# Kung Fu



## Mon Mon (Jul 18, 2004)

Hey guys i do budo taijutsu and was thinking of doing kungfu so how effective is kungfu for self defense i don't want a sport martial art.


----------



## clfsean (Jul 18, 2004)

Mon Mon said:
			
		

> Hey guys i do budo taijutsu and was thinking of doing kungfu so how effective is kungfu for self defense i don't want a sport martial art.


Well you're in a God awful effective self defense art right now. Depending on what brand or flavor of Kung fu you're looking at & the teacher (just as BBT), you can find things as useful or maybe even more for you just as quick as you can find things as useless as a water gun in Hell! :ultracool 

What are you looking at?


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jul 18, 2004)

What do you consider a "sport" martial art?  MT? Kickboxing? Kyokushin?  IMHO these are all far more effective for self defense than KF.


----------



## WLMantisKid (Jul 19, 2004)

Kung Fu for self defense?

Try a northern praying mantis style. 7 Star being one of the more popular, or Wah Lum... Chin Na, short low kicks, good striking techniques.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 20, 2004)

Like most have said, it really depends on the instructor and the school. I find the mantis I do more effective than anything else I've tried including JKD. It depends on what your looking for and what your willing to put in to it as well. What system are you looking at training in? Kung Fu can be very effective, but you have to learn how to use it, how to apply the techniques and not just play the forms. Most systems include some chin na which is amazing at self defense as well. It all depends on how you train and the focus and skill of your teacher.

Let us know what your looking at, and maybe where and who your looking at taking it. 

7sm


----------



## Mon Mon (Jul 20, 2004)

First i need to get through boot camp and A school in the NAVY then i will see what is out there i just wanted to know some good styles forself defense just want to broaden my horizon a little ya know.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 20, 2004)

Thats respectable. I would look for a school/teacher that focuses on fighting. I'm biased but northern mantis is extremely effective. There are some awesome southern systems such as hung gar that I really enjoy as well. Hung Gar is probably one of the most effective southern systems I've seen, but again it all depends on what your being taught and how.

There are alot of people who write off kung fu as innefective, but I think alot of that is simply because of the time and effort needed to actually become effecient in most kung fu systems.

7sm


----------



## cyrus369 (Jul 21, 2004)

muaythaifreak said:
			
		

> What do you consider a "sport" martial art?  MT? Kickboxing? Kyokushin?  IMHO these are all far more effective for self defense than KF.


 how do you figure? there are hundreds of kung fu styles that you basically summed up in a sentece and brushed them off. most kf styles are more complex than mt, kickboxing, etc... and thus take a longer time to be able to use effectivly. but yes if you could probably defend yourself alot better with mt, or some kind of boxing in alot shorter period of time than you could with kung fu. i presonally like both mt and kung fu and i might start training in mt when i move to california, but ive noticed mt is more ring or fitness oriented, i have not heard of mt teaching knife, club, or gun defenses. while some people brush those lessons off, i like to practice knife defenses as much as i can as i have had my fair share of knifes pulled on me.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 22, 2004)

muaythaifreak said:
			
		

> What do you consider a "sport" martial art? MT? Kickboxing? Kyokushin? IMHO these are all far more effective for self defense than KF.


There's always one no matter what forum you go to ,there's always one person that has no knowledge what so ever about CMA (kung Fu) ,that always wants to tell you how useless it is for self defense. 

It's not the style that's useless ,it's the person who taught it to them or the person themself who doesn't put in the kung fu (skill in,hard work) to achieve anything. But you'll always have ppl that claim kung fu is useless ,without ever attempting it themselves.

jeff


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 22, 2004)

cyrus369 said:
			
		

> how do you figure? there are hundreds of kung fu styles that you basically summed up in a sentece and brushed them off. most kf styles are more complex than mt, kickboxing, etc... and thus take a longer time to be able to use effectivly. but yes if you could probably defend yourself alot better with mt, or some kind of boxing in alot shorter period of time than you could with kung fu. i presonally like both mt and kung fu and i might start training in mt when i move to california, but ive noticed mt is more ring or fitness oriented, i have not heard of mt teaching knife, club, or gun defenses. while some people brush those lessons off, i like to practice knife defenses as much as i can as i have had my fair share of knifes pulled on me.


cyrus369,

I agree with and disagree with alot of what you said. There are actually over a 1000 different styles of Chinese Martial Arts. (CMA) You have Northern,Southern,Hakka,Family,Internal,and External styles etc.....

