# Kung Fu vs MMA



## Martial D




----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

While I'm tired of all these style vs style that have been making a comeback, at least it shows that kung fu does not mean no grappling ability.

More than anything its just two guys fighting. Their style doesnt have nearly as much to do with it as their own abilities.

Edit: I find it funny how all the comments on yt are saying he must have crosstrained because he sprawled. Because obviously no kung fu style could teach that, and him being able to handle it must mean hes actually an MMA fighter in disguise.


----------



## Headhunter

Oh for god sake you've got to be kidding me


----------



## Tez3

Oh goodie, another style v style video. Just what we needed, not.


----------



## drop bear

Martial arts was definitely the looser in that fight.

Does anyone know what promotion that was?


----------



## Martial D

I just thought you guys would enjoy some cma coming out on top. (As the trend seems to be the opposite)

I enjoyed it. That's the same mma guy that's been challenging and belittling cma masters. The preying mantis guy whooped him.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

My biggest gripe about these videos, actually, is that nothing actually happens until halfway into the video.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> I just thought you guys would enjoy some cma coming out on top. (As the trend seems to be the opposite)
> 
> I enjoyed it. That's the same mma guy that's been challenging and belittling cma masters. The preying mantis guy whooped him.


Not really people are just bored of these type of videos. No one actually cares about which style wins


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> Not really people are just bored of these type of videos. No one actually cares about which style wins



You took the words out of my mouth. I haven't watched the video because I don't care who wins, I've seen thousands of competitive fights live I don't care about videos made by people I've never heard and posted just to start arguments.


----------



## Danny T

Sport fighting...unless something unusual happens...half of the fighters Lose.
Even all those amazing mma fights...in every fight 50% lose.
Not a great win/lose ratio.


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> You took the words out of my mouth. I haven't watched the video because I don't care who wins, I've seen thousands of competitive fights live I don't care about videos made by people I've never heard and posted just to start arguments.


With all due respect, your intonations as to my motivation for posting this video couldn't be more wrong. 
As per competition, without it you are left with only faith and dogma, and in my opinion those two ingredients ruin rather than make effective martial arts training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Headhunter said:


> Not really people are just bored of these type of videos. No one actually cares about which style wins


I guess I won't show the fight that I recently had against a guy from at a MMA gym.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess I won't show the fight that I recently had against a guy from at a MMA gym.


lol.  I guess no one fell for that one.


----------



## Martial D

I was actually watching a couple of your uploads last night. All the props in the world for doing real sparring.

Question, how different do you think your style would be if you did not?


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> With all due respect, your intonations as to my motivation for posting this video couldn't be more wrong.
> As per competition, without it you are left with only faith and dogma, and in my opinion those two ingredients ruin rather than make effective martial arts training.


Or people here simply don't care. Everyone who knows anything about martial arts knows that anyone can win on any given day regardless of style and frankly there's been like 10 of these types of video lately any discussion that could be had has been done now


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I was actually watching a couple of your uploads last night. All the props in the world for doing real sparring.
> 
> Question, how different do you think your style would be if you did not?


Is this question directed to me?


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> Or people here simply don't care. Everyone who knows anything about martial arts knows that anyone can win on any given day regardless of style and frankly there's been like 10 of these types of video lately any discussion that could be had has been done now


I'm pretty certain you speak for only one person here. I feel everyone else is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Is this question directed to me?


Yes.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> I'm pretty certain you speak for only one person here. I feel everyone else is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.


And look at the replies you've had. Sounds like everyone's got the same opinion


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu vs the world....... Yeah, I've had enough of these things so I will posts these and go....







And now for the finale


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I was actually watching a couple of your uploads last night. All the props in the world for doing real sparring.
> 
> Question, how different do you think your style would be if you did not?


Sparring is EVERYTHING especially when it comes to Kung Fu.  There is no way to fully understand kung fu without sparring.  When I say sparring is everything, I mean that I have to use the techniques that I drill.  If I don't use Jow Ga Kung techniques in sparring then I won't be good with using Jow Ga Kung Fu.  This applies with all fighting system.  If I didn't spar using Jow Ga then I would be like the guy in red from Video 3.  Keep in mind that this is not an insult to anyone that doesn't spar.  Not everyone takes martial arts to learn how to fight with it.

Here's the difference between a Jow Ga student  who spars using Jow Ga vs a Jow Ga student who doesn't spar using Jow Ga. You can clearly see the difference of who spars and who doesn't

Video#1.  This is the closest I've gotten to actually fighting using Jow Ga.  I'm at 40% speed and power and I'm still pulling punches and kicks to protect my sparring partner.  It is the only time I have sparred without the focus of learning.  My sparring partner to this day thought I was going at 60% percent.  But in the video this is me just relaxing. When you relax speed and power increases greatly even if you aren't adding to it.

Video # 2  Jow Ga from Australia sparring they are always working and sparring with Jow Ga Kung Fu.  they have a lot of sparring videos





Video #3 Jow Ga student that claims 30 years of martial arts experience. Jow Ga is in the red.  You can find more of his Youtube videos here


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> Sport fighting...unless something unusual happens...half of the fighters Lose.
> Even all those amazing mma fights...in every fight 50% lose.
> Not a great win/lose ratio.


When there is

- birth, there is death.
- together, there is separate.
- win, there is lose.
- ...

Of course if you don't own anything, you won't lose anything. If you never compete, you will never lose. If you compete, you will have to take chance to lose.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Headhunter said:


> And look at the replies you've had. Sounds like everyone's got the same opinion


Almost the same. I'm the exception.  In order for a kung fu practitioner to come out on top, they only have to try to use the style that they train in.  If a kung fu practitioner is going to lose then at least lose by doing kung fu.   I've seen so many Kung Fu vs ??? videos and very few actually has kung fu in it.  Like the MMA vs Tai chi.   The guy claims to be a Tai Chi master and when the fight came he didn't use any Tai Chi at all.  Not even basic Tai Chi.  This is what I don't like and what irritates me the most.  People claiming to be something and then never showing those techniques that they claim to be good at.
This guy may have lost, but he made an effort to use what he trains and you can see the respect he gets at the end for doing so.  You can also see the winner lay on the ground breathing hard. So we know he did his best as well.





No one likes a fake.  It's ok for people to say.  I train martial arts but I don't train to use it in a fight.  People can and do respect that. Almost every fighter respects effort because they know from first hand experience that it's not easy learning how to use the techniques.  It takes effort and practice.  If kung fu practitioners would have done this from the beginning then there would be less of a Style vs Style mentality out there.  Some people say that Kung Fu is about being honorable but then you have those same people go out and be less than honest about their ability.  People like that are full of Ego, arrogance, and lack honor because they can't be honest to themselves about their training.

I'll get off my soap box now.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Sparring is EVERYTHING especially when it comes to Kung Fu.  There is no way to fully understand kung fu without sparring.  When I say sparring is everything, I mean that I have to use the techniques that I drill.  If I don't use Jow Ga Kung techniques in sparring then I won't be good with using Jow Ga Kung Fu.  This applies with all fighting system.  If I didn't spar using Jow Ga then I would be like the guy in red from Video 3.  Keep in mind that this is not an insult to anyone that doesn't spar.  Not everyone takes martial arts to learn how to fight with it.
> 
> Here's the difference between a Jow Ga student  who spars using Jow Ga vs a Jow Ga student who doesn't spar using Jow Ga. You can clearly see the difference of who spars and who doesn't
> 
> Video#1.  This is the closest I've gotten to actually fighting using Jow Ga.  I'm at 40% speed and power and I'm still pulling punches and kicks to protect my sparring partner.  It is the only time I have sparred without the focus of learning.  My sparring partner to this day thought I was going at 60% percent.  But in the video this is me just relaxing. When you relax speed and power increases greatly even if you aren't adding to it.
> 
> Video # 2  Jow Ga from Australia sparring they are always working and sparring with Jow Ga Kung Fu.  they have a lot of sparring videos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video #3 Jow Ga student that claims 30 years of martial arts experience. Jow Ga is in the red.  You can find more of his Youtube videos here


You raise an important point. When I was training pure Wing Chun, it took concerted effort to maintain technique during live sparring. Learning different hand positions and footwork is one thing, but using them in an alive situation is TOTALLY different.

This is why, I believe, we see so many supposedly high level Kung Fu guys get rolled in these videos. Many schools have become detached from the 'martial' part of their art.


----------



## JowGaWolf

By the way, the Drunken Kung fu concept of fighting is more like this.  If I were to use the concept, it would be from the aspect of me faking that I'm extremely exhausted or dazed / wounded from a punch that landed. I want to fake that I'm really injured when I'm not.  I may also fake clumsiness with my footwork to make my opponent think that I'm uncoordinated.  The key is not to oversell when faking.


----------



## Steve

I don't personally get a lot out of these types of videos.  I bet, though, that the competitors learned a lot about what they are good and not very good at from the experience.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> I don't personally get a lot out of these types of videos.  I bet, though, that the competitors learned a lot about what they are good and not very good at from the experience.


Ya, the vid is just an illustration. There's a lot of 'this doesn't work because it's not mma and especially cma hate out there by those that are hypnotized by the status quo.

Let's look at the history of mma public perception. First, nobody thought striking worked, and that all real fights end up on the ground. The haters hated on striking. Then the striking caught up. Then people said traditional styles of grappling didn't work, and along comes a few top notch judo players. They hated on karate for a while, same thing happens.Karatekas Killin it.

Now the focus of the haters is cma and aikido. Will the trend continue?


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Ya, the vid is just an illustration. There's a lot of 'this doesn't work because it's not mma and especially cma hate out there by those that are hypnotized by the status quo.
> 
> Let's look at the history of mma public perception. First, nobody thought striking worked, and that all real fights end up on the ground. The haters hated on striking. Then the striking caught up. Then people said traditional styles of grappling didn't work, and along comes a few top notch judo players. They hated on karate for a while, same thing happens.Karatekas Killin it.
> 
> Now the focus of the haters is cma and aikido. Will the trend continue?



Sigh. Look the fan boys maybe thought all that but those of us who have been in MMA since it first came about didn't. The public didn't know anything about MMA so wouldn't have had any perception of what it was supposed to be. No one hated striking, it's all waffle you have got from somewhere. Sigh.


----------



## Martial D

I don't know about that. I think that for a long time, styles have been largely homogenus and isolated from each other. I think as a result of this, many of them withered and stagnated.

I think the Advent of mma and these sorts of hard looks has been a boon around the board in terms of bringing the 'martial' back to tma.


----------



## DanT

This tribute video contains lots of footage of Shaolin monks sparring outsiders. Watch how the monks stay true to their techniques. This is videos of live sparring, not a movie, yet they actually practice using their techniques in sparring.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> many of them withered and stagnated.



The act of withering precludes stagnating...care to name the style that did either of these?



Martial D said:


> these sorts of hard looks



Hard looks can really hurt..........


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> The act of withering precludes stagnating...care to name the style that did either of these?
> 
> 
> 
> Hard looks can really hurt..........


Many forms of traditional martial arts across the board,we both know there are many schools within every style. Any school that does not face the world..ie instructors that don't understand actual combat teaching students and the cycle perpetuates.


----------



## Buka

Danny T said:


> Sport fighting...unless something unusual happens...half of the fighters Lose.
> Even all those amazing mma fights...in every fight 50% lose.
> Not a great win/lose ratio.



I never thought of that. That's pretty cool.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> Sport fighting...unless something unusual happens...half of the fighters Lose.
> Even all those amazing mma fights...in every fight 50% lose.
> Not a great win/lose ratio.


That's why I compete against kids.  Pads the win column.

Seriously, though, losing is a valuable and necessary part of competition.  Unless you want to be a pro, it literally doesn't matter whether you win or lose.  Winning is validation that what you worked on in preparation for that competition worked. But win or lose, you will learn a lot about what you are good at and what you are not good at.


----------



## Tez3

Martial D said:


> Many forms of traditional martial arts across the board,we both know there are many schools within every style. Any school that does not face the world..ie instructors that don't understand actual combat teaching students and the cycle perpetuates.



That's a politicians answer, tell us nothing at all. 'School that doesn't face the world', that doesn't mean anything either. So, really the answer is you don't know.


----------



## Steve

A good example of withering and stagnating is aikido.  Not my judgment.  Aikidoka have acknowledged this and are concerned. It's pretty awesome to see so many dedicated aikidoka making a conscious effort to reverse the trend.

another is Tai Chi.  Xue Sheng has addressed this in detail in some of his recent posts.


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> That's why I compete against kids.  Pads the win column.
> 
> Seriously, though, losing is a valuable and necessary part of competition.  Unless you want to be a pro, it literally doesn't matter whether you win or lose.  Winning is validation that what you worked on in preparation for that competition worked. But win or lose, you will learn a lot about what you are good at and what you are not good at.


I agree. Not knocking it. Just the great style vs style showdowns are foolish. 50% of the participants will lose...it doesn't mean one style is better only that individual at that time won.
In the long run it comes down to how one trains their particular whatever. Do they train to actually fight someone who fights or do they train it to fight someone who doesn't know how to fight. How much time is spent on actually developing fighting skills, or self defense skills, or forms skills, or fitness skills. All will have different level of fighting abilities. And then there is the Luck factor. Over the years have seen a lot of competitions where the less skill, less refined fighter who was getting a lesson suddenly get a lucky shot in and win. Does that mean they are better fighters or were they just fortunate to get in a good shot?


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> I agree. Not knocking it. Just the great style vs style showdowns are foolish. 50% of the participants will lose...it doesn't mean one style is better only that individual at that time won.
> In the long run it comes down to how one trains their particular whatever. Do they train to actually fight someone who fights or do they train it to fight someone who doesn't know how to fight. How much time is spent on actually developing fighting skills, or self defense skills, or forms skills, or fitness skills. All will have different level of fighting abilities. And then there is the Luck factor. Over the years have seen a lot of competitions where the less skill, less refined fighter who was getting a lesson suddenly get a lucky shot in and win. Does that mean they are better fighters or were they just fortunate to get in a good shot?


Honestly, I'm just glad some of these guys are taking the risk of failure.  I don't care how bad you are.  If you step up and give it a shot, you'll be better for it. 

I try not to get into dissecting the competition videos for exactly this reason.  So much we don't know about the level of competition or anything else.  The exception is when someone purports to be an expert, and clearly doesn't have skill (e.g., ninja anti-grappling).


----------



## Martial D

Tez3 said:


> That's a politicians answer, tell us nothing at all. 'School that doesn't face the world', that doesn't mean anything either. So, really the answer is you don't know.


I thought I was pretty clear. How about this, a lot of Karate, Kung Fu, Taekwondo, Aikido, Jujitsu, Hapkido, and Tai Chi schools.

Any school that advertises as a combat art but does not train for alive combat.


----------



## Martial D

Danny T said:


> Does that mean they are better fighters or were they just fortunate to get in a good shot?



No, but it means both of them aquired  a taste of the  sort of real life practical application that even a lifetime of drilling with compliant partners would never give them.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Not really people are just bored of these type of videos. No one actually cares about which style wins



Yet you still take time out to comment. seems a bit strange


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> Yet you still take time out to comment. seems a bit strange


Not at all actually I see the title have a look to see if it's a proper discussion, find out it's nothing but another video so I comment my opinion which takes up about 30 seconds of my time which I'm not doing anything anyway which is why I'm on here at the time


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Not at all actually I see the title have a look to see if it's a proper discussion, find out it's nothing but another video so I comment my opinion which takes up about 30 seconds of my time which I'm not doing anything anyway which is why I'm on here at the time



You were the first person to post. You were the discussion.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> You were the first person to post. You were the discussion.


Actually no I wasn't


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Actually no I wasn't



Sorry second response.

If someone finds a topic boring they just dont respond. Not jump on every thread they don't like. Just to say how much they dont like it.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> Sorry second response.
> 
> If someone finds a topic boring they just dont respond. Not jump on every thread they don't like. Just to say how much they dont like it.


And why are you singling me out for this loads of people have said it multiple times not just me


----------



## Buka

I didn't watch the OP video until just now. Clicked on it and went ahead to about the half way point (as gpseymour pointed out, nothing happens until half way in.)

So, I'm watching for a bit, and I'm not sure which guy is the MMA guy and which guy is the Kung Fu guy. So I rewind and find out.
Got me to thinking - maybe we all look that same way when we fight. Not anything, or not much, being reflective of what our particular styles are known for (be that right or wrong) but just looking like we're in a fight.

Gives me something to think about on this Monday of my work week.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I didn't watch the OP video until just now. Clicked on it and went ahead to about the half way point (as gpseymour pointed out, nothing happens until half way in.)
> 
> So, I'm watching for a bit, and I'm not sure which guy is the MMA guy and which guy is the Kung Fu guy. So I rewind and find out.
> Got me to thinking - maybe we all look that same way when we fight. Not anything, or not much, being reflective of what our particular styles are known for (be that right or wrong) but just looking like we're in a fight.
> 
> Gives me something to think about on this Monday of my work week.


I've been saying this for a long time.  People think Kung fu has a bunch of stylized techniques and stuff.  It's a training methodology.  Fighting doesn't look like that.  Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.


----------



## Headhunter

Flying Crane said:


> I've been saying this for a long time.  People think Kung fu has a bunch of stylized techniques and stuff.  It's a training methodology.  Fighting doesn't look like that.  Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.


Agreed that's why all this style vs style thing is nonsense. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick and a takedown is a takedown doesn't matter what you call it


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Flying Crane said:


> I've been saying this for a long time.  People think Kung fu has a bunch of stylized techniques and stuff.  It's a training methodology.  Fighting doesn't look like that.  Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.



Totally agree.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> If someone finds a topic boring they just dont respond. Not jump on every thread they don't like. Just to say how much they dont like it.



or they respond trying to prod someone into actually posting something interesting rather than generic 'ooo if you don't train alive you aren't doing real martial arts', I always think it's more interesting to train against the dead, zombies don't bore you with small talk while you're sparring.
Really, can't we have something really interesting? Hint..not a style v style, not an MMA beats everything thread, not an Aikido doesn't work one. No, I don't have time at the moment, I have a Guide camp and a Brownie pack holiday to go on, the girls are extremely sad at the moment, one of those killed in Manchester was a Brownie, one of our 'ten million sisters'. So for goodness sake find something bloody interesting to post.


----------



## Flying Crane

Headhunter said:


> Agreed that's why all this style vs style thing is nonsense. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick and a takedown is a takedown doesn't matter what you call it


Yeah.  The real difference is in the methodology of how you develop that punch and kick and takedown.  Some body mechanics, and how they are developed, might be done a bit differently.  What people think is "stylized" is often just an exaggeration, done to emphasize a body mechanic.


----------



## Martial D

There is a wide variety of what real fighting looks like. Inside and outside of competition.

I am not saying all martial arts are for fighting, or that all martial artist should fight. What I am saying is that if a given sifu or sensei sells there brand as a combat art, it should involve some combat training and sparring. If it doesn't you are being sold snake oil.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> maybe we all look that same way when we fight.


lol  I'm pretty sure I'm the exception to that lol


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> or they respond trying to prod someone into actually posting something interesting rather than generic 'ooo if you don't train alive you aren't doing real martial arts', I always think it's more interesting to train against the dead, zombies don't bore you with small talk while you're sparring.
> Really, can't we have something really interesting? Hint..not a style v style, not an MMA beats everything thread, not an Aikido doesn't work one. No, I don't have time at the moment, I have a Guide camp and a Brownie pack holiday to go on, the girls are extremely sad at the moment, one of those killed in Manchester was a Brownie, one of our 'ten million sisters'. So for goodness sake find something bloody interesting to post.



There is nothing stopping you from starting interesting threads. 

I am not sure why you are making the creation of threads you find interesting the sole job of othet people.  Seems pretty selfish.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I didn't watch the OP video until just now. Clicked on it and went ahead to about the half way point (as gpseymour pointed out, nothing happens until half way in.)
> 
> So, I'm watching for a bit, and I'm not sure which guy is the MMA guy and which guy is the Kung Fu guy. So I rewind and find out.
> Got me to thinking - maybe we all look that same way when we fight. Not anything, or not much, being reflective of what our particular styles are known for (be that right or wrong) but just looking like we're in a fight.
> 
> Gives me something to think about on this Monday of my work week.



That was a pretty ugly fight by any standards though


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Agreed that's why all this style vs style thing is nonsense. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick and a takedown is a takedown doesn't matter what you call it



I keep telling people this when they say I am not a kung fu instructor. It is all the same.  So long as I am doing some sort of punch or kick that is all that really matters.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> I've been saying this for a long time.  People think Kung fu has a bunch of stylized techniques and stuff.  It's a training methodology.  Fighting doesn't look like that.  Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.



no no no...EVERYBODY knows that ALL Kung Fu (Wushu) fights look like this


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I've been saying this for a long time.  People think Kung fu has a bunch of stylized techniques and stuff.  It's a training methodology.  Fighting doesn't look like that.  Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.


I don't agree that it all looks the same.  We analyze footage of fights all the time, and can identify all sorts of things that reflect how people are trained. 

Takes you guys seconds to dissect good technique vs bad, and I can't count how many times CMA guys have written off fight footage because you can clearly see that the guys aren't well trained in their styles.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that @JowGaWolf 's fighting will look like Jow Ga.  I've read enough about how he trains to believe that.  But I also think he'd learn a lot about his training and skill level if he competed outside of his style.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Fighting doesn't look like that. Fighting is ugly, it all looks kind of th same.


Fighting doesn't look all the same to me.  Not even just a little.  No one can look at how I fight and say that I look like karate, wing chun, boxing, ninjitsu, tkd, or any other system that is not a part of Jow Ga or similar to Jow Ga.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting doesn't look all the same to me.  Not even just a little.  No one can look at how I fight and say that I look like karate, wing chun, boxing, ninjitsu, tkd, or any other system that is not a part of Jow Ga or similar to Jow Ga.


