Street Kung Fu

[InvisibleFist]

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.

"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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

My understanding was that Tamo taught the monks kung fu because they were out of shape and unable to properly meditate.

Shaolin was after all a MONASTERY.

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.

I agree that mantis is very, very cool.

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! Exactly! And this is the real treasure of Chinese Kung Fu, not found in systems like karate....each technique flows effeortlessly into th next. This is why forms training is so important.

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.

Yes, effectiveness is a key component to the beauty of CMA. It is beautiful BECAUSE it is deadly.

eeeeee

 

[7starmantis]

"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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[lonecoyote]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the link/article