# Kung fu is bad for self defence



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 5, 2017)

Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%. 

Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

What system are you practicing?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 5, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> What system are you practicing?



A variation on Fujian White Crane


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%.
> 
> Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?



No that is pretty much correct. And is not style specific.

As the saying goes. If I could do in a fight what I could do in sparring. I would be able to beat anybody.


----------



## jobo (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%.
> 
> Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?


but the,argument doesn't follow, if out of what you have leant you have a viable defence for a right punch a left punch some sort of kick and some one,swinging a bottle or some such, then you pretty much have self defence sown up. If you then have a have an effective punch, elbow kick , you can knock them down. But I think it fair to say that 90% of it is filler and could be done away  with from a SD point of view. But then its said that you only remember 10% of what you have learnt when the pressure is on, so it works out about right


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

By they way martial arts doesn't really work that well either.

The other guy has a bad habit of screwing up your cool moves.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> A variation on Fujian White Crane


Alright, I don't have familiarity with the curriculum, but i train in Tibetan white crane, quite different.

I have trained some other systems that definitely have some very large curriculums, which in my opinion do reach the level of being cumbersome and unwieldy.  I no longer train in those.

That being said, I am a fan of getting more mileage out of less material.  And my system has about a dozen and a half long forms, and maybe a dozen or more weapons forms.

The thing is, you don't need anywhere near this much material to be able to fight.  Our fundamentals really cover it quite well.  My belief is that these large curriculums get built over time by generations of people who saw some need (real or imagined) for it.  Keep in mind, no system sprang forth fully formed from nothing.  If the system is older than a couple generations, or you can trace its history and roots to older material, I am certain that it did not originally contain all the material it has now.

In my opinion, forms and other bits of the curriculum should not be viewed as stuff you need, like a shopping list of things you need to have.  It is useful stuff, but it should be viewed as possibilities that give you grist for your mill to work with in ultimately devising your own solutions to the problems you are presented with.  So they are possibilities, they are not obligations.  They are a useful training tool, but you don't NEED to be able to use everything in them, and some may be un-useable because of various reasons like, they get deep into theory and maybe depart from reality a bit, but still have useful lessons to teach.

One observation I have had is that when my sifu breaks down the form and shows applications, more often than not it boils down to a handful of fundamental applications.  All this movement found in all these forms, are just variations on a small number of useful applications.

The material, including many forms, is meant to help you understand and develop some skills, but you certainly don't need it all.  It is just a wide range of possibilities that help broaden your vision of what is possible.  If, for example, you have learned six forms and within that process the usefulness has come together for you, you really don't need to learn six or twelve more.  The six you learned have done the job they were designed for.  On the other hand, if you have learned six and you still don't "get it", learning another six or a dozen or whatever, isnt likely to help you much. I think there must be something fundamental you are missing.

If you learn and know more stuff, well it can be useful to have, but if you don't have it, you probably aren't actually missing anything.

So, there can definitely be material to the point of clutter.  But the heart of the system is likely very useful.  You, as a student, need to be able to step back and decide, I have enough material now, learning more will just get in the way.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 5, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Alright, I don't have familiarity with the curriculum, but i train in Tibetan white crane, quite different.
> 
> I have trained some other systems that definitely have some very large curriculums, which in my opinion do reach the level of being cumbersome and unwieldy.  I no longer train in those.
> 
> ...



So are you saying that I should just focus on the core principles of the style rather than trying to learn and practice all the different techniques?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> So are you saying that I should just focus on the core principles of the style rather than trying to learn and practice all the different techniques?



You have to have a core principle before you can learn the other stuff anyway.

All that foundational crap people bang on about


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> So are you saying that I should just focus on the core principles of the style rather than trying to learn and practice all the different techniques?


Within reason, yes.  The techniques should be helping you understand the core principles.  That is their real purpose.  The techniques can be useful as they are, and that is great.  But the real point is that you learn the principles and apply them in any way you want and need.  And more often than not, what is needed is something simple and direct, and those are your fundamentals, built on your core principles.  Not some complex, abstract combo that leaves your enemy broken in eighteen places and twisted into a pretzel and gutted and hung out to dry.

So keep practicing the techniques, they help you see the principles in action in lots of scenarios, and that helps you see and recognize possibilities.  But don't approach your training with the idea that you MUST be able to use everything or else you are failing.  It's a mindset that is different.

Some people are gonna disagree with me on this, but this is how I see it, and I think it makes a lot more sense than working fruitlessly on a never-ending list of stuff that you know, in your heart, you will never be able to actually use. The formal curriculum should serve a different purpose than that.


