Kung fu in MMA Wins

[JowGaWolf]

Okay, but don't you also train in your style with the hope that if someone attacks you, you can utilize your martial art effectively and efficiently to end the attack and possibly save your life, or the life of someone you care about?

This is correct but I'm not training at a level in which my attacker is a professional fighter. The chance that scenario will ever be a highly skilled fighter of a professional caliber is zero. Between meeting someone with a gun and fighting someone with professional fighting skills. I can tell you most people in the US will get into a situation where there's a gun long before they even get into a situation where there's a professional fighter trying to fight them. So far for me. Guns 2 - Professional fighters 0

 

[Hanzou]

This is correct but I'm not training at a level in which my attacker is a professional fighter. The chance that scenario will ever be a highly skilled fighter of a professional caliber is zero. Between meeting someone with a gun and fighting someone with professional fighting skills. I can tell you most people in the US will get into a situation where there's a gun long before they even get into a situation where there's a professional fighter trying to fight them. So far for me. Guns 2 - Professional fighters 0

Your possible assailant being a "professional fighter" is irrelevant. You're training with the hope that at minimum, you will be a more effective fighter than a person who does not train. That's the point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Why are you teaching someone to punch? Aren't you teaching them to punch CORRECTLY so that when they actually punch another human being their punch will have the desired effect (disable their assailant)?

You are missing the point.

Yeah, but you're comparing someone goofing around on a tennis court to someone paying an instructor (aka a professional) to teach them tennis.

Correct to teach them tennis. To be good at it, but not to be a "tennis player"

If I'm paying a professional to teach me tennis, I expect better results than me just picking up a racket and teaching myself. The job of the tennis coach is to take me far and above someone who is self taught.

But you don't expect yourself to be a "Tennis player" after paying the money. I paid money in the past for tennis lessons with no desire to be a "Tennis player" I got good at playing tennis and was able to beat those who never had tennis lessons and some who did have tennis lessons.. But I was not a tennis player.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Your possible assailant being a "professional fighter" is irrelevant. You're training with the hope that at minimum, you will be a more effective fighter than a person who does not train. That's the point.

At a minimum you only need to be functional and good with using the techniques.

It's like my tennis example. I learned enough tennis to be functional which was a bigger advantage over those who weren't trained. When I teach someone to be functional with attacks and defense. They will have an advantage over someone who hasn't been trained. It doesn't mean they will win the fight.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Taking this into the realm of martial arts, if I'm entering your school to learn Jow Ga, I'm expecting better results than if I learned Jow Ga from a book I found on Amazon, or me and my friends watching a Kung Fu movie and imitating it's movements.

I would teach you to be functional with Jow Ga. Meaning you will be able to use those techniques in a fight to help defend yourself and do better than most people who do not train to fight. I would also remind you that just because you are Functional with Jow Ga does not mean you won't loose the street fight. I would inform you that if you want be trained to fight. It will take more than the functional training that you just went through. Training to fight means that you are trying to be at the top of your fighting ability and that you are going beyond just being functional. You are now training and conditioning to be dominant in fighting.

If you don't want to get into that brutal training then you should be fine where you are as your current functional Jow Ga training has made your stronger and given you the ability to actually use your techniques. I would then remind you that if you cross paths with someone who trains to fight in the ring or competitively, to be extra cautious as your current skill level will most likely not match that of someone who trains to fight competitively.

The path that you will take will be up to you. If you feel good that what I taught you to that point is good enough to handle most situations you might find yourself in , then you'll just keep training that. If you feel like you need more focused training on fighting then training will become harder and more brutal.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You're training with the hope that at minimum, you will be a more effective fighter than a person who does not train. That's the point.

The problem that I have with this is "Effective fighter" "Effective" is fine. "Fighter" to me is someone who trains with the primary focus to fight.

If you ask me what is my Training for Functional Jow Ga. You will get one type of training. If you ask me what is my Training for fighting with Jow Ga, you will get something totally different.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, but don't you also train in your style with the hope that if someone attacks you, you can utilize your martial art effectively and efficiently to end the attack and possibly save your life, or the life of someone you care about? I mean, you're not shooting clay because you want to learn how to shoot people. However, you are learning a wrist lock with the goal to be proficient enough to use it on another human being.