Crazy, I mention you in a post and like the genie, BAM, you are there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that @JowGaWolf 's fighting will look like Jow Ga. I've read enough about how he trains to believe that. But I also think he'd learn a lot about his training and skill level if he competed outside of his style.


100% correct.  I also learn more about my style by competing against people form other systems.  I really have a distaste for Jow Ga vs Jow Ga and the more I train the more I really can't stand it.  Style A vs Style A is very limiting in terms of me gaining valuable knowledge and understanding about Jow Ga techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting doesn't look all the same to me.  Not even just a little.  No one can look at how I fight and say that I look like karate, wing chun, boxing, ninjitsu, tkd, or any other system that is not a part of Jow Ga or similar to Jow Ga.


I know you do jow ga, but I don't know much about the method.  I suspect that if I saw you in a real fight, in self defense, there may be some tell-tale identifying issues that would reveal the fact that you have training.  But in the big picture, in the hostile combative adrenaline dumping chaotic combat, it would look much like anything else.

Your sparring may look more like jow ga.  But that is a different environment.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Xue Sheng said:


> no no no...EVERYBODY knows that ALL Kung Fu (Wushu) fights look like this


Yeah, the original fight video was missing the sound effects on every strike and block. Also neither of the fighters stopped to comment on their opponent's skills or boast about their own style. Clearly not authentic Kung Fu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Crazy, I mention you in a post and like the genie, BAM, you are there.


  I saw your message right after I posted and thought the same thing lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Headhunter said:


> Not really people are just bored of these type of videos. No one actually cares about which style wins


We can all learn from these kind of video. What's more important to train how to stop a guy who runs toward you and tries to knock your head off? We should all treat that kind of training as high priority. It's strategy, strategy, and still strategy.

Move around, don't be a sitting duck.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, the original fight video was missing the sound effects on every strike and block. Also neither of the fighters stopped to comment on their opponent's skills or boast about their own style. Clearly not authentic Kung Fu.



Its the END fight Tony...they never EVER comment during the end fight....all the comments about skill where prior to and leading up to this...and I am hearing the sound effects just fine....not sure why you don't.....but.....sheesh...you couldn't have made it more blatantly OBVIOUS you are NOT a Kung Fu guy.....


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> in the hostile combative adrenaline dumping chaotic combat, it would look much like anything else.


It would look like Jow Ga Kung Fu but more intense.  I would not abandon what I train any more than a BJJ practitioner would abandon their training in a real fight.  I've been using Jow Ga techniques for so long now that I don't know any other way to fight.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> It would look like Jow Ga Kung Fu but more intense.  I would not abandon what I train any more than a BJJ practitioner would abandon their training in a real fight.  I've been using Jow Ga techniques for so long now that I don't know any other way to fight.


I've not made any suggestion to abandon what you train.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I've not made any suggestion to abandon what you train.


Yes I know.  I'm just saying that I don't know any other way to fight other than to use Jow Ga.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes I know.  I'm just saying that I don't know any other way to fight other than to use Jow Ga.


I'm not saying that you would not be using jow ga.

I am saying that you WOULD be using jow ga, but what that means and what that looks like in the chaos of a genuine fight or self defense situation is not what most people assume.

If you really understand your jow ga, then it is the principles that are most important.  The techniques, while useful and important, are an expression of the principles.  In practice, the techniques are often exaggerated, as a way to help emphasize the principles.  When  that skill has been developed, then, IN ACTUAL USE, that exaggeration can be dropped, and the principles are still being utilized, on a more compact and un-exaggerated technique.

This is using your jow ga.  Not what it LOOKS like, but rather, the principles underneath, that power your technique, regardless of what it looks like.

The exaggerated training methods can leave you vulnerable if you try to use them in a fight.  But the exaggeration is not meant to be used in the fight. It is a training methodology, meant to emphasize the principles and the body mechanics.

Maybe this issue seems so clear to me because my system uses a very exaggerated training method.  Maybe I'm on that extreme end of the spectrum, while others are less so.


----------



## clfsean

JowGaWolf said:


> lol  I'm pretty sure I'm the exception to that lol



Ummmm....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> With all due respect, your intonations as to my motivation for posting this video couldn't be more wrong.
> As per competition, without it you are left with only faith and dogma, and in my opinion those two ingredients ruin rather than make effective martial arts training.


A formal competition isn't a necessary element in testing a style's effectiveness. It's a helpful one in some ways, but not the only way of challenging dogma.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's why I compete against kids.  Pads the win column.
> 
> Seriously, though, losing is a valuable and necessary part of competition.  Unless you want to be a pro, it literally doesn't matter whether you win or lose.  Winning is validation that what you worked on in preparation for that competition worked. But win or lose, you will learn a lot about what you are good at and what you are not good at.


Okay, Kramer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> A good example of withering and stagnating is aikido.  Not my judgment.  Aikidoka have acknowledged this and are concerned. It's pretty awesome to see so many dedicated aikidoka making a conscious effort to reverse the trend.
> 
> another is Tai Chi.  Xue Sheng has addressed this in detail in some of his recent posts.


I'm not sure what "withering" means in this context, but there has certainly been a lot of stagnation in Ueshiba's art.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> A formal competition isn't a necessary element in testing a style's effectiveness. It's a helpful one in some ways, but not the only way of challenging dogma.


Not about challenging dogma, although that's a by product of it, in my opinion. 

Regarding testing a style's effectiveness, I can think of a few ways to do that.  Competition.  Working as a professional cop, bouncer, body guard, soldier, or soldier of fortune.  Criminal. 

Only one of those is practical and accessible for the average person.  Can you think of others?  I can't.  I can think of other ways to train that are great.  But training is not testing.  One leads to the other.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what "withering" means in this context, but there has certainly been a lot of stagnation in Ueshiba's art.


yeah, I don't know if I'd use the term "withering" but I don't think I'm speaking out of school to mention the stagnation to which you refer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Danny T said:


> I agree. Not knocking it. Just the great style vs style showdowns are foolish. 50% of the participants will lose...it doesn't mean one style is better only that individual at that time won.
> In the long run it comes down to how one trains their particular whatever. Do they train to actually fight someone who fights or do they train it to fight someone who doesn't know how to fight. How much time is spent on actually developing fighting skills, or self defense skills, or forms skills, or fitness skills. All will have different level of fighting abilities. And then there is the Luck factor. Over the years have seen a lot of competitions where the less skill, less refined fighter who was getting a lesson suddenly get a lucky shot in and win. Does that mean they are better fighters or were they just fortunate to get in a good shot?


When I watch style-v-style videos, I'm looking for the ones where I see some interesting approach or tactic that seems to fit one style well against the other. It's not so much for me about which style is "better", rather it's a chance to see what works against a style and to try to figure out if it's particular to the opposing style or something that can be adopted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting doesn't look all the same to me.  Not even just a little.  No one can look at how I fight and say that I look like karate, wing chun, boxing, ninjitsu, tkd, or any other system that is not a part of Jow Ga or similar to Jow Ga.


I'd agree on your style, JGW. For many styles, though, there are some quite similar postures and approaches used. For those styles, it can be much harder to pinpoint anything that's particularly "signature" of that style in actual use, even if it's more recognizable in practice (due to practice methods used).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> yeah, I don't know if I'd use the term "withering" but I don't think I'm speaking out of school to mention the stagnation to which you refer.


There may be withering, too. I'm just not sure what that would mean, unless it refers to an art that's shrinking dramatically in following (and that doesn't seem to be happening in any unexpected fashion in Aikido, just yet).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not about challenging dogma, although that's a by product of it, in my opinion.
> 
> Regarding testing a style's effectiveness, I can think of a few ways to do that.  Competition.  Working as a professional cop, bouncer, body guard, soldier, or soldier of fortune.  Criminal.
> 
> Only one of those is practical and accessible for the average person.  Can you think of others?  I can't.  I can think of other ways to train that are great.  But training is not testing.  One leads to the other.


Informal "competition" fits in there, too. Working and sparring with people you don't know (at least from a training perspective) both within and outside your own art/style.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Informal "competition" fits in there, too. Working and sparring with people you don't know (at least from a training perspective) both within and outside your own art/style.


I wouldn't consider sparring to be competition, even informal.  It's helpful and a great way to train, but it's not testing.  It's part of preparing for the test.  Same with "working" with people you don't know.  Very, very different things, IMO.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> A formal competition isn't a necessary element in testing a style's effectiveness. It's a helpful one in some ways, but not the only way of challenging dogma.


No, there is also informal competition. 

What other ways are there to test effectiveness without a resisting opponent?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> No, there is also informal competition.
> 
> What other ways are there to test effectiveness without a resisting opponent?


- sparring/wrestling training.
- friendly challenge.
- unfriendly challenge.
- tournament fight.
- body guard, security service fight.
- street fight.
- battle field fight.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - sparring/wrestling training.
> - friendly challenge.
> - unfriendly challenge.
> - tournament fight.
> - body guard, security service fight.
> - street fight.
> - battle field fight.


So which of those does not involve a resisting opponent?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> So which of those does not involve a resisting opponent?


None. Competition is the "only" way to test your MA skill.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not saying that you would not be using jow ga.
> 
> I am saying that you WOULD be using jow ga, but what that means and what that looks like in the chaos of a genuine fight or self defense situation is not what most people assume.
> 
> If you really understand your jow ga, then it is the principles that are most important.  The techniques, while useful and important, are an expression of the principles.  In practice, the techniques are often exaggerated, as a way to help emphasize the principles.  When  that skill has been developed, then, IN ACTUAL USE, that exaggeration can be dropped, and the principles are still being utilized, on a more compact and un-exaggerated technique.
> 
> This is using your jow ga.  Not what it LOOKS like, but rather, the principles underneath, that power your technique, regardless of what it looks like.
> 
> The exaggerated training methods can leave you vulnerable if you try to use them in a fight.  But the exaggeration is not meant to be used in the fight. It is a training methodology, meant to emphasize the principles and the body mechanics.
> 
> Maybe this issue seems so clear to me because my system uses a very exaggerated training method.  Maybe I'm on that extreme end of the spectrum, while others are less so.


 My guess is that in your system your punches are more exaggerated then what is done in Jow Ga Kung Fu.   I trained with some Lama Pai students last month and we have the similar punches but they exaggerate their punches more than Jow Ga Students do.  For example the Pao Choy punch is like a really long upper cut. for Jow Ga stops at my face level.  The same type of punch for Lama Pai extends well above the head as you can see in the video below.

You can see the punch here. at :23





Compare it to the punch here at around :34





In Jow Ga kung fu we don't throw that punch higher than that for the very reason you speak of about being open.  This is both in forms and in sparring.  If your punches exaggerate like Lama Pai then we aren't talking about the same measure of exaggeration.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> For many styles, though, there are some quite similar postures and approaches used. For those styles, it can be much harder to pinpoint anything that's particularly "signature" of that style


I think this is because munch of what we see are people using the same basics techniques and not going much beyond the basic kick and basic punch.  I think if people actually try to use the techniques that they train, then we would see more of a difference between martial arts systems.  

Think about it.  How many sparring matches have you seen where someone has used the Signature styles of that system. (other than wing chun)?

There will be some exception for some martial art systems.  For me, Hapkido and certain styles of Karate are similar to me.  As an outsider it looks the same, even when they are doing advanced techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I wouldn't consider sparring to be competition, even informal.  It's helpful and a great way to train, but it's not testing.  It's part of preparing for the test.  Same with "working" with people you don't know.  Very, very different things, IMO.


So, it's only valid if there's a referee? What sense does that make?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> No, there is also informal competition.
> 
> What other ways are there to test effectiveness without a resisting opponent?


A resisting opponent is a key component. (And by "resisting", I'm not necessarily referring to someone trying to stop the specific technique, but someone who is trying to achieve their own ends, rather than quietly waiting for you to perform your technique.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I think this is because munch of what we see are people using the same basics techniques and not going much beyond the basic kick and basic punch.  I think if people actually try to use the techniques that they train, then we would see more of a difference between martial arts systems.
> 
> Think about it.  How many sparring matches have you seen where someone has used the Signature styles of that system. (other than wing chun)?
> 
> There will be some exception for some martial art systems.  For me, Hapkido and certain styles of Karate are similar to me.  As an outsider it looks the same, even when they are doing advanced techniques.


That may be part of it, but there's also a lot of similarity between styles. Kicks between Shotokan Karate-do and Nihon Goshin Aikido are reasonably similar, as are the punches. Under similar rulesets (assuming only strikes), it might be difficult to tell which a participant studied (if the NGA person was a distance-fighter).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So, it's only valid if there's a referee? What sense does that make?


It's not the referee that distinguishes competition and sparring or "working" with other people.    Not to say that they're not great elements of a training program.   

Cops don't have referees when they apply what they learn in the context for which they learn them.   Soldiers don't have referees.  The ref is a characteristic of competition, but not a salient one.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> A resisting opponent is a key component. (And by "resisting", I'm not necessarily referring to someone trying to stop the specific technique, but someone who is trying to achieve their own ends, rather than quietly waiting for you to perform your technique.)


So then we agree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's not the referee that distinguishes competition and sparring or "working" with other people.    Not to say that they're not great elements of a training program.
> 
> Cops don't have referees when they apply what they learn in the context for which they learn them.   Soldiers don't have referees.  The ref is a characteristic of competition, but not a salient one.


But you are saying competition is effective testing, but sparring cannot be. It is possible for sparring to be exactly as intense as competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> So then we agree.


It appears so. You and I seem to share the notion of "informal competition".


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> But you are saying competition is effective testing, but sparring cannot be. It is possible for sparring to be exactly as intense as competition.


Yes.  I'm saying that they are both great, but do different things. 

If this were cooking, sparring would be part of the Mise en place, along with kata, drills, fitness and everything else.   Competition, like combat as a soldier or working as a cop, is the result of training.  It's what you train for.

I like competition because it's far more accessible to the average joe or Jane accountant than being a cop, or a soldier.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> I wouldn't consider sparring to be competition, even informal.  It's helpful and a great way to train, but it's not testing.  It's part of preparing for the test.  Same with "working" with people you don't know.  Very, very different things, IMO.


If you look at the intensity of engagement as a continuum, light soft and slow stuff at the left end and people truly trying to kill one another on the right..... I can conceive of two people who consensually decide to enter a training session with enough intensity that it truly becomes that "test" of which you are speaking.  Granted, it'll end up looking like Bloodsport, but I can conceive it.

I'd not want to traint hat way, myself. Hard to go get beers after class witht he dude who just dislocated your elbow, broke your jaw, fractured some ribs, etc.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> If you look at the intensity of engagement as a continuum, light soft and slow stuff at the left end and people truly trying to kill one another on the right..... I can conceive of two people who consensually decide to enter a training session with enough intensity that it truly becomes that "test" of which you are speaking.  Granted, it'll end up looking like Bloodsport, but I can conceive it.
> 
> I'd not want to traint hat way, myself. Hard to go get beers after class witht he dude who just dislocated your elbow, broke your jaw, fractured some ribs, etc.


That would be hardcore training.  i agree completely.   But competition isn't training.  It's the result of training.  It's what you are training to do.

 Look at it this way.  Sparring is a means.  Competition is an end.  Basic training is a means.  Combat is an end.  

Not understanding this crucial distinction between training and the result of training causes a lot of misunderstanding.


----------



## JP3

The road vs. the destination. I see your point.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> The road vs. the destination. I see your point.


Have to have a destination to anchor the training, or things get wonky.  Every martial artist trains for something,  when younthink you're training for "self defense" but are actually training for the next belt test, there's a disconnect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yes.  I'm saying that they are both great, but do different things.
> 
> If this were cooking, sparring would be part of the Mise en place, along with kata, drills, fitness and everything else.   Competition, like combat as a soldier or working as a cop, is the result of training.  It's what you train for.
> 
> I like competition because it's far more accessible to the average joe or Jane accountant than being a cop, or a soldier.


Except that competition would never be the point of my training. It's not what I train for. It might be a useful component in my training, but not the point.

And you're still not addressing how the two are materially different. If you and I go at it under a ruleset, the utility of that interaction doesn't necessarily change because it's part of a competition, versus us just squaring off to see what happens. The intensity matters. The ruleset used matters. The existence of a referee doesn't really matter. The existence of an audience might matter, if it makes one or both of us nervous or excited.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> If you look at the intensity of engagement as a continuum, light soft and slow stuff at the left end and people truly trying to kill one another on the right..... I can conceive of two people who consensually decide to enter a training session with enough intensity that it truly becomes that "test" of which you are speaking.  Granted, it'll end up looking like Bloodsport, but I can conceive it.
> 
> I'd not want to traint hat way, myself. Hard to go get beers after class witht he dude who just dislocated your elbow, broke your jaw, fractured some ribs, etc.


And you wouldn't expect those to happen in most competitions, either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Have to have a destination to anchor the training, or things get wonky.  Every martial artist trains for something,  when younthink you're training for "self defense" but are actually training for the next belt test, there's a disconnect.


And what if there's no next belt test?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Except that competition would never be the point of my training. It's not what I train for. It might be a useful component in my training, but not the point.
> 
> And you're still not addressing how the two are materially different. If you and I go at it under a ruleset, the utility of that interaction doesn't necessarily change because it's part of a competition, versus us just squaring off to see what happens. The intensity matters. The ruleset used matters. The existence of a referee doesn't really matter. The existence of an audience might matter, if it makes one or both of us nervous or excited.


If you never do what you're training for, you're not training for what you think.   what is the point of your training?  You're not a cop, so that venue isn't practical for you.  You aren't a marine.  You don't use your skills as a bouncer or a hit man or in any other way.  So what's the point of your training.  

A cop trains to be a cop, and he or she goes out and uses the skills in context.  an accountant can train side by side with a cop, learning cop skills.   But will never be a competent cop unless he or she actually logs the hours on the job.  Training doesn't make you an expert in something.  It prepares you to become an expert.

And I disagree that I am not addressing how the two are materially different.  They are fundamentally different.  One is the cause and the other the effect.   One is preparation for application and the other is application. 

As I said, not understanding this is why styles stagnate, have inconsistent results and "whither."


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> And what if there's no next belt test?


Thats a dilemma.


----------



## drop bear

To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing. If sparring has that then it will have the same benefit.

But It will change to the level that winning and loosing matters and to the level of guys competing.

If loosing has a consequence it changes the dynamic.

This is why video taping sparring will quite often raise the intent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If you never do what you're training for, you're not training for what you think.   what is the point of your training?  You're not a cop, so that venue isn't practical for you.  You aren't a marine.  You don't use your skills as a bouncer or a hit man or in any other way.  So what's the point of your training.
> 
> A cop trains to be a cop, and he or she goes out and uses the skills in context.  an accountant can train side by side with a cop, learning cop skills.   But will never be a competent cop unless he or she actually logs the hours on the job.  Training doesn't make you an expert in something.  It prepares you to become an expert.
> 
> And I disagree that I am not addressing how the two are materially different.  They are fundamentally different.  One is the cause and the other the effect.   One is preparation for application and the other is application.
> 
> As I said, not understanding this is why styles stagnate, have inconsistent results and "whither."


Your point appears to be simply that everyone who's not a cop/bouncer is training for competition, and that makes competition inherently different. If someone doesn't enter competitions, but trains to be able to spar really well, doesn't that make sparring the end point, rather than the path? So, if we take the competition and remove the audience and referee, we have something that performs the same function (with the differences noted earlier).

You and I fundamentally disagree about the ability to train for self-defense as a goal. I get that. That really isn't relevant to this arbitrary distinction between sparring and competition. Very light point-sparring competition is not a better end point than moderately hard contact sparring at reasonably high intensity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Thats a dilemma.


Yet there are many out there who train for SD, without belts. There are many who train just to learn an art, without the belts. And there are many who have the belts, but don't train to the next belt test.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing. If sparring has that then it will have the same benefit.
> 
> But It will change to the level that winning and loosing matters and to the level of guys competing.
> 
> If loosing has a consequence it changes the dynamic.
> 
> This is why video taping sparring will quite often raise the intent.


Agreed. This is one of those areas where "sparring" has multiple meanings. For some, it's never "competitive". For others, it always is. I'm in the middle. There are times I'm sparring just to see what happens. There are times I'm sparring with the same intent (though lower intensity) that I'd have in a self-defense situation: control the situation, avoid being injured. That last one is "winning" for me. For a competition to have much meaning to me, I'd either have to be in it just for the fun (regardless of outcome - BJJ strikes me as an art where I could enjoy this, as with Judo), or I'd need a ruleset that reflects that intent (control the situation, avoid injury).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Your point appears to be simply that everyone who's not a cop/bouncer is training for competition, and that makes competition inherently different. If someone doesn't enter competitions, but trains to be able to spar really well, doesn't that make sparring the end point, rather than the path? So, if we take the competition and remove the audience and referee, we have something that performs the same function (with the differences noted earlier).
> 
> You and I fundamentally disagree about the ability to train for self-defense as a goal. I get that. That really isn't relevant to this arbitrary distinction between sparring and competition. Very light point-sparring competition is not a better end point than moderately hard contact sparring at reasonably high intensity.


In order for you to know whether we agree or disagree, you have to understand my point.   dismissing it as arbitrary won't get you there.   


gpseymour said:


> Yet there are many out there who train for SD, without belts. There are many who train just to learn an art, without the belts. And there are many who have the belts, but don't train to the next belt test.


They're training for something.   Whether they get there or not is anyone's guess.  

You're right, though.   Training just to learn an art removes any pressure to perform.   People also train in martial arts to lose weight, which also removes any pressure to perform.   Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> To get the benefit of competition there has to be winning or loosing.


If you have the fear that your opponent's punch may knock you down and cause you brain damage, you will then understand the old MA saying that said, "Fighting is like your shirt is catching on fire."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In order for you to know whether we agree or disagree, you have to understand my point.   dismissing it as arbitrary won't get you there.