----------



## jobo (Jul 5, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> So are you saying that I should just focus on the core principles of the style rather than trying to learn and practice all the different techniques?


no i don't think so, all the different techniques' reinforce the core principles, so its learning by repeating, even if what you are doing seems new. Otherwise just do the same two or three over and over and over again, which can get a bit samey


----------



## Reedone816 (Jul 5, 2017)

That is what we are being told, techniques are there so we could understand the core principles.
So once you -think- understand the principles you are not bound anymore by technique.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> By they way martial arts doesn't really work that well either.
> 
> The other guy has a bad habit of screwing up your cool moves.


I know, right?


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%.
> 
> Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?


There are valid reasons why one might not like kungfu for self defence but this is not one of them. I say this as a fellow fujianese crane practitioner.

Honestly if your still dazzled by the variety you just haven't trained enough. 

All arts exist around a core set of both techniques and ideas and this is what you fight with. 

If you want self defence now then find a krav class. If you don't mind waiting then stick with it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 6, 2017)

Something everyone should consider is that your teacher in most cases teaches martial arts as they were taught, as their teacher taught them.  For many decades now martial arts were taught in a kind of bubble, divorced from reality a bit.  For better or worse MMA brought about a paradigm shift in how people think about martial arts.  In most cases teachers now are still figuring out how to deal with this shift. Some are ignoring it some are blind to it and others are trying to adapt.
Bottom line is your teacher is teaching you a skill, it is up to you to make it useful and relevant to self defense. Not everyone studies for actual self defense. Good teachers teach for the widest audience range.  
You can send the kid to college but you can't make him think, it is also his own  responsibility to go out into the world and use that education to his benifit.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Something everyone should consider is that your teacher in most cases teaches martial arts as they were taught, as their teacher taught them.  For many decades now martial arts were taught in a kind of bubble, divorced from reality a bit.  For better or worse MMA brought about a paradigm shift in how people think about martial arts.  In most cases teachers now are still figuring out how to deal with this shift. Some are ignoring it some are blind to it and others are trying to adapt.
> Bottom line is your teacher is teaching you a skill, it is up to you to make it useful and relevant to self defense. Not everyone studies for actual self defense. Good teachers teach for the widest audience range.
> You can send the kid to college but you can't make him think, it is also his own  responsibility to go out into the world and use that education to his benifit.


While ultimately if I want something it's my responsibility to go and get it, I don't think that should let bad teachers off the hook.

It's just as much the responsibility of someone who wants to teach a functional self defence art to learn the most effective ways to teach the most practical skills.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 6, 2017)

Thank you for all the replies everyone, they have given me a lot to think about. Perhaps my focus of the training is slightly off which is where I am drawing these conclusions from. I honestly don't know as I have only been training for a short time (relatively speaking).


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> While ultimately if I want something it's my responsibility to go and get it, I don't think that should let bad teachers off the hook.
> 
> It's just as much the responsibility of someone who wants to teach a functional self defence art to learn the most effective ways to teach the most practical skills.


of course there are bad teachers out there.  we do have to accept that the majority of martial arts are taught to a wide variety of students.  my own journey has led me to accept the fact that for me to focus on pure self defense, i had to give up certain aspects found in traditional martial arts.  i really do love Okinawan karate and everything that goes along with that,  rei , kamidana, kata, sempai/ kohai,  white  gi and all.  but these things can be more of a distraction for us and at a point it is actually counter productive.
the art and system itself sometimes can be counter productive to an applicable self defense.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%.
> 
> Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?



Should be said that the term Kung Fu is not a style it is a container full of styles. So just so where clear, this is what you are saying when you say Kung Fu 

*List of Chinese martial arts*


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 6, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Should be said that the term Kung Fu is not a style it is a container full of styles. So just so where clear, this is what you are saying when you say Kung Fu
> 
> *List of Chinese martial arts*



Yes Xue Sheng, I am well aware of the proper terminology and meaning of "Kung Fu", and you'll notice that in my actual post I used the phrase "traditional chinese martial arts". I'm not exactly sure what any of this has on the conversation we were having in this thread though....


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence.


The problem isn't the art.  The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training.  Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus.  By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight.  These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem.  These things are things you can get without martial arts.  Traditionally if you didn't have these things before martial arts then some teachers wouldn't take you as a student.  Most traditional martial arts schools that are out there are only traditional in name and in the forms they do.  They don't train with a self-defense focus so they can't do self-defense using the techniques they train.

The number of techniques available does not decrease one's self-defense abilities.



Midnight-shadow said:


> There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario.


 You are correct that there are different variations and combinations, but that's a good thing.  That means I only need to learn one movement that can be used 20 different ways vs trying to learn 20 different techniques with one use.  If you find it confusing then it's because you are rushing your learning.  You are trying to learn how to apply too many things all at once.  Take 1 technique to learn how to apply.  When you learn that 1 technique then try to understand if there are other variations of that 1 technique or combination.   Once you have a good understanding of that one technique then you can add another technique.  

