# The Power of Hung Gar in Self Defense



## LanJie (Jun 30, 2008)

The following self defense video is Grandmaster Lam Chun Sing's . It shows him defending himself from a neutral standing position from all different types of attacks. 

His speed, technique, and power is what real kung fu in practice is all about. All martial artists would love to be able to defend themselves like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdxrbowD5s

This video is also was also spotlighted on . . .
http://www.hungkyun.com/forum/

This forum has a wealth of information on Hung Gar Kung Fu

Regards,
Steve


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 1, 2008)

LanJie said:


> The following self defense video is Grandmaster Lam Chun Sing's . It shows him defending himself from a neutral standing position from all different types of attacks.
> 
> His speed, technique, and power is what real kung fu in practice is all about. All martial artists would love to be able to defend themselves like this.
> 
> ...


 

Hi Steve, as a former practitioner of Hung Ga with many years under my belt (so to speak), I have to disagree with you on what the above video displays.

To my eyes, it showcases a huge issue with the way many people train thier Hung Ga applications.  Staged, one move attacks from a cooperative partner are not a great demonstration of skill or technique.  Its also clear from the video that the students involved do not know how to fall safely, and probably should refrain from practicing takedows until they do.  

I'm not saying those things to be cruel or a "naysayer", because I have a deep love for this system.  However these days its far more of a performance based art focused on forms and appearance rather than a fighting one based on function and experience.  
Truth to be told, there are precious few Hung Ga people who are actively involved in San Shou, MMA, or any other full contact venue and one would be hard pressed to find a current generation of legitimate, experienced fighters within the main lineages of Hung Ga.  Most schools shun these things and claim that they train for self defense, but the reality is they simply do not have the relevant experience to be involved in them on a competative level.  There are exceptions of course, but overall it's a shame to see a video like this being touted as representative of good Hung Ga.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 1, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> Hi Steve, as a former practitioner of Hung Ga with many years under my belt (so to speak), I have to disagree with you on what the above video displays.
> 
> To my eyes, it showcases a huge issue with the way many people train thier Hung Ga applications. Staged, one move attacks from a cooperative partner are not a great demonstration of skill or technique. Its also clear from the video that the students involved do not know how to fall safely, and probably should refrain from practicing takedows until they do.
> 
> ...


 
I understand the point you are making, but I'm not in full agreement with you.

Sure, the maneuvers were staged as such and were not true attacks.  But it was such an edited video that it struck me as more of a demonstration of ideal technique, rather than an all out attack/defense kind of thing.  So for that, I think the demo was interesting, to show how hung ga may deal with an attack.

Also, I didn't see any grossly poor falling techs.  I saw some slapouts, as well as rolls, and I didn't see anything that struck me as dangerous or uneducated.

Third, I have never been convinced that MMA or similar competitions are the yardstick against which any other method must be measured.  One can certainly be very capable with self defense, and have zero experience, or interest in, competition of any sort.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 2, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand the point you are making, but I'm not in full agreement with you.
> 
> Sure, the maneuvers were staged as such and were not true attacks. But it was such an edited video that it struck me as more of a demonstration of ideal technique, rather than an all out attack/defense kind of thing. So for that, I think the demo was interesting, to show how hung ga may deal with an attack.
> 
> ...


 
We'll have to agree to disagree then   In my experience, in a fight whether it be in a ring or in a parking lot, no one throws a single technique and then freezes and allows a counter outside of a martial arts school.  Staged demos are what they are...staged.  Which in my opinion is particularly unrealistic and not at all representative of how things work under pressure.

I like _some_ of the things in this video, although its not Hung Ga:




 
I also like this old demo.  It's Hop Ga, but the spirit and intent of the old man is a pleasure to see: 



 
I'm not interested in a mma vs. self defense debate but I will pose this question:  What is the yardstick to measure capability to defend oneself if not competition?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 2, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> I'm not interested in a mma vs. self defense debate but I will pose this question: What is the yardstick to measure capability to defend oneself if not competition?


