REAL Kung Fu

Re: Beat Me Silly!

Well, GodEater, I think I can light up two of your points:

"You dislike people holding up UFC as some “art†higher than any other (I don’t recall anyone doing that in this thread..."
Indeed... but the UFC people do. I find it quite disgraceful how someone claims "I'm the toughest, the best, hear me roar" only to sorely loose next year. If you were the best, you wouldn't loose until you become too weak to compete.
Like you said, uninflated egos can only be met when the goal is improving the art. Far too often winning takes the priority. Which also brings me to the second point /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Really, that was the Bruce Lee's point: Use what works, discard what doesn't."
Or: fight with what works, train the rest. It's our extreme western approach, completely detached from the person who said it. Bruce Lee would do stuff that's "impractical". Until you realize it's a very good movement, just from a very odd angle which takes years to understand and execute powerfully.
Taken to the extreme I should only have practiced boxing since that worked very quickly. But my fascination with the "impractical" stuff tought me that it's very often not as impractical as it seems... only the first 5 years /versus/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Re: Beat Me Silly!

[ QUOTE ]
tianyuan2k2 said:

actually i had been to the shaolin temple... why those monks live so freaking high on top of the mountain? why those monks smoke marlboro? why those monks learn those killing moves while their principle is to be peaceful?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, high atop a mountain the air is sooo good. Oh, and pretty thin so it's a good training for your respiration. And it makes it less likely that suddenly a city pops up around you ruining your peace. Well, the plateau was too large to prevent that it seems /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Marlboro, huh? Well, a Chinese emperor once granted them the privilege of eating meat and drinking alcohol as monks. Maybe the new government added a new one.

The killing moves... well... until hundred years ago it was okay to just kill someone in self-defense in China. Or in a Duell. And you have much greater piece of mind if you just can kill someone who tries to do it to you. Nowadays? Well, no reason to stop. You can always hold back a bit but it still puts your mind at greater ease if you just can kill someone /versus/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Re: Beat Me Silly!

I deleted my old post. Not because I changed my mind about the appeal of ufc to meatheadish dudes, but because it was, as has been pointed out, meaner than necessary, and I did seem to misapprehend your words (owing in part, I think, to some convoluted writing on your part, but I digress). Some of the post was funny (maybe only to me) but I was too lazy to go back and delete the extraneous mean stuff from the meat of the message so I just axed the whole thing.

Anyway, even if I find your posts to be annoying and/or pretentious at times, I didn't need to shout it from the hilltops so to speak.

I would say that, generally speaking, UFC appeals especially to the meatheads among (and within) us.

And I think that is silly for UFC fans to diss Shaolin for being useless in the "real" world as thought the real world were a 20 sq. ft. cage with two dudes in skivies trying to make the other cry "Uncle."

As for what can be blamed for a larger share of the world's problems- macho conquest or existential emptiness- that is a subject that I cannot do justice right now (if ever) so I leave that to another day.

Happy New Year Bitches! /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I write ads

[ QUOTE ]
DissMaster said:

I deleted my old post. Not because I changed my mind about the appeal of ufc to meatheadish dudes, but because it was, as has been pointed out, meaner than necessary, and I did seem to misapprehend your words (owing in part, I think, to some convoluted writing on your part, but I digress).

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmmmmmmm...

A-ha!


"Only as mean as necessary - and it's all your fault." - DissMaster tagline

 

I write legal briefs

Let's parse my words in a more lawyerly fashion:

I acknowledged that my post was "meaner than necessary."

I described my misapprehension of his post as "owing in part, I think, to some convoluted writing on (GE's) part." Note that I am stating only that his writing contributed to my misunderstanding, not I could not have been at all responsible for misreading his words.

Furthermore, I leave unanswered the question of whether or not his (partial) culpability (in respect to his convoluted writing) mitigated the meaness that pervaded my post. The fact that my post has been deleted suggests that I would answer in the negative.

Plague, it seems that you have forsaken the olive branch in favor of the shit stirrer. Blessed are the peacemakers in these trying times. Put down that shit stirring stick and come back to where the peaceful flavor is, baby!

Don't make me fly out to California and give you a Steaming Cleveland.

 

Re: I write legal briefs

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I leave unanswered the question of whether or not his (partial) culpability (in respect to his convoluted writing) mitigated the meaness that pervaded my post. The fact that my post has been deleted suggests that I would answer in the negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Omit needless words. /versus/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

Re: Beat Me Silly!

[ QUOTE ]
Q:why those monks learn those killing moves while their principle is to be peaceful?

A:You can always hold back a bit but it still puts your mind at greater ease if you just can kill someone

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew them Monk's were sneaky, there goals not really peace, just peace of mind /versus/images/graemlins/lol.gif

 

Re: I write legal briefs

Which words?