As a student your goal shouldn't be to try to learn how to fight with all of the kung fu techniques.  Some techniques will work better for you than others based on your own capabilities and fighting style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the,argument doesn't follow, if out of what you have leant you have a viable defence for a right punch a left punch some sort of kick and some one,swinging a bottle or some such, then you pretty much have self defence sown up. If you then have a have an effective punch, elbow kick , you can knock them down. But I think it fair to say that 90% of it is filler and could be done away  with from a SD point of view. But then its said that you only remember 10% of what you have learnt when the pressure is on, so it works out about right


I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Some people are gonna disagree with me on this, but this is how I see it, and I think it makes a lot more sense than working fruitlessly on a never-ending list of stuff that you know, in your heart, you will never be able to actually use


Not many will disagree.  Not if they actually train for self-defense.  We can think of how limited boxing is, yet boxers always have their on techniques and combos that they prefer vs what another boxer prefers.  Some boxers are known for having  really good jab where Tyson was known for his uppercuts and hooks.  As cool as it would be to be able to effectively use everything in Jow Ga Kung Fu, I understand and accept that there are going to be techniques that I'm just not going to be good enough to do in a self-defense fight or even in a competitive fight.  I also accept tha there may be techniques that I can pull off in a self-defense scenario against an unskilled attacker that I could never pull of in a competitive arena against a skilled opponent.

Not matter the system everyone picks the techniques that hey feel most comfortable with and works best for them.



DaveB said:


> It's just as much the responsibility of someone who wants to teach a functional self defence art to learn the most effective ways to teach the most practical skills.


If the teacher never learned from a self-defense perspective as a student, then there is no way he can teach with a self-defense perspective and we see a lot of this.  A good example are the 2 TKD guys that bash other systems.  They originally didn't train their system from a self-defense perspective and now one is trying to do so, but he has to look towards other fighting systems to help make up the gaps in his own understanding of TKD.  The end result is that he still can't teach TKD from a self-defense perspective as all of his self-defense components come from other martial art systems.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.


That's true.  When you think of a fight how do you know the 10% that you choose to train in, is the 10% that will help you win the fight.   I can take 10% of Jow Ga Kung Fu and go against a street fighter and still lose if the 10% I choose is wrong for the situation that I'm in.

Edit:  The other side of the coin is that the 10% that I choose will help me win against a striker but lose against a grappler.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 6, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem isn't the art. The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training. Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus. By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight. These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem. These things are things you can get without martial arts.



another factor is the teacher.  where in the teachers own personal journey is he.  if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.


but the part that matters most are the underpinning skills, those are repeated in all of the many forms. The only real question is do you practise those skills in,a few ways or many ways.
its all, block move punch kick at the end of the day, if you can do those to a good level you are good to go


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> another factor is the teacher.  where in the teachers own personal journey is he.  if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.


lol  Yeah I get the longevity stuff from teachers that are in their 40's.  It drives me nuts, but I deal with it because they have some self-defense knowledge that I can learn.  For me the health aspect is a by product of self-defense training. But as you stated  some teachers focus on the health aspect first and if at all the self-defense aspect as secondary or side note.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.


This is true, and each person needs to evaluate why they train and how much they need.  I am not always convinced that the material is just filler (it can be), but it certainly can be unnecessary.  It is easy to fall into thinking that you need to learn an entire system or else you are "missing" something.  That simply is not true.  Some systems have grown very large.  My own system is one of them.  Life circumstances cut my training short with my sifu and I did not learn the full system.  In some ways that is disappointing, but in others it is liberating.  I have far far more material than I strictly need, plenty to keep me working hard, and plenty to teach if I decide to do so.   Nobody needs ALL of it.  After a while, if there is too much material to keep on top of it all and too much to practice with the regularity to build skills with it, then it simply is too much and it is detrimental to the training.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Yes Xue Sheng, I am well aware of the proper terminology and meaning of "Kung Fu", and you'll notice that in my actual post I used the phrase "traditional chinese martial arts". I'm not exactly sure what any of this has on the conversation we were having in this thread though....



Having read your original post and noting "traditional martial arts" being mentioned and also being aware that "Kung Fu" is generally misused but still part of "Traditional Martial Arts" as it is used, I thought it might help top clarify to many, not just you, what one is actually saying when they use the terminology "Kung Fu".

Might I recommend Sanda/Sanhou, it is focused solely on application and drills, although it is not considered traditional.

my apologies for intruding in your thread, I shall leave it alone from this point on


----------



## DanT (Jul 6, 2017)

My Sifu always said, if you want to learn to fight, I’ll teach you 3 punches and 2 kicks and you can just go to the heavy bag and practice the same 10 combos over and over 6 hours a day for the rest of your life. Fighting isn’t “everything”, but in my opinion, Kung Fu does have thousands of techniques, so pick the 20 you like the most, practice the hell out of them, and use them the most in sparring. This is especially true if you’re not practicing 6 h a day 6 days a week. If you were then you could pick 200 techniques and practice them and be effective.

