true CMA, but rather fun play type parts of CMA. The goal should be to promote true understanding of CMA, but we all know that can't happen in that setting.

  7sm


----------



## DBACPhoenix (Mar 14, 2005)

I honestly think that both ends of this argument have valid statements.  In regards to performing(entertaining) aspects of kung fu, the first thing that comes to mind is the Lion Dance.  For many centuries the lion dance was conducted by different schools during celebrations for the emporer.  In fact it was one of the only ways rival schools could compete against each other.  Knocking the head off another lion would put that school to shame and being the first to retrieve the greens would be met with praise.

Now it seems that 7sm is looking at things in more of an abstract way, and in this way he is correct.  Many of the styles of kung fu are not visually stunning to the unknowning eye.  7 Star mantis itself is primarly comprised of fighting principles and techniques with very little glamor, but while a spectator may not find it as amazing as some Wushu forms, a trained martial artist will view the styles in a completely different manner.  And to this affect I think fancier "performance" forms are necessary.  In order to educate the uneducated their attention must be directed your way, and in martial arts this is normally done by something spectacular.  It is only after a persons interest is peaked that you can educate them in the art.

Now aside from the tangent that seemed to happen here, the main discussion that started this thread is tournaments and their validity with martial arts.  I personally do not like to enter into tournaments.  I have 15 years of TKD and Kenpo experience, and I came to a realization while participating in these styles that eventually let me to 7-Star Mantis... I was training under a set of rules governing my techniques.  These restrictions prevented me from excelling.  This is how tournaments are run ( at least in the states ), you are bound by rules that prevent you from truely using your style.  The argument of competition against other styles does not exisit here if both participants are unable to use their styles to their extent.  Unfortunatly this would probably result in massive injuries and most likly deaths.  When 7sm says he fights his kung fu brothers I'm sure they fight with a level of control. When I fight my kung fu brothers (and sisters) I don't go all out and pummel them making sure they don't come back unless they come back with broken ribs and black eyes, but we do fight unprotected at full speed with control (hence why only advanced students should do so).  This level of control can't be guarenteed in a tournament of cross-style competition, and while it is one of the only viable ways to truely gain from competition, it is infesible.  

These are reasons why I don't participate in tournments, if I can't play by my rules, I don't want to play.  While there is something to say about getting some raw fighting experience, it is just that and lacks martial value.  

I particullarly enjoy this discussion and I hope I get some feedback from those who have contributed thus far.

Phoenix


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

Nicely posted DBACPhoenix,

But the info in yours and 7SM's recent posts also pertain to UFC? Aren't those like tournaments? How com there sre no Kung Fu stylists entering in those or created one fo CMA?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

Phoenix,
     Glad to have you on the boards, welcoem to MartialTalk. Good post, you make some good points.



			
				DBACPhoenix said:
			
		

> I honestly think that both ends of this argument have valid statements. In regards to performing(entertaining) aspects of kung fu, the first thing that comes to mind is the Lion Dance. For many centuries the lion dance was conducted by different schools during celebrations for the emporer. In fact it was one of the only ways rival schools could compete against each other. Knocking the head off another lion would put that school to shame and being the first to retrieve the greens would be met with praise.


 Good point, but is Lion Dance really considered kung fu? I guess this whole discussion comes down to how we define kung fu. I wouldn't personally consider Lion Dance to be kung fu or CMA as its really not a martial art. 



			
				DBACPhoenix said:
			
		

> Now it seems that 7sm is looking at things in more of an abstract way, and in this way he is correct. Many of the styles of kung fu are not visually stunning to the unknowning eye. 7 Star mantis itself is primarly comprised of fighting principles and techniques with very little glamor, but while a spectator may not find it as amazing as some Wushu forms, a trained martial artist will view the styles in a completely different manner. And to this affect I think fancier "performance" forms are necessary. In order to educate the uneducated their attention must be directed your way, and in martial arts this is normally done by something spectacular. It is only after a persons interest is peaked that you can educate them in the art.


 Another good point, but while education is important today and serves a great purpose, it was not the base or reason for kung fu. We have to look at why CMA were "created". Was it for education? Was it for health? Was it for protection? All of the above? We will all probably differ on that questions and I dont know that there is proof for either answer. However, I personally dont believe education was a part of kung fu. It may be something we need to be concerned with today, but I dont believe back hundreds of years ago when these systems were created that forms were created to hold the attention of people to lure them into studying the system. I honestly dont see anything that makes me think performance was a contributing factor to CMA being born or "created". Today, I will agree with you, but what has been added to the systems for todays audience isn't what I would consider true CMA either.