 
Hard work and realistic training.  It's a nebulous yardstick.  It's something that cannot really be measured in a truly objective way.

Why do you believe competition IS the yardstick to measure self defense capability? (I'm inferring from your posts that you believe this)


----------



## HG1 (Jul 2, 2008)

How far in the system did you get & who was your Sifu?


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 2, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> Hard work and realistic training. It's a nebulous yardstick. It's something that cannot really be measured in a truly objective way.
> 
> Why do you believe competition IS the yardstick to measure self defense capability? (I'm inferring from your posts that you believe this)


 
Fair question.  
I beleive it serves in that capacity because its about as close as one can be to the adversarial nature of actual combat while maintaining enough elements of safety to do so on a regular basis.  Its also much easier to document and gauge success in competition, and provides that elusive objectivity.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 2, 2008)

HG1 said:


> How far in the system did you get & who was your Sifu?


 
How far?  18 years.  In terms of depth, I'm sure you would translate that into knowledge of forms.  The answer to that is many.  Too many, because beyond the pillar forms I see little need for more choreography.

My sifu?  No.  I'm not interested in Hung Ga/Gar/Kyun politics anymore and neither is he.

Also, My apologies...Clearly this thread has changed its focus due to my comments.  I maintain that staged, one move demo's show nothing about a person's skill or technque.  In my opinion the video presented in the original post is nothing special at all.  I'm sorry if that opinion upsets or offends anyone but I'm not going to withold it for any quasi famous grandmaster.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 3, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> Fair question.
> I beleive it serves in that capacity because its about as close as one can be to the adversarial nature of actual combat while maintaining enough elements of safety to do so on a regular basis. Its also much easier to document and gauge success in competition, and provides that elusive objectivity.


 

again, I see your point, and to an extent I believe that competition CAN be used as A yardstick to measure ability, but it is not THE yardstick in evaluating one's self defense abilities.

Light contact point sparring competition has little to offer real combat, in my opinion.  

Heavier/full contact competitions have more to offer, depending on the rule structure and whatnot.

I don't deny the skills and abilities of those who train for MMA type competitions.  They are tough, they train and push to the extreme, they can dish out and take a lot of punishment, and they use their techniques for real, within the context of how they train.  The skills that they develop certainly have a valid carryover to real life self defense.  I do not deny that.   I just don't believe this is the only way to develop self defense skills, that's all.  I believe that many people with zero experience in competition, and zero interest in competition, are very capable with self defense.  

This is why I don't put any stock in the argument that a style or a method is no good for self defense, just because it isn't seen in MMA competitions, or any other competitions for that matter.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 3, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> I just don't believe this is the only way to develop self defense skills, that's all. I believe that many people with zero experience in competition, and zero interest in competition, are very capable with self defense.


 
In my time I've known a few of those people too.  Some were natural, some were LEO's, some were military.  The one thing they all had in common was the mental attributes of a fighter.  I believe competition is a way to develop those, but can't deny that some poeple are just wired that way from the start.

Anyway, these kinds of discussions can get a bit dicey and it seems like its stayed away from getting out of hand and I thank you for that.


----------



## HG1 (Jul 3, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> How far?  18 years.  In terms of depth, I'm sure you would translate that into knowledge of forms.  The answer to that is many.  Too many, because beyond the pillar forms I see little need for more choreography.
> My sifu?  No.  I'm not interested in Hung Ga/Gar/Kyun politics anymore and neither is he.


The politics arent my thing either.  We have just had different experiences.  


RedRonin38 said:


> Also, My apologies...Clearly this thread has changed its focus due to my comments.


No need to apologize.  This forum is more tolerant than most when it comes to a difference of opinion.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jul 3, 2008)

Well, I do not know the Hung-Ga.  But it is my favourite of all of the Chinese Martial Arts! 

This may be the ideal phase, but do not all Students at some time practice this way?  How can one learn without practicing this?