I do, but not everyone does. And it's far from the only reason. If I was only concerned with fighting efficacy, I'd choose something that has a more efficient approach to delivering that.

Yeah, but what are the improvements in flexibility and coordination designed for? What is the philosophy designed for? It's all designed to make you a more efficient fighter. If flexibility and coordination was their main goal, they'd be taking up Yoga instead of Aikido. However, if they're taking up a martial art, then clearly they're also there because they want to toss someone across the room.

What they were originally designed for isn't necessarily material to what I, you, or anyone else wants from them. Just like the sporting clays (which probably started out as a drill for practicing for hunting).

You're making a blanket assumption about what people would choose. It's categorically incorrect. People choose what they choose because it's what they want, not because it's entirely logical.

The reason I call it fluff is because the tradition and the philosophy isn't necessary to achieve the end goal, which is to apply a technique in an effective and efficient manner. People can do that without the Shinto and heavy Japanese culture. It's just there to add additional layers to the art and to further envelope the students in the overall experience.

Ah, but you're back to mandating what the end goal must be. If that's not the end goal, then what is "fluff" changes. Not everyone in MA has your personal goals.

And yes, if folks want to train to fight (and only do that), then those things are fluff to them. But if someone wants to practice something with some ritual (perhaps because they find it calming, or because they feel the need for something more regimented in their lives, or just because they really like it), then that ritual stuff isn't fluff to them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But you don't expect yourself to be a "Tennis player" after paying the money. I paid money in the past for tennis lessons with no desire to be a "Tennis player" I got good at playing tennis and was able to beat those who never had tennis lessons and some who did have tennis lessons.. But I was not a tennis player.

I'll need you to help me on this one. If you play tennis, you meet the dictionary definition of "tennis player" (basically, one who plays tennis), so I'm strugging to follow your usage here.

 

[Hanzou]

You are missing the point.


Correct to teach them tennis. To be good at it, but not to be a "tennis player"


But you don't expect yourself to be a "Tennis player" after paying the money. I paid money in the past for tennis lessons with no desire to be a "Tennis player" I got good at playing tennis and was able to beat those who never had tennis lessons and some who did have tennis lessons.. But I was not a tennis player.

Okay, but why shouldn't I expect that? My BJJ gym had quite a few guys who wanted to (and did) fight professionally. So if my goal is to fight professionally, why should I not expect that level of training from your school? Would you not consider yourself a professional?

Going back to the tennis analogy, if I'm hiring someone to teach me tennis, I should have the personal option to play professionally or not. A professional instructor that I'm paying shouldn't be the one to put a cap on my potential.

 

[Hanzou]

At a minimum you only need to be functional and good with using the techniques.

It's like my tennis example. I learned enough tennis to be functional which was a bigger advantage over those who weren't trained. When I teach someone to be functional with attacks and defense. They will have an advantage over someone who hasn't been trained. It doesn't mean they will win the fight.

And whether or not they win the fight is also irrelevant. The point is that you're taking an untrained person and training them to be a fighter. Again, at minimum, you're teaching them to be a better fighter than the general population. That's why they're there.

The problem that I have with this is "Effective fighter" "Effective" is fine. "Fighter" to me is someone who trains with the primary focus to fight.

If you ask me what is my Training for Functional Jow Ga. You will get one type of training. If you ask me what is my Training for fighting with Jow Ga, you will get something totally different.

Okay, so what is "functional" Jow Ga? What is the primary focus of your martial art? The primary focus of Bjj is achieve a dominant position via grappling, and we learn scores of techniques to accomplish that goal. "Functional" Bjj would be me successfully pulling off those techniques in a training session or an actual fight/SD situation.

What are you learning in Jow Ga? From your videos it appears to be an awful lot of punching and kicking for it to not be focused on fighting.

 

[Alan0354]

There is a trick to it. I throw the stabby toe teep that can drop people.

It is half chambered and almost like a groin kick. Rather than that pushing kick a lot of people do.

And so I just snap it out and try to touch their liver with my big toe.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1169344979768117

This is off the back foot and across the body. I do either side or either foot.