 If this is all the case, what we are attempting to compete with is something meant for other reasons, and is thus not holding true to kungfu principles. I do believe there aer alot of performers and performance arts that have taken alot from CMA, but lets not confuse them with CMA in itself.

   7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Nicely posted DBACPhoenix,
> 
> But the info in yours and 7SM's recent posts also pertain to UFC? Aren't those like tournaments? How com there sre no Kung Fu stylists entering in those or created one fo CMA?


 Yes, the UFC is just another "tournement" with rules and specific rules for specific style of fighters. There are "full contact" events for CMA. 

  As far as seeing CMA fighters in UFC, that is a different thread, actually its allready been done here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12565&highlight=UFC

  7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 15, 2005)

7*, you train in SanShou????  

 How is SanShou any different from what the Kung Fu federation is trying to accomplish?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> 7*, you train in SanShou????
> 
> How is SanShou any different from what the Kung Fu federation is trying to accomplish?


 What do you mean? If you do any type of fighting or "competing" its the same as what they are trying to accomplish? I guess it all comes down to how you train san shou or how you compete in san shou. I dont compete in most "san shou" tourneys, I do more "full contact" events. I'm using san shou in the traditional sense of the word, not that I'm training in the sport section of "san shou". My 7* sifu is my sifu in san shou as well, so its not seperate training, but using the same principles. I'm not against competition all together, or fighting by any means, I simply think making an olympic sport of "kung fu" is for one, impossible if staying true to kung fu, and not at all the educational vehicle many claim it is. In my san shou training and fighting, I dont train for certain techniques while leaving others out. Grantit, there are a few techniques you can't do in the ring which is one reason I dont do all that much ring fighting anymore. I use the same principles of my 7* fighting in my "san shou" fighting. In most tournements, that is simply not the case, many techniques and principles are different from sparring match to kung fu class. 

 Competing with kung fu is hard to do, does that make it impossible? No. Does it make it useless? No. Does that mean we should encourage sport training and exalt point sparring or padded, highly ruled sparring? No. Exalting this "olympic kung fu" is only going to encourage training for what techniques are allowed in the Olympic competition. however, these athletes are still going to say they are practicing Kung Fu. The millions or billions of viewers will then see this "kung fu" nad believe that is what Kung Fu really is. 

  JMHO,
   7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 15, 2005)

OK, so if I'm reading you right, you think competetions are OK..you just think that making Kung Fu an olympic sport would be a corrupting influence?  

 What about Taolu competetion?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

But given that KF, or any other MA, was created for survival of their era on introduction, should it hold true that they envolved to meet the criteria for survival in the current and/or future era(s)?

How can competition, any type, including UFC, actually or completely fill this need?

Sure, from competition, a public awareness is a goal.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 15, 2005)

47MM, is English your second language?  I have a really hard time understanding you.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

What don't you understand?


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 15, 2005)

What you are saying.  You are either a non-native speaker or in need of some grammar training.  Your last post made no sense.  

 " 	But given that KF, or any other MA, was created for survival of their era on introduction, should it hold true that they envolved to meet the criteria for survival in the current and/or future era(s)?

  How can competition, any type, including UFC, actually or completely fill this need?

  Sure, from competition, a public awareness is a goal."


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> OK, so if I'm reading you right, you think competetions are OK..you just think that making Kung Fu an olympic sport would be a corrupting influence?
> 
> What about Taolu competetion?


 Basically, I think competition is ok, but I understand and I see competition for what it is. I dont think its some proving ground for kung fu, niether do I think its an effective tool for spreading knowledge of true kung fu. Competitions can vary in rules and intent. There are competitions that are ok, but I still realize they are not a real application scenario, I'm not going to fool myself there. True kung fu or CMA is not in a competition, its not easily seen or judged. In a competition the size and nature of the olympics, there will have to be set rules and set boundaries, and set forms (like floor routine of gymnastics) in order to be viable. That is against what kung fu actually is. You seriously think they are going to add 513 sections in the olympics for different styles of CMA? They aren't.

  I dont know what Taolu competition is, sorry.

   7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Basically, I think competition is ok, but I understand and I see competition for what it is. I dont think its some proving ground for kung fu,


 Agreed.