White Crane is a complete art, it has distance fighting, clinch work, takedowns, joint locks, and grappling. Obviously when you’re dealing with so many ranges, you want to be competent in techniques to work in all those ranges.

So let’s say if you take 10 techniques from distance fighting, 10 from the clinch, 10 takedowns, 10 joint locks, and 10 grappling submissions.  Right there you have 50 techniques to master. It seems like a lot, but it all comes down to practice.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jul 6, 2017)

Fujiun White Crane is not bad for self defense.

Something else is the problem here, but let's not blame the art.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> So let’s say if you take 10 techniques from distance fighting, 10 from the clinch, 10 takedowns, 10 joint locks, and 10 grappling submissions.  Right there you have 50 techniques to master. It seems like a lot, but it all comes down to practice.


why not three of each?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 6, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Having read your original post and noting "traditional martial arts" being mentioned and also being aware that "Kung Fu" is generally misused but still part of "Traditional Martial Arts" as it is used, I thought it might help top clarify to many, not just you, what one is actually saying when they use the terminology "Kung Fu".
> 
> Might I recommend Sanda/Sanhou, it is focused solely on application and drills, although it is not considered traditional.
> 
> my apologies for intruding in your thread, I shall leave it alone from this point on



I just found it odd that you would focus on the terminology of the title which I even admitted was more click-bait than anything else, rather than the post itself. I know you are one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum when it comes to traditional CMA and I value your opinions on this matter. I actually do Sanda as well as BaiHe Quan with the same instructor, but he makes it clear that the Sanda training is competition focused, and the BaiHe Quan is self-defence focused. This is partly what made me think of this topic, because I currently feel more confident using what I learned in Sanda training for self-defence than the stuff I have learned in BaiHe Quan.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 6, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem isn't the art.  The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training.  Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus.  By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight.  These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem.  These things are things you can get without martial arts.  Traditionally if you didn't have these things before martial arts then some teachers wouldn't take you as a student.  Most traditional martial arts schools that are out there are only traditional in name and in the forms they do.  They don't train with a self-defense focus so they can't do self-defense using the techniques they train.
> 
> The number of techniques available does not decrease one's self-defense abilities.
> 
> ...



It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I just found it odd that you would focus on the terminology of the title which I even admitted was more click-bait than anything else, rather than the post itself. I know you are one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum when it comes to traditional CMA and I value your opinions on this matter. I actually do Sanda as well as BaiHe Quan with the same instructor, but he makes it clear that the Sanda training is competition focused, and the BaiHe Quan is self-defence focused. This is partly what made me think of this topic, because I currently feel more confident using what I learned in Sanda training for self-defence than the stuff I have learned in BaiHe Quan.



Most Sanda you find is competition focused this is absolutely true both in and out of China, however there are 2 other versions that are not, but they are hard to find. 1 is more of a local version not seen much outside of China that is just plain fighing and the other is taught to the police and military. Had a chance to briefly train the police version and it appears to have little in common with the sports version, but sadly I was not able to continue training it.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.



That's just bad teaching, nothing to do with the system.

At best your teacher is trying to give you a feel for how to use the techniques without fixing you into patterns. But I still think it's a sucky way to teach.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure.


This is an easy problem to fix.  You have to use what you train in sparring.  When you spar, you have to spar to learn.  That means don't spar so hard that you are afraid to get hit.  Don't spar so hard where you can't make mistakes without worrying about being knocked out.  The only way you are going to learn how to use your techniques is to work it out and learn how to apply them in sparring.  Just doing drills and forms is only part of the training.  Once you learn a technique you have to try to apply it in sparring.  

Just remember you will fail a lot during this learning process but stick with it. Look at your failures as learning opportunities.  Analyze why did you fail. For example, when you do a technique and it fails you ask yourself things like:
1. Was I forcing the technique or did I follow the same motion as in the form?
2. What happened when I tried to used the technique? Did I get hit or kick?  Was it blocked? This will help you determine if you are applying the technique to the wrong situation or if you need to make adjustments.  For example, I use half of a technique.  In the form it is referred to as 1 technique, but in reality it's 3 different techniques  put together to make 1.  I learned the technique as a defense and counter, but when using the technique as an attack, I only need to use half of it.

Eventually you'll learn the proper timing, distance, and situations in which a technique can be used.  You MUST ALWAYS ANALYZE your sparring, try to understand how the attacks are being launched at you and think of a technique that you can use to either counter or attack.



Midnight-shadow said:


> For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm.


This is not an easy technique to begin learning.  Try something easier maybe something that deals with blocking and countering.  Grabs always look easy in practice and in drills, but when 2 bodies are moving with fists and feet flying, then the grabbing becomes more difficult.  How difficult is it to grab a punch?  Think of how often BJJ practitioners grab people,  now try to remember a fight where you saw one grabbing a punch.

