# Street Kung Fu



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2004)

I run into quite a few people who study kung fu merely for its wushu-ish properties of athleticism, performance, or competition. I study strictly for fighting and self defense. I find that it is fewer and farther between times when I meet someone who studies kung fu for self defense, or I meet someone who believes kung fu can be used for self defense. I feel completely confident in my abilities to defend myself on the street but I am curious as to why the big difference in training.

 What is it that makes kung fu applicable to being used on the street? OR what is it that makes in ineffective for pure self defense? If you study CMA do you do so for self defense? If so, why did you decide on kung fu for that self defense training? What made you pick kung fu over krav maga or the like? Can kung fu be compared to systems like KM as far as usefullness or realistic usage goes?

Sorry, lots of questions, just being curious today.

7sm


----------



## CloudChaser (Mar 10, 2004)

i'm embarrassed to admit that i was originally attracted to kung fu because it just looked totally coooool  <sheepish grin>  

when it comes to self defense though, i'd probably would resort to krav maga type moves... whatever it takes to survive and it's not gonna be pretty!


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2004)

CloudChaser said:
			
		

> i'm embarrassed to admit that i was originally attracted to kung fu because it just looked totally coooool <sheepish grin>
> 
> when it comes to self defense though, i'd probably would resort to krav maga type moves... whatever it takes to survive and it's not gonna be pretty!


Don't feel bad, I think alot of people got involved with kung fu for those reasons. I think that its sad not more understand its power before joining, but thats ok.

When you say krav maga type moves, what exactly do you mean? Serious, damaging, conflict-ending moves? If so what makes them more krav maga than CMA? 

Please don't take this as an attack, I'm seriously interested in what people think and believe about CMA. 

7sm


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 10, 2004)

Good question 7SM.  

I'm one of those that study kung fu primarily for the performance aspect.  And I'm not ashamed of it.  

I'm a professional performer, and my interest is to develop kinestetic awareness, to help me move well on stage.  

I DO consider Kung Fu to be effective, but I consider self defence to be a nice side benefit of my hobby.  

To be honest, I question the value of studying ANY martial art *exclusively* for self defence.  Honestly, I don't expect to be getting in any fights any time soon.  If all you want is self defence, carry pepper spray.  Or a gun. 

Here's some things to consider.  

1) Much of the Kung Fu knowledge was preserved by the Peking Opera.  Kung Fu has a "performance" aspect that other arts don't. 

2) Kung Fu was invented, not for fighting but to teach Buddhist principles. 

3) Kung Fu is BEAUTIFUL.  Just plain beautiful to watch.  

4) The Chinese forms have a quality about them that other styles don't.  Its hard to explain, but when I perform Kung fu forms, I feel a flow that is absent from other arts, as though I was moving with the rhythm of the universe.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 10, 2004)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> To be honest, I question the value of studying ANY martial art *exclusively* for self defence. Honestly, I don't expect to be getting in any fights any time soon. If all you want is self defence, carry pepper spray. Or a gun.


What value are we discussing here? If value is measured by performance, than I see your point. If however, it is measured by effectivness, I don't understand what your saying at all.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Here's some things to consider.
> 
> 1) Much of the Kung Fu knowledge was preserved by the Peking Opera. Kung Fu has a "performance" aspect that other arts don't.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that I agree with many of these points about kung fu. I'll adress them point by point.

1) IF your speaking of wushu I guess I could agree with you to a point about number 1, but I think you should research your CMA history a bit more. The peking opera was not involved with kung fu in general, but in performance. The two aspects kept a wide and distant seperation from one another. Performance is a large aspect of the Chinese Government's National Wushu, but don't be fooled into thinking that is all there is about kung fu.

2) Kung Fu was "invented" for protection and to increase health. Plain and simple, it was not to teach principles. I think you are confusing some Shaolin history here.

3) I agree, kung fu is beautiful to watch, but it is because of its effectivness. I think you should broaden your horizons and serach out some different styles of kung fu. Mantis is beautiful to me, but some see and and think it is horrible. Ask anyone who has fought a skilled mantis practitioner, its not about performance.

4) This flow is the fluidity of the movements, moving from one technique to another, and it is in many arts, not simply kung fu. Yes, it is different from many systems like karate and such, but it seems you are seeing the effectivness and not understanding what exactly it is.