> niether do I think its an effective tool for spreading knowledge of true kung fu.


 Not sure I agree here.  I was certainly led into Kung Fu because of seeing a tournament.  


  True kung fu or CMA is not in a competition, its not easily seen or judged. 



> In a competition the size and nature of the olympics, there will have to be set rules and set boundaries, and set forms (like floor routine of gymnastics) in order to be viable.


 Thats what happened with wushu.  Again I think that the KFF is trying to create a sport format for Traditional CMA. 




> I dont know what Taolu competition is, sorry.
> 
> 7sm


 Its forms competetion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Not sure I agree here. I was certainly led into Kung Fu because of seeing a tournament.


 What does that have to do with anything? Being led into a school, or starting to study a martial art style because of seeing it, is a completely different thing from what we are talking about here. First, I said knowledge, not enrollment. I'm sorry, but a tournement and the things you see at a tournement are simply not what kung fu is about. You can agree, or disagree, but the truth is still the same. You should pick up a book called, "The Sword Polisher's Record: The Way of Kung Fu" by Adam Hsu. Its a great book that does a good job of detailing what kung fu is about and why we do certain things in kung fu. It talks about the future of kung fu quite a bit.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Thats what happened with wushu. Again I think that the KFF is trying to create a sport format for Traditional CMA.


 Wow, thats what I'm trying to tell you. What you just said is an oxymoron. "Sport Format for Traditional CMA". That is ridiculous, there is no sport in Traditional CMA, what kind of format could be created to make sport where there is none? You would *have* to change the nature of it. Plain and simple. If you think it can be done, outline for us a simple sport format for traditional kung fu competition here on this thread. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Its forms competetion.


 Forms competition is basically the same thing, how do you judge it? Is your teacher in CLF going to judge my 7* mantis forms? How can they all compete with each other?

  7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

Not my opnion, but perhaps what is trying to be done in likeness of:

Per some tourmanents, the judges are mixed (if mixed Ma tourney). Those judges do not know the form movements per participant. Each judge has a certain criteros that they look for. For instance, the TKD judge is looking for balance and high kicks. The Wado judge maybe looking for good hand series...And so on.

So, per WuShu tournies would be the closest (altough not accurate) to watch/participate Kung Fu. However, given the definition of Kung Fu, per confusion and politics, as always, the entertainment industry is smearing it also.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2005)

Thats exactly what I was saying and is the problem. What certain criteria would you list for judges to look for in Kung Fu participants from every CMA style available?

7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

A martial artist from one system cannot accurately judge another from a different system. This is why tournies, of most types, are not a "true" test of skill" that they should not be judged.


Perhaps a "tourny", closed, of the martial artists from the same system (although from differenet location/countries)


----------



## Infrazael (Mar 16, 2005)

A load of trash.

If Kung Fu has competition, it shouldn't be some worldwide one just a get attention and disregard the arts for what they are. The Olympics is the perfect archetype of this horrid thing.

In CLF, we have many competitions, full contact competitions with other CLF schools, forms competitions, etc etc.

It's within family. And Sifu also takes us to other tournaments too with other styles. But do we make a huge deal out of it? No. We don't have to go to the UFC do prove something. Neither do BJJ guys, JJJ guys, etc.

If you are capable of something then you know it.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What certain criteria would you list for judges to look for in Kung Fu participants from every CMA style available?


 I take it from this question being unaswered, that no one here would really want to undertake creating that list. Competition between schools and others in your area should just be a normal part of your training. Isolation is not a great learning tool.

  7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 17, 2005)

I started digging deeper into the IKF site adn found some interesting things. Aside from the site being very poorly done and in incorrect english I found some rules I thought I would post here for discussion.

  1.) Grading System for the Internation Kung Fu Federation and affiliated schools:

White sash 1 month        Yellow sash 6      months        Blue sash 6      months        Green sash 6      months        Red sash 6      months        Brown sash 6      months        Black sash (Coach) 8      months These grades are given to the practitioners by the Masters when the practitioners practice seriously in a proper level and during the practice observe all the rules.