Look at this technique here, it is beautiful.  Surely no one can say that to defend against the committed "haymaker" strike (which *yes*, DOES happen sometimes in the real-life attacks), would not be effective???







He is moving from this relaxed "normal" position.  This must be seen as useful exercise, right?  He is not in some stance, but from a normal standing position.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 4, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Look at this technique here, it is beautiful. Surely no one can say that to defend against the committed "haymaker" strike (which *yes*, DOES happen sometimes in the real-life attacks), would not be effective???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well it might seem that way, however in my experience if you're not aware and prepared for such an attack.  i.e. already posturing defensively and moving, you're probably going to get jacked.  Remember, this is a demo.  There's no real threat, there's little or no adrenaline, and the actor knows that the actee only throwing one attack because it agreed upon or choreographed.  A single punch followed by freezing to allow the counter is not going to happen outside of a martial arts class or a movie set.  Would it be effective?  There's no way of telling without pressure.

This is why these things are misleading.  Yes, he has great looking form.  Yes, he uses technique representative of what's found in the forms of that system.  Yes, he comes from a famous family.  However, its a staged demo and does not show real skill because there is no real threat or pressure.  Show those two sparring with heavy contact and a broad range of allowed technique and I garauntee that it will look nothing like what is in that video.  Substitute a large opponent into that scenario, and it will change even more.   

Anyone can make a great looking choreographed segment.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about, but I'll use Judo because that's what I'm into at this time.  This is sode tsurikomi goshi, basically a sleeve throw, first is demo version the second is in serious competition.  





 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLDjna0I1Q&feature=related

The first video is clean and nice, it looks great and no offense to the person demonstrating, it does not reflect a high degree of skill because there is no resistance.   The second video is rough and not so clean compared to the first one, but in my opinion, shows a high degree of skill because its done under serious pressure.  


Taking back to CMA...

Here's a demo of some Tang Long/Mantis Boxing.  It looks nice and clean and shows technique, but is not reflective of much skill because once again there is minimal or no pressure.





 
Same system under a bit more pressue and demonstrating some tactical skill:





 
Same system, even more pressure.  If we could see the technique from the first video, done under the pressure level in this one, I'd be really impressed!:





 

The Hung Ga video, is not bad or wrong, and the players in it are doing a great demo.  But _in my opinion_ its not representative of a high level of skill, power, or any sense of realistic application. 

RR


----------



## HG1 (Jul 5, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> *EDIT*I'm not saying those things to be cruel or a "naysayer", because I have a deep love for this system.  However these days its far more of a performance based art focused on forms and appearance rather than a fighting one based on function and experience.


I'm curious, what happened in your 18 years of training that brought you to this conclusion?


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 5, 2008)

HG1 said:


> I'm curious, what happened in your 18 years of training that brought you to this conclusion?


 
I came to the realization that from the top names on down in Hung Ga there's far more myth than fact when it comes to people's ability and skill.  Typically, through Hong Kong lineages (which are the most prevalent) there are 3 families considered to "carry the torch" for this system.  None of them have produced a fighter with a documented or repeated record of defeating anyone, anywhere, in anything.  The assumption always is:  He learned from "so and so" and knows "these forms", therefore he must be good.  Good, being a rather vague term for some sort of skill that is never actually tested or self evident through thier actions.  

Finding that conclusion took years of talking with, meeting with, and touching hands with people who either were, or trained with big names in the system.  Across the board with precious few exceptions, they would all rather demo or stack the deck with a cooperative minion than actually fight.  In a martial art touted as a "hard as nails" fighting system, this is unacceptable.  Of course its my opinion, and I do hope that other people are out there with different experiences, but most of the ones I've met who claimed so were no different from the others in the long run.

Lets turn that around.  _What is it about Hung Ga that makes you believe otherwise_?  I think its a great system mind you, but is lacking in representation based in fact.