I believe the distinction is arbitrary, because you've stated that one is by definition and end point and that this is the difference. That's only true if the other is not an end point. If being able to do well against a skilled opponent is the goal, formal competition is not a necessary part of that.



> They're training for something.   Whether they get there or not is anyone's guess.


That's over-stating the problem, I think. There is reasonable evidence that being a skilled fighter transfers to some (not all) self-defense situations. We can test people's ability to respond to a reasonably intense attack of the variety they're training for. (These are what I call "simulated attacks" - where there's an assigned attack, to ensure we train for and test the response to that specific attack.) We can also test general fighting ability through sparring. And we can test adaptability by giving attacks that aren't known in advance (including unassigned attacks). We can't reasonably introduce live blades and kick-your-face-in attacks, so we'll never be testing exactly what we train, but that happens in the military, too. They don't get to send every recruit to a battlefront to test him a long the way in training. They have goals, and they meet them (and test for them) along the way without an actual live, ready-to-kill-you enemy. In fact, they use simulations quite often.



> You're right, though.   Training just to learn an art removes any pressure to perform.   People also train in martial arts to lose weight, which also removes any pressure to perform.   Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about,


Those are examples of other areas of MA training where competition is not an end point, which was my point. Competition need not be an end goal. And for some folks, it wouldn't be, even if they compete - it can also be a training tool, used toward a different end point (like preparing for SD).


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have the fear that your opponent's punch may knock you down and cause you brain damage, you will then understand the old MA saying that said, "Fighting is like your shirt is catching on fire."



More than injury. For our club we torture people for the 12 weeks leading up to the fight. Then we put that fighter in front of 500 people including their friends and family.

It is a big deal. And so a big deal to loose.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. This is one of those areas where "sparring" has multiple meanings. For some, it's never "competitive". For others, it always is. I'm in the middle. There are times I'm sparring just to see what happens. There are times I'm sparring with the same intent (though lower intensity) that I'd have in a self-defense situation: control the situation, avoid being injured. That last one is "winning" for me. For a competition to have much meaning to me, I'd either have to be in it just for the fun (regardless of outcome - BJJ strikes me as an art where I could enjoy this, as with Judo), or I'd need a ruleset that reflects that intent (control the situation, avoid injury).



It is interesting the self defense mind set vs the competition one. I was training the other day and was exhausted and so got tapped out by a guy who really shouldnt have won.  

But there are no consequences to it so who cares?

Had that been a competition or even training for a competition it would have been a big deal and there would have been consequences.

I think for self defense it is very important to introduce the concept of winning and loosing. (or before this becomes a semantic battle. Success and failure If you want)

And winning has to become important.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is interesting the self defense mind set vs the competition one. I was training the other day and was exhausted and so got tapped out by a guy who really shouldnt have won.
> 
> But there are no consequences to it so who cares?
> 
> Had that been a competition or even training for a competition it would have been a big deal and there would have been consequences.
> 
> I think for self defense it is very important to introduce the concept of winning and loosing. (or before this becomes a semantic battle. Success and failure If you want)
> 
> And winning has to become important.


I thought I just expressed how the concept of winning fits into my view of self-defense training. In competition, I have no real consequence to losing, unless I put myself into a competition where I could seriously expect to get injured in a loss (which is anathema to my views on self-protection). So, in a BJJ competition, for instance, I'd be trying to win, but would have no real concern if I lose. I'd be doing it for the fun of competition, like when I played sports. When I am working on self-defense, I have a different view of the outcome.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The existence of a referee doesn't really matter.


I think the existence of a referee matters as well.  The referee is the safety backup that will protect you if you are injured to the point where you can't continue.  In a self-defense situation both physical and non-physical,  there is no guarantee that someone will step in when things get to be too much.  For example, the girl who was beaten to death in a school bathroom by other teenage girls.  No Ref, No one jumped in to stop the attack.  So her attackers continued even when she lost consciousness.

There are things that I will risk when sparring but wouldn't risk in a self-defense situation.  If I had to physically fight back then I know that my attacks will be more intense and brutal.  Sports fighting can be brutal but the brutality is limited by the rules.  In a self-defense situation anything goes including shooting someone or stabbing someone.  There is no rule set or law that will prevent someone from shooting me or stabbing.  The only thing the law does is set up the grounds for which someone will be punished.  If I get shot or beat to death then the laws don't mean squat to me because I would be dead.

When it comes self-defense, everything becomes non-sporting or should become non-sporting, and more about self-preservation.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I thought I just expressed how the concept of winning fits into my view of self-defense training. In competition, I have no real consequence to losing, unless I put myself into a competition where I could seriously expect to get injured in a loss (which is anathema to my views on self-protection). So, in a BJJ competition, for instance, I'd be trying to win, but would have no real concern if I lose. I'd be doing it for the fun of competition, like when I played sports. When I am working on self-defense, I have a different view of the outcome.



So you are training for self defence. You get a bit tired or hurty and you give up.

What happens?

Submission from knee on belly?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So you are training for self defence. You get a bit tired or hurty and you give up.
> 
> What happens?
> 
> Submission from knee on belly?


lol. those were some big ladies.  A knee on my belly from her would make me want to tap out. lol.   My guess would be that the stomach and breathing conditioning wasn't there to deal with a knee in the stomach.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> lol. those were some big ladies.  A knee on my belly from her would make me want to tap out. lol.   My guess would be that the stomach and breathing conditioning wasn't there to deal with a knee in the stomach.



If I submitted from knee to belly. I may as well come to my next training session in a dress.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If I submitted from knee to belly. I may as well come to my next training session in a dress.


Make sure you take some pictures lol.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I thought I just expressed how the concept of winning fits into my view of self-defense training. In competition, I have no real consequence to losing, unless I put myself into a competition where I could seriously expect to get injured in a loss (which is anathema to my views on self-protection). So, in a BJJ competition, for instance, I'd be trying to win, but would have no real concern if I lose. I'd be doing it for the fun of competition, like when I played sports. When I am working on self-defense, I have a different view of the outcome.



So as an example of mindset training. We have a 15 minute gauntlet drill where we quit simply torture the guy. At the end of that 15 minutes he has to escape from mount. Now that drill does not end untill he is standing. Simple as that. He can leave untill he has succeeded in his objective.

the mother of all drills.


----------



## Steve

I don't know, Gerry.  It's all there.  I've tried to explain it several different ways over the years.  If you really would like to understand, let me know.  If you think you understand and are just telling me you think I'm wrong, I don't have the energy any more.  You win.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the existence of a referee matters as well.  The referee is the safety backup that will protect you if you are injured to the point where you can't continue.  In a self-defense situation both physical and non-physical,  there is no guarantee that someone will step in when things get to be too much.  For example, the girl who was beaten to death in a school bathroom by other teenage girls.  No Ref, No one jumped in to stop the attack.  So her attackers continued even when she lost consciousness.
> 
> There are things that I will risk when sparring but wouldn't risk in a self-defense situation.  If I had to physically fight back then I know that my attacks will be more intense and brutal.  Sports fighting can be brutal but the brutality is limited by the rules.  In a self-defense situation anything goes including shooting someone or stabbing someone.  There is no rule set or law that will prevent someone from shooting me or stabbing.  The only thing the law does is set up the grounds for which someone will be punished.  If I get shot or beat to death then the laws don't mean squat to me because I would be dead.
> 
> When it comes self-defense, everything becomes non-sporting or should become non-sporting, and more about self-preservation.


I agree. My point was that a referee doesn't create a meaningful difference (to me, in my goals) between sparring and competition. The ref is there to ensure rules are followed (and to count points, in some formats). That can be handled by the combatants while sparring.

If I'm sparring for a sport win (as I would for competition), I'll try openings I they're purposely leaving to see what happens, just to see their reaction. From a self-defense approach, that's a desperation move. I can't say I won't do it, but I'd have to feel really endangered in that moment to try what looks like an invitation. Invitations of that nature are only likely to come from reasonably skilled fighters, and accepting the invitation isn't a high-percentage move.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are training for self defence. You get a bit tired or hurty and you give up.
> 
> What happens?
> 
> Submission from knee on belly?


In training, what happens is the same that happens in everyone's training. We're all human, and that doesn't change just because I train for SD. But we fight on as best we can in the moment (including doing what we can to safely train when injured), and acknowledge the consequences of that situation if it were outside the dojo. If we could all heal immediately, the best approach would be to make every mistake very costly. That's impractical both for everyday purposes (we all have lives to lead) and self-defense purposes (getting injured a lot doesn't make someone more able to defend themselves).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If I submitted from knee to belly. I may as well come to my next training session in a dress.


I seem to remember a gym posting a video of a day they did that. IIRC, one of them rolled in a tutu.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't know, Gerry.  It's all there.  I've tried to explain it several different ways over the years.  If you really would like to understand, let me know.  If you think you understand and are just telling me you think I'm wrong, I don't have the energy any more.  You win.


I really don't understand, Steve. That's what I've been trying to say. It seems arbitrary to me, and that's out of character for you, so I don't think I understand. I don't see where there's a meaningful difference between sparring and competition, assuming similar intensity and ruleset. I talked about this with my wife yesterday, and something Drop Bear said gave me pause. He commented that he got tapped out in training, and there would have been more consequences if it were competition. I don't see that, at all. But then, to me, competition is about competing, not about winning. When I played sports, I wanted to win because that was more fun. But I'd rather lose than not play, because playing was fun, win or lose. And I played the same way in scrimmage as I did in games. Maybe that's why I didn't play soccer in college, though I was probably good enough. It was just fun for me, and that wasn't enough drive for me to put in that time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So as an example of mindset training. We have a 15 minute gauntlet drill where we quit simply torture the guy. At the end of that 15 minutes he has to escape from mount. Now that drill does not end untill he is standing. Simple as that. He can leave untill he has succeeded in his objective.
> 
> the mother of all drills.


I like that, DB. I don't have enough people to do a drill like that right now, but I'm adding the concept to my arsenal for advanced student training. It has a more direct purpose for MMA competition training (because you're more likely to need that amount of stamina), but the mindset part of it applies both places (keep fighting even when you feel like you can't) and is - if anything - even more important in SD. Thanks for sharing that.

We do have some similar stuff built into our training. For instance, in qualifying for my BB, I had to take 120+ attacks, with no significant rest. For brown belt, it was 80+. (The "+" is for when someone doesn't give a good enough attack - we get to do that one again. Yippee!) I remember on my brown belt test seriously considering taking the last few from my knees, because my legs were rubber (asthma attack during the test, and not being efficient). While I was thinking that (between attacks), I heard a student say, "Last card, Sensei." Music to my ears.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I like that, DB. I don't have enough people to do a drill like that right now, but I'm adding the concept to my arsenal for advanced student training. It has a more direct purpose for MMA competition training (because you're more likely to need that amount of stamina), but the mindset part of it applies both places (keep fighting even when you feel like you can't) and is - if anything - even more important in SD. Thanks for sharing that.
> 
> We do have some similar stuff built into our training. For instance, in qualifying for my BB, I had to take 120+ attacks, with no significant rest. For brown belt, it was 80+. (The "+" is for when someone doesn't give a good enough attack - we get to do that one again. Yippee!) I remember on my brown belt test seriously considering taking the last few from my knees, because my legs were rubber (asthma attack during the test, and not being efficient). While I was thinking that (between attacks), I heard a student say, "Last card, Sensei." Music to my ears.



We play around with simpler variations.

And yeah the idea gets thrown around in different forms. There was that guy who had to do wooden dummy for 4 hours or something. Same deal. Trains mental toughness.

Just saying we dont loose is bloody pointless. I have seen plenty of guys have their good intentions break down really fast when put under pressure. You have to create that through adversity.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> In training, what happens is the same that happens in everyone's training. We're all human, and that doesn't change just because I train for SD. But we fight on as best we can in the moment (including doing what we can to safely train when injured), and acknowledge the consequences of that situation if it were outside the dojo. If we could all heal immediately, the best approach would be to make every mistake very costly. That's impractical both for everyday purposes (we all have lives to lead) and self-defense purposes (getting injured a lot doesn't make someone more able to defend themselves).


I had this same conversation yesterday and said the same thing.  The other instructor told me that our sparring was a waste of time for self-defense purposes.  He asked how many times have I had broken nose or broken bones.  He said that occurs in a real fight and if it's not happening in sparring then we aren't actually fighting.

I looked at him like he was nuts.  If I fought with that intensity then no one would come to class because every they go against me, I would be beating the crap of him.  The logic was crazy.  He had this idea to put on full head gear with a cage and to punch at each other's face as hard as possible and it's up to the other guy to get out of the way. I had to inform him about the dangers of head trauma caused by being repeated hit in the head.  For some reason he thinks he can handle a powerful punch or a powerful kick that has the same power and intensity of an attack that someone would do in fighting. 

Like you stated "getting injured a lot doesn't make someone more able to defend themselves."  I think it's actually counter productive because a person would spend more time healing than learning.  Some would be permanent crippled which would then reduce their ability to actually defend themselves.


----------



## clfsean

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is that in your system your punches are more exaggerated then what is done in Jow Ga Kung Fu.   I trained with some Lama Pai students last month and we have the similar punches but they exaggerate their punches more than Jow Ga Students do.  For example the Pao Choy punch is like a really long upper cut. for Jow Ga stops at my face level.  The same type of punch for Lama Pai extends well above the head as you can see in the video below.
> 
> You can see the punch here. at :23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare it to the punch here at around :34
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Jow Ga kung fu we don't throw that punch higher than that for the very reason you speak of about being open.  This is both in forms and in sparring.  If your punches exaggerate like Lama Pai then we aren't talking about the same measure of exaggeration.



Ummm... nope. 

We don't exaggerate. We have specific reasons for doing specific techniques a specific way. Not everything is what you see or are shown.


----------



## JowGaWolf

clfsean said:


> Ummm... nope.
> 
> We don't exaggerate. We have specific reasons for doing specific techniques a specific way. Not everything is what you see or are shown.


This is my definition of exaggerate: "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal". Source: If a punching technique in training extends beyond what would be considered a the normal application of that technique in fighting,  then the technique done in training would be considered by definition, as an enlargement of what is done in fighting.

A person can enlarge movement without overextending.


----------



## clfsean

JowGaWolf said:


> This is my definition of exaggerate: "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal". Source: If a punching technique in training extends beyond what would be considered a the normal application of that technique in fighting,  then the technique done in training would be considered by definition, as an enlargement of what is done in fighting.
> 
> A person can enlarge movement without overextending.



Unless it's not. Then it's exactly as you see, but what's missing to the unfamiliar is content & use context.


----------



## mograph

JowGaWolf said:


> A person can enlarge movement without overextending.


Just curious, not challenging: how would you define _overextending_?


----------



## Martial D

For a topic that people groaned about on page 1, this has turned out quite well


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This is my definition of exaggerate: "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal". Source: If a punching technique in training extends beyond what would be considered a the normal application of that technique in fighting,  then the technique done in training would be considered by definition, as an enlargement of what is done in fighting.
> 
> A person can enlarge movement without overextending.


When you say "normal", are you referring to that sort of "average across many styles"? In other words, what most of us are used to seeing?


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> Just curious, not challenging: how would you define _overextending_?


 Over extending breaks structure and greatly reduces benefit of the action.  This is the definition I use for overextend: " _to extend or expand beyond a safe or reasonable point_" source.  If my punch does this then I have put myself in an unsafe position in which my punch would have had no more power then a punch that I didn't overextend. Sometimes it makes the punch weaker because the structure required for the punch is broken.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> When you say "normal", are you referring to that sort of "average across many styles"? In other words, what most of us are used to seeing?


When I say "normal" I'm referring to the normal application of a technique in a fighting like sparring or actual fighting scenario. For example a boxer's uppercut.  There is a maximum range of effectiveness and that would be the "normal range." for a boxer's upper. Take note of what happens when the uppercut goes beyond that "normal range."  The structure, breaks, he is wide open.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I really don't understand, Steve. That's what I've been trying to say. It seems arbitrary to me, and that's out of character for you, so I don't think I understand. I don't see where there's a meaningful difference between sparring and competition, assuming similar intensity and ruleset. I talked about this with my wife yesterday, and something Drop Bear said gave me pause. He commented that he got tapped out in training, and there would have been more consequences if it were competition. I don't see that, at all. But then, to me, competition is about competing, not about winning. When I played sports, I wanted to win because that was more fun. But I'd rather lose than not play, because playing was fun, win or lose. And I played the same way in scrimmage as I did in games. Maybe that's why I didn't play soccer in college, though I was probably good enough. It was just fun for me, and that wasn't enough drive for me to put in that time.



But self defence is more about winning than competition. Because you are not there for fun.  It becomes serious business.

Imagine I am in some sort of real fight, got a bit tired and let the other guy get that arm.  Do that and I am going to have a bad day.


----------



## drop bear

clfsean said:


> Unless it's not. Then it's exactly as you see, but what's missing to the unfamiliar is content & use context.



Exept being terribly mysterious is a cop out. And every one sees it. 

We specifically do that punch in that manner because.............


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But self defence is more about winning than competition. Because you are not there for fun.  It becomes serious business.
> 
> Imagine I am in some sort of real fight, got a bit tired and let the other guy get that arm.  Do that and I am going to have a bad day.


That's pretty much my point. I don't see competition as an end point. It's something that (under the right ruleset) could be fun. But I can't really see myself being overly concerned with winning. I'm more focused on the not-losing/winning when I consider self-defense, for exactly the reason you point out.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty much my point. I don't see competition as an end point. It's something that (under the right ruleset) could be fun. But I can't really see myself being overly concerned with winning. I'm more focused on the not-losing/winning when I consider self-defense, for exactly the reason you point out.



So you are not worried about winning or loosing now. But assume you will be in a real fight.

Where I am focused on winning and loosing now so I am prepared for a real fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are not worried about winning or loosing now. But assume you will be in a real fight.
> 
> Where I am focused on winning and loosing now so I am prepared for a real fight.


I am focused on winning/losing when I train. Competition just doesn't bring that out in me.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I am focused on winning/losing when I train. Competition just doesn't bring that out in me.



Bring what out?  There is no brought out. 

You train and control your mindset. You don't walk in to a fight hoping some sort of mindset will just happen.


----------



## clfsean

drop bear said:


> Exept being terribly mysterious is a cop out. And every one sees it.
> 
> We specifically do that punch in that manner because.............



No .. nothing mysterious. It is what it is. It also has more than one way to use it. Noobs don't get every way right off the bat & if you're looking from the outside not knowing what it is, you only see the face of the technique.


----------



## drop bear

clfsean said:


> No .. nothing mysterious. It is what it is. It also has more than one way to use it. Noobs don't get every way right off the bat & if you're looking from the outside not knowing what it is, you only see the face of the technique.



One that you can't explain either. Which says something about the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Bring what out?  There is no brought out.
> 
> You train and control your mindset. You don't walk in to a fight hoping some sort of mindset will just happen.


Yeah, you clearly don't get what I'm saying. I don't have the energy to say it another way. Not worth it when you get this attitude.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, you clearly don't get what I'm saying. I don't have the energy to say it another way. Not worth it when you get this attitude.



Seems pretty clear. Your training is motivated by mood.

Mood's a thing for cattle and loveplay, not fighting!


----------



## clfsean

drop bear said:


> One that you can't explain either. Which says something about the technique.



Whatever dude ... go troll somebody else.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> ...Mood's a thing for cattle



What??? ...like "I couldn't sleep 'cause all night the cattle _mood_?"


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> What??? ...like "I couldn't sleep 'cause all night the cattle _mood_?"



I was slipping in a Gurney Halleck Quote there.


----------



## mograph

geezer said:


> What??? ...like "I couldn't sleep 'cause all night the cattle _mood_?"


I bood at that one.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> I am focused on winning/losing when I train. Competition just doesn't bring that out in me.





drop bear said:


> Bring what out?  There is no brought out.
> 
> You train and control your mindset. You don't walk in to a fight hoping some sort of mindset will just happen.



Oh, I don't know, what you said kind of describes my personal movement, and attitude actually. I don't walk into a fight, kind of explode into them. But the mind set _does _kind of just happen. It's like, "Oh, hey, we're fighting now!" 

Unless I've seen it coming, then it's concealed. Part of my training over the years has always been to relax, especially the mind. I'm too easy to read otherwise (so I'm told)  at least against experienced predators. 

Kind of the same in competition. I always entered them fully expecting to win. But in the actual matches, I've always tried to appear almost bored, which usually worked well for me.

But on the flip side of the coin - I don't think I've ever been focused on winning or losing when I train. I'll have to think on that for a bit.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Oh, I don't know, what you said kind of describes my personal movement, and attitude actually. I don't walk into a fight, kind of explode into them. But the mind set _does _kind of just happen. It's like, "Oh, hey, we're fighting now!"
> 
> Unless I've seen it coming, then it's concealed. Part of my training over the years has always been to relax, especially the mind. I'm too easy to read otherwise (so I'm told)  at least against experienced predators.
> 
> Kind of the same in competition. I always entered them fully expecting to win. But in the actual matches, I've always tried to appear almost bored, which usually worked well for me.
> 
> But on the flip side of the coin - I don't think I've ever been focused on winning or losing when I train. I'll have to think on that for a bit.


----------



## Tez3

A cow moos, the cows last night mooed. Loosing is not the same thing as losing. Just saying.


----------



## mograph

Tez3 said:


> A cow moos, the cows last night mooed. Loosing is not the same thing as losing. Just saying.


One was a pun, the other was an error ...


----------



## Tez3

mograph said:


> One was a pun, the other was an error ...



An unintentional pun perhaps.


----------



## mograph

Tez3 said:


> An unintentional pun perhaps.


That's just what he _wants_ us to think ...


----------



## Tez3

mograph said:


> That's just what he _wants_ us to think ...