  2.) Age limits, no one over 35 years of age can compete in anything. 
 3.) In Sanda competition, everyone above 175 pounds are lumped together. In Full Sanda everyone above 198 is. Thats a huge weight class!! Everyone must wear a helmet (open helmets prohibited), open gloves, chest protection, groin protection and shin protection. If at the end of the finals there is not a visual winner a weight in will be conducted and the fighter with less weight wins!!
 4.) Rules...... No throws, elbows, grabs, kicks with the shin, pushing, agressive behavior and absolutely no knockouts. Also, contestants must use a kick after 3 consecutive hand techniques, otherwise no points. They wear open gloves, but no palm strikes or grabbing allowed. I can't get over the aggressive behavior rule. 

  WOW....Um...can they fight? I guess they can dance with each other, but not fight. 

  Thoughts?

  7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 17, 2005)

White sash 1 month
Yellow sash 6 months
Blue sash 6 months
Green sash 6 months
Red sash 6 months
Brown sash 6 months
Black sash (Coach) 8 months These grades are given to the practitioners by the Masters when the practitioners practice seriously in a proper level and during the practice observe all the rules.


One thing that bothers me, why use a color belt ranking system, if any, in resemlbance to Karate systems? Why copy-cat?


----------



## DBACPhoenix (Mar 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 4.) Rules...... No throws, elbows, grabs, kicks with the shin, pushing, agressive behavior and absolutely no knockouts. Also, contestants must use a kick after 3 consecutive hand techniques, otherwise no points. They wear open gloves, but no palm strikes or grabbing allowed. I can't get over the aggressive behavior rule.


No agressive behavior.... This pretty much sums up the fight right there, if this is a rule, you might as well change it to:

4.) Rules...... Participants are only allowed to stare at each other, first one to blink loses.  Participants must also smile while doing so, points will be deducted for lack of smiling.

I have been sitting here for about 15min trying to think of a way I can fight without being aggressive... I guess I can just role over, let my self get pummeled and lose... but then my opponent would have points deducted for aggression and I would win by default 

hehe... I just had to post when I saw this...

Seriously though, even if you took out the aggresive behavior rule, you still can't truely fight. I fight my kung fu brothers with great control, but I have still cracked them hard due to no fault of my own.. My fist just ends up in a place where their head goes to avoid my other hand, it's almost like beating yourself up, but I would be scolded for doing suching things in this type of "competition"...  Very sad that someone would degrade things to such a level...

Phoenix


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with anything? Being led into a school, or starting to study a martial art style because of seeing it, is a completely different thing from what we are talking about here. First, I said knowledge, not enrollment. I'm sorry, but a tournement and the things you see at a tournement are simply not what kung fu is about. You can agree, or disagree, but the truth is still the same.


 tournements promote the art, create interest.  Interest = new students.  Thats a Good Thing. 



> Wow, thats what I'm trying to tell you. What you just said is an oxymoron. "Sport Format for Traditional CMA". That is ridiculous, there is no sport in Traditional CMA, what kind of format could be created to make sport where there is none? You would *have* to change the nature of it. Plain and simple. If you think it can be done, outline for us a simple sport format for traditional kung fu competition here on this thread.


 I don't have to.  The link you posted contains a sport format.  There are others, including the kuoshu federation, the AAU/CMA etc.  To say there is no sport in trad CMA is just wrong and you know it.  There are numerous competitive events in CMA.  


> Forms competition is basically the same thing, how do you judge it? Is your teacher in CLF going to judge my 7* mantis forms? How can they all compete with each other?


 Obviously this is a problem.  Contemporary wushu was an attempt to deal with this problem.  The KFF is another such attempt.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I started digging deeper into the IKF site adn found some interesting things. Aside from the site being very poorly done and in incorrect english


x


----------



## DBACPhoenix (Mar 17, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> To say there is no sport in trad CMA is just wrong and you know it.  There are numerous competitive events in CMA.



Sport is defined as an activity that involves rules.  To say that traditional CMA is a sport, or has sport incorporated within is to say that it also is bound by rules...

If traditional CMA is bound by rules, then it can be considered a sport... So if you view traditional CMA as an art where you are expressly forbidden from doing certain techniques, or told that there is only one way, one perfect way to accomplish a technique, then I guess you can say it is a sport.

But in my eyes, for traditional CMA to truely be considered an art, it must know no bounds.  The art of fighting must have endless avenues... Options and decisions must be available, where traditional CMA guides the human body through its potential movements, yet not bound by strict and ridged rules.