That's exactly how I kick, it's not push kick at all, it snap forward and hit with the ball of the foot to dig into the target.

This is a much harder kick than push kick, but do it right, it's the highest speed that dig into the target. But it's hard, all these years practicing( not hours a week, but consistent throughout the years), it's still hard to kill to the solarplex without sliding up the bag and lost the power. Also, sometimes, the ankle of the foot is not tighten at the moment of contact and give, that reduces the power of the kick.

It's the timing, your foot should be relax when starting the kick, then when the ball of the foot almost hit the target, the ankle needs to tighten up so it doesn't give at the moment of contact. Just like punching, the whole arm should be relaxed, then throw the punch, the last moment before contact, you tighten up the wrist and squeeze the hand to dig into the target. It just much harder to control the foot. That's what I was talking all along that a good front kick is very hard even thought it sounds the easiest of all kicks.


Actually a good push kick is not bad, it's a combination of snapping and use the hip to push forward. That's NOT a lot of non experts do, they literally pick up the foot and push forward to the object. There is no penetrating power, just push the object back. When they kick the kicking bag, there's almost no or very light sound because there is no speed in the contact, just push the bag. There's no stopping power, the opponent just get push back a step and move forward again!!!

 

[Hanzou]

I do, but not everyone does. And it's far from the only reason. If I was only concerned with fighting efficacy, I'd choose something that has a more efficient approach to delivering that.

Sure, I don't practice BJJ ONLY for fighting purposes, but that is the main reason I'm doing BJJ and not hip hop dance or marathon running.

And while you're not concerned with being the best fighter around, you are concerned with at least being better than the average joe. I think we do ourselves a disservice in believing that the primary reason we're doing something has nothing to do with violence. It most certainly does, and I have to seriously question the honesty of someone who says they have no interest in fighting when they're learning a methodology that teaches them to injure, maim, and kill another human being.

And keep in mind, when I say "fighting", I'm not saying getting in a ring and fight someone for a trophy. I'm talking about pure human to human violence. The old man who wants to feel a little safer walking home from the deli. The soccer mom who is a little wary at night because her husband works the night shift. The school kid who is getting bullied by a gang of kids. The young teacher who is working in an innercity school and doesn't want to get attacked by his students, etc, etc, etc. They're all training to become better fighters, because if you know how to fight, you're simply better at defending yourself.

What they were originally designed for isn't necessarily material to what I, you, or anyone else wants from them. Just like the sporting clays (which probably started out as a drill for practicing for hunting).

You're making a blanket assumption about what people would choose. It's categorically incorrect. People choose what they choose because it's what they want, not because it's entirely logical.

See above.

Ah, but you're back to mandating what the end goal must be. If that's not the end goal, then what is "fluff" changes. Not everyone in MA has your personal goals.

And yes, if folks want to train to fight (and only do that), then those things are fluff to them. But if someone wants to practice something with some ritual (perhaps because they find it calming, or because they feel the need for something more regimented in their lives, or just because they really like it), then that ritual stuff isn't fluff to them.

And there's nothing wrong with that. My point is that no matter how pretty you dress it up, all martial arts have the same core. The only real difference is how much fluff you stuffed into it. That old man in the Aikido class may really dig all the Japanese culture and etiquette he's learning, but the real reason he's there is because in the back of his mind he actually believes that his Aikido can counter a burly young high school wrestler trying to dump him on his head. His instructor feeds him this stuff because the instructor has to tell his students that what they're learning is effective, yet also tell them to avoid fighting at all possible.

And thus the logical loops begin.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'll need you to help me on this one. If you play tennis, you meet the dictionary definition of "tennis player" (basically, one who plays tennis), so I'm strugging to follow your usage here.

That's a general definition without context. By that definition anyone who is on a tennis court playing a game of tennis would be considered a tennis player even if you and I were to hit the ball into the net or off the court every time. We would satisfy that definition each time so long as we are playing the game of tennis.

This is how Kung Fu masters get laid out on their backs. They train Kung Fu and they think they are fighters and then they meet real fighters who defeat them with the most basic of skills.