Mmm, I'd think that if there hadn't been those other spelling hiccups.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Mmm, I'd think that if there hadn't been those other spelling hiccups.



Spelling is like kata. Looks good but not really necessary for martial arts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

but proper spelling is necessary for proper communication on a web forum


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> but proper spelling is necessary for proper communication on a web forum


And a generous use of emoticons.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> but proper spelling is necessary for proper communication on a web forum



Pretty sure that is passive aggression that is a vital component of web forums.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure that is passive aggression that is a vital component of web forums.








I have seen that term thrown around a lot her lately an frankly I do not think those that are using it, know what it actually means..so to help the Passive aggressive accusatory crew out

pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
_adjective_

of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important material.
Spelling and word meaning are both rather important to any conversation... that is quite true, that is if one actually is trying to have a conversation

As to my previous post

Nothing passive agressive about it, that is unless one sees fact and truth as passive aggressive....


----------



## Tez3

I don't think I've ever been _passive_ aggressive, I like aggression without any passivity at all.  I do think though many people don't understand irony or even sarcasm, the latter is an art form which when done well can be a masterpiece.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I don't think I've ever been _passive_ aggressive, I like aggression without any passivity at all.  I do think though many people don't understand irony or even sarcasm, the latter is an art form which when done well can be a masterpiece.


John Oliver is single handedly teaching America all about irony.  It's a beautiful thing.


----------



## mograph

Steve said:


> John Oliver is single handedly teaching America all about irony.  It's a beautiful thing.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.


----------



## Steve

mograph said:


> Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.


Not to be confused with ironing, which can sometime be quite extreme:


----------



## Buka

Oh Henry, what are they talking about now?


----------



## Oracle3927

JowGaWolf said:


> This is my definition of exaggerate: "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal". Source: If a punching technique in training extends beyond what would be considered a the normal application of that technique in fighting,  then the technique done in training would be considered by definition, as an enlargement of what is done in fighting.
> 
> A person can enlarge movement without overextending.





drop bear said:


> One that you can't explain either. Which says something about the technique.



_*FULL DISCLOSURE:  CLFSean is my training brother.  He and I train at the Lama Pai school to which JowGaWolf referred and I was there the night that JowGaWolf came to visit...  I wish that if JowGaWolf had a question about why we perform our techniques a certain way, he would have just asked me (we all know each other IRL, and I work on his side of town, so it would have been much easier to just show him in person instead of hunting down all of these video references), but as it's become a matter of public discussion, I will try my best to provide a thorough-ish answer.*_

Lama Pai, Hop Gar, and Bak Hok Pai are effectively different branches of the same root art and are often categorized as Southern Longhand Chinese Martial Arts (along with Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar and Jow Gar).  In our particular lineage, a lot of the apparent force at a basic/beginner level is centrifugal in nature.  We make sharp use of the waist/torso to motivate the limbs through broad arcs.  With that in mind, we don't hit targets; we hit through targets.  Not to be confused with the common notion of penetrating a few inches past the surface of a target (as anyone would learn with a basic jab), but it's more like the swing of a bat, where the striking vector is a full swinging motion that continues well through & past the point of impact.

To do this intelligently for a fight requires a bit of setup.  We don't just start off with large, swinging motions against an opponent in a modern fighting posture; one has to create an opening through positioning.  Nor is this the only principle upon which Lama Pai operates, but I hope this suffices for a quick & dirty explanation of this principle as it is relevant to why our Paau Choihs might seem "overextended" in the eyes of someone who doesn't understand our system.

Theory aside, now onto examples & applications:

*Paau Choih as a Strike*






This is a video discussion between Michael Parrella (Lama Pai; same lineage) and David Rogers (Hop Gar).  While it's debatable whether this methodology truly provides "an edge" as Parrella states circa 2:22, they fairly well explain several ways for how Paau Choih can be used as a strike.  If you don't have time to watch the whole video, start at 2:08 to see the movements in action.
*
Paau Choih as Positioning Before a Counter-Strike*






Paau Choih can also be used as the longhand version of a slip, to get to the outside of your opponent's line of attack.  In this video circa 2:11, Kong Fan Wei (Hop Gar) demonstrates the use a Paau Choih as "defense" against an overhand strike, but proceeds from this position into a counter attack.  Since it is only a simple demonstration, he stops the motion near the point of contact without hitting his student (clearly visible at 2:46), but as can be seen in the form, the technique after the first Paau Choih is another full, longhand, "to the moon Alice!" Paau Choih.

Unfortunately, the flow of the application isn't fully demonstrated - as this video is part of a series to teach the form.  To my understanding, as such techniques have been taught to me, it should move from one to the other with no pause, (again, reference David Rogers in the first video at 2:08 for the idea of flow).  This either effects the noted follow-up strike or (if the opponent attempts a cross) places you back on the outside position again from the other side.






In this video, you can also see Chris Childs (his base art is Choy Li Fut, but his lineage teaches some Hop Gar) positioning to the outside before a low straight counter-strike at 0:37.  In my lineage, Paau Choih is followed by a low straight punch A LOT.  At 3:49, Chris's student attempts this Paau Choih during some light sparring and Chris replies with the same sequence.

*Paau Choih as Limb Destruction*






David Rogers and Michael Parrella talked about limb disruption as a strike to the limbs (1:35).  In this video circa 5:25, Steven Ventura (my teacher's teacher) talks about attacking the elbow joint.  He's using a Jyu Geng Paau Choih (which is basically the same as the shorter uppercut that was brought up by JowGaWolf), but I personally prefer this application with the longer Paau Choih at full extension.

Consider, if you will, the position that Kong Fan Wei was in when he got to the outside of the overhand strike.  If he turned toward his opponent, and brought the one fist down hard over-top the opponents arm (kind of like the slight cover over-top that Ventura performs) while the other fist shot to the sky, making contact anywhere at or above the elbow, it becomes a very violent arm break (or break attempt).

Chris Childs shows the same application concept in his video at 2:20.

---------------------------

End Notes:  I really have no intentions of being on this forum much.  If you have any questions/comments/concerns, I can be most easily reached via Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Oracle3927


----------



## drop bear

Oracle3927 said:


> _*FULL DISCLOSURE:  CLFSean is my training brother.  He and I train at the Lama Pai school to which JowGaWolf referred and I was there the night that JowGaWolf came to visit...  I wish that if JowGaWolf had a question about why we perform our techniques a certain way, he would have just asked me (we all know each other IRL, and I work on his side of town, so it would have been much easier to just show him in person instead of hunting down all of these video references), but as it's become a matter of public discussion, I will try my best to provide a thorough-ish answer.*_
> 
> Lama Pai, Hop Gar, and Bak Hok Pai are effectively different branches of the same root art and are often categorized as Southern Longhand Chinese Martial Arts (along with Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar and Jow Gar).  In our particular lineage, a lot of the apparent force at a basic/beginner level is centrifugal in nature.  We make sharp use of the waist/torso to motivate the limbs through broad arcs.  With that in mind, we don't hit targets; we hit through targets.  Not to be confused with the common notion of penetrating a few inches past the surface of a target (as anyone would learn with a basic jab), but it's more like the swing of a bat, where the striking vector is a full swinging motion that continues well through & past the point of impact.
> 
> To do this intelligently for a fight requires a bit of setup.  We don't just start off with large, swinging motions against an opponent in a modern fighting posture; one has to create an opening through positioning.  Nor is this the only principle upon which Lama Pai operates, but I hope this suffices for a quick & dirty explanation of this principle as it is relevant to why our Paau Choihs might seem "overextended" in the eyes of someone who doesn't understand our system.
> 
> Theory aside, now onto examples & applications:
> 
> *Paau Choih as a Strike*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a video discussion between Michael Parrella (Lama Pai; same lineage) and David Rogers (Hop Gar).  While it's debatable whether this methodology truly provides "an edge" as Parrella states circa 2:22, they fairly well explain several ways for how Paau Choih can be used as a strike.  If you don't have time to watch the whole video, start at 2:08 to see the movements in action.
> *
> Paau Choih as Positioning Before a Counter-Strike*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paau Choih can also be used as the longhand version of a slip, to get to the outside of your opponent's line of attack.  In this video circa 2:11, Kong Fan Wei (Hop Gar) demonstrates the use a Paau Choih as "defense" against an overhand strike, but proceeds from this position into a counter attack.  Since it is only a simple demonstration, he stops the motion near the point of contact without hitting his student (clearly visible at 2:46), but as can be seen in the form, the technique after the first Paau Choih is another full, longhand, "to the moon Alice!" Paau Choih.
> 
> Unfortunately, the flow of the application isn't fully demonstrated - as this video is part of a series to teach the form.  To my understanding, as such techniques have been taught to me, it should move from one to the other with no pause, (again, reference David Rogers in the first video at 2:08 for the idea of flow).  This either effects the noted follow-up strike or (if the opponent attempts a cross) places you back on the outside position again from the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this video, you can also see Chris Childs (his base art is Choy Li Fut, but his lineage teaches some Hop Gar) positioning to the outside before a low straight counter-strike at 0:37.  In my lineage, Paau Choih is followed by a low straight punch A LOT.  At 3:49, Chris's student attempts this Paau Choih during some light sparring and Chris replies with the same sequence.
> 
> *Paau Choih as Limb Destruction*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Rogers and Michael Parrella talked about limb disruption as a strike to the limbs (1:35).  In this video circa 5:25, Steven Ventura (my teacher's teacher) talks about attacking the elbow joint.  He's using a Jyu Geng Paau Choih (which is basically the same as the shorter uppercut that was brought up by JowGaWolf), but I personally prefer this application with the longer Paau Choih at full extension.
> 
> Consider, if you will, the position that Kong Fan Wei was in when he got to the outside of the overhand strike.  If he turned toward his opponent, and brought the one fist down hard over-top the opponents arm (kind of like the slight cover over-top that Ventura performs) while the other fist shot to the sky, making contact anywhere at or above the elbow, it becomes a very violent arm break (or break attempt).
> 
> Chris Childs shows the same application concept in his video at 2:20.
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> End Notes:  I really have no intentions of being on this forum much.  If you have any questions/comments/concerns, I can be most easily reached via Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Oracle3927



And the mystery is revealed.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oracle3927 said:


> With that in mind, we don't hit targets; we hit through targets. Not to be confused with the common notion of penetrating a few inches past the surface of a target (as anyone would learn with a basic jab), but it's more like the swing of a bat, where the striking vector is a full swinging motion that continues well through & past the point of impact.


 This is how I understood that punch when it was explained to me that night, because it's the same thing that was told to me as along with the statement about techniques getting smaller in a real fight.  By smaller I mean people have a tendency to shortens things up in a fight.  So if it's trained small in practice then it will only get smaller in a fight. I remember this conversation because it came as a result of my Jow Ga Punches.  Where I wasn't extending long enough with the punch in the way that Lama Pai works.




Oracle3927 said:


> While it's debatable whether this methodology truly provides "an edge" as Parrella states circa 2:22


I understand what he's talking about because I use it often.  I don't know about edge, but I can land it with certainty.  I actually have a video of me doing this technique.  The punch is fast and deceiving, so if you do this punch during sparring then you have to really watch out for your partner's safety.  Don't go blasting it thinking that it won't do much. This technique that they are speaking of is a common discussion in Thursday's sparring class right on along with me saying / yelling "Use Jow Ga technique" and not just generic punches.  In sparring I use the knuckle down version just in case I connect.  In a "real world use" I would use the knuckle up version so that my opponent's chin isn't stabbing me in the back of my hand. I want my knuckles to hit under the chin and not the back of my hand to hit it.

As for the second video I can see where my lack of understanding is.  Where the Paau Choih is used to counter a downward strike, which is a different theory than what I know of for the Paau Choih.  Based on the second video I see why we throw our strikes the way we do. 

The third video
The big punches have to be followed by something else.  Sifu Russel told me to throw a Kup Choih and I did not expecting anything and he kicked me in my side.  After he did that I understood why the big wheel punches in Jow Ga are done in combination with something else.  I'll have to ask my Sifu if any of the Jow Ga brothers trained with or fought against anyone from Lama Pai or a similar style. 

Thanks for clearing the information up for me.  
I tried to go to the facebook page and it gave me a Page not Found.   I booked marked Sifu's Steve Ventura's youtube page so I can check out some of view some of his videos later on.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I want to apologize for the disrespect that I have shown out of ignorance in regards to Lama Pai.  I had no idea that my comments were very disrespectful and I'm ashamed that I was too ignorant to know better. It was not my intent or desire to be disrespectful to Lama Pai, its founders, its teachers, or the school.  I have the highest respect for their school teachers, and students. I will do better to be honorable to those of Lama Pai and to show the respect that they deserve.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oracle3927 said:


> _*FULL DISCLOSURE:  CLFSean is my training brother.  He and I train at the Lama Pai school to which JowGaWolf referred and I was there the night that JowGaWolf came to visit...  I wish that if JowGaWolf had a question about why we perform our techniques a certain way, he would have just asked me (we all know each other IRL, and I work on his side of town, so it would have been much easier to just show him in person instead of hunting down all of these video references), but as it's become a matter of public discussion, I will try my best to provide a thorough-ish answer.*_
> 
> Lama Pai, Hop Gar, and Bak Hok Pai are effectively different branches of the same root art and are often categorized as Southern Longhand Chinese Martial Arts (along with Choy Li Fut, Hung Gar and Jow Gar).  In our particular lineage, a lot of the apparent force at a basic/beginner level is centrifugal in nature.  We make sharp use of the waist/torso to motivate the limbs through broad arcs.  With that in mind, we don't hit targets; we hit through targets.  Not to be confused with the common notion of penetrating a few inches past the surface of a target (as anyone would learn with a basic jab), but it's more like the swing of a bat, where the striking vector is a full swinging motion that continues well through & past the point of impact.
> 
> To do this intelligently for a fight requires a bit of setup.  We don't just start off with large, swinging motions against an opponent in a modern fighting posture; one has to create an opening through positioning.  Nor is this the only principle upon which Lama Pai operates, but I hope this suffices for a quick & dirty explanation of this principle as it is relevant to why our Paau Choihs might seem "overextended" in the eyes of someone who doesn't understand our system.
> 
> Theory aside, now onto examples & applications:
> 
> *Paau Choih as a Strike*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a video discussion between Michael Parrella (Lama Pai; same lineage) and David Rogers (Hop Gar).  While it's debatable whether this methodology truly provides "an edge" as Parrella states circa 2:22, they fairly well explain several ways for how Paau Choih can be used as a strike.  If you don't have time to watch the whole video, start at 2:08 to see the movements in action.
> *
> Paau Choih as Positioning Before a Counter-Strike*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paau Choih can also be used as the longhand version of a slip, to get to the outside of your opponent's line of attack.  In this video circa 2:11, Kong Fan Wei (Hop Gar) demonstrates the use a Paau Choih as "defense" against an overhand strike, but proceeds from this position into a counter attack.  Since it is only a simple demonstration, he stops the motion near the point of contact without hitting his student (clearly visible at 2:46), but as can be seen in the form, the technique after the first Paau Choih is another full, longhand, "to the moon Alice!" Paau Choih.
> 
> Unfortunately, the flow of the application isn't fully demonstrated - as this video is part of a series to teach the form.  To my understanding, as such techniques have been taught to me, it should move from one to the other with no pause, (again, reference David Rogers in the first video at 2:08 for the idea of flow).  This either effects the noted follow-up strike or (if the opponent attempts a cross) places you back on the outside position again from the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this video, you can also see Chris Childs (his base art is Choy Li Fut, but his lineage teaches some Hop Gar) positioning to the outside before a low straight counter-strike at 0:37.  In my lineage, Paau Choih is followed by a low straight punch A LOT.  At 3:49, Chris's student attempts this Paau Choih during some light sparring and Chris replies with the same sequence.
> 
> *Paau Choih as Limb Destruction*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Rogers and Michael Parrella talked about limb disruption as a strike to the limbs (1:35).  In this video circa 5:25, Steven Ventura (my teacher's teacher) talks about attacking the elbow joint.  He's using a Jyu Geng Paau Choih (which is basically the same as the shorter uppercut that was brought up by JowGaWolf), but I personally prefer this application with the longer Paau Choih at full extension.
> 
> Consider, if you will, the position that Kong Fan Wei was in when he got to the outside of the overhand strike.  If he turned toward his opponent, and brought the one fist down hard over-top the opponents arm (kind of like the slight cover over-top that Ventura performs) while the other fist shot to the sky, making contact anywhere at or above the elbow, it becomes a very violent arm break (or break attempt).
> 
> Chris Childs shows the same application concept in his video at 2:20.
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> End Notes:  I really have no intentions of being on this forum much.  If you have any questions/comments/concerns, I can be most easily reached via Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Oracle3927


I apologize for being disrespectful to you, your system, your school, your founders, and your teachers and you brother and sisters of Lama Pai.  My disrespect will not happen again.


----------



## JowGaWolf

clfsean said:


> Ummm... nope.
> 
> We don't exaggerate. We have specific reasons for doing specific techniques a specific way. Not everything is what you see or are shown.


  Sean I apologize for being disrespectful to you, your system, your school, your founders, and your teachers and you brother and sisters of Lama Pai.  Instead of making assumptions about the technique as it's taught in your school  I should have ask.  I am ashamed of my ignorance and the disrespect that I have shown towards you and your school.  My disrespect will not happen again.


----------



## Oracle3927

JowGaWolf said:


> This is how I understood that punch when it was explained to me that night, because it's the same thing that was told to me as along with the statement about techniques getting smaller in a real fight.  By smaller I mean people have a tendency to shortens things up in a fight.  So if it's trained small in practice then it will only get smaller in a fight. I remember this conversation because it came as a result of my Jow Ga Punches.  Where I wasn't extending long enough with the punch in the way that Lama Pai works.



This sounds like something I would have said, and falls into the category of " We don't just start off with large, swinging motions against an opponent in a modern fighting posture; one has to create an opening through positioning."  Most fighters know, that if someone starts swinging a bat at them, all they have to do is beat the timing by coming in straight  (much like beating a Kahp Choih with a side kick).  So, if you're "the bat wielder," some viable option include using a couple of butt-strokes, choking up on the bat to swing in smaller/tighter arcs,  and/or attacking the oponent's limbs to clear out the space between you, so that you can get into a position for a full swing.

If it was me who told you the above statement (and that part about "if it's trained small in practice then it will only get small in a fight" sounds exactly like something I would say, as compared to my brothers, coming out of some of the other things I've studied), then my apologies for explaining so poorly.  (I'm not an expert or a master-teacher; I'm just a student and likely fumbled my way through what I was saying.  Again, my apologies.)



JowGaWolf said:


> As for the second video I can see where my lack of understanding is.  Where the Paau Choih is used to counter a downward strike, which is a different theory than what I know of for the Paau Choih.  Based on the second video I see why we throw our strikes the way we do.



The example from the video just happens to be a downward strike, but it can be used to position for a counter against other angles of attack.  It's basically, just bridging (or attacking the limb) while stepping out of the line of attack.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'll have to ask my Sifu if any of the Jow Ga brothers trained with or fought against anyone from Lama Pai or a similar style.



The stories I've heard where Lama Pai and Jow Ga were together at the same events often come from two generations back.  You may want to check with your Sigung or reach out to Ron Wheeler.

[QUOTE"JowGaWolf, post: 1842746, member: 33903"]I tried to go to the facebook page and it gave me a Page not Found.[/QUOTE]

Sorry.  If the link doesn't work for anyone, you can try looking me up by name & locale:  "Philip Michael Hugh Lawson" out of Atlanta, Georgia, USA.



drop bear said:


> And the mystery is revealed.



Dude, it took about an hour of going through several dozen videos just to find those four videos which provided a decent demonstration to act as examples for the explanation.  I hope that it was of more value to you than just "the mystery is revealed".


----------



## Tez3

Oracle3927 said:


> Sorry. If the link doesn't work for anyone, you can try looking me up by name & locale: "Philip Michael Hugh Lawson" out of Atlanta, Georgia, USA.



It worked for me ( I'm a nosy bugger) glad I did, air force people are always good to know ( even if it's not the RAF )


----------



## clfsean

JowGaWolf said:


> Sean I apologize for being disrespectful to you, your system, your school, your founders, and your teachers and you brother and sisters of Lama Pai.  Instead of making assumptions about the technique as it's taught in your school  I should have ask.  I am ashamed of my ignorance and the disrespect that I have shown towards you and your school.  My disrespect will not happen again.



M ... well spoken & gladly accepted. Let's move past this & continue growing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> It worked for me ( I'm a nosy bugger) glad I did, air force people are always good to know ( even if it's not the RAF )


I had to be logged into Facebook in order for it to work.  I wasn't logged in the first 2 times I tried.


----------



## drop bear

Oracle3927 said:


> Dude, it took about an hour of going through several dozen videos just to find those four videos which provided a decent demonstration to act as examples for the explanation. I hope that it was of more value to you than just "the mystery is revealed".



Been there myself. I feel your pain. But my only issue was clifsean gave a crap response and tried to dress it up as some sort of too secret to tell you technique.

You explained it how clifsean probably should have done from the out set.

Job done. Nice work.


----------



## clfsean

drop bear said:


> Been there myself. I feel your pain. But my only issue was clifsean gave a crap response and tried to dress it up as some sort of too secret to tell you technique.
> 
> You explained it how clifsean probably should have done from the out set.
> 
> Job done. Nice work.



Except I'm not him. It wasn't a crap response. It wasn't what you expected. 

So kindly put me on ignore & you no longer have to deal with my crap responses in the future.  I'll do the same for you.


----------



## drop bear

clfsean said:


> Except I'm not him. It wasn't a crap response. It wasn't what you expected.
> 
> So kindly put me on ignore & you no longer have to deal with my crap responses in the future.  I'll do the same for you.



You are right you are not him. He gave a sensible response. You acted like a child. And I wasn't really expecting a sensible response. So I am legitimately impressed at least someone took the time to explain how they do things.