7sm


----------



## Tony (Mar 11, 2004)

In my style of Kung Fu we hardly do any of the acrobatic stuff! We have been doing a lot of forms recently as we have a grading coming up soon.
My instructor likes to see the forms performed as if it were for real, as if we were being attacked. He will sometimes get us to dissect moves out of each forms for self defence applications, which makes you think more and what techniques are available to you. So now I have been trying to do this when I'm not in class, to try and analyse each move and how effective they would be. There are some very useful techniques, along with Chin na that also exists in the forms. But I have always been interested in learning Kung Fu. I haven't felt the same sensations doing Taekwondo or Judo. I have learned more from Kung Fu and I love the way it is taught. There is a purpose behind everything we do and it is a thinking Martial Art, so being a deep person that appeals to me. Plus I prefer the uniforms in Kung Fu to Karate and taekwondo, but that isn't the reason why I chose Kung Fu.
I am aware of what kind of techniques would and wouldn't work in a street fight, and I have learnt many dangerous techniques and some effective enough to cause severe pain!
I like Kung Fu, because it has everything, hand strikes of all kinds, kicks, locks, holds, throws and weapons.


----------



## CloudChaser (Mar 11, 2004)

hey 7sm,
  i guess what i meant by krav maga type moves are the 'down-and-dirty' tactics...  i realize kung fu has its own arsenal of simple yet lethal techniques, but i just have difficulty picturing myself implementing a graceful kung fu move to save my life than something like krav maga which to me, seems more brutally street-realistic and practical...
and the fact that i'm not very confident in my kung fu skills probably has something to do with this mindset too, heh...


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 11, 2004)

I can understand a lack of confidence in kung fu skills as it sometimes takes quite a while to become skilled at them, however if you have ever had a chin na joint lock applied to you you understand the effectiveness and brutally street-realistic and practical side of kung fu. I think its people who don't understand some of the more advanced techniques that feel this way. We do lots of eye gouges, breaks, and chin na in our system, I couldn't see finding anything more usefull to me in a pure defense type situation.

I believe the difference is the training methods. People join a KM class and the first night they are wailing on a focus mat with knees elbows and kicks walking out completely exhausted, feeling like they learned something good. They may have learned something great, but other training methods are effective as well, and no less instrutional.

7sm


----------



## markulous (Mar 11, 2004)

To me if you are just doing because it looks nice and not applying it practically then it's not a martial art it's just an art or dance.

Anyway I obviously don't study it for fancy movements.  There is a lot of practicality(sp?) from Kung Fu that can be transferred to the street.  The foot work and balance are definately valuable.  It can mix well with boxing, muay thai, and other arts that we come across.  I wouldn't want to dedicate my life to it(or any one art for that matter) but a lot of great things can be learned from it.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 14, 2004)

I think I have allready dedicated my life to it, as far as mantis kung fu goes I will be studying it until I die. There is just so much to learn in kung fu, you can never really reach the top where you have it all learned as in some systems. To be really skilled or effective it takes that type of commitment, so I will be a student until I die, most true kung fu sifus will tell you the same thing.

7sm


----------



## markulous (Mar 14, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think I have allready dedicated my life to it, as far as mantis kung fu goes I will be studying it until I die. There is just so much to learn in kung fu, you can never really reach the top where you have it all learned as in some systems. To be really skilled or effective it takes that type of commitment, so I will be a student until I die, most true kung fu sifus will tell you the same thing.
> 
> 7sm



Well to me, I agree with the saying: "When the strong winds come, the tall oak is the first to fall.  The willow stands because it's roots are far."  It might be worded a little different.  But basically I would rather experience the basics of everything than study and just train in one thing(and not just in MA).  But that's just me.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 14, 2004)

Thats a good point, but the tree with the deepest root stands, not the most widely spread roots.

I can understand that, but your still just working on basics. Even if its basics from different styles its still basic techniques. To me, the guy who is advanced will beat me even if I'm great at my basics, simply because he is more advanced and experienced. 

I guess I just don't understand, maybe I'm old fashioned, I prefer to be truly great at one thing then medeocre at many. I'm not saying your medeocre at all, maybe its just my mental block.

7sm


----------



## RHD (Mar 14, 2004)

I beleive there's a really sad situation ongoing in CMA, and that is that far too many teachers really don't know much other than forms.  I'm not picking on anyone specifically, so please don't thing I'm aiming these comments at anyone here on the board!  
Unfortunately the majority of other kung fu practitioners that I've encountered do not know how to use thier own systems beyond simple "block and punch".  Most degrade into bastardized kick boxing for thier fighting, and self defense is either not based in reality, or not from thier own technical base.
I wish I ad a plan of action to help fix things, but I'm nolonger that optimistic because most often when I interact with these misled people they become very defensive...to the point of extreme denial over the fact that they haven't learned well.   :idunno: 
Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 14, 2004)

You know, I completely agree with you. There is a sad situation going on in CMA and it has been brewing for a while. Its bothering me how many start learning CMA simply for grace, or pretty fighting and train for 5 years not ever seeing more to it than that. To me, that means their instructor is missing something. There was a time when CMA were trained for strict serious combat and were known for their effectivness. 