When you use google images for "Tennis Players", who do you see show up in the results
When you use google images for "Recreational Tennis Player" who do you see show up.

The one thing that Google is good at is presenting searches as most people see and understand it. You can go with the general definition "A person who plays tennis" but you will miss out on a lot of important nuances.

 

[Steve]

Sure, I don't practice BJJ ONLY for fighting purposes, but that is the main reason I'm doing BJJ and not hip hop dance or marathon running.

And while you're not concerned with being the best fighter around, you are concerned with at least being better than the average joe. I think we do ourselves a disservice in believing that the primary reason we're doing something has nothing to do with violence. It most certainly does, and I have to seriously question the honesty of someone who says they have no interest in fighting when they're learning a methodology that teaches them to injure, maim, and kill another human being.

This is such an important point. I make soap. I enjoy it because it's part art and part science. I don't sell it, and don't do it because I want to be the best soap maker around. But I am very interested in making high quality soap. And it would be (I think we can all agree) very strange to our ears if I said, "I'm not really worried about the soap being safe and effective, because I do it for other reasons."

 

[Alan0354]

That's exactly how I kick, it's not push kick at all, it snap forward and hit with the ball of the foot to dig into the target.

This is a much harder kick than push kick, but do it right, it's the highest speed that dig into the target. But it's hard, all these years practicing( not hours a week, but consistent throughout the years), it's still hard to kill to the solarplex without sliding up the bag and lost the power. Also, sometimes, the ankle of the foot is not tighten at the moment of contact and give, that reduces the power of the kick.

It's the timing, your foot should be relax when starting the kick, then when the ball of the foot almost hit the target, the ankle needs to tighten up so it doesn't give at the moment of contact. Just like punching, the whole arm should be relaxed, then throw the punch, the last moment before contact, you tighten up the wrist and squeeze the hand to dig into the target. It just much harder to control the foot. That's what I was talking all along that a good front kick is very hard even thought it sounds the easiest of all kicks.


Actually a good push kick is not bad, it's a combination of snapping and use the hip to push forward. That's NOT a lot of non experts do, they literally pick up the foot and push forward to the object. There is no penetrating power, just push the object back. When they kick the kicking bag, there's almost no or very light sound because there is no speed in the contact, just push the bag. There's no stopping power, the opponent just get push back a step and move forward again!!!

I missed the edit deadline!!

I forgot to say kicking with the heel solves all the problem, the heel does not buckle, it always stick in hard. The problem is you lose some height, much more importantly, you LOSE like 5 to 6" of reach, that really makes a difference. Also, your foot has to be flexible enough to get the front part of the foot out of the way, or else it will dissipate part of the energy and reduce the power of the kick at the heel.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure, I don't practice BJJ ONLY for fighting purposes, but that is the main reason I'm doing BJJ and not hip hop dance or marathon running.

And while you're not concerned with being the best fighter around, you are concerned with at least being better than the average joe. I think we do ourselves a disservice in believing that the primary reason we're doing something has nothing to do with violence. It most certainly does, and I have to seriously question the honesty of someone who says they have no interest in fighting when they're learning a methodology that teaches them to injure, maim, and kill another human being.

And keep in mind, when I say "fighting", I'm not saying getting in a ring and fight someone for a trophy. I'm talking about pure human to human violence. The old man who wants to feel a little safer walking home from the deli. The soccer mom who is a little wary at night because her husband works the night shift. The school kid who is getting bullied by a gang of kids. The young teacher who is working in an innercity school and doesn't want to get attacked by his students, etc, etc, etc. They're all training to become better fighters, because if you know how to fight, you're simply better at defending yourself.



See above.



And there's nothing wrong with that. My point is that no matter how pretty you dress it up, all martial arts have the same core. The only real difference is how much fluff you stuffed into it. That old man in the Aikido class may really dig all the Japanese culture and etiquette he's learning, but the real reason he's there is because in the back of his mind he actually believes that his Aikido can counter a burly young high school wrestler trying to dump him on his head. His instructor feeds him this stuff because the instructor has to tell his students that what they're learning is effective, yet also tell them to avoid fighting at all possible.