If you want to put me on ignore you can do so without telling me how much you are ignoring me. It seems a bit counter productive to be honest.


----------



## Flying Crane

I believe I am the one who introduced the term exaggerated technique, in a prior post.

Exaggerated is not the same as over-extended, and I was referencing the biomechanics and establishing a methodology for the engine that drives ones techniques.

As has been pointed out above, it can take some set up to use the techniques in that fashion.  Yes, that certainly works.

And the engine can be used to drive a shorter version of the technique, and get a similar power and effect. And then it looks different, but the engine is still there, it is still the same technique.

Context matters.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> And the engine can be used to drive a shorter version of the technique, and get a similar power and effect. And then it looks different, but the engine is still there, it is still the same technique.


I agree and want to add that in almost every form, there will be punches that are longer than in applications.  In application the opponent moves in and out of various ranges many times preventing one from being able to be "long" with a technique in the same manner that it is practiced in a form.  In the system I study. Long is the same as exaggerated.  It helps us to keep our range of motion flexible and strong.  It's the same concept that weight lifters use.  If they lift weights in with a small range of motion then the tendons get shorter and everything becomes tighter.  It's easier and more practical to train long and to shorten if needed in application, than to train small and try to lengthen in application.  If the tendons are tight and the flexibility isn't there, then lengthening a technique won't be possible.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree and want to add that in almost every form, there will be punches that are longer than in applications.  In application the opponent moves in and out of various ranges many times preventing one from being able to be "long" with a technique in the same manner that it is practiced in a form.  In the system I study. Long is the same as exaggerated.  It helps us to keep our range of motion flexible and strong.  It's the same concept that weight lifters use.  If they lift weights in with a small range of motion then the tendons get shorter and everything becomes tighter.  It's easier and more practical to train long and to shorten if needed in application, than to train small and try to lengthen in application.  If the tendons are tight and the flexibility isn't there, then lengthening a technique won't be possible.


I would hesitate to say that long is the same as exaggerated.  Maybe a better way to describe it might be to say that the movement is bigger.  That can include long, but not necessarily, and definitely not exclusively.

By bigger, I mean the body connections, turning the feet and driving the waist rotation and the reverse swing-back with the other arm.  These are all things that add to how we build an understanding of full body connection.  The entire body rotates starting at the feet.  The exaggerated/big movement helps understand the connections.

But in use, it can become much much smaller.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I would hesitate to say that long is the same as exaggerated.  Maybe a better way to describe it might be to say that the movement is bigger.  That can include long, but not necessarily, and definitely not exclusively.
> 
> By bigger, I mean the body connections, turning the feet and driving the waist rotation and the reverse swing-back with the other arm.  These are all things that add to how we build an understanding of full body connection.  The entire body rotates starting at the feet.  The exaggerated/big movement helps understand the connections.
> 
> But in use, it can become much much smaller.


I guess it matters in the context of what is being viewed.  Form vs Free Sparring application vs Real World Fight Application.  One could say that the length is normal for form but not normal for Sparring or Real world fight application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I would hesitate to say that long is the same as exaggerated.  Maybe a better way to describe it might be to say that the movement is bigger.  That can include long, but not necessarily, and definitely not exclusively.
> 
> By bigger, I mean the body connections, turning the feet and driving the waist rotation and the reverse swing-back with the other arm.  These are all things that add to how we build an understanding of full body connection.  The entire body rotates starting at the feet.  The exaggerated/big movement helps understand the connections.
> 
> But in use, it can become much much smaller.


This was how I read your initial usage of "exaggerated". I assumed you simply meant movements that were larger. I sometimes refer to the differences between Aikido styles by how "exaggerated" their circles are, and point out the advantages and disadvantages of those larger circles.

EDIT: "Exaggerated" vs. "Compact" - neither necessarily being a negative.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess it matters in the context of what is being viewed.  Form vs Free Sparring application vs Real World Fight Application.  One could say that the length is normal for form but not normal for Sparring or Real world fight application.


Well, there were some important points made in some earlier posts about how we hit through the target.  Sure, everyone has this concept in some way or other.  But the baseball bat analogy was pretty good.  We aren't content with penetrating.  We are looking to completely blast through the target.  So in that sense, the real world application still has room for the big movement.

It isn't always possible or practical under all circumstances.  But underneath it all, that is the intention.  It's kind of an "all or nothing" mentality.  If we decide to hit, then we hit to destroy. If I don't feel it's worth destroying the target, then maybe it's not worth hitting at all.  That is a recognition of the seriousness of violent action.  It's not a game.  This is also why it can be difficult to spar with out method, because the mental approach and mindset is to destroy.  We practice a method with that intention.  If we dial it back, then we undermine that intention and we develop a habit of holding back the power.  That is completely counter to how our methodology is structured.  I know that certain people will jump on that comment and have a heyday with it.  Their opinion means nothing.  That is why I ignore them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Well, there were some important points made in some earlier posts about how we hit through the target.  Sure, everyone has this concept in some way or other.  But the baseball bat analogy was pretty good.  We aren't content with penetrating.  We are looking to completely blast through the target.  So in that sense, the real world application still has room for the big movement.
> 
> It isn't always possible or practical under all circumstances.  But underneath it all, that is the intention.  It's kind of an "all or nothing" mentality.  If we decide to hit, then we hit to destroy. If I don't feel it's worth destroying the target, then maybe it's not worth hitting at all.  That is a recognition of the seriousness of violent action.  It's not a game.  This is also why it can be difficult to spar with out method, because the mental approach and mindset is to destroy.  We practice a method with that intention.  If we dial it back, then we undermine that intention and we develop a habit of holding back the power.  That is completely counter to how our methodology is structured.  I know that certain people will jump on that comment and have a heyday with it.  Their opinion means nothing.  That is why I ignore them.


My response is not an argument as your comment may be true for your system.

I don't like the baseball bat analogy because it's not a punch.  The mechanics are not the same.  Let's put the baseball analogy in the context of fighting.

Guy with baseball bat swings through as you stated.  Watch what happens.  He did exactly what you said.  He swung through with power.  If he hits, then great.  If he misses then that power carries his swing through and as a result he gets punch through the opening caused by swinging through beyond where he actually needed to swing through.  This is why many practical staff forms do not have staff swings that swing through like a bat.  For the one's that do swing through like a bat, those swing around back to the beginning.





You can see my swing through punch here.  You can also see me do multiple swings, and you'll see me do one that is like your baseball bat analogy except for the fact that I do something that covers that opening caused by the baseball bat analogy.  I know from first hand experience because I got kicked by a Sifu who was helping me with my Jow Ga Kup Choys to understand the opening that swinging through leaves me, which in turn made me understand completely why this particular punch is always done a certain way in the Jow Ga form.  You can also see the other things that were mention about the  Paau Choih.

It was stated that the punch required a set up, but I think that's because of how Lama Pai throws them (You will have to ask them or if you take Lama Pai yourself then you would be able to compare the difference).  In Jow Ga, the way that we throw the Paau Choih allows me to use them as an initial attack that doesn't require a set up.  In the video my initial swings are not thrown short they are attacking the guard.  I continue the swinging so I can keep him at bay and reset.





You can also see the punch here from this other Jow Ga School in Australia.





When I do some of my big punches, it is less about punching through the target (because punching through on a circular punch is only within a small range of contact), and more about following through, so that I can use the momentum of one punch to drive the power of my next punch.  This not only makes my long fist punches faster, but it's also faster to do,  than trying to reset that type of punch pull it back to reload and then launch it again.  It's like you stated "it's an all or nothing" technique.  You don't want to bail out of it. The effort that it would take to actually slow some of the long fist punches down from full force to stop makes bailing out very dangerous.

I also agree with your other statements about being difficult to spar with some of these techniques. This is why the punches in my sparring video are slow in comparison to how they would actually be thrown in a real fight or even a competitive fight.  Here the baseball analogy fits.   It's like swinging a baseball bat as hard as you can and then trying to stop your swing so you don't hit the ball.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> My response is not an argument as your comment may be true for your system.
> 
> I don't like the baseball bat analogy because it's not a punch.  The mechanics are not the same.  Let's put the baseball analogy in the context of fighting.
> 
> Guy with baseball bat swings through as you stated.  Watch what happens.  He did exactly what you said.  He swung through with power.  If he hits, then great.  If he misses then that power carries his swing through and as a result he gets punch through the opening caused by swinging through beyond where he actually needed to swing through.  This is why many practical staff forms do not have staff swings that swing through like a bat.  For the one's that do swing through like a bat, those swing around back to the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see my swing through punch here.  You can also see me do multiple swings, and you'll see me do one that is like your baseball bat analogy except for the fact that I do something that covers that opening caused by the baseball bat analogy.  I know from first hand experience because I got kicked by a Sifu who was helping me with my Jow Ga Kup Choys to understand the opening that swinging through leaves me, which in turn made me understand completely why this particular punch is always done a certain way in the Jow Ga form.  You can also see the other things that were mention about the  Paau Choih.
> 
> It was stated that the punch required a set up, but I think that's because of how Lama Pai throws them (You will have to ask them or if you take Lama Pai yourself then you would be able to compare the difference).  In Jow Ga, the way that we throw the Paau Choih allows me to use them as an initial attack that doesn't require a set up.  In the video my initial swings are not thrown short they are attacking the guard.  I continue the swinging so I can keep him at bay and reset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also see the punch here from this other Jow Ga School in Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I do some of my big punches, it is less about punching through the target (because punching through on a circular punch is only within a small range of contact), and more about following through, so that I can use the momentum of one punch to drive the power of my next punch.  This not only makes my long fist punches faster, but it's also faster to do,  than trying to reset that type of punch pull it back to reload and then launch it again.  It's like you stated "it's an all or nothing" technique.  You don't want to bail out of it. The effort that it would take to actually slow some of the long fist punches down from full force to stop makes bailing out very dangerous.
> 
> I also agree with your other statements about being difficult to spar with some of these techniques. This is why the punches in my sparring video are slow in comparison to how they would actually be thrown in a real fight or even a competitive fight.  Here the baseball analogy fits.   It's like swinging a baseball bat as hard as you can and then trying to stop your swing so you don't hit the ball.


Well, as an analogy, I'm not going to compare it with someone actually fighting with a bat.  When you introduce a tool or weapon, things are altered to some degree.  The analogy is simply the follow-through and committment with the intention of maximum damage.  

I agree that this can leave you open in some ways, and that is why I have commented that the big movement can go away while still having similar effect, as long as the principles that give it power are still in place.  The big movement, in actual fighting, has its place, but can also leave you open, and ya gotta recognize when it is appropriate, or not.  Context matters.  We use one punch to flow into the next, and that can cover any openings so they are a lot less than one might suppose.

In don't train Lama Pai, I train in the sister method Tibetan White Crane.  They are not identical, but the underlying methods and theory are still very close.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Well, as an analogy, I'm not going to compare it with someone actually fighting with a bat.  When you introduce a tool or weapon, things are altered to some degree.  The analogy is simply the follow-through and committment with the intention of maximum damage.
> 
> I agree that this can leave you open in some ways, and that is why I have commented that the big movement can go away while still having similar effect, as long as the principles that give it power are still in place.  The big movement, in actual fighting, has its place, but can also leave you open, and ya gotta recognize when it is appropriate, or not.  Context matters.  We use one punch to flow into the next, and that can cover any openings so they are a lot less than one might suppose.
> 
> In don't train Lama Pai, I train in the sister method Tibetan White Crane.  They are not identical, but the underlying methods and theory are still very close.



I think a problem occurs when you are talking many Chinese marital arts style as compared to non-Chinese systems. Many want to here "If he does "A" then I do "B" and that is simply not how many Chinese styles work, heck it is not even how much of Chinese culture works. Basically not all front jabs are created equally and depending on the speed, power and direction of force things can change drastically as it applies to a response.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> The analogy is simply the follow-through and committment with the intention of maximum damage.


I agree.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Xue Sheng said:


> I think a problem occurs when you are talking many Chinese marital arts style as compared to non-Chinese systems. Many want to here "If he does "A" then I do "B"


It's a big problem in many schools including the one I train in.  It's not a slam on any school or system, it's just a common mindset.  I'm was guilty of the same mindset until I started trusting the technique. I actually have a drill that I use to help keep me from moving back into that mindset.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I believe I am the one who introduced the term exaggerated technique, in a prior post.
> 
> Exaggerated is not the same as over-extended, and I was referencing the biomechanics and establishing a methodology for the engine that drives ones techniques.
> 
> As has been pointed out above, it can take some set up to use the techniques in that fashion.  Yes, that certainly works.
> 
> And the engine can be used to drive a shorter version of the technique, and get a similar power and effect. And then it looks different, but the engine is still there, it is still the same technique.
> 
> Context matters.



Head kicks to a certain degree are an example of an effective exaggerated technique.

Your foot goes from the floor in a circle to their head. That is a comparative massive distance to travel. But it also comes from an odd angle making it hard to pick.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> My response is not an argument as your comment may be true for your system.
> 
> I don't like the baseball bat analogy because it's not a punch.  The mechanics are not the same.  Let's put the baseball analogy in the context of fighting.
> 
> Guy with baseball bat swings through as you stated.  Watch what happens.  He did exactly what you said.  He swung through with power.  If he hits, then great.  If he misses then that power carries his swing through and as a result he gets punch through the opening caused by swinging through beyond where he actually needed to swing through.  This is why many practical staff forms do not have staff swings that swing through like a bat.  For the one's that do swing through like a bat, those swing around back to the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see my swing through punch here.  You can also see me do multiple swings, and you'll see me do one that is like your baseball bat analogy except for the fact that I do something that covers that opening caused by the baseball bat analogy.  I know from first hand experience because I got kicked by a Sifu who was helping me with my Jow Ga Kup Choys to understand the opening that swinging through leaves me, which in turn made me understand completely why this particular punch is always done a certain way in the Jow Ga form.  You can also see the other things that were mention about the  Paau Choih.
> 
> It was stated that the punch required a set up, but I think that's because of how Lama Pai throws them (You will have to ask them or if you take Lama Pai yourself then you would be able to compare the difference).  In Jow Ga, the way that we throw the Paau Choih allows me to use them as an initial attack that doesn't require a set up.  In the video my initial swings are not thrown short they are attacking the guard.  I continue the swinging so I can keep him at bay and reset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also see the punch here from this other Jow Ga School in Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I do some of my big punches, it is less about punching through the target (because punching through on a circular punch is only within a small range of contact), and more about following through, so that I can use the momentum of one punch to drive the power of my next punch.  This not only makes my long fist punches faster, but it's also faster to do,  than trying to reset that type of punch pull it back to reload and then launch it again.  It's like you stated "it's an all or nothing" technique.  You don't want to bail out of it. The effort that it would take to actually slow some of the long fist punches down from full force to stop makes bailing out very dangerous.
> 
> I also agree with your other statements about being difficult to spar with some of these techniques. This is why the punches in my sparring video are slow in comparison to how they would actually be thrown in a real fight or even a competitive fight.  Here the baseball analogy fits.   It's like swinging a baseball bat as hard as you can and then trying to stop your swing so you don't hit the ball.



You guys enter really straight fo a lot of circular strikes. There are guys who pull off big loopy striking. But they tend to be unorthodox.











Even looking at the Jow Gar kata they are constantly cutting angles and hitting being basically awkward to predict.

hop Gar no surprise. Hits akward angles.
Tibetan Lama Pai Lion's Roar Hop Gar Kung Fu - The Eight Basic Punches

A better example as he is also hitting a level change going back through the middle. or hitting sort of back fist shots without going back through the middle.

Rare Hop Ga Forms


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You guys enter really straight fo a lot of circular strikes.


I take angles as well. I just haven't shown those videos yet.  Here's the general rules.  If they flee, then follow.  If they take and angle then take an angle. If they attack then take an angle.  If they stay still then take an angle.  

We train angles all the time both in drills and in sparring.  I think I have 3 or 4 examples of me and another student taking angles during light sparring.


----------



## mograph

drop bear said:


> But it also comes from an odd angle making it hard to pick.


Defence against it: learn to watch for the weight shift then step back?


----------



## drop bear

mograph said:


> Defence against it: learn to watch for the weight shift then step back?



It every time they shifted they threw a particular strike. But the idea is to have a few option to each shif you do. That way they don't know what is coming untill the last second.


----------



## FighterTwister

Kung-Fu vs MMA  only back in the old days of UFC (Cage Warrior's) when it all started not anymore just no chance of that ever happening, again.

Under the revised striking guidelines in their contracts, thats for sure.

I would have loved to watch Kung-Fu San Soo at work in the old days though.......watch................


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> Kung-Fu vs MMA  only back in the old days of UFC (Cage Warrior's) when it all started not anymore just no chance of that ever happening, again.
> 
> Under the revised striking guidelines in their contracts, thats for sure.
> 
> I would have loved to watch Kung-Fu San Soo at work in the old days though.......watch................


Actually it happens all the time. Revised striking guidelines in their contracts? Wtf lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Kung-Fu vs MMA  only back in the old days of UFC (Cage Warrior's) when it all started not anymore just no chance of that ever happening, again.
> 
> Under the revised striking guidelines in their contracts, thats for sure.
> 
> I would have loved to watch Kung-Fu San Soo at work in the old days though.......watch................


Originally the UFC was supposed to be different fighting systems against each other, which is awesome. I think it would have worked out well had it stayed that way, but people started mixing and matching skill sets instead of representing their fighting system.  I think kung fu would have benefited greatly had it stayed as it was originally envisioned.  Now it's just a bunch of fighters and if you ask them which system do they represent many of them will say,  I don't represent one system I study a variety of things.

I would like the UFC fights more if it were people form various fighting systems testing out their ability and staying true to the fighting system that they are training.  I think there are a lot of martial arts out there that would have advanced had it stayed this way.  I like watching people find solutions within their own system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Kung-Fu vs MMA  only back in the old days of UFC (Cage Warrior's) when it all started not anymore just no chance of that ever happening, again.
> 
> Under the revised striking guidelines in their contracts, thats for sure.
> 
> I would have loved to watch Kung-Fu San Soo at work in the old days though.......watch................


Oh by the way many of those techniques shown in that video aren't realistic.  I couldn't tell if you were being serious about Kung -Fu San Soo or being funny. lol.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> Originally the UFC was supposed to be different fighting systems against each other, which is awesome. I think it would have worked out well had it stayed that way, but people started mixing and matching skill sets instead of representing their fighting system.  I think kung fu would have benefited greatly had it stayed as it was originally envisioned.  Now it's just a bunch of fighters and if you ask them which system do they represent many of them will say,  I don't represent one system I study a variety of things.
> 
> I would like the UFC fights more if it were people form various fighting systems testing out their ability and staying true to the fighting system that they are training.  I think there are a lot of martial arts out there that would have advanced had it stayed this way.  I like watching people find solutions within their own system.


The thing is, professional fighters are generally much more concerned with winning their fights than with artificially limiting themselves by proving the worth of a particular martial art. Those who do feel the need to limit themselves that way don't generally get very far against the calibre of today's competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> The thing is, professional fighters are generally much more concerned with winning their fights than with artificially limiting themselves by proving the worth of a particular martial art. Those who do feel the need to limit themselves that way don't generally get very far against the calibre of today's competition.


Agreed. It's the nature of competition - it tends to attract folks who wish to win. And they tend to adjust what they do to give them the best chance of winning in that format.

And there are many (I count myself among those, so a clear bias on my part) who don't feel limited by the origin of our art, either. I've both added to and subtracted from the curriculum I learned in. To me, it's still NGA, but it's not the NGA that came to the US.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> The thing is, professional fighters are generally much more concerned with winning their fights than with artificially limiting themselves by proving the worth of a particular martial art. Those who do feel the need to limit themselves that way don't generally get very far against the calibre of today's competition.


I'm not sure.  Boxers are professional fighters, they limit themselves.  Muay Thai fighters are professional fighters and they limit there fighting to Muay Thai.  They care about winning just as much.   I think if they were to limit themselves in the UFC then they would be forced to find a solution within the fighting system of their choice.  I do believe that you are right but in a more specific manner.  UFC attracted fighters who were trying to be the best within their system.  It attracted fighters who just wanted to fight and win and not master a specific style so they could win with it.  I don't see fighting systems as limited as most because there is no way in the world that what happens in the UFC ring is new to any fighting system that has been around for hundreds of years.  Things like rules could shape the competition limitations.  I understand that it's a business and I have no problem with that.  I'm just recognizing that it's a lost opportunity that could have happened sooner than later.  Some TMA schools are kind of heading in this direction now that MMA practitioners have beaten other TMA practitioners.  They are digging deeper into the system and training it in the context of "how would I use system A" vs MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure.  Boxers are professional fighters, they limit themselves.  Muay Thai fighters are professional fighters and they limit there fighting to Muay Thai.


They limit themselves to what works in the format they choose. That was the original point. MMA fighters will use what works within that format, rather than limiting themselves to a single style.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure.  Boxers are professional fighters, they limit themselves.  Muay Thai fighters are professional fighters and they limit there fighting to Muay Thai.  They care about winning just as much.   I think if they were to limit themselves in the UFC then they would be forced to find a solution within the fighting system of their choice.  I do believe that you are right but in a more specific manner.  UFC attracted fighters who were trying to be the best within their system.  It attracted fighters who just wanted to fight and win and not master a specific style so they could win with it.  I don't see fighting systems as limited as most because there is no way in the world that what happens in the UFC ring is new to any fighting system that has been around for hundreds of years.  Things like rules could shape the competition limitations.  I understand that it's a business and I have no problem with that.  I'm just recognizing that it's a lost opportunity that could have happened sooner than later.  Some TMA schools are kind of heading in this direction now that MMA practitioners have beaten other TMA practitioners.  They are digging deeper into the system and training it in the context of "how would I use system A" vs MMA.