I may still be young yet, but I do wish there was something we could do about it. My organization is working hard to do just that, but one organization can't reach many, especially those allready training who do seem to get quite defensive at the notion they are not training as realistic as possible :idunno: . In all seriousness, CMA are getting watered down and its ruining their reputation and the reputation of those who train in it, even those who train seriously. 

7sm


----------



## Matt Bernius (Mar 15, 2004)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Here's some things to consider.
> ) Much of the Kung Fu knowledge was preserved by the Peking Opera.  Kung Fu has a "performance" aspect that other arts don't.


Ok, the Peking Opera plays an important role in the Chinese Martial Art tradition. However, it's role was never to presever Kung Fu. And if anything what they practiced was a forerunner to government Wu Shu (which at the end of the day has little to do with traditional Kung Fu). It's a BIG stretch to suggest that they were a major preserver of Martial Arts (at best, I'd suggest that they got people interested in the Arts, not unlike MA movies today).

Secondly the MA are tied to performance in many cultures. The Indo/Malay arts have a heavy dance/performance aspect to them (see a recent Journal of the Asian Martial Arts which explores Malay Martial Dance). The same was true in the Phillipines. And in Brazil you have Capoeria which has combined performance and martial arts. So this is not an area that the CMA has an exclusive corner on (and we haven't even addressed western stage fighting with teaches a lot of western weapons).



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> 2) Kung Fu was invented, not for fighting but to teach Buddhist principles.


No other way to put this than: DEAD WRONG. CMA predate Bodidharma's visit by quite a bit. In fact Long Fist was used as a root art for Shaolin Kung Fu. You might, squinting, be able to suggest that modern Kung Fu (beginning at Shaolin Temple) was initally used to help support Buddist practice. Howeer, looking at it's evolution and the various subsystems that were created, the truth is it was geared for fighting. Subsystems like Preying Mantis were created for the expressed purpose of besting existing systems in combat.

I'm down (on a personal level) with the rest of your points.

As for CMA's effictiveness in the streets, it's there, no question. However, what people take issue with I think is the dicotamy between how the material is shown in form and how it often looks when it's applied. People think of Kung Fu forms as open and flowing. But the application is direct. I'd expect uninitated people would see Xing Yi, with it's short, explosive work, applied and be sure that they are seeing a "Modern Fighting System" (like KM).

Any I also think it's true that too many CMA are content to work form and never really test their techniques in an "Alive" fashion.

- Matt


----------



## CloudChaser (Mar 15, 2004)

any martial art is effective on the streets if you know how to use it correctly...  i also gotta agree with the point made that maybe CMA is just not advertised as a self-defense art as much as styles like TKD and karate?  TKD shows off flashy forms too, but ppl seem to take it more seriously as a butt-kicking style than kung fu... go figure

well, if ppl want to see kung fu as a 'wussy' style, let them... the element of surprise will just provide more of a combat-advantage then, ha!


----------



## RHD (Mar 15, 2004)

CloudChaser said:
			
		

> TKD shows off flashy forms too, but ppl seem to take it more seriously as a butt-kicking style than kung fu... go figure



"cough...cough...sputter...gasp" :uhyeah: 
Not where I'm from...
Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2004)

What really gets to me is those who currently "study" kung fu and still say things like that! That gets me to no end!

7sm


----------



## markulous (Mar 16, 2004)

CloudChaser said:
			
		

> any martial art is effective on the streets if you know how to use it correctly...  i also gotta agree with the point made that maybe CMA is just not advertised as a self-defense art as much as styles like TKD and karate?  TKD shows off flashy forms too, but ppl seem to take it more seriously as a butt-kicking style than kung fu... go figure
> 
> well, if ppl want to see kung fu as a 'wussy' style, let them... the element of surprise will just provide more of a combat-advantage then, ha!



TKD can be a really good art if done and taught properly.  It's tricky because you have to have power and speed.  And karate...well it depends.  Most karate I don't care for because it relies on too many blocks, horse stances, along with big reverse kicks/punches.  But I know it seems most schools of the lame schools either adopt the title of "Karate" or "Tae Kwon Do" but I wouldn't base those arts too much off of those schools.