And thus the logical loops begin.

I don't think we're acres apart on this. The main difference I see is that you don't think it's possible for someone to choose something like martial arts without being interested in being able to actually use the techniques for the original purpose. I just don't agree with that. I suspect there are large numbers of folks in Shin-Shin Toitsu who really have little to no interest in the martial application. The wording on the main organization website (which seems to entirely lack reference to self-defense or fighting) suggests that population exists. And I don't think it requires they are dishonest to make that claim. Lots of people practice "Tai Chi", which is derived from (and maybe even an accurate subset of) Taiji Chuan, as I understand it. And none of the old folks I've met who "do Tai Chi" ever once referred to self-defense as a purpose. Many of them may not know it's derived from a martial art. I've done a bit of Tai Chi, and never once thought it was really contributing to fighting ability any more than the jazz dance classes I took back in college.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a general definition without context. By that definition anyone who is on a tennis court playing a game of tennis would be considered a tennis player even if you and I were to hit the ball into the net or off the court every time. We would satisfy that definition each time so long as we are playing the game of tennis.

This is how Kung Fu masters get laid out on their backs. They train Kung Fu and they think they are fighters and then they meet real fighters who defeat them with the most basic of skills.

When you use google images for "Tennis Players", who do you see show up in the results
When you use google images for "Recreational Tennis Player" who do you see show up.

The one thing that Google is good at is presenting searches as most people see and understand it. You can go with the general definition "A person who plays tennis" but you will miss out on a lot of important nuances.

Okay, so you actually used the term "recreational tennis player". That term, in and of itself, suggests one can be a tennis player at a recreational level. Which is what I'd consider the time I spent on a tennis court in my 20's.

It's like when someone asks if I'm a golfer. I tell them I used to be, but haven't played in years. I was never competitive (except in amateur long-drive competitions), but I played a lot. I played golf, like I had once played tennis.

I guess I'm having trouble figuring out where your distinction is between "someone who plays tennis" and a "tennis player".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is such an important point. I make soap. I enjoy it because it's part art and part science. I don't sell it, and don't do it because I want to be the best soap maker around. But I am very interested in making high quality soap. And it would be (I think we can all agree) very strange to our ears if I said, "I'm not really worried about the soap being safe and effective, because I do it for other reasons."

Hmm...I'll think about that analogy a bit, but I don't think it quite covers the gamut of MA training. The easiest example is folks who "do Tai Chi" for health. That'd be like someone making candles out of the soap (if it would burn.....would it?).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I missed the edit deadline!!

I forgot to say kicking with the heel solves all the problem, the heel does not buckle, it always stick in hard. The problem is you lose some height, much more importantly, you LOSE like 5 to 6" of reach, that really makes a difference. Also, your foot has to be flexible enough to get the front part of the foot out of the way, or else it will dissipate part of the energy and reduce the power of the kick at the heel.

And if you lack flexibility in the hamstrings (a lifetime issue for me), you lose effective height, as well. Even at my most flexible and active, my hamstrings acted like I never stretched.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And while you're not concerned with being the best fighter around, you are concerned with at least being better than the average joe. I think we do ourselves a disservice in believing that the primary reason we're doing something has nothing to do with violence.

In terms of fighting the only thing I really care about is my ability to land a technique, escape from injury, escape from a situation I can't win. The only exception for be getting my butt kicked is if it helps someone else to escape and even then, I'm thinking more about distraction and not being someone's punching bag.

As for the primary reason. That's up to the person training the system. I have no control over that . But what I do believe is that we do ourselves a disservice in believing that the primary reason for the fighting system is to be good at violence. I embrace that and lecture students about that all the time. This is why I'm not a big fan of schools that take functional martial arts and turned into a non-violent mentality.

I believe in balance and when they do that. They ignore the violence behind the system instead of balancing it out. But that's just me. Not a right or wrong issue for me. Just a personal perspective. But for the most part I agree with your statement.

And keep in mind, when I say "fighting", I'm not saying getting in a ring and fight someone for a trophy.

Ahhh.. sorry I misunderstood you. then because that 's the perspective I thought you were speaking about "fighting" That's where I was missing what you were meaning.