RR


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2008)

LanJie said:


> The following self defense video is Grandmaster Lam Chun Sing's . It shows him defending himself from a neutral standing position from all different types of attacks.
> 
> His _*speed*, _technique, and _*power *_is what real kung fu in practice is all about. All martial artists would love to be able to defend themselves like this.
> 
> ...


An interesting discussion/thread, which has manged to remain very civil. :asian:

I have no problem with the video insofar as it represents what I'm assuming it was intended to do: display how the defender might respond against various attacks (I have no background in the particular art, so am intruding, but hopefully in an acceptable manner ).

There is one minor point I'd make regarding the OP, though, which is that I didn't see any speed on display. I have no problem with this, in that being a Kung Fu San Soo practitioner myself, I understand and appreciate practicing at less than full speed at times. And truth be told, I don't see a lot of power, either--leverage, yes, which imho is actually better, but not raw power. This is not a criticism of the video. It's just that in this thread sweeping claims are made, but not apparent to me in the vid.

Now technique, yeah, saw a lot of that.


----------



## HG1 (Jul 6, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> I came to the realization that from the top names on down in Hung Ga there's far more myth than fact when it comes to people's ability and skill.  Typically, through Hong Kong lineages (which are the most prevalent) there are 3 families considered to "carry the torch" for this system.  None of them have produced a fighter with a documented or repeated record of defeating anyone, anywhere, in anything.  The assumption always is:  He learned from "so and so" and knows "these forms", therefore he must be good.  Good, being a rather vague term for some sort of skill that is never actually tested or self evident through thier actions.


So much for staying out of the politics.


RedRonin38 said:


> Lets turn that around.  _What is it about Hung Ga that makes you believe otherwise_?  I think its a great system mind you, but is lacking in representation based in fact.RR


My belief comes from personal experience.  It has been there for me when needed.  As I've stated in other threads Hung Ga is a wonderfully deep martial art with a lifetimes worth of study.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> Typically, through Hong Kong lineages (which are the most prevalent) there are 3 families considered to "carry the torch" for this system. None of them have produced a fighter with a documented or repeated record of defeating anyone, anywhere, in anything.


 
what kind of documentation would you be satisfied with?  

And why do you believe documentation is necesary?  How many street fights or other self-defense situations might have gone unnoticed by the public?  Maybe these guys have had their fair share of scrapes and whatnot in the street, and they don't go around bragging about them.  They obviously didn't get filmed for our Youtube entertainment, so we don't hear about it.  Why do you believe there would be ANY documentation for this kind of thing?  Why do you believe it is reasonable to even hope for documentation of this kind of thing?

Just because something doesn't happen on TV in the MMA ring, or isn't on Youtube, doesn't mean it isn't out there.



> Across the board with precious few exceptions, they would all rather demo or stack the deck with a cooperative minion than actually fight. In a martial art touted as a "hard as nails" fighting system, this is unacceptable.
> 
> RR


 
well, were you expecting them to fight with you?  Just because you show up demanding answers, doesn't mean they are going to give them to you, especially if you are not their student.  Showing up and demanding to see their fighting prowess is also unlikely to get the results you want.  It seems to me that a lot of these guys can be kind of private about these kinds of things.  You don't get these answers, or get to see this kind of thing, until you've shown a great deal of committment to learning what they have to teach, and they need to feel they can trust you.  If you haven't built up that repoire, you just won't get to see it or hear about it.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 6, 2008)

Flying Crane, HG1, I'm only expressing my opinion.  We don't have to agree, and I'm certainly not interested in proving myself right because its a highly subjective situation.  I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation because I'm nolonger actively involved with CMA other than some occaisional personal training.

Best to you in your continued studies of Chinese martial arts!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> Flying Crane, HG1, I'm only expressing my opinion. We don't have to agree, and I'm certainly not interested in proving myself right because its a highly subjective situation. I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation because I'm nolonger actively involved with CMA other than some occaisional personal training.
> 
> Best to you in your continued studies of Chinese martial arts!