----------



## Tony (Mar 17, 2004)

I definately think Kung Fu can be used effectively on the streets if you know what techniques are useful. Look at Wing Chun which has very few kicks and most of which are barely above the waist, good emphasis on centre line, and there are some good practical techniques.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 18, 2004)

> 7starmantis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 18, 2004)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> "Value" of course is highly subjective. I'm not putting anybody down for being exclusively interested in self defence, merely saying that there IS a performance component in Kung Fu. In China, street performers routinely did Kun-Fu demonstrations as performances.


This is an example of concurrence fallacy, a faulty logic argument. It states that Two things happening at the same time need not indicate a causal relationship. Because in China street performers did kung fu, doesn't imply a relationship between kung fu and performance.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Note that while the Chinese Kung Fu movie is a massive genre, there are very Few "Karate movies" (Sonny Chiba was an aweful attempt to "japanize" the Kung-Fu movie." ) and no "Judo" movies.
> 
> The performance aspect did not begin with government wushu. I suspect it is very very old.
> 
> Note that just because there is a perfomance aspect does NOT mean that it is not effective. (Hell, I wouldn't want to go a round with Jet Li...even if he does practice PRC Wushu)


Your suspecting it is old, while not trying to offend, is simply that, your own assumption. It in no ways proves a performance aspect to true kung fu. There are many reasons for kung fu movies, one of which you maybe haven't thought of is that kung fu was a way of life in china. Our Batman and Superman were their kung fu heros. But, I'm not going to go into kung fu cinema.



			
				InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe you can fill me in here. I was under the impression that after the destruction of the Fukien Shaolin temple, the thrity surviving monks joined the Peking Opera and continued to teach their kung fu under the guise of stage combat.


There are many arguments about shaolin history, none I have ever heard included this fact. However, to assume kung fu history is purely the history of shoalin monks is incorrect. If you have any sources on this, I would love to read them.

More later, gotta run to kung fu class....

7sm


----------



## Matt Bernius (Mar 18, 2004)

Seconding 7sm points, Invisible Fist the things your throwing around as fact are at best exaggerated Oral History. Along the same lines that depending on story, Bohiddarhma cut off his own eyelids, hand or arm, to teach the Monks a lesson in devotion and meditation. Fact is: Martial Arts in China predate both Wu Dan and Shaolin.

And agreed performance has been linked to the CMA way before Wu Shu. The Peking opera was a great example of this. As far as the surviving Shaolin Monk joining the Opera to continue their skills, that's also new to me. Again there are numerous and conflicting oral histories and legends as to how many monks survived the destruction of the temple and where they went. And how they were or were not hunted down (possibly using Bak Mei or other secret "high" arts).

In the case of the CMA and any others you CANNOT accept oral history as fact. It's great for legends, but the truth is almost always not the same. For a great example of this see the Korean Martial Arts and rumors that still exist about how the modern Korean arts are actually centuries old. Verifiable historical records tell a VERY different story.

- Matt


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 18, 2004)

Matt, 

You are correct....  Its always struck me as a little odd that EVERY CMA traces its lineage back to Shaolin or Wudang....Didn't anybody fight in China before Shaolin?  

IF


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 19, 2004)

Every CMA doesn't trace back to shaolin. Its getting more popular to try that now, because people recognize the name, but true lineages aren't all pointing to that direction. Alot do, simply because it had alot to do with creating many systems and encouraging others to grow.

7sm


----------



## Matt Bernius (Mar 19, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Every CMA doesn't trace back to shaolin. Its getting more popular to try that now, because people recognize the name, but true lineages aren't all pointing to that direction. Alot do, simply because it had alot to do with creating many systems and encouraging others to grow.
> 
> 7sm


I feel it's fair to say that every modern CMA can trace part of it's roots back to one of three things:

1. Shaolin
2. Wu Dan (Dang, Tang, etc.)
3. Chinese Military

All of them passed through one of these at one point or another during their development. And there was cross-pollenation as well, from the research that I've seen.

But at the end of the day while these might be in the roots of an art, helping influence it's direction, all of the arts became something wholy original as well.

- Matt


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 21, 2004)

Here's some links on the relationship of Chinese Opera to Kung Fu.
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/wengshunkuen/history.html

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/why/articles/contemporary/ritchie_opera.html


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2004)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Here's some links on the relationship of Chinese Opera to Kung Fu.
> http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/wengshunkuen/history.html
> 
> http://www.wingchunkuen.com/why/articles/contemporary/ritchie_opera.html


I don't know about the second link as I didn't have time right now to read it, but I would be cautious about takin gas truth what the writter of the first one writes. 