While ALL not "most" CMA styles are more complex than Muay Thai,Boxing,Kickboxing etc... It DOES NOT take a longer time to use CMA effectively ,if you are taught to fight from the start. Unlike Boxing,Muay Thai,Bjj,and MMA most people study kung fu for different reasons. So that means teaching is done differently within CMA schools.

Most ppl that go to Muay Thai,Boxing,MMA schools etc... go pretty much to just learn to fight. What i will say is this ,the average boxer,muay thai or MMA fighter will usually beat the average CMA fighter 98% of the time ,why because of the reasons i mentioned above.

Most CMA schools don't focus on fighting ,where as Muay Thai,Boxing,and MMA schools pretty much only focus on fighting. CMA is a broad scope of techniques and therioes to learn and understand. There is alot more detailed complex training and understanding involved in CMA. Where the others are more specialised training.

But there are CMA schools out there that focus on fighting ,you just have to look for them. The sad thing is that so many people claim to teach kung fu ,that really don't it's a shame. You have ppl that teach kenpo/kempo claiming it's kung fu IT's NOT!!!

You have people that teach karate mixed with TKD and other arts calling it Kung Fu IT's NOT!!!

These people lead to the problems that those of us that really study CMA run into everyday. People claiming that CMA (kung Fu) is not effective. Well it doesn't take but a second to look at kung fu's history ,and see that it was used on the battlefields in wars ,i have yet to see where Muay Thai,Boxing,Kickboxing etc... was used to fight any war!!

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 22, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> It DOES NOT take a longer time to use CMA effectively ,if you are taught to fight from the start.


I disagree with you on this point. It does take longer to apply the techniques of most CMA with effectivness. The yielding, the feel, the deep stances moving quickly from one to the next. I believe that it takes quite a bit longer to actually be able to use this type of fighting because you have to make your body used to the yielding and such. 

You did say yourself:


			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> There is alot more detailed complex training and understanding involved in CMA.


7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I disagree with you on this point. It does take longer to apply the techniques of most CMA with effectivness. The yielding, the feel, the deep stances moving quickly from one to the next. I believe that it takes quite a bit longer to actually be able to use this type of fighting because you have to make your body used to the yielding and such.
> 
> You did say yourself:
> 7sm


 
Well, you are intitled to your opinion ,but in my 22yrs of martial arts training 18 of which have been in kung fu ,i stick by what i said.

If you learn to fight from the start ,you can be just as effective ,if not more ,than any of the afforementioned arts.

Yes, there are more complex techniques and therioes that you will learn ,but that comes later in your training. Everything you mentioned could be done within a matter of months ,if trained properly.

Styles like Wing Chun and Choy Lay Fut were created to make a person a _formadible fighter within a matter of weeks. So for you or anyone to say that it takes alot longer to be an effective fighter in CMA ,it tells me in what type of manner you train._

Many sifu have broken things down and dragged them out to create a more _benifical money machine for them. Also while many people want to learn CMA ,few want to learn it the way it's meant to be taught. If most sifu taught like they were taught ,they'd soon go out of business from all the students quitting ,claiming the training is too hard._

_My sifu teaches for free yet ythere's only three of us training ,why?_

_Because my teacher teaches old school traditional not for money ,so he doesn't baby or pamper anyone. If you want to be an effective fighter and you're willing to put in the Kung Fu (Hard Work and Aquire skill in) then you can train and learn with us ,if you want someone to hold your hand and nurse you through it ,then find another sifu!!!_

_Too many ppl have brought down the image of CMA around the world ,because all they want to do is talk a good game. There are people out here that actually know what they're talking about._

_jeff_


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 22, 2004)