Boxers and Muay Thai fighters are limited by the rules of the sport they are competing in, but they use whatever tools work for them within the rules. If they could win fights by using techniques from a different art that were legal in their matches they would.  If they compete under rules which allow more options, then they will use those options if they are helpful.

The whole point of MMA competition is to allow as broad a range of techniques and tactics as possible. As long as those are allowed, it's going to be hard to incentivize fighters to limit themselves just to prove a point about the effectiveness of a given tradition. (There are some fighters who are willing to do that, but they can't hang at the top levels competition any more.)


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Boxers and Muay Thai fighters are limited by the rules of the sport they are competing in, but they use whatever tools work for them within the rules. If they could win fights by using techniques from a different art that were legal in their matches they would.  If they compete under rules which allow more options, then they will use those options if they are helpful.
> 
> The whole point of MMA competition is to allow as broad a range of techniques and tactics as possible. As long as those are allowed, it's going to be hard to incentivize fighters to limit themselves just to prove a point about the effectiveness of a given tradition. (There are some fighters who are willing to do that, but they can't hang at the top levels competition any more.)



Speaking of how is Kron  Gracie faring?


----------



## Anarax

Martial D said:


>



It seems the video is very subjectively edited. The "Kiai Master" he "beat up" gave a demonstration before the agreed upon fight. He had many students charge him and by simple hand motions which made zero contact his students would fall to the floor. He stated he had a professional fight record of I believe 200-0 and he had an open invitation for anyone one to challenge him. With proper context, I believe the MMA guy in the first part of the video was in the right to challenge him.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Speaking of how is Kron  Gracie faring?


He's 4-0 in 3 years against no-name opponents. He's good enough to win pro matches using pure BJJ, but he's never been tested against UFC level competition.


----------



## TMA17

"In the words of Bruce Lee, “style is a crystallization.”  The moment you dictate a specific way that a technique should be practiced, you also risk creating shortcomings in such techniques that are overlooked at the time."


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> Oh by the way many of those techniques shown in that video aren't realistic.  I couldn't tell if you were being serious about Kung -Fu San Soo or being funny. lol.



I so disagree with you here on the opinion of "Kung - Fu San Soo"  being fake or just not a good art for real fights in the battlefield so to speak.

Its a very aggressive blast of movement like a storm rushing creek smashing you as you stand there LoL

Seriously have you ever felt strong rushing current standing in a creek whilst there is a strong storm/rain...pfftt c'mon

Watch:-

San Soo instructions with 1st Force Recon Co Part 1-3 with a very experienced instructor in the military who has also served in the US Army Vietnam war......... 

















Go here.......  1st Force Reconnaissance Company      ........... 

More info here:- 1st Force Reconnaissance Company - Wikipedia

Its real right LoL


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TMA17 said:


> "In the words of Bruce Lee, “style is a crystallization.”  The moment you dictate a specific way that a technique should be practiced, you also risk creating shortcomings in such techniques that are overlooked at the time."


And if you don't, you risk people wandering into versions that are less effective. There are risks in each direction.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> I so disagree with you here on the opinion of "Kung - Fu San Soo" being fake or just not a good art for real fights in the battlefield so to speak


I never said that "Kung-Fu San Soo" was fake.  I only spoke of the techniques that I saw in that video.
Show me a "Kung - Fu San Soo" sparring video and I may have a better opinion of the techniques that I saw in the video.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> I never said that "Kung-Fu San Soo" was fake.  I only spoke of the techniques that I saw in that video.
> Show me a "Kung - Fu San Soo" sparring video and I may have a better opinion of the techniques that I saw in the video.



LoL

Respectfully I ask, do you know anything about San Soo before we discuss?

If you don't go and study it up and learn what the art is all about, then we can talk or have some kind of discussion.

If you don't respect the look of the art or the moves or like them for that matter its because you don't know about it.

Thats a given right there going by your reply above, It can not be more obvious to me even if I look in the mirror and see my own face LoL

Hard to tell if you are trolling me or honestly unaware of this martial art type so I take it with as a grain of salt so to speak!

But watch Grand Master Jimmy H. Woo














READ HERE:- THE HISTORY OF KUNG-FU SAN SOO


Its not designed to look pretty but rough, hard and fast is the main idea, its also been respected by many senior leaders in other martial arts as one of the toughest martial arts around.

If you don't like it or agree that says more about you than the actual Kung - Fu San Soo martial art style 

I like it allot, the style is unique and very aggressive to say the least, you won't see it in training videos but in real application its deadly.

Ask the 1st Force Recon Company in this link 1st Force Reconnaissance Company   ....... LOL


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Respectfully I ask, do you know anything about San Soo before we discuss?
> 
> If you don't go and study it up and learn what the art is all about, then we can talk or have some kind of discussion.


Worse reply ever. 



FighterTwister said:


> If you don't respect the look of the art or the moves or like them for that matter its because you don't know about it.
> Thats a given right there going by your reply above, It can not be more obvious to me even if I look in the mirror and see my own face LoL


 I disrespect the art and the moves just because I asked to see a San Soo sparring video so that I may have different perspective than what I saw in the first video? 



FighterTwister said:


> Hard to tell if you are trolling me or honestly unaware of this martial art type so I take it with as a grain of salt so to speak!


I don't take San Soo and when I looked it up I only saw one San Soo sparring video.  Which looked like this.  Beyond this video, I would have to say there aren't any San Soo sparring videos out there on youtube.





I don't troll.  I don't see any point on just being irritating for the sake of irritating someone. 

The Videos that you are posting are demo videos and not sparring video. It's a demo video.   All I'm asking for is a sparring video of San Soo where 2 people are free sparring and trying to use the techniques that I saw in that video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> I like it allot, the style is unique and very aggressive to say the least, you won't see it in training videos but in real application its deadly.


Yeah I don't buy this.  While a martial arts may have a couple of deadly techniques, there are also some non-lethal techniques.  I'm from the train of thought that a person cannot learn how to apply martial arts techniques correctly without sparring. 

This is where a lot of kung fu practioners got into trouble in thinking that everything was too deadly to spar with and when it came time to actually use it, they couldn't because they had no familiarity of the movement, timing, strategy, and resistance that one normally has to deal with when fighting against an opponent who is trying to attack and defend.

The quote in my signature speaks to this.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> Worse reply ever.
> 
> I disrespect the art and the moves just because I asked to see a San Soo sparring video so that I may have different perspective than what I saw in the first video?
> 
> I don't take San Soo and when I looked it up I only saw one San Soo sparring video.  Which looked like this.  Beyond this video, I would have to say there aren't any San Soo sparring videos out there on youtube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't troll.  I don't see any point on just being irritating for the sake of irritating someone.
> 
> The Videos that you are posting are demo videos and not sparring video. It's a demo video.   All I'm asking for is a sparring video of San Soo where 2 people are free sparring and trying to use the techniques that I saw in that video.



Its really no different to any possible video I could post.

Also there are elements embeded to other Kung-Fu styles in San Soo though but generally its about leverage and hard strikes what you are asking is not going to be easy to even show you. As you will only see slow less aggressive movement due to the core intent of the style and people in training or sparring don't kill each other, right!

This art is very deadly when actually used in full power and speed with intent to kill that is why its used by the military proven by the links in previous posts.

However this video might give a different view.................







Here are a couple more...............


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Its really no different to any possible video I could post.
> 
> Also there are elements embeded to other Kung-Fu styles in San Soo though but generally its about leverage and hard strikes what you are asking is not going to be easy to even show you. As you will only see slow less aggressive movement due to the core intent of the style and people in training or sparring don't kill each other, right!
> 
> This art is very deadly when actually used in full power and speed with intent to kill that is why its used by the military proven by the links in previous posts.
> 
> However this video might give a different view.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a couple more...............


Sorry still doesn't help.  These are still demos.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry still doesn't help.  These are still demos.




Well you are just "Trolling" you can deny it but thats what you are doing as you would know even say in Akido people don't even strike hard with the sword to kill so people like you can see it, we live in modern times in countries with laws go back to ancient times for that or watch the history channel  LoL

Its no point discussing with you have your way young lad 

But i appreciate the San Soo style you don't thats you not me LoL

Like i said earlier its more about you than the art!

Cheers


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry still doesn't help.  These are still demos.


they are quite robust demo, I've seen sparing vids posted that don't have as much contact as that


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they are quite robust demo, I've seen sparing vids posted that don't have as much contact as that



And proffesional wrestling matches that have more.





Contact is not necessarily realism.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> And proffesional wrestling matches that have more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact is not necessarily realism.


but light contact is less real, reality is after all relative, as Einstein pointed out.

when people are bouncing of the floor because of the force they were put down with, that has at least as much reality as tkd playing foot tag with padding everywhere


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> Its really no different to any possible video I could post.
> 
> Also there are elements embeded to other Kung-Fu styles in San Soo though but generally its about leverage and hard strikes what you are asking is not going to be easy to even show you. As you will only see slow less aggressive movement due to the core intent of the style and people in training or sparring don't kill each other, right!
> 
> This art is very deadly when actually used in full power and speed with intent to kill that is why its used by the military proven by the links in previous posts.
> 
> However this video might give a different view.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a couple more...............


Do you also believe pro wrestling is real?


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> And proffesional wrestling matches that have more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact is not necessarily realism.


If anything this is MORE realistic than those demos...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FighterTwister said:


> Its really no different to any possible video I could post.
> 
> Also there are elements embeded to other Kung-Fu styles in San Soo though but generally its about leverage and hard strikes what you are asking is not going to be easy to even show you. As you will only see slow less aggressive movement due to the core intent of the style and people in training or sparring don't kill each other, right!
> 
> This art is very deadly when actually used in full power and speed with intent to kill that is why its used by the military proven by the links in previous posts.
> 
> However this video might give a different view.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a couple more...............


Your responses speak of a lack of understanding. Very little as deadly as you claim, and no entire art/system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FighterTwister said:


> Well you are just "Trolling" you can deny it but thats what you are doing as you would know even say in Akido people don't even strike hard with the sword to kill so people like you can see it, we live in modern times in countries with laws go back to ancient times for that or watch the history channel  LoL
> 
> Its no point discussing with you have your way young lad
> 
> But i appreciate the San Soo style you don't thats you not me LoL
> 
> Like i said earlier its more about you than the art!
> 
> Cheers


If you are claiming in your first sentence that Aikido is a deadly art (moreso than just punching and shoving), you are delusional.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> they are quite robust demo, I've seen sparing vids posted that don't have as much contact as that


I didn't watch the videos, so just ignore me if I'm not contributing on this. Demos use non-resisting partners, while sparring uses resisting partners. What we can manage to do in those two contexts is very different.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Do you also believe pro wrestling is real?


yes its as real as anything, i suppose you mean is it a real contest, probably not, but the muscles, the,agility the speed are real, I'm backing one of them guys against 99.99% of the population.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I didn't watch the videos, so just ignore me if I'm not contributing on this. Demos use non-resisting partners, while sparring uses resisting partners. What we can manage to do in those two contexts is very different.


 No need you will still say the same statement.  Demo vs actually applying those same technique against a resisting person is not the same thing.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I didn't watch the videos, so just ignore me if I'm not contributing on this. Demos use non-resisting partners, while sparring uses resisting partners. What we can manage to do in those two contexts is very different.


watch the vids, they are going at it, how much resistance there is , is up for debate, but it looks good, much better than most demos, they bounce when they hit the floor

think we have done this before? If you are good it doesn't matter if they are resting or not


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but light contact is less real, reality is after all relative, as Einstein pointed out.
> 
> when people are bouncing of the floor because of the force they were put down with, that has at least as much reality as tkd playing foot tag with padding everywhere



Yeah but then if the other guy is trying to stop you a light contact has more relevance than if the guy is doing everything he can to make your hard contact work.

I can train a guy to hit you hard in about 10 minutes if you are dumb enough to either stand there and let him do it. Or attack him in a manner that let's him do it.

This is the principle behind security training by the way. You stand there while two guys come up and put you in goosenecks. Once it is locked on they crank the hell out of it to prove the technique works.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but then if the other guy is trying to stop you a light contact has more relevance than if the guy is doing everything he can to make your hard contact work.
> 
> I can train a guy to hit you hard in about 10 minutes if you are dumb enough to either stand there and let him do it. Or attack him in a manner that let's him do it.
> 
> This is the principle behind security training by the way. You stand there while two guys come up and put you in goosenecks. Once it is locked on they crank the hell out of it to prove the technique works.


light contact foot tag is relevant to playing light contact foot tag, thats all,

the speed and the,agility in that demo are just as useful, probably more so, as it includes break falls


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> watch the vids, they are going at it, how much resistance there is , is up for debate, but it looks good, much better than most demos, they bounce when they hit the floor
> 
> think we have done this before? If you are good it doesn't matter if they are resting or not


  They aren't going at it.  Only one person is attacking, the other isn't trying to resist, avoid, counter, or defend against the attack.  it's a Demo and there is no debate about if it's a demo or not.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> light contact foot tag is relevant to playing light contact foot tag, thats all,
> 
> the speed and the,agility in that demo are just as useful, probably more so, as it includes break falls



And so like professional wrestling the skill is more apparent in the guy who is loosing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> No need you will still say the same statement.  Demo vs actually applying those same technique against a resisting person is not the same thing.


Did you quote the wrong person, JGW?


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> yes its as real as anything, i suppose you mean is it a real contest, probably not, but the muscles, the,agility the speed are real, I'm backing one of them guys against 99.99% of the population.


I was asking the guy that can't seem to tell the difference between fighting and choreography, not you. But ya, I'd agree a guy that does that as a job/hobby would beat your average Walmart greeter or accountant.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> And so like professional wrestling the skill is more apparent in the guy who is loosing.


No one is " loosing," its a demo, there is considerable,skill shown by both parties


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> think we have done this before? If you are good it doesn't matter if they are resting or not


I'm not sure what this is a reference to, but it definitely matters whether they resist or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Did you quote the wrong person, JGW?


  Yes I did. lol. The comment was for you.  Not sure why it came out like that.  I must have forgotten to delete something.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what this is a reference to, but it definitely matters whether they resist or not.


to another conversations we had about a,similar topic, don't worry it will come back to you as we roll put the same points

it matters some times, if i kick someone in the knee they are going over,they can resist all they like, they are still going over, that not a ma kick, its,a centre half's kick. If they resist by moving, then then they are,standing to the next one or the one after gets them, but they,are going down. Resistance is,futile,as they say


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> to another conversations we had about a,similar topic, don't worry it will come back to you as we roll put the same points
> 
> it matters some times, if i kick someone in the knee they are going over,they can resist all they like, they are still going over, that not a ma kick, its,a centre half's kick. If they resist by moving, then then they are,standing to the next one or the one after gets them, but they,are going down. Resistance is,futile,as they say


If you kick them in the knee, yes. Someone resisting is harder to kick in the knee. So it makes a difference. If they move, it takes you longer. If they move and fight back, you might have to change tactics. If they move and fight back competently, it's a whole different story.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> to another conversations we had about a,similar topic, don't worry it will come back to you as we roll put the same points
> 
> it matters some times, if i kick someone in the knee they are going over,they can resist all they like, they are still going over, that not a ma kick, its,a centre half's kick. If they resist by moving, then then they are,standing to the next one or the one after gets them, but they,are going down. Resistance is,futile,as they say


Your experience must be different than mine. In my experience it's much harder to land a kick or a punch on a guy that's fighting back than one who isn't.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Your experience must be different than mine. In my experience it's much harder to land a kick or a punch on a guy that's fighting back than one who isn't.


its much the same to be honest, it harder to hit someone who is moving, but they could be moving and not fighting back, but then its,easier if they are,coming towards you than away


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> If you kick them in the knee, yes. Someone resisting is harder to kick in the knee. So it makes a difference. If they move, it takes you longer. If they move and fight back, you might have to change tactics. If they move and fight back competently, it's a whole different story.


it depends how quick they are rather than if they resist or not, if they are still in range i get them, if not i don't, the act of resisting hasn't changed the odds of me landing, any one who thinks they are going to get kicked will try to move, its their speed relative to mine that is the key,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> it depends how quick they are rather than if they resist or not, if they are still in range i get them, if not i don't, the act of resisting hasn't changed the odds of me landing, any one who thinks they are going to get kicked will try to move, its their speed relative to mine that is the key,


So, someone standing still and letting you kick them is nearly as hard to kick as someone who's trying not to get kicked?


----------



## JowGaWolf

I can't believe this but I found something or relevance lol.  Not about San Soo but about the different between fighting and demos.  And it's a real fight where a kid tries to pull off what seems to be a common martial arts technique that I've seen in many videos.

The technique is a combination.. Knee to the groin then head lock.  See the technique at 2:49.  There is a good chance this kid takes a martial arts because of the ease at which he went for the head lock right after the knee.  





You can thank JOBO for this one.  I was originally looking for videos to highly that bodies don't bounce when they are slammed on the ground.  They only bounce of padded surface.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> it depends how quick they are rather than if they resist or not, if they are still in range i get them, if not i don't, the act of resisting hasn't changed the odds of me landing, any one who thinks they are going to get kicked will try to move, its their speed relative to mine that is the key,


The speed only depends on which direction they are going.  I can move forward at a slower speed against a kick vs having to move backwards to escape a kick.  If I move forward a few inches then I can jam your kick if it's a front kick.  If it's a round house kick then I can move forward or forward at a 45 degree angle and only a few inches will mess up your kick and I don't have to be super quick to do these things.  In other words, I don't have think that I'm going to get kick.  I can actually know that I'm going to get kick because I see it coming and move forward.

Sometimes you can see stuff coming and sometimes you can't.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> The speed only depends on which direction they are going.  I can move forward at a slower speed against a kick vs having to move backwards to escape a kick.  If I move forward a few inches then I can jam your kick if it's a front kick.  If it's a round house kick then I can move forward or forward at a 45 degree angle and only a few inches will mess up your kick and I don't have to be super quick to do these things.  In other words, I don't have think that I'm going to get kick.  I can actually know that I'm going to get kick because I see it coming and move forward.
> 
> Sometimes you can see stuff coming and sometimes you can't.


no your not seeing it, think soccer tackle that would get you sent off,, if you try and jam it, you are,still going over,if you move forward you get the,shin hitting you rather than the foot


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, someone standing still and letting you kick them is nearly as hard to kick as someone who's trying not to get kicked?


they,all try and move when they think they will be kicked, so there isn't a standing still and,a moving, just the quick and the dead


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> but then its,easier if they are,coming towards you than away


I read this and immediately thought about BJJ and other grappling arts become more difficult to deal with as they come towards you.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> its much the same to be honest, it harder to hit someone who is moving, but they could be moving and not fighting back, but then its,easier if they are,coming towards you than away


Moving, covering, blocking, and trying to hit you back. Much the same as someone who is cooperating you say?

Just not seeing it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> no your not seeing it, think soccer tackle that would get you sent off,, if you try and jam it, you are,still going over,if you move forward you get the,shin hitting you rather than the foot


totally lost.  I don't know any kicks that work like a soccer tackle.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> totally lost.  I don't know any kicks that work like a soccer tackle.


It's like a sliding kick to the legs/footsweep from a full out run.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> to another conversations we had about a,similar topic, don't worry it will come back to you as we roll put the same points
> 
> it matters some times, if i kick someone in the knee they are going over,they can resist all they like, they are still going over, that not a ma kick, its,a centre half's kick. If they resist by moving, then then they are,standing to the next one or the one after gets them, but they,are going down. Resistance is,futile,as they say



Whittaker's incredible courage to fight through injury


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they,all try and move when they think they will be kicked, so there isn't a standing still and,a moving, just the quick and the dead



Ok. I think you are missing the point. it is not about you having the avada kedavra of knee kicks. Which you probably don't.

A functional technique will work on a resisting and non resisting oponant. But a non functional technique will only work on a non resisting oponant.

Everything works on a non resisting guy.

Dumbass Martial Arts


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Ok. I think you are missing the point. it is not about you having the avada kedavra of knee kicks. Which you probably don't.
> 
> A functional technique will work on a resisting and non resisting oponant. But a non functional technique will only work on a non resisting oponant.
> 
> Everything works on a non resisting guy.
> 
> Dumbass Martial Arts


That HAS to be satire. At 0:50, he literally just grabs the gun and the guy gives it to him.


----------



## FighterTwister

jobo said:


> but light contact is less real, reality is after all relative, as Einstein pointed out.
> 
> when people are bouncing of the floor because of the force they were put down with, that has at least as much reality as tkd playing foot tag with padding everywhere











The Einsteins laws of physics approach! ......LoL........ I love that answer, I should have thought of that, some of these gents simply know crap or have other underlying reasons for their view or opinions.

I'm here for a good chat about facts, truths based on good historical understanding not distortions or peoples poor understanding which is becoming a theme in most conversations or thread / replies as Jobo pointed out, but this being a martial arts talk Forum you get a circus show of opinions, yes we all have opinions but some are more uneducated and missing the mark completely, false in nature or void of cultural understanding or intent of the martial art type so on.

I would think that common sense and some respect for types of martial arts like Kung Fu San Soo would be a way of thought.

It seems the more I post there are intentional replies to provoke or to counter a complete different view when that view is off completely.

For those that think Kung Fu San Soo is some kind of fake or weak system okay please I dare you go into a kwoon where they teach it and ask to spar full contact, film it and post it here.

You are going to love it every bit of it LoL

But you won't because you know either nothing or you would twiddle at the experience ............  LoL

The fact is it's a very aggressive martial arts form used in the military similar to Krav Maga used by the Israeli defense force which i love also..............







They don't look pretty but are about striking hard first in real battlefield situations.

So please don't tell me now Krav Maga is crap as well oh boy please, just don't, don't, don't you dare, don't do it, don't do it........ damn you did it LoL


Anyway again emphasis on learning any martial art out of interest passion or love for it, is usually within the realms of where and why you practice it. 