_"When one was trained in the Shaolin temple one was first taught the 'hard' or 'external' forms. The forms that followed would gradually soften. The main philosofy behind this way of teaching was that it was harder for the novice to understand the 'hard' principles than the 'soft'. "_

This goes against everything most CMA teach. The "soft" principles allways being the hardest to master. If it was harder to learn the hard, why would they teach it first? 

_"Wudang Kung Fu became known for it's softness, wich was little understood by outsiders._

I assume we are talkingabout Chinese people outside of wudang. That would be a false statement as most CMA were "soft" in their philosophies. To say no one understood it would be to discredit all other styles of CMA that were "soft" as well. 

I think there are some problems with that article, be carfeul accepting as truth anything you read or hear. Research it, chances are you will find 100 other versions of it as well. Its hard to nail down concrete fact in this history.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Mar 25, 2004)

1- Many but not all people who train in kung fu, may not be shown the applications of the forms and motions they are being taught. 
2- Also not everybody learns the correct situation to apply the technique or movement from the form, (sometimes its a variation that needs to be applied).
3- Some people dont practice the applications even if they know its there.


So if you have those 3 situations going on odds are you wont be able to use "your style".  Plus you still have to practice footwork, kicking, striking, and general body conditioning.


On the flip side if you do karate or jujitsu etc. and all you practice is the applications every time you go to class for 5 to 10 years , plus kicking , striking, and conditioning of course you willl be more able to defend yourself.

So bottom line you have to find a school where you do all of the above in addition to forms , stretching , meditation, which means slower progress but a definitely better end product. The best wines are aged for years before you drink them.

I currently practice kung fu, but I also tried karate, tae kwon do, and jujitsu so I am talking from my own personal experience.


----------



## rox (Feb 4, 2005)

I wouldn't call myself a purely street oriented guy, but my street thought is something like "eyes, throat, groin or knees" .

My style has some forms and some fancy moves, but I have filtered them from my combat style. My instructor knows very well that some things are just physical training and such, he always says the most important moves are the ones from the white sash, and I agree.

Krav Maga has nice techniques, but I don't think a KM student can stand against a TMA guy, because KM seems to assume that your oponent is ignorant and will always be close to you and do that patternized(sp?) stuff on the drills. I don't see a defined stance, too, and that is very bad in my opinion. I believe that TMAs are more flexible, they train you to *think* martially, not only to remember some patterns. I don't know if a KM student would be able to do this, but a Kung Fu student can improvise in personal defense situations to the most lethal way.


----------



## Black Tiger Fist (Feb 4, 2005)

What attracted me to kung fu was all the old school movies ,but at that time i wasn't able to afford lessons and my parents wouldn't pay for any (fearing i would get hurt). 

Like most ppl i didn't know the difference between karate and kung fu at the time. Then while in jr high they offered free karate classes at a local park ,so i joined and started learning karate. I then went through the brain washing that some karate ppl do in saying that kung fu was too soft and flashy.

Then after about 4months a guy i knew that was a big time fighter from our style and someone i trained with switched to kung fu. I asked why? He showed me some basic CMA stuff and i was hooked!

When i started CMA it was for self defense ,but like alot of ppl i became a forms collector. I knew alot of forms ,but couldn't make anything work for me. Then i met my Black Tiger sifu and he showed me what i wish everyone who studies CMA could see ,the beauty,power,and effectiveness of CMA.

Not only can i use everything he's taught me ,but everything i learned from styles before i met him also. My sifu wanted to learn kung fu to fight ,so when he trained it was simply fighting and applications. I love to show ppl how effective CMA is everyday.

The problem is that not many ppl break down the techniques when training anymore ,so you get ppl that have alot of techniques ,but no understanding of how to use them. We breakdown everything from our forms to drills to basics. We even drill the applicable techniques within the bow.

It's all about how you train and how you're taught.

CMA in many ways is more effective then alot of systems out there because they come from CMA. If you look at karate and other arts you can see the CMA techniques within ,but you can see also in some how imcomplete the training was ,there's so many little details missing.

jeff


----------



## Tony (Feb 5, 2005)

Black Tiger Fist said:
			
		

> What attracted me to kung fu was all the old school movies ,but at that time i wasn't able to afford lessons and my parents wouldn't pay for any (fearing i would get hurt).
> 
> Like most ppl i didn't know the difference between karate and kung fu at the time. Then while in jr high they offered free karate classes at a local park ,so i joined and started learning karate. I then went through the brain washing that some karate ppl do in saying that kung fu was too soft and flashy.
> 
> ...