Whoa there, calm down chief, no reason to strike out. Its ok to disagree with me. What I'm saying is that to have a very high level of skill in kung fu takes alot longer than having a high level of skill in some other systems. There are MA systems that in a few weeks you could jump in and "spar" or whatever and beat say your own teacher, in *most* CMA its not that way. Its good to see someone with alot of experience in CMA; I've been training in CMA since I was a kid. One example of what I'm talking about is horse stance. I know alot of CMAist do not put much weight in it, but can you start and in a couple weeks be doing 20 minutes of full horse stance? No, it takes time just like learning to use your techniques and feel your opponents energy and center takes time. Thats what I'm saying, if you dont agree with me thats cool, we can agree to disagree, but not knowing how I study or how long I've studied dont just start criticizing my training. See I didn't say you couldn't be as effective as some other art, I said it takes longer to really raise your skill level.

Just be careful criticizing peoples training and saying how long you've trained if you dont know about them, I may have trained alot longer than you. See, length of time in training really is moot in my opinion. Its good to see you here, and I'm enjoying hearing your views.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 22, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Whoa there, calm down chief, no reason to strike out. Its ok to disagree with me. What I'm saying is that to have a very high level of skill in kung fu takes alot longer than having a high level of skill in some other systems. There are MA systems that in a few weeks you could jump in and "spar" or whatever and beat say your own teacher, in *most* CMA its not that way. Its good to see someone with alot of experience in CMA; I've been training in CMA since I was a kid. One example of what I'm talking about is horse stance. I know alot of CMAist do not put much weight in it, but can you start and in a couple weeks be doing 20 minutes of full horse stance? No, it takes time just like learning to use your techniques and feel your opponents energy and center takes time. Thats what I'm saying, if you dont agree with me thats cool, we can agree to disagree, but not knowing how I study or how long I've studied dont just start criticizing my training. See I didn't say you couldn't be as effective as some other art, I said it takes longer to really raise your skill level.
> 
> Just be careful criticizing peoples training and saying how long you've trained if you dont know about them, I may have trained alot longer than you. See, length of time in training really is moot in my opinion. Its good to see you here, and I'm enjoying hearing your views.
> 
> 7sm


Well, i'm sorry you feel i was attacking you because that was not the case.

When i said



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> _So for you or anyone to say that it takes alot longer to be an effective fighter in CMA ,it tells me in what type of manner you train._


 
It was not meant to be an insult or degrading in any manner. It just explains what i was saying ,that most CMA schools don't focus just on fighting like those other arts do at the start.



> I know alot of CMAist do not put much weight in it, but can you start and in a couple weeks be doing 20 minutes of full horse stance? No, it takes time just like learning to use your techniques and feel your opponents energy and center takes time.


Well, you can be doing a 20min deep horse stance ,if you are taught properly and practice it religously everyday within a matter of weeks. I'm living proof of that ,i was doing a 20 min deep horse within 3-4 weeks. Unlike most CMA schools ,we did not learn anything until we could hold a deep horse stance for atleast an hr.

I agree that to "feel your opponents energy and center takes time" ,but it's not something that will stop you from being an effective fighter right away. Effective fighter means being able to apply what techniques you have learned no matter how basic they are. More advanced techniques doesn't make you a more effective fighter ,they just add more techniques to your skill set.

You can learn every technique known to man ,but if you don't know when,how,where or why you're using them ,you'll never be an effective fighter!!



> Just be careful criticizing peoples training and saying how long you've trained if you dont know about them, I may have trained alot longer than you. See, length of time in training really is moot in my opinion


Well, i was using my time in training to back up what i was saying ,i never criticised your training. I just said i can tell what type of training you do ,you assumed i was "criticizing" you ,but that was not the case.



> Its good to see you here, and I'm enjoying hearing your views.


Well, thank you very much ,it's great to be here. I love to talk martial arts mainly CMA.

jeff


----------



## WLMantisKid (Jul 22, 2004)

I think most people look down on Kung Fu because there are a lot of practitioners who will think they know the very core of it within a year and will break off and teach their own stuff, or just go fighting when they really have no clue.

It's harder to grasp the concepts of things taught in complicated styles like NPM and Choy Lay Fut and thus it takes longer to reach the same amount of skill demonstrated in MT or whatever. 