 

I'm not trying to beat down your opinion.  I'm just pointing out a different perspective.  I really think this discussion has remained very civil and I don't see any reason for you to back out of it, if you have more to say.  Don't take anything I've said as a personal attack, it certainly was not meant to be such.


----------



## HG1 (Jul 7, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> Flying Crane, HG1, I'm only expressing my opinion.  We don't have to agree, and I'm certainly not interested in proving myself right because its a highly subjective situation.  I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation because I'm nolonger actively involved with CMA other than some occaisional personal training.
> 
> Best to you in your continued studies of Chinese martial arts!


I think it's best to keep the conversation far away from the politics of who is or isn't the torch bearer of Hung Ga.  Outside of this I have no issue with what you have stated & respect the differences of opinion we share about the style.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2008)

HG1 said:


> I think it's best to keep the conversation far away from the politics of who is or isn't the torch bearer of Hung Ga.


 
well, I hate to think there are any forbidden or absolutely taboo topics.  Martial arts politics can get pretty nasty, i've certainly found myself in the middle of some ugly discussions around kenpo politics.  But I like to think that even these topics should be open for discussion, as long as people recognize that there are bound to be differing opinions, and everyone maintains respect and remembers their manners.  If need be, agree to disagree.  But the discussion shouldn't be off limits.


----------



## RedRonin38 (Jul 7, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not trying to beat down your opinion. I'm just pointing out a different perspective. I really think this discussion has remained very civil and I don't see any reason for you to back out of it, if you have more to say. Don't take anything I've said as a personal attack, it certainly was not meant to be such.


 
Ok very well then, I appreciate the civility.  Please for give my impulsive withdraw...my inner forumite was sensing an impending war.  I'm not interested in online battles, and as such I will steer away from a thread that focuses on my personal experiences except when absolutley becessary to express my opinion.

2 things:

_First_, there is an interesting quote in your sig line. 


> "Having an 'iron' whatever will do you little good if you don't know how to properly use it." -HG1


 
This is a great point.  Mine is to ask how do you know unless you test that?  I say competition, and plenty of it at the highest level possible.  How else?  Street fights?  No thank you!  
HG-1, how do you know? (Not an attack, its a genuine inquiry...).

_Second_, documentation!  
Its the most neglected thing in martial arts today.  Why?  Well heck, would you trust a person in today's world to operate on your heart or brain without knowing through easily researchable documentation that they actually are a doctor, can perform the procedures, and what their track record is?  I wouldn't.  
Same goes for any martial arts instructor.  Sure, there's some great teachers out there with no researchable supporting documentation, but given the amount of fraud, myth, and madness that can be found in the world of martial arts, I'm not willing to take my chances anymore.  Too many students of CMA's are willing to take thier instruction based on belief rather than fact, and when it comes to self defense or fighting ability that's a very dangerous approach.

Flying Crane, you mentioned a relationship built over time for teachers to reveal thier ability.  I'd not waste my time with anyone who operates this way because again, its taking a huge leap of faith that thier actually _is _ability there.  My first kung fu instructor in (started in Hung Ga in 1990) never sparred with anyone, and only demonstrated technique by directing the action with verbal cues. There were however, several stories about things he'd done in the past, but none were ever substantiated.  
By contrast, my current Judo instructor engages in randori with our class every week with few exceptions, and demonstrates under pressure his ability against many differnet skill levels and body types.  He has a lengthy, researchable competition record, and has been asked for assistance with international level Judo teams.  
See the difference?  Ability that is not expressed or withheld, and in addition cannot be researched through some kind of documentation, is highly questionable in my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> 2 things:
> 
> _First_, there is an interesting quote in your sig line.
> 
> ...


 
ah yes, that little quote was just something I found rather funny, so I grabbed ahold of it.  But I acknowledge your point.