Hi Black Tiger Fist

I agree with all the points you have made. I study Shaolin Long Fist and my instructor doesn't do much of the flashy wushu stuff but we do weapons and chin na. He has used his skills many times on the street and has done very well, considering he is only a small guy, but very powerful and very fast.
All the techinques I know are very useful and I know could easliy hurt people, no matter how big they are. I saw also that your bow can be used as a self defence application, ours too and we often are given the task of breaking down our forms and trying to see if we can figure for ourselves how they can be used defensively.  his is what I love about Kung Fu, it makes you think and every lesson is something new and exciting. We are currently doing abit more san shou and Chin na which I'm loving a lot, even some mma/wrestling submissios as our competitions are integrating grappling, so we spar and grapple at the same time, although it looks very scrappy in the class and proper technique goes out of the window. But I guess thats how it woul be for real, not like Jackie chan films where it takes an eternity to fight one guy, although the objects around you could be used.


----------



## lonecoyote (Mar 3, 2005)

I sometimes get this vibe around here that people think that because something looks a certain way (cool looking) it is ineffective. Long, rooted stances mean power. Smoothness means speed and power. Focus towards targets means damaging strikes. All that stuff looks good in a form, but also works on the street. Won't look like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon on the street, it will just look like fighting, hard, tough, fighting.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 5, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> I sometimes get this vibe around here that people think that because something looks a certain way (cool looking) it is ineffective. Long, rooted stances mean power. Smoothness means speed and power. Focus towards targets means damaging strikes. All that stuff looks good in a form, but also works on the street. Won't look like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon on the street, it will just look like fighting, hard, tough, fighting.


    Its not that if it looks "cool" its ineffective, but youre taking the other side of this extreme. Long stances dont _necessarily_ mean rooting and power. Smoothness most certainly does not _necessarily_ mean speed and power. I mean, Taiji is practiced very slow and is extremely smooth. Focus towards a target could mean damaging strikes but only if you have trained and conditioned your body to be able to deliver a damaging strike. Focus alone provides nothing but focus. If it looks good in a form, why wouldn't it look good on the street? See, your saying people are taking an extreme and saying that things which look cool are not effective, but youre also taking an extreme and saying that looking cool means good kung fu. Neither is actually true.


  7sm


----------



## rox (Mar 5, 2005)

I agree: jumping-triple-tornado-kicks are cool but you won't ever get to hit someone with it in a fight.


----------



## lonecoyote (Mar 5, 2005)

You're absolutely right, 7starmantis, easy to get caught up in the either this or that, black and white arguments, when in fact everything exists along a continuum, shades of grey. Perhaps we could both agree that certain techniques, while aesthetically pleasing, have limited self defense value, while others, when delivered with power, smoothness, focus and proper form can be both pleasing to the eye, and, with proper conditioning and drilling, can also be made to work well in a self defense situation. Doesn't look as well on the street, IMHO, because its under pressure, the other guy is hitting back, trying to grapple, etc. I've seen it, techniques are still correct, just look different. Can't really explain it well. Just get a little tired of the mentality sometimes that TMA is outdated, ineffective and we should all be doing Krav Maga, Muay Thai and BJJ, and that nothing else would work. Not saying those styles don't have value and to each his own, but extreme opinions on one side lead to extreme opinions on the other side. I got stuck in that game for a minute, I guess. On the other hand, Respectfulness breeds Respect, I have found. Thanks for a thought provoking reply.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 6, 2005)

The last few posts I have removed as they were off topic and served no purpose in a rational honest discusion. 

Lets keep threads on topic and respectful please.

-MT Senior Mod-
7starmantis
Adam C


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

However, given the literal translation of Gong Fu, then, any developed skill in streetfighting could be considered as Gong Fu. Likewise, per analogy, to a good auto mechanic-Good Mechanic Gong Fu


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 6, 2005)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Thanks for the link/article


----------



## Infrazael (Mar 24, 2005)

Yes, but a spinning Wushu flip isn't going to help you in the streets all that much.

Kung Fu, when learned and taught correctly, is just hard, brutal, devastating combat, nothing short of the brutality of Muay Thai or BJJ.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 26, 2005)

Oy!  Here we go again!


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 26, 2005)

Bring on the bunny with the drum......