One you learn some of the blocking and redirecting techniques, then you'll begin to understand how to grab.  There are certain things that you must do in order to grab a punch. Those things that you have to learn first are found in blocking and redirecting techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.


Well, in line with what I have been saying, were you able to see the foundational principles at work in that application?  That is the more important thing, more so than doing enough repetition to work that particular sequence into automatic muscle memory.

Sure, if you like that sequence, train the hell out of it.  That is your choice.  But it may be that the sequence itself is less important than seeing the principles in use in a variety of situations and options.  You start to see and understand that, and you don't need a go-to standardized sequence.  You do what you need to do based on the situation, and that can be anything at all, including something that you devise on the spot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's true.  When you think of a fight how do you know the 10% that you choose to train in, is the 10% that will help you win the fight.   I can take 10% of Jow Ga Kung Fu and go against a street fighter and still lose if the 10% I choose is wrong for the situation that I'm in.
> 
> Edit:  The other side of the coin is that the 10% that I choose will help me win against a striker but lose against a grappler.


I was thinking more of the esoteric techniques that exist within Nihon Goshin Aikido. There are some that (IMO) are there to teach principles, and are not directly applicable. If someone put equal effort into all 50 classical techniques (we'll ignore the non-classical work, to keep the math easy), they won't be developing the right 10% for any situation. The esoteric techniques (about 25% of NGA's classical curriculum, and I think there are some in most TMA) should be a minor part of training, and mostly used for more advanced students to explore and improve on key concepts and principles. Most of the training time should be spent on the most effective techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> another factor is the teacher.  where in the teachers own personal journey is he.  if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.


Agreed. And older instructors often are more focused on the "finer" principles, because those are how they stay effective with the art, despite loss of power and speed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the part that matters most are the underpinning skills, those are repeated in all of the many forms. The only real question is do you practise those skills in,a few ways or many ways.
> its all, block move punch kick at the end of the day, if you can do those to a good level you are good to go


True enough. But if enough of the techniques are "esoteric" (my term for techniques that teach a principle, rather than having direct application), and you spend too much time on those, you aren't spending enough time training the movements that you'll need.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I was thinking more of the esoteric techniques that exist within Nihon Goshin Aikido. There are some that (IMO) are there to teach principles, and are not directly applicable. If someone put equal effort into all 50 classical techniques (we'll ignore the non-classical work, to keep the math easy), they won't be developing the right 10% for any situation. The esoteric techniques (about 25% of NGA's classical curriculum, and I think there are some in most TMA) should be a minor part of training, and mostly used for more advanced students to explore and improve on key concepts and principles. Most of the training time should be spent on the most effective techniques.


either way it's the same thing.  take 5% consisting of the  NGA's esoteric techniques and 5% of NGA's fighting techniques and you'll still fall short on what you may actually need in a fight.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2017)

If you have one punch and one kick and a simple block or deflection, and you know how to use them with some level of aggression, you can be very effective.

Now take those three things plus the aggression and put it on top of an appropriate foundation with knowledge of good biomechanics and efficiency, and that same person can be devastating.

Fighting isn't that difficult.  It doesn't take much in terms of curriculum, to be a good fighter, and that can largely translate into self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> either way it's the same thing.  take 5% consisting of the  NGA's esoteric techniques and 5% of NGA's fighting techniques and you'll still fall short on what you may actually need in a fight.


Agreed. That would be a prime example of overtraining the esoteric techniques.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ok, slightly click-baiting title, but I'm fast coming to the realisation that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence. This is not because the techniques themselves are bad, but because there are far too many of them to learn and practice effectively. There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario. Surely it's better to have a smaller number of techniques that work for 80% of situations, than a huge number of techniques that cover 100%.
> 
> Any thoughts on This? Or am I missing something here?




IMO it really has to do with the school.  Most schools that teach Kung Fu now teach it for things like fitness, mental well being and demonstration.  go to Kuo Shu or any number of Kung Fu tournaments and you will see that well over half of the competitions are very wu shu like.  You will have solo empty hand and weapons demonstrations and choreographed "fights" between people from the same school.  You will also have Tai Chi Chuan push hands competitions, as well as forms and WC forms competitions as well.  The Lei Tai and real weapons fights while time consuming actually involve a minority of the competitors but they are there.

So it is a matter of finding the right school and teacher.  As examples...

1.  My school teaches Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali from a "combatives" point of view because that is my Sifu's choice.  It is not unusual for someone to go to the cabinet and reach for the Jow or an ice pack (especially after weapons sparring).  

2. There is another school near me that teaches the same lineage of Wing Chun (TWC) and Tai Chi.  There the Sifu does not teach from a combatives point of view so I would not suggest that school for self-defense purposes.