If its for the street its self defense, if its for the the defense force it's for attack and intent to kill, if its for the police force its for control and command situations.

I simply love martial arts just love what the body can do and allot is about you the person how you interpret it, how you express it how you embrace it as part of yourself.

People keep blaming systems when its more about them! mm


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> That HAS to be satire. At 0:50, he literally just grabs the gun and the guy gives it to him.



There is this idea that there is some sort of real line between no touch magical fu fu and the martial arts we do.

For me if we are compliantly collapsing to every move regardless if it makes sense or not then that line becomes blurred.

So while we may not be training in that laughable manner. we could be making gestures towards it.


----------



## drop bear

FighterTwister said:


> The Einsteins laws of physics approach! ......LoL........ I love that answer, I should have thought of that, some of these gents simply know crap or have other underlying reasons for their view or opinions.
> 
> I'm here for a good chat about facts, truths based on good historical understanding not distortions or peoples poor understanding which is becoming a theme in most conversations or thread / replies as Jobo pointed out, but this being a martial arts talk Forum you get a circus show of opinions, yes we all have opinions but some are more uneducated and missing the mark completely, false in nature or void of cultural understanding or intent of the martial art type so on.
> 
> I would think that common sense and some respect for types of martial arts like Kung Fu San Soo would be a way of thought.
> 
> It seems the more I post there are intentional replies to provoke or to counter a complete different view when that view is off completely.
> 
> For those that think Kung Fu San Soo is some kind of fake or weak system okay please I dare you go into a kwoon where they teach it and ask to spar full contact, film it and post it here.
> 
> You are going to love it every bit of it LoL
> 
> But you won't because you know either nothing or you would twiddle at the experience ............  LoL
> 
> The fact is it's a very aggressive martial arts form used in the military similar to Krav Maga used by the Israeli defense force which i love also..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't look pretty but are about striking hard first in real battlefield situations.
> 
> So please don't tell me now Krav Maga is crap as well oh boy please, just don't, don't, don't you dare, don't do it, don't do it........ damn you did it LoL
> 
> 
> Anyway again emphasis on learning any martial art out of interest passion or love for it, is usually within the realms of where and why you practice it.
> 
> If its for the street its self defense, if its for the the defense force it's for attack and intent to kill, if its for the police force its for control and command situations.
> 
> I simply love martial arts just love what the body can do and allot is about you the person how you interpret it, how you express it how you embrace it as part of yourself.
> 
> People keep blaming systems when its more about them! mm



Seal teams at one point did scars. Untill someone finally got a clue.

Just because the military does it does not legitimize it.

I mean scars for gods sake.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> they,all try and move when they think they will be kicked, so there isn't a standing still and,a moving, just the quick and the dead


You don’t get it, do you?


----------



## drop bear

FighterTwister said:


> The fact is it's a very aggressive martial arts form used in the military similar to Krav Maga used by the Israeli defense force which i love also..............



By the way did anyone else notice in that video that the instructor actively says that a person will not hold a gun in a certain way.(Arms straight out static) and then proceded to do all his defences from exactly that position.


I notice these things. That is what makes me irritating.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> totally lost.  I don't know any kicks that work like a soccer tackle.


of you do, a soccer tackle, have you never seen one?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. I think you are missing the point. it is not about you having the avada kedavra of knee kicks. Which you probably don't.
> 
> A functional technique will work on a resisting and non resisting oponant. But a non functional technique will only work on a non resisting oponant.
> 
> Everything works on a non resisting guy.
> 
> Dumbass Martial Arts


that the point i made above and people started to disagree with. If the techneque is good, it doesn't matter if someone resists or not, if i hit hit you in the face with an elbow, you cheek bone is gone, stand there or fall over it doesn't matter


----------



## FighterTwister

So many guys use this view of applying resistance as a all stop to all martial arts effectiveness and yes I agree to a point. 

No doubt if overwhelmed you can make mistakes that will cost the fight.

We are talking about highly skilled people here at the top of their game also young adult mastering their art of course.

You need to consider other aspects to a fight as there is deflecting, defending, moving, and parring strikes, just like in boxing there is defensive skills hence Floyd Mayweathers skills as an example pull back, bobbing, weaving,  ducking and footwork skills

But when the person counters using their art form and skill sets that can upset the balance or direction of the fight if the art is very aggressive and hitting vital organs with intent to cause maximum injury or death in cases like military fighting techniques.

The military spend heaps of time researching all this stuff and combine many arts and have a good documented history now of what does work and Kung-Fu San Soo was one of those arts in the list of choice amongst JKD, Judo, Filipino arts etc.

But to stick to the Thread Topic I suggested Kung-Fu San Soo vs MMA as best fit that was my opinion replying to conversation.

As to why people feel San Soo is a poor ineffective system that does not capitalize over an opponent who is lacking aggression, beats me. 

I believe its lack of knowledge its a powerful system like some other types of Kung-Fu as well and here lays the other dilemma that it all depends on the practitioner how well he knows himself how willing to cross the bounds of just hitting to utilizing the whole art form for maximum hurt in the act of fighting because thats what San Soo is in the practical application.

More here:- Kung Fu San Soo: Effective, Real-Life, Street-Fighting Techniques


----------



## Tez3

FighterTwister said:


> The military spend heaps of time researching all this stuff and combine many arts and have a good documented history now of what does work



Whose military? The British military doesn't, being more engaged with weapons that preferable kill people from a distance considering that that approach is safer for it's troops. I imagine that's the approach most modern military take these days hence things like drones that drop bombs rather than unarmed martial arts.


----------



## FighterTwister

Tez3 said:


> Whose military? The British military doesn't, being more engaged with weapons that preferable kill people from a distance considering that that approach is safer for it's troops. I imagine that's the approach most modern military take these days hence things like drones that drop bombs rather than unarmed martial arts.



Of course military use hand to hand combat training regardless of the age we live in, in fact i would say they have stepped it up since 9/11 

*Navy SEAL on real martial arts Navy SEAL Jocko Willink on real martial arts. Keep in mind that he is an expert in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.*







*Navy SEAL Hand 2 Hand Combat Training*







Heaps of History Channel Documentaries demonstrating how special forces train so on, how could they not train in hand to hand combat especially in capture and contain training so on

Thanks to those guys our borders a kept safe.


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> So many guys use this view of applying resistance as a all stop to all martial arts effectiveness and yes I agree to a point.
> 
> No doubt if overwhelmed you can make mistakes that will cost the fight.
> 
> We are talking about highly skilled people here at the top of their game also young adult mastering their art of course.
> 
> You need to consider other aspects to a fight as there is deflecting, defending, moving, and parring strikes, just like in boxing there is defensive skills hence Floyd Mayweathers skills as an example pull back, bobbing, weaving,  ducking and footwork skills
> 
> But when the person counters using their art form and skill sets that can upset the balance or direction of the fight if the art is very aggressive and hitting vital organs with intent to cause maximum injury or death in cases like military fighting techniques.
> 
> The military spend heaps of time researching all this stuff and combine many arts and have a good documented history now of what does work and Kung-Fu San Soo was one of those arts in the list of choice amongst JKD, Judo, Filipino arts etc.
> 
> But to stick to the Thread Topic I suggested Kung-Fu San Soo vs MMA as best fit that was my opinion replying to conversation.
> 
> As to why people feel San Soo is a poor ineffective system that does not capitalize over an opponent who is lacking aggression, beats me.
> 
> I believe its lack of knowledge its a powerful system like some other types of Kung-Fu as well and here lays the other dilemma that it all depends on the practitioner how well he knows himself how willing to cross the bounds of just hitting to utilizing the whole art form for maximum hurt in the act of fighting because thats what San Soo is in the practical application.
> 
> More here:- Kung Fu San Soo: Effective, Real-Life, Street-Fighting Techniques


You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## FighterTwister

Martial D said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.



How do you mean?

I was simply trying to explain my opinion to TEZ3 

I dont understand what she was talking about in reply to me so I kept it short and simple using the videos so how is it that I don't know anything enlighten me here please?


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> I was simply trying to explain my opinion to TEZ3
> 
> I dont understand what she was talking about in reply to me so I kept it short and simple using the videos so how is it that I don't know anything enlighten me here please?


Any of it. You just aren't fooling anybody anymore.

It would be like if I, being completely ignorant of football, went to a football forum and started throwing buzzwords around, making up plays, talking about which strategies are best, etc.

Eventually people would figure it out.


----------



## FighterTwister

Martial D said:


> Any of it. You just aren't fooling anybody anymore.
> 
> It would be like if I, being completely ignorant of football, went to a football forum and started throwing buzzwords around, making up plays, talking about which strategies are best, etc.
> 
> Eventually people would figure it out.



What,  figure out what exactly LoL how old are you first, you don't like the opinions I have or share, thats you buddy and learn to have a conversation without denying every-point someone makes LoL.

Over the years I have read heaps on how other nations train in particular martial arts like the Russian Sytema or Filipino arts in the armed forces what are you talking about because you personalize your replies to the character of a person rather than the post content.

Let me know  in a PM if you have some concern or issue to address with me privately until then I'm here like any other member I'm not Bruce Lee, I am myself.... LoL

Fooling never knew I was fooling but did register to chat maybe your confused in this fact 

Whats your angle here its an open and public Forum for anyone to register and talk hence the name of the place LoL if they didn't want members here it would be a private closed Forum 

Google search led me here LoL

You make little to no sense at all yet you go around posting your opinions, who are you I might ask respectfully? mm


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> of you do, a soccer tackle, have you never seen one?


I know what you mean by soccer tackle.  I'm just saying I don't know of any kung fu kicks that would resemble that.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> I know what you mean by soccer tackle.  I'm just saying I don't know of any kung fu kicks that would resemble that.



Unsure here what you guys mean but I know that there are various interesting leg scissor sweeps and leg take downs like or similar to soccer in martial arts espeically in the Kung - Fu styles that i like to follow.

Here is one I found on the fly.................


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> So many guys use this view of applying resistance as a all stop to all martial arts effectiveness and yes I agree to a point.


The reason they are saying this is because resistance changes the things that you mention. "deflecting, defending, moving, and parring strikes, just like in boxing there is defensive skills hence Floyd Mayweathers skills as an example pull back, bobbing, weaving, ducking and footwork skills"   Floyd Mayweather ability comes from training against a resisting opponent.  He didn't learn his skill from years of doing demos only.



FighterTwister said:


> But when the person counters using their art form and skill sets that can upset the balance or direction of the fight if the art is very aggressive and hitting vital organs with intent to cause maximum injury or death in cases like military fighting techniques.


You can't do any of this unless you understand the timing of a resisting person as they counter, evade, defend, and attack for the sole purpose of making your techniques ineffective.  A lot of things that you think you can hit will go out of the door once a person starts moving, more goes out of the door if that person is quick and can actually fight.  People have difficulty in punching another person in the face, so hitting a vital spot is going to be 3 times as difficult.



FighterTwister said:


> As to why people feel San Soo is a poor ineffective system that does not capitalize over an opponent who is lacking aggression, beats me.


No one has said this. 



FighterTwister said:


> Of course military use hand to hand combat training regardless of the age we live in, in fact i would say they have stepped it up since 9/11


The point you keep missing about the military is that they spar when they train.  This has always been the case for the military since the first creation of one.  And this is what people are trying to get you to understand.  And to be honest they are nice to you than my first few months when I was new to Martial Talk. lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Unsure here what you guys mean but I know that there are various interesting leg scissor sweeps and leg take downs like or similar to soccer in martial arts espeically in the Kung - Fu styles that i like to follow.
> 
> Here is one I found on the fly.................


I'm not a fan of Jake Mace for "How to fight" even less of a fan of how he's showing the application of that technique.  Notice his demo guy isn't moving so of course it will look like it will work. Cung le shows the correct application of that technique.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> The reason they are saying this is because resistance changes the things that you mention. "deflecting, defending, moving, and parring strikes, just like in boxing there is defensive skills hence Floyd Mayweathers skills as an example pull back, bobbing, weaving, ducking and footwork skills"   Floyd Mayweather ability comes from training against a resisting opponent.  He didn't learn his skill from years of doing demos only.
> 
> You can't do any of this unless you understand the timing of a resisting person as they counter, evade, defend, and attack for the sole purpose of making your techniques ineffective.  A lot of things that you think you can hit will go out of the door once a person starts moving, more goes out of the door if that person is quick and can actually fight.  People have difficulty in punching another person in the face, so hitting a vital spot is going to be 3 times as difficult.
> 
> No one has said this.
> 
> *The point you keep missing about the military is that they spar when they train.  This has always been the case for the military since the first creation of one.  And this is what people are trying to get you to understand.  And to be honest they are nice to you than my first few months when I was new to Martial Talk. lol.*



I still dont get your meaning here maybe we are saying the same things in two different ways that happens when people discuss opinions.

First, I do understand what Sparring is I use to do allot of it, wearing all the right head gear and what not.

Second, I also know what the military do I love all that stuff and they do things differently because they hold guns or rifles in their hands or body so some training sparring looks different to norm.

Thirdly you say that you agree San Soo is effective accepting my opinion thats all I'm saying that its a fascinating style.

Forth and last point you talk about timing and counter etc yes they would interact with sparring in that way but i can't find a youtube, and thats the point I'm addressing that the actual art places strong emphasis on explosive very hurtful striking in its core practice. Hence why you will only find light sparring demos to at least show case the martial art style to the audience.

But I thought all this was obvious to understand, it will be a compromise as an observer of the style.



PS. In Forums and/or online interactions you should be nice all the time be who your are offline and online never abuse the posting rights you have in any Forum no matter how long you have been with the community, no one is superior over the other because thats no reason to treat people online if you wouldn't do in in person.

Thats best way to get banned LoL i belong to many Forums some professional relating to my career some hobby with professionals like Flight Sim Forums others more video game related either way always be at best behavior or at least demonstrate it as much as possible

Fear the ban hammer!


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> You make little to no sense at all



Yes, I would imagine not. Just as someone with a deep understanding of football wouldn't make much sense to me were they to discuss past a layman level.

Anyway go back to pretending to know what you are talking about, and I'll just put you back on ignore. 

Deal?


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a fan of Jake Mace for "How to fight" even less of a fan of how he's showing the application of that technique.  Notice his demo guy isn't moving so of course it will look like it will work. Cung le shows the correct application of that technique.



Yes thats a better video and I agree with you.

But thats not what you said in post #271 so thats why I joined the conversation out of interest to post a video to show you what I think Jobo is saying. 

He might be discussing something else but I think he means this so will wait for his response I guess.


----------



## FighterTwister

Martial D said:


> Yes, I would imagine not. Just as someone with a deep understanding of football wouldn't make much sense to me were they to discuss past a layman level.
> 
> Anyway go back to pretending to know what you are talking about, and I'll just put you back on ignore.
> 
> Deal?



As you like thats your prerogative in the Forum you are in! 

Cheers


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a fan of Jake Mace for "How to fight" even less of a fan of how he's showing the application of that technique.  Notice his demo guy isn't moving so of course it will look like it will work. Cung le shows the correct application of that technique.



LOL, Jake Mace? That guy is the hackiest hack in hacktown.

I still cringe when I think of his Sui Lim Tau video...


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Thirdly you say that you agree San Soo is effective accepting my opinion thats all I'm saying that its a fascinating style.


I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other because all I have seen are demos, which doesn't provide enough information to say that a system is effective.  



FighterTwister said:


> but i can't find a youtube, and thats the point I'm addressing that the actual art places strong emphasis on explosive very hurtful striking in its core practice.


Most martial arts that is used for fighting places a strong emphasis on explosive very hurtful striking in its core practice.  This is not a valid reason for why there isn't sparring.  Guns are deadly yet people have found ways to shoot training bullets at each other.




In addition, not everything in Martial Arts is deadly.  If you have a front kick, a roundhouse kick, a punch, and some throws then you have 3 techniques that can be trained in sparring without killing anyone.  I would rather you just say that *San Soo doesn't spar, *than to say *San Soo is so dangerous that it can't be used in sparring*. I can never believe the second one no matter what you say.  The second one sounds like an excuse that people say when they don't want others to know how ineffective the system actually is, so it's better for you to use the first reasoning.



FighterTwister said:


> But thats not what you said in post #271 so thats why I joined the conversation out of interest to post a video to show you what I think Jobo is saying.
> 
> He might be discussing something else but I think he means this so will wait for his response I guess.


  I agree.  That's not the kick I was referring too.  You have to be careful with Jake Mace.  He's a good athlete and strong, but sometimes he gets things wrong about martial arts and techniques.  I think he comes from a martial arts performance background and not a martial arts application background.



Martial D said:


> LOL, Jake Mace? That guy is the hackiest hack in hacktown.


You are so wrong... Jake Mace knows everything lol.   My first time seeing him I thought,  "Ok this guy seems cool" but that all changed when he got into the martial arts application.  When I was new to my school my Sifu sent me to his page to learn the staff. I saw the video and thought.. "Is my Sifu serious?" lol.  My Sifu has a dry sense of humor so it takes a decoder ring to know when he's joking. 
This is the video that he told me to learn from





This was the first thing that came to mind as I watched Jake Mace





Jake is in better shape that I'm in so I give him props on that.   If I could say one thing to Jake, it would be "It's OK not to know every kung fu system." lol.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> The reason they are saying this is because resistance changes the things that you mention. "deflecting, defending, moving, and parring strikes, just like in boxing there is defensive skills hence Floyd Mayweathers skills as an example pull back, bobbing, weaving, ducking and footwork skills"   Floyd Mayweather ability comes from training against a resisting opponent.
> 
> He didn't learn his skill from years of doing demos only.
> 
> You can't do any of this unless you understand the timing of a resisting person as they counter, evade, defend, and attack for the sole purpose of making your techniques ineffective.  A lot of things that you think you can hit will go out of the door once a person starts moving, more goes out of the door if that person is quick and can actually fight.  People have difficulty in punching another person in the face, so hitting a vital spot is going to be 3 times as difficult.



Well just to continue the chat like gents.........

I dont really agree yes resistance is applied pressure and in that you develop power sensitivity so on realistically in full contact, I get that!

We in Wing Chun and Jeet Kune or even for that matter my experience in doing Aiki Jiu Jitsu practiced full contact locking the joint and full on throws etc.

We do this through drills and the wooden dummy  exercises as well as sparring and full contact.

So yes i agree somewhat but not as whole argument in your favor or to say in any way or form that some Kung Fu styles are not really practical and have been proven wrong that was said earlier in thread.

That would really be said more about the practitioner not being aggressive enough or skilled enough to apply the necessary needed force and hit accurately at the target areas to immobilize or and trap/lock the opponent so on.

How I'm reading your comment is, as if your saying thats the only way to learn beating each other senseless, oh no thats not learning but you are.........

 "Striking- the -Bull" is the Chinese saying so to speak.

I'm stating the obvious I know but I'm making a point.

First its through skills that are developed in various ways not just a hard beating


Pressure and Sensitivity Drills
Practicing movement like shadow boxing
A guy who mentored me in boxing for a short time had me doing countless hours of repetitive movement

Learning to move like pull back, bobbing, weaving, ducking and footwork skills are learn't through individual practical applications and exercises.
EXAMPLE of Learning to move head and counter the best i can do in finding something relevant






You first stumped me when I tried to share my view and opinion in post #201 here Kung Fu vs MMA

But this also happened elsewhere in another post.

Your saying that a demonstration is not real and you cant see the pressure and resistance I'm still saying you are partially incorrect as shown here..........






A guy throws a forward punch its countered then followed through in a final arm lock, with a decent amount of contact without completely knocking the guy out, so not to cause permanent injury. starting @.040

Now its at this point i want to address to be more specific and scientific that in reality in a street fight a guy would do exactly the same thing throwing a haymaker at your face and then you apply the same principle of the body mechanics and leverage they teach and train in.

Which is done at full power and hard, fast, precise and following it through until its done finished and his given up.

If he still resists then pull the arm out of the socket and finish with are hard thrust stomp kick to the jaw side of the face as your are still laying on the ground would be the way its done in Kung Fu San Soo also in Grav Maga.

"Train Sport Think Street"!

So to tell me that its not properly showing pressure is partially incorrect but I do understand what you mean and only came back to visit the thread to help you understand my view a little better I hope, in the discussion we are both in.

I wish I could find a real fight using San Soo or Krav Maga to show the beauty of the art not the act of hurting but the aggressiveness of the art, its on that note I say I love it and put this matter to rest for me anyway and hope you can respect at least where I come from.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FighterTwister said:


> Well just to continue the chat like gents.........
> 
> I dont really agree yes resistance is applied pressure and in that you develop power sensitivity so on realistically in full contact, I get that!
> 
> We in Wing Chun and Jeet Kune or even for that matter my experience in doing Aiki Jiu Jitsu practiced full contact locking the joint and full on throws etc.
> 
> We do this through drills and the wooden dummy  exercises as well as sparring and full contact.
> 
> So yes i agree somewhat but not as whole argument in your favor or to say in any way or form that some Kung Fu styles are not really practical and have been proven wrong that was said earlier in thread.
> 
> That would really be said more about the practitioner not being aggressive enough or skilled enough to apply the necessary needed force and hit accurately at the target areas to immobilize or and trap/lock the opponent so on.
> 
> How I'm reading your comment is, as if your saying thats the only way to learn beating each other senseless, oh no thats not learning but you are.........
> 
> "Striking- the -Bull" is the Chinese saying so to speak.
> 
> I'm stating the obvious I know but I'm making a point.
> 
> First its through skills that are developed in various ways not just a hard beating
> 
> 
> Pressure and Sensitivity Drills
> Practicing movement like shadow boxing
> A guy who mentored me in boxing for a short time had me doing countless hours of repetitive movement
> 
> Learning to move like pull back, bobbing, weaving, ducking and footwork skills are learn't through individual practical applications and exercises.
> EXAMPLE of Learning to move head and counter the best i can do in finding something relevant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You first stumped me when I tried to share my view and opinion in post #201 here Kung Fu vs MMA
> 
> But this also happened elsewhere in another post.
> 
> Your saying that a demonstration is not real and you cant see the pressure and resistance I'm still saying you are partially incorrect as shown here..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A guy throws a forward punch its countered then followed through in a final arm lock, with a decent amount of contact without completely knocking the guy out, so not to cause permanent injury. starting @.040
> 
> Now its at this point i want to address to be more specific and scientific that in reality in a street fight a guy would do exactly the same thing throwing a haymaker at your face and then you apply the same principle of the body mechanics and leverage they teach and train in.
> 
> Which is done at full power and hard, fast, precise and following it through until its done finished and his given up.
> 
> If he still resists then pull the arm out of the socket and finish with are hard thrust stomp kick to the jaw side of the face as your are still laying on the ground would be the way its done in Kung Fu San Soo also in Grav Maga.
> 
> "Train Sport Think Street"!
> 
> So to tell me that its not properly showing pressure is partially incorrect but I do understand what you mean and only came back to visit the thread to help you understand my view a little better I hope, in the discussion we are both in.
> 
> I wish I could find a real fight using San Soo or Krav Maga to show the beauty of the art not the act of hurting but the aggressiveness of the art, its on that note I say I love it and put this matter to rest for me anyway and hope you can respect at least where I come from.