----------



## Isrephael (Mar 30, 2005)

I think that the learning curve is much longer than for many of the other arts.  CMA doesn't get incredibly impressive until it becomes more internalized.  It's not as straightforward as other systems, not as intuitive.  But, once the techniques are truly learned, I feel it to be a more complete system, and certainly one that can be implemented long into old age.
Hence, I don't think CMA's are good for those wanting to learn strict self-defense: to spend a few months and then be able to be the bar-brawl champion.  But, if one wants to truly master their own body, internally and externally, and along the way become a bad@ss, then I feel it's the best choice out there.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 30, 2005)

Isrephael said:
			
		

> I think that the learning curve is much longer than for many of the other arts. CMA doesn't get incredibly impressive until it becomes more internalized. It's not as straightforward as other systems, not as intuitive. But, once the techniques are truly learned, I feel it to be a more complete system, and certainly one that can be implemented long into old age.
> Hence, I don't think CMA's are good for those wanting to learn strict self-defense: to spend a few months and then be able to be the bar-brawl champion. But, if one wants to truly master their own body, internally and externally, and along the way become a bad@ss, then I feel it's the best choice out there.


 I agree that the learning curve is longer with CMA. Kung Fu is not based on natural movements and thus must be learned and drilled to be effective. Its effectivenss although contingent on the players skill, is limitless. I dont agree however that it is not effective quickly. Measured against itself, the effectivness of beginners is not even comparable to those with higher skill, but for pure self defense and life or death application, I think it is extremely effective, even early on. Sport fighting it is not and I dont think it lends itself well to sport fighting.

   As a point of business....
*- MT Mod Note - *
 Please dont attempt to circumvent the profanity filter, we would prefer you just go ahead and type what you like and allow the filter to perform its job. Instead of typing bad@ss simply type badass and allow the filter to work. This word is not filtered so its not an issue.

   No harm done, simply for future refrence for all of us. Thank you. 
*  MT Senior Mod
    7starmantis
    Adam C*


----------



## brothershaw (Mar 30, 2005)

Its funny how something could not be based on natural movements yet still be more efficient than your natural movement a contradiction yet true.

THe first 3-5 years you can definitely be behind the curve compared to other thing but then you catch up rapidly.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 30, 2005)

But given that Kung Fu is a skill, then anything on the street that is effective is effective kung fu?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 30, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> But given that Kung Fu is a skill, then anything on the street that is effective is effective kung fu?


 In every intellegent discussion there must be set definitions that are accepted and we are using the term "kung fu" to mean CMA. Lets not get into semantics, we are still saying the same thing. 

 7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 30, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> In every intellegent discussion there must be set definitions that are accepted and we are using the term "kung fu" to mean CMA. Lets not get into semantics, we are still saying the same thing.
> 7sm


I get what you mean...but my old Chinese Shifu, has us thinking this way. Per it not meaning CMA.....


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 31, 2005)

With sincerity, I do not think that particular post _(But given that Kung Fu is a skill, then anything on the street that is effective is effective kung fu?)_ was entirely about semantics. For it was a belief/view/opinion, instilled into my mind.

For example, how can UFC be truely "ultimate"?

Or someone believing that God had helped man create martial arts, in some way.

Or that Chi/Ki does (or does not) exist.

Or that most fights end up on the ground.

Or that there is the difference (or not) between Kenpo and Kempo.

In my view/opinion, the term kung fu is not describing CMA alone. Anyone practicing a martial art/combat/or auto mechanics, etc., has gong fu. Thus, for me to look at a CMA, I would look at the origin or system. Or per the term Chuan/Kuen/Kuyhn or Chuan Fa.

 This was a discussion that I had with someone about computers-PC or Mac....They informing that either "IBM" or Mac, are both PC's (Personal Computers).

I guess this could or anything else be considered semantical, pending the viewpoint.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 31, 2005)

It is very much semantics and is not the topic of this thread.

7sm


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 31, 2005)

So if I train in a style that is street effective, I cannot call it street Kung Fu?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 31, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> So if I train in a style that is street effective, I cannot call it street Kung Fu?


 You can call it whatever you like, the name changes nothing as you just said. So, using the term kung fu changes nothing in our discussion. The words "Street" and "kung fu" alone do not make this topic. This thread needs to return to the original topic immediately or it serves no purpose and will be closed. 