3. There is a Tien Shan Pai school near me where the Sifu largely teaches the "performance" aspect of the art BUT he makes sure that at least once a week (sometimes more), with the adult class he has a "combat night" where he teaches the real fighting applications of the attributes the forms impart.

The above btw applies to many TMAs so, if you want to study a TMA and not Krav Maga, MMA etc, one of the first things you need to do is speak to the Head of the school, or a senior student, and ask what the main goals are.  If, like my school, the first word is "we train fighters so you can go home to, and protect, those you love" you have found a school that should work well.  If they say something like this though, "Our mission is to offer a center for mind and body development in pursuit of excellence through personal achievement and constant physical and mental improvement by maintaining the traditional martial arts training regimen," the school is likely not the place for self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 6, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The above btw applies to many TMAs so, if you want to study a TMA and not Krav Maga, MMA etc, one of the first things you need to do is speak to the Head of the school, or a senior student, and ask what the main goals are. If, like my school, the first word is "we train fighters so you can go home to, and protect, those you love" you have found a school that should work well. If they say something like this though, "Our mission is to offer a center for mind and body development in pursuit of excellence through personal achievement and constant physical and mental improvement by maintaining the traditional martial arts training regimen," the school is likely not the place for self defense



Nope.

You can't tell in that manner.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 6, 2017)

It has to work.

It has to be applicable.

personally i suggest you find that out in the gym with your partners not helping you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 6, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario.


When I was 11, I wanted to lean CMA so I could fight. My teacher (my brother in law) forced me to train "1 step 3 punches" for 3 years. That was the best MA investment that I had done.

Kung Fu means "time and effort". It's not how much that you know but how well that you can do in one thing. If you can throw 3 punches and knock down your opponent, you don't need anything else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 6, 2017)

*Kung fu is bad for self defense. *

Kung Fu means that you can do at least 1 thing better than everybody else on this planet. If anybody wants to learn that 1 thing, they have to come to you.

If you can use "single leg" to take down everybody on this planet, what's else do you need?

What's Kung Fu?

A guy bragged about his archery skill. Another guy who sold cooking oil put a coin (with a hole in the coin) on top of his oil container. He then pull the oil through that coin hole. The oil went through that tinny little coin hole without touching the coin. The archery guy was very impressed. The oil salesman said, "There is nothing to it. I just have done this over 10,000 times".


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Nope.
> 
> You can't tell in that manner.


It is a good indicator to decide whether or not you should even bother walking in the door though.  You should of course get more details (such as experience of the head of the school and/or senior instructors etc).I have just found that the ones that speak like the later, focusing on physical and mental well being without any specific mention of self-defense application, competitive fighting etc, aren't going to teach it, at least not well.


----------



## DanT (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> why not three of each?


You could if you wanted to. You don't wanna be a one trick pony either.


----------



## DanT (Jul 6, 2017)

I think you need your go to techniques. Obviously you need to be good at everything if you want to teach. But you still should have a couple of go to techniques. Let's say it's back fist and a sidekick. If you have a backlist that is so quick you can just knock people out from 5 feet away with it, and a side kick that can kill people, you don't need much more. My Sifu's Kung Fu brother trained his fingers so much, that he could literally stab people with them. When I met him I didn't believe it, so he picked up a chicken (this was on a farm), and he stabbed it with his fingers (in its side). He literally went 4-5 inches deep with his fingers inside a ******* chicken! Imagine if he fought somebody, he basically walks around with knives for hands, and that's not to say the rest of his Kung fu is no good, it's in fact excellent.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> You could if you wanted to. You don't wanna be a one trick pony either.


that works fine as long as they haven't seen your one trick before


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> I think you need your go to techniques. Obviously you need to be good at everything if you want to teach. But you still should have a couple of go to techniques. Let's say it's back fist and a sidekick. If you have a backlist that is so quick you can just knock people out from 5 feet away with it, and a side kick that can kill people, you don't need much more. My Sifu's Kung Fu brother trained his fingers so much, that he could literally stab people with them. When I met him I didn't believe it, so he picked up a chicken (this was on a farm), and he stabbed it with his fingers (in its side). He literally went 4-5 inches deep with his fingers inside a ******* chicken! Imagine if he fought somebody, he basically walks around with knives for hands, and that's not to say the rest of his Kung fu is no good, it's in fact excellent.


that's horrific, can't he burst coke tins like all the other show offs, poor chicken


----------



## DanT (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's horrific, can't he burst coke tins like all the other show offs, poor chicken


I was very horrified.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> I think you need your go to techniques. Obviously you need to be good at everything if you want to teach. But you still should have a couple of go to techniques. Let's say it's back fist and a sidekick. If you have a backlist that is so quick you can just knock people out from 5 feet away with it, and a side kick that can kill people, you don't need much more. My Sifu's Kung Fu brother trained his fingers so much, that he could literally stab people with them. When I met him I didn't believe it, so he picked up a chicken (this was on a farm), and he stabbed it with his fingers (in its side). He literally went 4-5 inches deep with his fingers inside a ******* chicken! Imagine if he fought somebody, he basically walks around with knives for hands, and that's not to say the rest of his Kung fu is no good, it's in fact excellent.