Plus Kung Fu is not just learning how to fight most of the time.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 23, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> It was not meant to be an insult or degrading in any manner. It just explains what i was saying ,that most CMA schools don't focus just on fighting like those other arts do at the start.


I agree that some schools do not, but many schools do, and it is not possible for you to "know in what manner I train" according to my ideas about kung fu. In my 22 years in CMA I've never heard any sifu, or experienced kung fu person say they thought kung fu skill was an easy thing to grasp or even say they thought kung fu skill was something to come by in a few weeks. Its simply not so. I think your confusing my words to mean that kung fu is not effective at the beginning, I'm not saying that. What I said was that it takes longer to gain a high level of skill and be extremely effective in your kung fu skill, if you think it only takes a few weeks to grasp controlling your center and your opponents center, developing feel of your opponents energy, it tells me something about the manner in which you yourself train.




			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Well, you can be doing a 20min deep horse stance ,if you are taught properly and practice it religously everyday within a matter of weeks. I'm living proof of that ,i was doing a 20 min deep horse within 3-4 weeks. Unlike most CMA schools ,we did not learn anything until we could hold a deep horse stance for atleast an hr.


Do you mind telling me who your sifu is? If you train this way I probably know of him, there aren't many anymore that train this way. As far as the horse stance I find it hard to believe you held a horse stance with a staff across your knees for an hour within your first few weeks.



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> You can learn every technique known to man ,but if you don't know when,how,where or why you're using them ,you'll never be an effective fighter!!


See, here it seems you agree with me. I'm confused. Do you think its something to grasp in your first few weeks or is it something you have to learn over time? Which is it?

7sm


----------



## clfsean (Jul 23, 2004)

WLMantisKid said:
			
		

> I think most people look down on Kung Fu because there are a lot of practitioners who will think they know the very core of it within a year and will break off and teach their own stuff, or just go fighting when they really have no clue.
> 
> It's harder to grasp the concepts of things taught in complicated styles like NPM and Choy Lay Fut and thus it takes longer to reach the same amount of skill demonstrated in MT or whatever.
> 
> Plus Kung Fu is not just learning how to fight most of the time.


Choy Lee Fut isn't really that complicated. It's really not. Once you get the basics, it happens pretty quickly after that. It was designed to turn out an effective, rounded fighter that could also teach in 2 to 3 years. It could turn out a dead on fighter in year or so. Kinda like Wing Chun... get 'em out, get 'em fighting. 

The late Brendan Lai made a comment once that PM took more than 10 years to master & be competant. That's complicated... CLF is looking at 2 to 3 to turn a functional teacher as well as fighter... a year or so for a front line fighter... That's not complicated.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 23, 2004)

clfsean said:
			
		

> The late Brendan Lai made a comment once that PM took more than 10 years to master & be competant. That's complicated...


We have to remember as well that mantis is the only system created to defeat those well trained in kung fu and especially shaolin monks. I think that is one reason why it is so complicated and takes such a long time to really be quite effective.

7sm


----------



## clfsean (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We have to remember as well that mantis is the only system created to defeat those well trained in kung fu and especially shaolin monks. I think that is one reason why it is so complicated and takes such a long time to really be quite effective.
> 
> 7sm


Ehhhhh.... it can't be the only.... One of the legends of the Bak Mei style is that was created to combat Shaolin styles. There's also the Lama Pai/Tibetan White Crane bunch that may or may not go along with this party line too. I don't know since don't practice those systems, but there's got to be more than _just_ Northern Praying Mantis.

In the meantime, it's all fun!!


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree that some schools do not, but many schools do, and it is not possible for you to "know in what manner I train" according to my ideas about kung fu. In my 22 years in CMA I've never heard any sifu, or experienced kung fu person say they thought kung fu skill was an easy thing to grasp or even say they thought kung fu skill was something to come by in a few weeks. Its simply not so. I think your confusing my words to mean that kung fu is not effective at the beginning, I'm not saying that. What I said was that it takes longer to gain a high level of skill and be extremely effective in your kung fu skill, if you think it only takes a few weeks to grasp controlling your center and your opponents center, developing feel of your opponents energy, it tells me something about the manner in which you yourself train.