  7sm


----------



## Infrazael (Mar 31, 2005)

Please, let us just use the term "kung fu" to avoid confusion???:flame:


----------



## Isrephael (Mar 31, 2005)

I have this sneaking suspicion that you're being baited, Adam.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 31, 2005)

Close it... best suggestion.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 31, 2005)

Getting to topic....per how I was taught/told:

We do not train for _wushu-ish properties of athleticism, performance, or competition. _

We train for defense, the drills, called gungs, or repetitious routines, that will bore the average beginner with a mindset on flash. Thus, the results become skills (gung fu)

Several of us, HAD, used it in defense situations, including ONE of us had legal problems/court because of using it. (Semantics among other things turned the case and won it in our favor-I can post the short story of this if anyone should request)

_What is it that makes kung fu applicable to being used on the street?_
How one is trained. We are trained and told that it ISN"T a martial art, but development of skills (gung fu)

_What is it that makes in ineffective for pure self defense?_
Too many emphasize long drawn out moves and/or xings (hsings/zhings), instead of realizing the gungs, are simplistic methods focusing on the particular skill (gung fu)

_If you study CMA do you do so for self defense?_
We train under a Chinese in America, but he and/or we, never consider it a CMA. The reason, perhaps, Shifu doesn't not want to consider it prejudicial. In fact, others that train with us of higher skill (gung fu). Shifu would observe a particular gung being progressed by a student and state that their gung fu (skill), is developing or had developed for that particular routine.
Speaking of Chinese vocabulary, does anyone know the Chinese word for "Grand Master"? Our Shimu, is our historian and had recently posed this question to us. Both Shifu and Shimu speak Mandarin. However, Shimu reads, writes, and speaks sanskrit also. Speaking of which Sifu, _is not_ pronounced "Sea-Foo" but has _close_ to a "Sh" sound like Shifu.

_If so, why did you decide on kung fu for that self defense training?_
Our Shifu trains us that way. Because it is a acquired or developed skill (gung fu) used for protection. It has another property of health, but when examined by a modern physician, such as mine, they sort of conjecture on how certian body functions and muscles look or behave.

_Can kung fu be compared to systems like KM as far as usefullness or realistic usage goes?_
Again, the answer being the same this question;
_What is it that makes kung fu applicable to being used on the street?_
It is how one is trained and progresses with their skill (gung fu)

Naming Kung Fu as only a CMA, decriminates it per semantics. For anyone practicing a skill, practices gung fu.

Speaking of semantics, in Webster's Dictionary, they define martial arts as:
_..any one of Asian hand-to-hand combat or self defense methods, such a Judo, Karate, etc., usually practiced as a sport._
As martial artists, shall we allow such semantics to hold per this definition? As martial artists, upon reading this, would we want to clarify, or change this definition?


----------



## clfsean (Mar 31, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> _If you study CMA do you do so for self defense?_
> We train under a Chinese in America, but he and/or we, ever consider it a CMA. The reason, Shifu doesn't not want to consider it prejudicial. In fact, other that train with us of higher skill (gung fu). Shifu would observe a pratuclar gund being progress by a student and state that their gung fu (skill), is developing or had developed for that particular routine.
> Speaking of Chinese vocabulary, does anyone know the Chinese word for "Grand Master"? Our Shimu, is our historian and had recently posed this question to us. Both Shifu and Shimu speak Manderin. However, Shimu reads, writes, and speaks sanskrit. Speaking of which Sifu, _is not_ pronounced "Sea-Foo" but has _close_ to a "Sh" sound like Shifu.


Well actually if you're using the Cantonese spelling, then you would use the Cantonese pronunciation of Sifu as such. Considering I practice a Cantonese based art with my sifu, sigung & remainder of the teaching family all speaking Cantonese & Sei Yap... it'd be silly to try to correct them, wouldn't it?

The Mandarin for "grandmaster" is Shizu which also based on usage can stand for the founder of a system. Why is your shimu asking you for the word?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 31, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Well actually if you're using the Cantonese spelling, then you would use the Cantonese pronunciation of Sifu as such. Considering I practice a Cantonese based art with my sifu, sigung & remainder of the teaching family all speaking Cantonese & Sei Yap... it'd be silly to try to correct them, wouldn't it?
> 
> The Mandarin for "grandmaster" is Shizu which also based on usage can stand for the founder of a system. Why is your shimu asking you for the word?


Because we have a certain mentality training as well as physical. And I spell Sifu, with the Sh, because of pronounciation/romaticism as I type it


----------



## Infrazael (Apr 1, 2005)

> Speaking of Chinese vocabulary, does anyone know the Chinese word for "Grand Master"?


 Shi Gong.


----------



## rox (Apr 1, 2005)

http://www.mandarintools.com/worddict.html


----------



## 7starmantis (Apr 1, 2005)

Sorry guys, if we can't get back on topic the thread serves no purpose. 

If you would like to discuss chinese language start a new thread.

7sm


----------