Consider this.. Do you view painting as a sport?  True you can make it a sport by having competitions invovling how fast you can paint something, or how realistic you can create.  But would you view the art of painting in such a way?  Or would you see the essence of painting as an art where the painter has many tools and guides around him, but in the end chooses his own path with no rules.

I see traditional CMA as a true art, and as such I do not see the sport aspect in the essence of this art.

Phoenix


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 18, 2005)

This discussion is rapidly becoming exhausting.  I didn't say CMA was a sport, I said that there were numerous competitive events IN CMA.  The WHOLE POINT I have been making throughout the discussion is that CMA is a mansion with many rooms.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 18, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> tournements promote the art, create interest. Interest = new students. Thats a Good Thing.


 Thats a matter of opinion. Tournements promote competition and schools, but unless your style is completely contained within the competitions at a tournement, it doesn't really promote the art. In the eyes of commerce your right, but in the eyes of the future of true kung fu it may just be a different story. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> I don't have to. The link you posted contains a sport format. There are others, including the kuoshu federation, the AAU/CMA etc. To say there is no sport in trad CMA is just wrong and you know it. There are numerous competitive events in CMA.
> 
> Obviously this is a problem. Contemporary wushu was an attempt to deal with this problem. The KFF is another such attempt.


 The AAU and such are tournement promoters and organizers, they are not kung fu schools or anything like that. You can say what you think I know but the truth is, I know that TCMA contains nothing about sport or performance. Listen, like I said before, just because you can take a part of something and make a competition about it, doesn't make what you took a sport or even have sport aspects. Like the painting example, while you can take pieces of the art of painting and make competitions out of them, painting is not a sport and does not contain sport or performance aspects. Is eating a sport? Does eating contain sport aspects? Because there are plenty of eating competitions. However, the competition for eating doesn't cover the basics of why we eat, or what eating does for us, its simply a competition taking a part of eating and doing it. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> This discussion is rapidly becoming exhausting. I didn't say CMA was a sport, I said that there were numerous competitive events IN CMA. The WHOLE POINT I have been making throughout the discussion is that CMA is a mansion with many rooms.


 I agree with you, it is getting exhausting. You didn't say CMA was a sport, your right. You said it was a "freaking hobby", and that from the time it was created contained heavy performance aspects. You said that many reasons people study CMA are performance aspects and "busting mad moves". Also that CMA has a long history of exhibition. 

 All I'm saying is I disagree with all of that. I think its a very common misconception among people who practice kung fu as a hobby. CMA is a "mansion with many rooms" but only the rooms contained in the mansion are true rooms of kung fu. The servant's quarters does not count. What I'm trying to say is, you can just add whatever you want to the "rooms" as you call them. Thats faulty logic, its like something called Personified Abstraction. You are saying its a mansion with many rooms, but your "building" the mansion so you just add whatever you want to be the "rooms". There is still a right and wrong here, and its simply wrong that TCMA has a long history of sport aspects and performance.

    7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 18, 2005)

Nice analogy 7SM...but before the mansion, you need to find a good ground...then a good foundation, then good building materials, and good builders.....


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 18, 2005)

That's ridiculous.  Of course the servants quarters count.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 18, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> That's ridiculous. Of course the servants quarters count.


It is like the inger pointing away to the moon.....

"Slap" InvisibleFist, "Don't concentrate on the finger......


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 18, 2005)

47MM, you are not Bruce Lee.  

 And don't ever joke about slapping me.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 19, 2005)

"Slap" InvisibleFist 
No Offense. This isnt' a physical slap.

But, dont take things so literally.

Which was the moral or subject that I was speaking about in the first place.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The AAU and such are tournement promoters and organizers, they are not kung fu schools or anything like that.


 The AAU/CMA is a federation of Kung Fu schools.  My school is a member.  




> You can say what you think I know but the truth is, I know that TCMA contains nothing about sport or performance.


 Then somebody needs to explain all the CMA tournaments. 



> Listen, like I said before, just because you can take a part of something and make a competition about it, doesn't make what you took a sport or even have sport aspects. Like the painting example, while you can take pieces of the art of painting and make competitions out of them, painting is not a sport and does not contain sport or performance aspects.


 If there were painting competitions, then painting would NECESSARILY CONTAIN sport aspects BY DEFINITION. 

  Is eating a sport? Does eating contain sport aspects? Because there are plenty of eating competitions. However, the competition for eating doesn't cover the basics of why we eat, or what eating does for us, its simply a competition taking a part of eating and doing it. 