> _Second_, documentation!
> Its the most neglected thing in martial arts today. Why? Well heck, would you trust a person in today's world to operate on your heart or brain without knowing through easily researchable documentation that they actually are a doctor, can perform the procedures, and what their track record is? I wouldn't.
> Same goes for any martial arts instructor. Sure, there's some great teachers out there with no researchable supporting documentation, but given the amount of fraud, myth, and madness that can be found in the world of martial arts, I'm not willing to take my chances anymore. Too many students of CMA's are willing to take thier instruction based on belief rather than fact, and when it comes to self defense or fighting ability that's a very dangerous approach.


 
again, I see your point.

the problem I think is that so much in life is just never documented, and we can't expect it to be.  Competitions are probably the only form of pugilism that is actually documented outside of police reports.  Fighting on the street, be it brawling or legitimate self defense against an attacker, would just never be documented unless a police report is filed.  

The lack of documentation doesn't mean it didn't happen.  But then again, you do have to go on a certain level of faith, and hopefully you are a good enough judge of character to not be fooled by a charlatan.  But it can happen to anyone.

I just can't help feeling that if you go thru life demanding documentation for everything, then you are bound to travel down a road of repeated disappointment and frustration.

The martial arts are not like medicine.  Medicine is highly regulated by the government, and martial arts are not (thank the gods on both counts).  This does leave the door open to charlatans in the martial arts.  caveat emptor.  But it doesn't mean that everyone IS a charlatan, documentation or not.



> Flying Crane, you mentioned a relationship built over time for teachers to reveal thier ability. I'd not waste my time with anyone who operates this way because again, its taking a huge leap of faith that thier actually _is _ability there.


 
well, if the instructor has integrity, he ought to be teaching quality material from the moment he accepts you as his student.  But his personal experiences with violence may be something he doesn't like to talk much about (something from his "irresponsible youth" perhaps), and he just may not relay those stories to those who haven't really gained his inner trust.

Everyone is different on this point.  I know people who have no trouble talking about their experiences.  Others are very quiet about it.  



> My first kung fu instructor in (started in Hung Ga in 1990) never sparred with anyone, and only demonstrated technique by directing the action with verbal cues. There were however, several stories about things he'd done in the past, but none were ever substantiated.


 
well, i guess I cannot comment about your specific experience.  I probably don't know your instructor and I can't vouche for him or not.  He may have been a fraud, or he may not have been.  But that's one example and even if he was a fraud, that doesnt' mean he represents the norm.



> By contrast, my current Judo instructor engages in randori with our class every week with few exceptions, and demonstrates under pressure his ability against many differnet skill levels and body types. He has a lengthy, researchable competition record, and has been asked for assistance with international level Judo teams.
> See the difference? Ability that is not expressed or withheld, and in addition cannot be researched through some kind of documentation, is highly questionable in my opinion.


 
ah, well judo is an art that has embraced competition.  Those who engage in judo are very likely to engage in competition on some level.

Not all arts/people have embraced this, tho.  That doesn't automatically make them less capable.

I will give you this point, however: I believe it is true that most of us are not practicing our kung fu in the same way that it was once done.  The world has largely changed, we live in a much safer society, and most of us have little or no need to actually use our skills to defend our lives.  Because of this, we have lost a certain level of useage and skill in what we do, because we are just not pushed to use it.  Few of us get attacked on our way home from work on a regular basis, and when we do it is often possible and preferable to get assistance from local law enforcement.

But I don't believe that means Chinese martial arts of any style have become useless, nor that competition is the only way develop fighting ability.


----------



## HG1 (Jul 7, 2008)

RedRonin38 said:


> _First_, there is an interesting quote in your sig line. This is a great point.  Mine is to ask how do you know unless you test that?  I say competition, and plenty of it at the highest level possible.  How else?  Street fights?  No thank you!
> HG-1, how do you know? (Not an attack, its a genuine inquiry...).


At my school conditioning hands,bridge or shins is common training.  When sparring against it only good technique nullifies their effect.


----------