I think the "goto" is very important.  As an example, I am rather lean, wiry even, with a body type that lends itself to strong legs and dang skinny arms.  Don't ask me why but I can build a ridiculous amount of muscle in my legs get a good core but my arms, not so much.  

So I tend to use strikes with my hands simply as "set ups".  If I am at work and need to control someone its just about wedging, set up, so I can go for control/takedown.  However in training I also train for "off duty" defense.  I train for two things there, lethal and less lethal.  For less lethal I do two things.  
1. I train A LOT in terms of getting power in my kicks.
2. when I spar I will use a lot of oblique kicks to just above the knee to maintain distance for a time so that in a real defense situation I have the accuracy to go for the knee and just need to ramp up the strength.

For lethal that is a long story because I would have to go into why a cop doesn't carry a firearm off duty as a personal choice and that is a LONG story that sometimes causes derails so I will leave that for another day.

That all said I have actually just started iron palm/hand training because I want to use bil jee in my setups and not risk breaking my fingers on someones facial bones.  We'll see how that goes


----------



## drop bear (Jul 6, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is a good indicator to decide whether or not you should even bother walking in the door though.  You should of course get more details (such as experience of the head of the school and/or senior instructors etc).I have just found that the ones that speak like the later, focusing on physical and mental well being without any specific mention of self-defense application, competitive fighting etc, aren't going to teach it, at least not well.



Noooooo.

Because people can say what they like. 

I mean if i went by your method the best martial art is the one that trains specifically to flatten 4 guys.






Because who wouldn't want to do that.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Noooooo.
> 
> Because people can say what they like.
> 
> ...



Look at it this way.  You are looking to learn how to actually fight but have multiple schools in your area.  Most schools will give you a free class or two.  How do you narrow the field?  I think it reasonable to focus on the schools that say they teach you how to fight vs those who actively avoid using the words self defense or fighting.

Btw I am not talking about their advertising.  I am talking about actual conversation.  The above helps you narrow the field.  Then you go and if you have even the slightest clue as to how to fight already, imo, it's easy to tell who was bsing you BUT you at least narrowed the field down to something realistic.  Where I live I can't throw a rock without hitting a martial arts school.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> one that trains specifically to flatten 4 guys.


The Kung Fu (CMA) is good to be used to against multiple opponents.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 6, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Look at it this way.  You are looking to learn how to actually fight but have multiple schools in your area.  Most schools will give you a free class or two.  How do you narrow the field?  I think it reasonable to focus on the schools that say they teach you how to fight vs those who actively avoid using the words self defense or fighting.
> 
> Btw I am not talking about their advertising.  I am talking about actual conversation.  The above helps you narrow the field.  Then you go and if you have even the slightest clue as to how to fight already, imo, it's easy to tell who was bsing you BUT you at least narrowed the field down to something realistic.  Where I live I can't throw a rock without hitting a martial arts school.



You would get a more honest result if you just threw the rock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You would get a more honest result if you just threw the rock.


So, you think a school that doesn't focus on fighting OR self-defense is just as likely to teach something useful as a school that teaches fighting for competition, self-defense, or something similar (and actually has it as part of their normal conversations)?


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 7, 2017)

If I'm building a house I'd rather have to many tools than not enough


----------



## jobo (Jul 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you think a school that doesn't focus on fighting OR self-defense is just as likely to teach something useful as a school that teaches fighting for competition, self-defense, or something similar (and actually has it as part of their normal conversations)?


yes i think you would, as for competition it depend ds on what the art is, but certainly teaching someone to fight in a style is at least as useful as teaching themself defence using a style.

just keeping using the term self defence doesn't increase its usefulness'


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> If I'm building a house I'd rather have to many tools than not enough


Given these two options, I don't disagree.

However, what needs to be remembered is that the end goal is to build a house, not collect so many tools that we run out of storage space and they all disintegrate under rust, from lack of use.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 7, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> If I'm building a house I'd rather have to many tools than not enough


There are over 200 different throws in the throwing art. As far as I know, nobody on this planet has ever mastered all these 200 different throws. Even just the "foot sweep" category, there are over 35 different "foot sweep".

Usually, you can

- write a book with 200 techniques.
- put up a DVD with 100 techniques.
- give a workshop with 50 techniques.
- demon in the public with 20 techniques.
- fight in the street with 10 techniques.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you think a school that doesn't focus on fighting OR self-defense is just as likely to teach something useful as a school that teaches fighting for competition, self-defense, or something similar (and actually has it as part of their normal conversations)?