> I agree with you, it is getting exhausting. You didn't say CMA was a sport, your right. You said it was a "freaking hobby", and that from the time it was created contained heavy performance aspects. You said that many reasons people study CMA are performance aspects and "busting mad moves". Also that CMA has a long history of exhibition.


 All of which I beleive I demonstrated to be true.  

 Look 7*, you are being willfully obstinate.  You seem determined to beleive that kung fu is ONLY about self defence, and that those who are into it for other reasons are WRONG.  You even relegate everything other then self defence to the "servants quarters".

 There are many reasons to study Kung fu, self defence, fitness, competition, performance, Chi cultivation,  to exalt one aspect above the others is obtuse.  

 [


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 19, 2005)

Why must you or he persist? There is a difference of opinions and thus stale to convince each other otherwise.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 19, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> The AAU/CMA is a federation of Kung Fu schools. My school is a member.


 Yes, I am aware of the AAU, my sifu was the regional director here for a while. Its a group of school and members with one common goal, to manage and promote tournements. You can't call a rose a skunk cabage and expect people to believe you. A federation of Kung Fu Schools would be the United States Kung Fu Exchange. That is a federation of schools. My school is a member of it and its purposes are to increase exposure of kung fu and expand real, true kung fu. Its sole purpose is to live kung fu, to teach true kung fu and allow kung fu a bright future. Competitions are not part of our goal because competitions are great and fun, but serve no purpose in extending true kung fu to others and parts of the world. True kung fu isn't my gold medals from the AAU competitions I've been to, but the level of skill I can stand on, my own skill. 



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> If there were painting competitions, then painting would NECESSARILY CONTAIN sport aspects BY DEFINITION.


 What deffinition is that? Deffinition of what exactly? Your making your own deffinition, so you can say it is correct. So what about my eating analogy? Is eating a sport? Does eating contain sport aspects? There are eating competitions, so by "deffinition" eating contains sport aspects?



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> All of which I beleive I demonstrated to be true.


 To whom? You demonstrated nothing to be true to anyone besides yourself. How would you demonstrate to be true, the statement that kung fu is a freaking hobby? Is that possible? See, your only looking at your own picture here, not anyone elses views or opinions. To have a real discussion one must at least think on the posts of others.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Look 7*, you are being willfully obstinate. You seem determined to beleive that kung fu is ONLY about self defence, and that those who are into it for other reasons are WRONG. You even relegate everything other then self defence to the "servants quarters".


 OK, lets get back on topic here, you can twist around things I've said as much as you like, but its not going to get us anywhere in our discussion. I've said nothing like what you just posted I have, so lets not fall into personal attacks and twisting of words. If this thread can't stay on topic, its of no use.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> There are many reasons to study Kung fu, self defence, fitness, competition, performance, Chi cultivation, to exalt one aspect above the others is obtuse.


Your 100% right. There are many reasons to study kung fu. I guess truth is also in the hands of the beholder eh? If I study kung fu for chi cultivation than I guess that is what kung fu is about to me then right? So there are no absolutes, kung fu is about everything and nothing all at the same time. Listen, reasons to study kung fu may vary as diverse as anything we have ever seen, however the reasons poeple are drawn to study kung fu do not change its history, principles, or intent. I think our problem here is we are not defining things well. To you, kung fu holds aspects of whatever you are looking for, I can understand that bellief to a point, but the truth is kung fu was created for specific reasons and they are not mutable to everyones whims and desires. See, back to eating, there are many reasons to eat, right? Boredom, sadness, competitions, fun, taste, being hungry, nervous, etc. Are these all parts of why eating exists? Nope. Eating exists to fuel our body and keep us alive, all other reasons to eat are personal. Same with Kung Fu. Its purpose is straightforward, our reasons for study may differ, but Kung Fu doesn't change for each of us. 

    7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 19, 2005)

_See, back to eating, there are many reasons to eat, right? Boredom, sadness, competitions, fun, taste, being hungry, nervous, etc. Are these all parts of why eating exists? Nope. Eating exists to fuel our body and keep us alive, all other reasons to eat are personal. Same with Kung Fu. Its purpose is straightforward, our reasons for study may differ, but Kung Fu doesn't change for each of us._ 

I like this analogy.


But, I beleive that the term, Kung Fu, is misused.

I wonder what it "true" name, per martial arts/fighting was?


----------