You've confused "sparring" with "hard, full contact hitting". Sparring differs from drills in that your partner is trying to throw/hit and prevent you from throwing/hitting. You don't get that in drills. And one-step sparring (fed an attack meant to connect, which you counter with a technique) is closer to drilling than sparring, because your partner isn't trying to stop you. If they are, it turns into regular sparring. 

I can spar and still both hit and throw very gently.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> as if your saying thats the only way to learn beating each other senseless, oh no thats not learning but you are.


This isn't me.  I'm always saying that I spar to learn.  My belief in training is that sparring should never be so dangerous that the student isn't willing to take risks to learn and make mistakes that will result in being punched in the face, kicked, thrown, or joint locked.  Students won't learn how to apply the techniques if the sparring is too brutal.  They will only stick with things that makes them less like to make a mistake.  

Even at increased intensity the student should have enough control to pull off enough power or redirect punches just enough so that the punch isn't causing maximum damage.  Students should have control over the technique before being allowed to spar.  For me personally if I can't control my power then I shouldn't be sparring.  People here who have read my messages before know I don't agree with beating each other senseless. 
This is a video of me sparring (I'm in the red head gear).  You can see for yourself that I'm not trying to beat someone senseless.















So anything that you say about beating people senseless isn't going to apply to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> You first stumped me when I tried to share my view and opinion in post #201 here Kung Fu vs MMA


That's because you thought I was judging the system.  I was only speaking of the techniques that I saw as they were being displayed in the demo.  I don't know enough about San Soo to speak about the system.  I can however piece enough together to know if some techniques may or may not be effective, especially if they are similar to some of the techniques that I do.   For example in Jimmy Woo used a clearing hand when he was doing those big punches.  The clearing hand addresses the opponents guard.  This is practical.  The other guy didn't use a clearing hand which is not practical.  If you don't deal with your opponents lead hand then you will get hit with that lead hand.  There was also another video that I think you posted that said the big punches will throw the user off balance.  This is only if that person's stance is not rooted.  I throw bigger punches than that and I'm never off balance.  So when I hear and see things like that, then I question the technique as demonstrated.



FighterTwister said:


> Your saying that a demonstration is not real and you cant see the pressure and resistance I'm still saying you are partially incorrect as shown here.


Yes I'm saying that because you would have very little success in doing that same technique against me, or anyone else who know how to move out of danger or counter.  I can guarantee that you won't nor anyone else from your school will be jumping on my back like a monkey. The moment I think you are going to try to take my back is the moment I'm going to change position.  

I can also guarantee that you no anyone else in your school is going to first kick me in my thigh and then grab my arm and throw me.  I can also tell you that I'm not going to hunch over after being punched in the gut unless it's a specific type of punch that most people don't do.  Unfortunately this type of punch doesn't work if the hand is gloved so I'm not going to hunch over.  

If I throw a forward punch then you can count on something else following it.


----------



## FighterTwister

Right copy that now as you now posted video to demonstrate what you do.

I better understand the environment setting you are doing it in.

I also see you have supervisors that stop certain throws that could be fatal in reality crushing the upper spine and neck areas.

It would be fun to spar with you guys and show you some other stuff that I put into practice.

From what i see its more freestyle full contact sparring and adding some martial art movement/technique when possible or able to

Thats what I did allot of and you exchange blows for sure adding pressure and resistance and still keep it friendly with bounds of fighting and learning.

No different than full boxing sparring as well.

i see the case you make in response to San Soo and I would like to see that in the manner you speak of I did look for videos nothing found. 

Well have fun thanks for sharing!


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> From what i see its more freestyle full contact sparring and adding some martial art movement/technique when possible or able to


That's the reality of martial arts and fighting. We do what we can when possible. Until then we move around try not to get hit with anything to dangerous and when the moment is correct we unleash a martial art technique.



FighterTwister said:


> I did look for videos nothing found.


This is not always a bad thing.  It means you can be a first.  As far as I know, my school is the first school in the U.S. to post Jow Ga sparring videos.  The only other Jow Ga school that I know that spars are 2 Jow Ga schools in  Australia. 

It may be an opportunity to test your skills in a friendly sparring match where you can represent San Soo beyond a demo.  Just make sure you use control and stay away from the techniques that may cause really bad injuries.  For example, fake eye pokes can turn into real eye pokes in sparring simply because your sparring partner moved in closer than you expected. Same with kicks to the knees. Techniques like that are too risky to do during sparring and can cause serious damage.  I yell out students when I see that their knees are straight during sparring simply for the fact that is the most vulnerable position for a knee to be in.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FighterTwister said:


> Right copy that now as you now posted video to demonstrate what you do.
> 
> I better understand the environment setting you are doing it in.
> 
> I also see you have supervisors that stop certain throws that could be fatal in reality crushing the upper spine and neck areas.
> 
> It would be fun to spar with you guys and show you some other stuff that I put into practice.
> 
> From what i see its more freestyle full contact sparring and adding some martial art movement/technique when possible or able to
> 
> Thats what I did allot of and you exchange blows for sure adding pressure and resistance and still keep it friendly with bounds of fighting and learning.
> 
> No different than full boxing sparring as well.
> 
> i see the case you make in response to San Soo and I would like to see that in the manner you speak of I did look for videos nothing found.
> 
> Well have fun thanks for sharing!


Oh the other thing is that you have a lot of pride in San Soo so make sure you keep that and be a good representation of the system that you train.


----------



## FighterTwister

JowGaWolf said:


> Oh the other thing is that you have a lot of pride in San Soo so make sure you keep that and be a good representation of the system that you train.



No JowGaWolf you misunderstood me here, I don't train in the Kung Fu San Soo art I just highly like it and have done extensive research on it and I know people in the US that do this style, its hard to find these martial art styles here in Australia they are disappearing, sadly.

Thats why I was so passionate not proud or angry but I was feeling like when a child is told he cant have ice-cream  LoL

However I did Kung Fu Southern style for a short period the instructors name is Frank Greco  @ 4th dan Level  but he discontinued teaching. so I moved on to Wing Chun.

I can't remember exactly what style of Kung Fu it was i would have to check some documents put away but i liked it allot and he was really a tough dood an ex bouncer / street fighter in early days and had won some competitions fights.

We would start training a 5.00pm and finish at 10.30 -11.00 pm and only for $5.00 a lesson not many people do that nowadays here.

I miss him he was great to talk to and made time for me, I think he had marriage issues or family issues of some sort, he really was one of the best martial artists i met he was big dood too, this was over 20 years ago.

Dont see me as a bad person with attitude  I'm very approachable and chatty and passionate about lots of things that I like.

For example motorcycles I love them, I have owned 3 different types of Honda VFR's 800 and fell in love with VFRs since the first one I bought. 

They are like Ducati's but at a cheaper price and once you mod them and dyno tune them they are a beast and a great ride, i just wish i was 20 years old again LoL

Things I like........


Wine and good food
Technology
Motorcycles
UFC

Martial Arts
Studying personal and academics
Camping 

Cycling
Hiking
Kayacking
Video recording
........etc......... I keep adding as I get older LoL

 Just heaps of stuff I Iike and when I get into something you cant shut me up I take it by the horns so to speak.

Also yes I can be over-bearing but thats just me  getting involved into something, people around me just love for who i am and understand this as part of who I am.

Well thats enough about me tell me more about yourself................

Anyway take care m8


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> However I did Kung Fu Southern style for a short period the instructors name is Frank Greco @ 4th dan Level


There are no 'dans', or even belts in CMA, and 'kung fu' isn't something anyone that trained in a cma would use to describe what they trained.

If you insist on BSing at least do a bit of research first.


----------



## FighterTwister

Martial D said:


> There are no 'dans', or even belts in CMA, and 'kung fu' isn't something anyone that trained in a cma would use to describe what they trained.
> 
> If you insist on BSing at least do a bit of research first.



Well 25 years ago training under this gent there was and if I recall correctly he was 4 level dan why would I lie about someones else rank LoL

I just googled this quickly if helps - Kung Fu Belts - Martial Arts Guy

But believe what you want you dont impress me with this evil horned attitude of yours either young lad.

You are making absurd comments indicative of you true actions and feeling of hostility and dislike in many of your comments now quit it will you!

I'm not here to make people love me, either you like someone all you dont but respect  that person without the malicious intent based on Forum Rules that you should follow.

Also to add I'm not here to prove myself or answer to you m8 I'm 45 with kids and a wife you are what nothing to me, I'm here to chat and share in conversation, whether you like it or not matters not to me in the slightest is that any clearer for you because you have done this for over a week or so, pull it back a little I do understand your point but you are choosing to be malicious in nature that I wont accept at all.

So please refrain from calling Forum members condescending and ridiculing names you might want to revise the rules or speak to a moderator on this privately

Or we can continue to speak to each other somewhat kindly as at least use the express.....

"I agree to disagree"............ and leave it at that!

In that manner it grants you good standing and others don't have take to your baiting argumentative approach at least thats I how I perceive your intent across many threads now.

So take it as friendly advisement or not is your choice bud!

Not here for a fight but a good conversation that will not always prove easy and I also get things wrong I'm not perfect but I do try trust me I do.

Cheers m8


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> Well 25 years ago training under this gent there was and if I recall correctly he was 4 level dan why would I lie about someones else rank LoL
> 
> I just googled this quickly if helps - Kung Fu Belts - Martial Arts Guy
> 
> But believe what you want you dont impress me with this evil horned attitude of yours either young lad.
> 
> You are making absurd comments indicative of you true actions and feeling of hostility and dislike in many of your comments now quit it will you!
> 
> I'm not here to make people love me, either you like someone all you dont but respect  that person without the malicious intent based on Forum Rules that you should follow.
> 
> Please refrain form calling Forum members condescending and ridiculing names you might want to revise the rules or speak to a moderator on this privately
> 
> Cheers m8


Yes, my true feelings. I don't like liars and pretenders.

Why not just tell it like it is...you are a fan of Bruce Lee movies and like to talk about this stuff, but have no real experience with any of it.

At least that would be honest, and respectful of your environment.


----------



## FighterTwister

Martial D said:


> Yes, my true feelings. I don't like liars and pretenders.
> 
> Why not just tell it like it is...you are a fan of Bruce Lee movies and like to talk about this stuff, but have no real experience with any of it.
> 
> At least that would be honest, and respectful of your environment.



Okay lets discuss this, so because I like Kung -Fu San Soo, Wing Chun, Jeet Kune Do and all that Bruce Lee taught with the many books and videos etc I'm a liar and a fanboy and what ever else you want to insult me with okay

Lets analyze this....................

You make claims that thousands of people not just myself that follow in some form or way and like all the above are less than martial art members of the community giving you a sense of superiority based on the knowledge and awareness you have. 

How interesting and you judge character on what exactly a hunch or a crystal ball or do know someone I know, what exactly grants you this privilege I might ask or how do you know anything about me at all?

I mean i really want to know let me know tell me what I need to know since you have provoked and poked consistently and all I'm doing here is picking off what you write about what you know about me so please show me something?

I mean do you hear yourself?

How do you know or not know who where or when I have trained with or what i did or have eaten for breakfast yesterday for that matter?

Your comments are by nature void of any real argument or substance just your own dilemma of disliking what doesn't fit your understanding.

You have a complex in the form of narcissistic personality disorder as we don't know each other personally nor do you have any idea of who I am nor the right to judge what I like doing be it smashing a mook jong for fun or reading a book of Bruce Lee for that matter as it all based on things I like and take interest in.

So really let me know this great knowledge you have about me or where do you get it from?

Should i pick you apart I can be very clever here but I'm not as malicious as you but know this I have been watching your posts also since you emphasize this in all your comments towards me in various threads and you do this to others as well.

Look cut the games young lad who are you kidding, just pull back and enjoy the Forum discussion what ever they are without making this a war that does.t even have thunder to it just stop this nonsense.


----------



## Martial D

FighterTwister said:


> Okay lets discuss this, so because I like Kung -Fu San Soo, Wing Chun, Jeet Kune Do and all that Bruce Lee taught with the many books and videos etc I'm a liar and a fanboy and what ever else you want to insult me with okay
> 
> Lets analyze this....................
> 
> You make claims that thousands of people not just myself that follow in some form or way and like all the above are less than martial art members of the community giving you a sense of superiority based on the knowledge and awareness you have.
> 
> How interesting and you judge character on what exactly a hunch or a crystal ball or do know someone I know, what exactly grants you this privilege I might ask or how do you know anything about me at all?
> 
> I mean i really want to know let me know tell me what I need to know since you have provoked and poked consistently and all I'm doing here is picking off what you write about what you know about me so please show me something?
> 
> I mean do you hear yourself?
> 
> How do you know or not know who where or when I have trained with or what i did or have eaten for breakfast yesterday for that matter?
> 
> Your comments are by nature void of any real argument or substance just your own dilemma of disliking what doesn't fit your understanding.
> 
> You have a complex in the form of narcissistic personality disorder as we don't know each other personally nor do you have any idea of who I am nor the right to judge what I like doing be it smashing a mook jong for fun or reading a book of Bruce Lee for that matter as it all based on things I like and take interest in.
> 
> So really let me know this great knowledge you have about me or where do you get it from?
> 
> Should i pick you apart I can be very clever here but I'm not as malicious as you but know this I have been watching your posts also since you emphasize this in all your comments towards me in various threads and you do this to others as well.
> 
> Look cut the games young lad who are you kidding, just pull back and enjoy the Forum discussion what ever they are without making this a war that does.t even have thunder to it just stop this nonsense.


I don't need a crystal ball to spot a pattern of nonsense that extends throughout your entire posting history. If I do recall your very first post here was a bunch of movie fights you were lauding as the real thing..you literally couldn't tell the difference. 

You are right about one thing though, this particular discussion has gone far enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FighterTwister said:


> Okay lets discuss this, so because I like Kung -Fu San Soo, Wing Chun, Jeet Kune Do and all that Bruce Lee taught with the many books and videos etc I'm a liar and a fanboy and what ever else you want to insult me with okay
> 
> Lets analyze this....................
> 
> You make claims that thousands of people not just myself that follow in some form or way and like all the above are less than martial art members of the community giving you a sense of superiority based on the knowledge and awareness you have.
> 
> How interesting and you judge character on what exactly a hunch or a crystal ball or do know someone I know, what exactly grants you this privilege I might ask or how do you know anything about me at all?
> 
> I mean i really want to know let me know tell me what I need to know since you have provoked and poked consistently and all I'm doing here is picking off what you write about what you know about me so please show me something?
> 
> I mean do you hear yourself?
> 
> How do you know or not know who where or when I have trained with or what i did or have eaten for breakfast yesterday for that matter?
> 
> Your comments are by nature void of any real argument or substance just your own dilemma of disliking what doesn't fit your understanding.
> 
> You have a complex in the form of narcissistic personality disorder as we don't know each other personally nor do you have any idea of who I am nor the right to judge what I like doing be it smashing a mook jong for fun or reading a book of Bruce Lee for that matter as it all based on things I like and take interest in.
> 
> So really let me know this great knowledge you have about me or where do you get it from?
> 
> Should i pick you apart I can be very clever here but I'm not as malicious as you but know this I have been watching your posts also since you emphasize this in all your comments towards me in various threads and you do this to others as well.
> 
> Look cut the games young lad who are you kidding, just pull back and enjoy the Forum discussion what ever they are without making this a war that does.t even have thunder to it just stop this nonsense.


Much strawman-ing going on in this.


----------



## Danny T

Whoa now...why the threats?


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> I know what you mean by soccer tackle.  I'm just saying I don't know of any kung fu kicks that would resemble that.


well that's an error with kung fuu, you should included and train it.
if that is the case, i bet you don't practise  head butting people by diving at them with both feet off the ground, like a diving header in soccer, that works as well


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> well that's an error with kung fuu, you should included and train it.
> if that is the case, i bet you don't practise  head butting people by diving at them with both feet off the ground, like a diving header in soccer, that works as well


nope I don't practice that either.  I guess my kung fu sucks lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well that's an error with kung fuu, you should included and train it.
> if that is the case, i bet you don't practise  head butting people by diving at them with both feet off the ground, like a diving header in soccer, that works as well


No, I don't train either of those, either. I don't think that's an error. One requires taking yourself off your feet (and is actually pretty easy to avoid, contrary to your statements - I did it all the time in soccer), and the other requires flinging my body head-first at someone, which is not a great strategy, IMO.

I really hope you were being facetious here, and I just missed it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, I don't train either of those, either. I don't think that's an error. One requires taking yourself off your feet (and is actually pretty easy to avoid, contrary to your statements - I did it all the time in soccer), and the other requires flinging my body head-first at someone, which is not a great strategy, IMO.
> 
> I really hope you were being facetious here, and I just missed it.



I have seen some flying head buts work. There was a cop here almost killed with one.






I count it as at least legitimate whether or not I would try it is a different case.


----------



## webmaster786

In the street fight, Kung Fu looks much cooler. But in real life, "MMA" gives you the basics you need to dominate. And, of course, all this depends on your training.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

webmaster786 said:


> In the street fight, Kung Fu looks much cooler. But in real life, "MMA" gives you the basics you need to dominate. And, of course, all this depends on your training.


I think you're mixing up kung fu with wushu.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have seen some flying head buts work. There was a cop here almost killed with one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I count it as at least legitimate whether or not I would try it is a different case.


 Oh, I don't doubt they work. Surprising, and possibly harder to avoid than some other attack. I still wouldn't do it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I don't doubt they work. Surprising, and possibly harder to avoid than some other attack. I still wouldn't do it.



I am not keen to do it myself.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but light contact is less real, reality is after all relative, as Einstein pointed out.
> 
> when people are bouncing of the floor because of the force they were put down with, that has at least as much reality as tkd playing foot tag with padding everywhere


I don’t think you are tracking the theory of relativity.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> I think you're mixing up kung fu with wushu.


I though wushu is Kung fu.  Someone pointed that out to me a few weeks ago.   Wushu is a generic term much like Kung fu.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I have seen some flying head buts work. There was a cop here almost killed with one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I count it as at least legitimate whether or not I would try it is a different case.


yea that's the one, you need to get your feet up more for extra,style points


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I though wushu is Kung fu.  Someone pointed that out to me a few weeks ago.   Wushu is a generic term much like Kung fu.


From how I understand it, that's true if you are being literal about it. But in terms of how the words are used, kung fu is the generic term for all martial arts in China, while wushu is a generic term for the performance martial arts. So all wushu would be part of kung fu, but not all kung fu is wushu.


----------



## Encho

Hi Steve,
The term wushu means martial art, and the term kungfu means time and energy. One can have kungfu in anything even in MMA. However, the term kungfu became common in English to mean Chinese martial arts and the more acrobatic performance arts became known as wushu. Usually when speaking with a native Chinese speaker the term wushu is used in talking about martial arts and it is implied you are talking about martial arts and not performance based arts.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Encho said:


> Hi Steve,
> The term wushu means martial art, and the term kungfu means time and energy. One can have kungfu in anything even in MMA. However, the term kungfu became common in English to mean Chinese martial arts and the more acrobatic performance arts became known as wushu. Usually when speaking with a native Chinese speaker the term wushu is used in talking about martial arts and it is implied you are talking about martial arts and not performance based arts.


Is there a word a native Chinese speaker would use to talk only about the performance based arts?


----------



## DanT

kempodisciple said:


> Is there a word a native Chinese speaker would use to talk only about the performance based arts?


Wushu


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

DanT said:


> Wushu


I mean besides wushu, since according to @Encho that's an English distinction, not a Chinese distinction.


----------



## Encho

Hi kempodisciple, 
I don't think there is a distinct word for the wushu competition vs wushu fighting unless you just said basically wushu competition in Chinese or form competition. I was having this conversation last night with a native Chinese who does martial arts and though they understand kungfu as martial art they think of wushu as the whole meaning fighting, competition so I don't think there is a clear distinction at least in newer generation but for us westerns I think using kungfu is a better way to separate from the more competition side that is now using wushu.


----------



## mograph

I don't think that the Chinese group the arts into martial versus performance: I think that they do that when communicating with Westerners. 

The western analogy might be grouping ball sports together (football, baseball, basketball) versus puck sports (hockey), which we don't _really_ do very much. 
I think that the Chinese separate xingyiquan from taijiquan, baguazhang and so on, naming the specific art. I don't think that, within themselves, they care about a name for the performance arts as a group. In other words, I think that "wushu" came about as a name for export.

I could be wrong, of course.


----------