Yes.

Stuff either works or it doesn't. Why you teach it is a lot less important.

So the MMA that trains to help vets relieve PTSD still turns out better fighters than Arakan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes i think you would, as for competition it depend ds on what the art is, but certainly teaching someone to fight in a style is at least as useful as teaching themself defence using a style.
> 
> just keeping using the term self defence doesn't increase its usefulness'


That doesn't address the point. If you have three schools, and one of them doesn't claim to prepare you for defense or fighting (and the other two at least claim it), you don't know the quality of the other two, but it's a fair bet that one isn't going to be preparing you to defend or fight. Eliminating it (if combat skills are your goal) increases your chances of finding a good fit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yes.
> 
> Stuff either works or it doesn't. Why you teach it is a lot less important.
> 
> So the MMA that trains to help vets relieve PTSD still turns out better fighters than Arakan.


As I said to Jobo, the point is eliminating the least likely candidates. If a school makes no claims (nor puts any discussion about) training to fight and/or defend, it's a pretty low likelihood that school will deliver combat-ready skills. There will be exceptions, but they will be exceedingly rare. Schools that claim to deliver those skills are usually at least trying to, and that attempt makes it more likely they'll succeed. Some will be crap, for sure, but your chances are better in that subset of schools. If you only have a few to choose from, review them all. If you have 50 to choose from, focus on those that claim to deliver what you're looking for.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As I said to Jobo, the point is eliminating the least likely candidates. If a school makes no claims (nor puts any discussion about) training to fight and/or defend, it's a pretty low likelihood that school will deliver combat-ready skills. There will be exceptions, but they will be exceedingly rare. Schools that claim to deliver those skills are usually at least trying to, and that attempt makes it more likely they'll succeed. Some will be crap, for sure, but your chances are better in that subset of schools. If you only have a few to choose from, review them all. If you have 50 to choose from, focus on those that claim to deliver what you're looking for.



 When there is no requirement to deliver on a claim. The claim is basically worthless.

Now if they make a claim and deliver on it. Then you could apply your method.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> When there is no requirement to deliver on a claim. The claim is basically worthless.
> 
> Now if they make a claim and deliver on it. Then you could apply your method.


So, you think someone who doesn't plan to train for combat effectiveness is just as likely to produce effective results as someone who does? So yoga is as likely to be useful as MMA? Complete rubbish.


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you think someone who doesn't plan to train for combat effectiveness is just as likely to produce effective results as someone who does? So yoga is as likely to be useful as MMA? Complete rubbish.


im not sure what your using as a criteria here, if a,school teaches non comp fighting, then it seems likely that going in to a comp will leave you short handed,

there is no difference between a school that teaches you say karate as a method of fighting and one that teaches karate as a means,of self defence. If its some kata only school you mean then yes you have a point,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> im not sure what your using as a criteria here, if a,school teaches non comp fighting, then it seems likely that going in to a comp will leave you short handed,
> 
> there is no difference between a school that teaches you say karate as a method of fighting and one that teaches karate as a means,of self defence. If its some kata only school you mean then yes you have a point,


I wasn't differentiating between those two. I was differentiating between those two and schools that don't intend to teach for either purpose. That was the point originally made by Juany. Somehow, you've wandered off into discussions of competition prep and the effectiveness of the term "self-defense".


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 9, 2017)

I'll use my wrestling experience here instead of my karate experience, simply because I had far more wrestling matches than fights (meaning I've used wrestling against far more resisting "opponents" than actual fights where my karate training came into play)...

We learned a ton of techniques in wrestling.  Learning that many things did two things that stood out to me as I got more experience:

1) When someone used the technique against me, it wasn't something new that I had no idea could/would happen.  I didn't fall for something incredibly simple to counter/defend because I had seen it before.  Case in point - early on in my career I was pinned by a guy who used a move called a spladle.  I'd never seen it and didn't know what happened until it was too late.  It's very easy to counter, if you've seen it before - when down on the mat, switch from a single leg to a double when you feel your opponent reaching for your leg.  Learning that move that I'd never use (and so many others) taught me to defend it.

2)  I used very, very few of the moves I was taught consistently.  Everyone's built differently and thinks differently, therefore they'll have different things that will and won't work for them.  But there were a lot of instances that I successfully used a move that I'd never used in a match before and never used again simply because the opening was there at that moment.

If I never bothered with anything that didn't work for me in training, I'd have been beaten far more often by them, and I wouldn't have been able to use them during any of those times where it was the only time I used it (and there were a lot of them).

Figuring this out came from several years of experience.  Everything you do makes a difference. It could be just as much of learning to defend it as it could be actually using it without thinking about it that one time where it's your best option.


----------