I never said kung fu skill was simple or easy to grasp ,what i said was it does not take a long time for someone to be an effective fighter in kung fu ,like many were saying.

If you are taught to fight from the start ,you can be just as effective or more effective ,than any BJJ,Muay Thai,Boxing or MMA stylist ,those were my words.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Do you mind telling me who your sifu is? If you train this way I probably know of him, there aren't many anymore that train this way.


C.Kuen Woo (Frederick Woo) Grandmaster Wong Cheung was my sigung ,if you know anyone ,i'm sure you'll have no problems finding out info on either. Here's a pic of sigung ,sorry i don't have any of sifu right now.










			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> As far as the horse stance I find it hard to believe you held a horse stance with a staff across your knees for an hour within your first few weeks.


*Bro, you really need to read my post.* 

I said i held a 20min deep horse within a matter of weeks. I said we had to hold an hr long deep horse before we learned any forms. I spent my entire first yr in horse stance training with only basics ,that i was able to defend myself with very well within months.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> See, here it seems you agree with me. I'm confused. Do you think its something to grasp in your first few weeks or is it something you have to learn over time? Which is it?
> 7sm


I never said you grasp skills within a few weeks ,i said you could be an effective fighter within a few weeks. Effective fighter doesn't mean you're able to beat everyone you fight within that time. Effective means you can use the techniques you learned within that time effectively.

jeff


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We have to remember as well that mantis is the only system created to defeat those well trained in kung fu and especially shaolin monks. I think that is one reason why it is so complicated and takes such a long time to really be quite effective.
> 
> 7sm


Ohhh boy

Every style of kung fu was created to defeat others well trained in kung fu and martial arts.

So your logic is a bit flawed there.

Wang Lang came up with techniques that at the time were effective against most of the arts taught at the shaolin temple.

He fought some monks ,not every monk.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 23, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Ohhh boy
> 
> Every style of kung fu was created to defeat others well trained in kung fu and martial arts.
> 
> ...


Not so, every system of MA was created to defeat others in martial combat, not specifically trained in kung fu. Other systems of kung fu were not created to best those of shaolin training specifically. Wong Long fought the elder monks, no one is emplying he fought every monk.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 23, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> I never said you grasp skills within a few weeks ,i said you could be an effective fighter within a few weeks. Effective fighter doesn't mean you're able to beat everyone you fight within that time. Effective means you can use the techniques you learned within that time effectively.
> 
> jeff


So it doesn't take grasping skills to be an effective fighter?  Here we go.

You said you couldn't grasp skills in a few weeks, but you can be a very effective fighter in a few weeks. That doestn' make sense, you believe you dont have to grasp skills to be a good fighter?

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So it doesn't take grasping skills to be an effective fighter?  Here we go.
> 
> You said you couldn't grasp skills in a few weeks, but you can be a very effective fighter in a few weeks. That doestn' make sense, you believe you dont have to grasp skills to be a good fighter?
> 
> 7sm


Okay, you're just playing word games now or you don't have the experience in martial arts you claim to have ,because if you did/do you know what i'm saying.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 23, 2004)

LOL, I kind of figured you go back to that. If you write my training or knowledge off, you dont have to explain yourself. I think I know what you mean however. You're saying that even the very basic techniques you learn in kung fu can be very effective, right? Your correct, however to have a high level of skill and oftentimes to use what you know against someone of high skill takes a longer time. Its just teh way it is, anyone I have ever talked to who have spent theri lives in kung fu agree with that.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Not so, every system of MA was created to defeat others in martial combat, not specifically trained in kung fu. Other systems of kung fu were not created to best those of shaolin training specifically. Wong Long fought the elder monks, no one is emplying he fought every monk.
> 
> 7sm


He fought certain elder monks ,those that he did defeat are who his creation bested. There were many different styles taught at shaolin ,because he defeated a certain group of monks does not mean his style was created to defeat those trained in shaolin kung fu.

Monks did not know several styles like movies make them out to have. Most trained in only one style ,even their elders ,so Wang Lang only beat that particular style that those monks knew.

And as far as history goes ,the chinese used and created their arts to defend against eachother as well as others ,so they did create styles to defeat other styles of kung fu. The chinese did not deal with many other races ,other than the japanese and monguls.

jeff


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 23, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> LOL, I kind of figured you go back to that. If you write my training or knowledge off, you dont have to explain yourself.
> 7sm


I don't know what you mean by that ,but ok



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think I know what you mean however. You're saying that even the very basic techniques you learn in kung fu can be very effective, right?
> 7sm


I'm sure you know what i mean.

Yes, the very basic techniques are very effective ,because no matter how far you go in your training ,you realise that ,it's all in the basics!!!



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your correct, however to have a high level of skill and oftentimes to use what you know against someone of high skill takes a longer time. Its just teh way it is, anyone I have ever talked to who have spent theri lives in kung fu agree with that.
> 
> 7sm


Not really!

No matter how much skill you poses ,if you're not a natural fighter ,you'll only be so good. That means that you could lose to a natural fighter with basic skills everytime you fought.

There are only certain skills you can aquire ,the rest you're either born with or you're not!

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 24, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> No matter how much skill you poses ,if you're not a natural fighter ,you'll only be so good. That means that you could lose to a natural fighter with basic skills everytime you fought.
> 
> There are only certain skills you can aquire ,the rest you're either born with or you're not!
> 
> jeff


Ok, well I guess we will have to just disagree on this issue. What is the motivation for someone who is not a "natural fighter" to train in martial arts? I think to predict the outcome of a fight "everytime" is not only inexperienced but nieve. Its impossible to say any one person would win or lose everytime. As anyone who has trained in any MA style for long knows, a fight is completely and in all other ways unpredictable. To say that a "born fighter" with only basic skills could beat a trained "unatural fighter" regardless of skill level everytime is just plain wrong.

I'm not trying to offend you, but I completely disagree with you here. Thats ok though, we can disagree.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Jul 25, 2004)

If you focus primarily on fighting , and sparring of course you will learn " how to fight" sooner, and it doesnt matter what "style" it is. Some styles generally focus more on sparring and fighting no matter what school you go to. People then tend to classify alot of these as sports styles. However there is nothing wrong with that. If a person really only wanted to learn how to fight quickly I would probably recommend muy thai or san da ( if they could find it) and some filipino knife style. Between learning solid kickboxing and some weapons skills they have alot of ground covered. 
    I love kung fu but often ( not always) there is such a large amount of material and so many fine details (like some not all styles of jujitsu) it can take a long time to be reasonably proficient, and alot of people dont have the time or patience.
  Also alot of people starting martial arts really have no clue what they really want or what they are getting into. Looking back I can see how in some ways I could have used my time better but overall I have few regrets about my training choices. 
      I say this as a person who tried shorin ryu, kyukushin, tae kwon do, jujitsu, and fmas. Not everybody whos a good fighter can teach, and jsut because your teacher makes the style work for him, it may still not be the best for you no matter how hard you try. 
     The best a person can do is check out alot of schools and even after they find one still check out other schools so you can keep a balanced view of what and how you are being taught.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 26, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, well I guess we will have to just disagree on this issue. What is the motivation for someone who is not a "natural fighter" to train in martial arts?


You're missing the point bro!

I'm not trying to be a azz or funny ,but i really don't think you have as much experience as you claim. Because you should understand what i'm saying and it's just not getting through to you.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think to predict the outcome of a fight "everytime" is not only inexperienced but nieve. Its impossible to say any one person would win or lose everytime. As anyone who has trained in any MA style for long knows, a fight is completely and in all other ways unpredictable. To say that a "born fighter" with only basic skills could beat a trained "unatural fighter" regardless of skill level everytime is just plain wrong.


Read this quote!



			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> That means that you could lose to a natural fighter with basic skills everytime you fought.


Show me where i said YOU would lose everytime!

I said you "COULD" lose to them because ,it's more natural for them ,they don't have to work at being smooth or fast etc...

I'm really trying to stay away from a long drawn out explanation ,but if i need to do so ,i will.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to offend you, but I completely disagree with you here. Thats ok though, we can disagree.
> 
> 7sm


Why would your not agreeing with me offend me?

This is a discussion forum ppl will disagree ,i'm a mod and super mod at three martial arts forums ,ive never seen a thread where everyone agrees yet.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 26, 2004)

Thats cool man, I wont attack your training and say you are lying about your training because you dont agree with me. 

I just simply dont agree that a "natural fighter" is born and can beat people trained in MA for years just simply because it comes natural to them. In my opinion, if you had been training as long as you say you have you would get that, but thats not the point. Your training time has nothing to do with it, so I dont think like that. You saying in every post that I dont have the experience I say I do is just getting annoying.

7sm


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jul 26, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats cool man, I wont attack your training and say you are lying about your training because you dont agree with me.


Bro, it's not that i'm attacking your training ,it's just that these are things that anyone that has spent time in martial arts as long as you said you have would know.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I just simply dont agree that a "natural fighter" is born and can beat people trained in MA for years just simply because it comes natural to them. In my opinion, if you had been training as long as you say you have you would get that, but thats not the point. Your training time has nothing to do with it, so I dont think like that. You saying in every post that I dont have the experience I say I do is just getting annoying.
> 
> 7sm


I said with Basics i didn't say just off the street this would happen.

Bro you turn my words around everytime you reply to me. Please try to READ my post and respond to what i wrote.

jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 27, 2004)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> Bro, it's not that i'm attacking your training ,it's just that these are things that anyone that has spent time in martial arts as long as you said you have would know.





			
				Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> I said with Basics i didn't say just off the street this would happen.
> 
> Bro you turn my words around everytime you reply to me. Please try to READ my post and respond to what i wrote.
> 
> jeff






Ok bro, I'm not turning your words around. I'll rephrase it using your exact words so that you'll be more comfortable: I just simply dont agree that a "natural fighter" with basics can beat people trained in MA for years just simply because it comes natural to them.

There, is that better? And as far as attacking my training, that is exactly what your doing and you know it. I'm fine with it, but its a little obnoxious. For you to say, "anyone who has really been training a long time must agree with me or else they haven't really been training" is not only obnoxious but nieve. It reeks of inexperience and thus becomes obnoxious if its in every post. Lets just forget that I asked you to explain something you said and you dont know how, ok? Then we can just get on with a true discussion. 


Now, to get back on topic....

Regardless of how long you train in kung fu, it has very effective techniques. Many times it does take longer than others to be extremely efficient, but even the basic techniques can be effective. I would deffinitely advise anyone interested in CMA to look into some kung fu classes, there is alot to learn and most are very street effective. It does all depend on the teacher and their focus, but most I've been to seem to have a good fighting focus.

7sm


----------



## Tames D (Jan 12, 2007)

Black Tiger Fist said:


> There's always one no matter what forum you go to ,there's always one person that has no knowledge what so ever about CMA (kung Fu) ,that always wants to tell you how useless it is for self defense.
> 
> It's not the style that's useless ,it's the person who taught it to them or the person themself who doesn't put in the kung fu (skill in,hard work) to achieve anything. But you'll always have ppl that claim kung fu is useless ,without ever attempting it themselves.
> 
> jeff


 
I totally agree. I stopped responding to those types a long time ago. Hell, my style of Kung Fu has been dismissed as non effective by some people just because it uses the belt ranking system. Of course it can't be a good fighting system if we use belts to rank, LOL. Well I don't feel the need to sell anyone... I know what works and I wouldn't still be training in this after 35 years if it wasn't effective.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Jan 12, 2007)

QUI-GON said:


> I know what works and I wouldn't still be training in this after 35 years if it wasn't effective.




After 35yrs you should be able to do it backwards and while spinning on your head.


jeff


----------



## Tames D (Jan 12, 2007)

Black Tiger Fist said:


> After 35yrs you should be able to do it backwards and while spinning on your head.
> 
> 
> jeff


Only after a 12 pak of Heineken...lol


----------



## L Canyon (Jan 14, 2007)

Mon Mon said:


> Hey guys i do budo taijutsu and was thinking of doing kungfu so how effective is kungfu for self defense i don't want a sport martial art.



why don't you check out San Soo? It's a 5 family art, with pretty much just fighting techniques taught (apparently Jimmy Woo felt that Americans didn't want internal training from him).


----------