The obscurantist, lawyerly style was meant to be funny. I think that it is less that I used too many words and more that the way I chose to phrase my statements was intentionally and unnecessarily complex.

I felt that Plague made an inaccurate statement regarding the gist of my other post. I attempted to make a semantic argument stating that the words I had used in the original post could not be reduced to "I was too mean, but it was all your fault."

But then, arguing semantics is not in and of itself very entertaining, so I emphasized the lawyerly, obscurantist aspect of it. Obviously that's hilarious. Right? Guys? Anybody? Ok, well, whatever.

I am going to avoid writing anything other than exactly what I mean. No more jokey jokey shit, ok? I am getting annoyed at explaining myself.

 

Re: I write legal briefs

Ugh, why do I even bother...
What bothers me about most people trained ONLY in TMA (My background is TMA...13+ years of Taekwondo, Capoeira, shotokan karate, Judo, Vietnames kung-fu). tend to have this mentality of "oh, if you can't kick their nuts, poke eyes, or fish hook, its just not combat" but then rarely even engage in something that for any practical level resembles street fighting..more this foot tag point sparring or whatever. Let me tell you, if all you have trained in is Traditional martial arts (TMA), then you really do have a limited view of wtf is going on in a fight.
I think almost everybody in their right mind knows that a fight is oft to go to the ground...so you spend a lot of time training in the area where you will be. BTW, the + side of this is that you can do a LOT of grappling without a ton of injury, unlike Boxing or any striking. Even boxers do not spend the majority of their time sparring because they would all be vegitables in a few years.
Bruce Lee took a very utilitarian approach to martial arts - he was focused on the MARTIAL aspect - what works in a fight. While in Brazil there where Vale Tudo matches that pitted style against style, Bruce Lee advocated training in everything that suits your needs...he also said that if you want to beat a black belt in almost any style, train boxing for 6 months and wrestling for 6 months. THis comes from somebody with a background in Tai Chi and wing chung.

Finally, most martial arts classes will offer a few classes for free, if they are worth anything. Go try it out and see for yourself.

On the Vale Tudo fighting tip - I am not advocating people just kill each other for the sake of seeing who is the strongest...but no holds barred matches are the safest way to find out what really works, with saftey in mind for the fighters.

 

shaolin mystery

marlboro vs fresh air...
meat vs vegetable...
sex vs no sex...

too much confusion for everyone. maybe learning killing moves does make things easier. you do bad things u will eat shaolin monk's budda's fist then meet budda in heaven. that's what mercy all about.

 

Re: I write legal briefs

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

Ugh, why do I even bother...
What bothers me about most people trained ONLY in TMA (My background is TMA...13+ years of Taekwondo, Capoeira, shotokan karate, Judo, Vietnames kung-fu). tend to have this mentality of "oh, if you can't kick their nuts, poke eyes, or fish hook, its just not combat" ...

... On the Vale Tudo fighting tip - I am not advocating people just kill each other for the sake of seeing who is the strongest...but no holds barred matches are the safest way to find out what really works, with saftey in mind for the fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those so called "no hold barred" Vale-Tudo tournaments have so many rules that it's just pathethic. The good ol' chinese kung fu duel that was trully no holds barred was the best way to find out what really works.

The UFC started as a publicity event for the Gracies so it's natural that most rules give advantage to ground fighters. I agree with you there: If you take all those rules into account, 6 months of boxing or muay thai and 6 months of any ground fighting style is all that you will need at the UFC. Even at street fighting someone that practices 6 months of any ground style hybrid will have good chances against a black belt karateka.

While anyone can kick someone in the nuts or poke someone's eyes, some styles of "Kung Fu" took those techniques to the next level through centuries of refiniment. Take the eye gouge for example: it's so simple that any idiot can do it, but it still takes years to master just like the baji quan elbow strike or any ground fighting technique.

Those "dirty moves" are not just in the kung fu. The first thing you will learn in Krav Maga (Israeli Self-Defence System) is how to properly kick someone in the nuts. All those "dirty moves" are somewhat simple, and thats why they are so good. They are easy to perform and have a devastating effect on your opponent. In the hayday of "Kung Fu", it was all about simple techniques to disable your opponent fast. Today, sadly, it's all about looking good.

It's true that the majority of the "Kung Fu" or any TMA (unless he is 4th dan or above) practitioner today can't hold his own in a street fight. That only means that the "Kung Fu" today is no more than a mockery of it once was. But if you look really hard (in China) you can still find Sifus that teach unspoiled forms of the old "Kung Fu". But if he is going to teach you or not is another matter.

It's not only the Kung Fu that was watered down: the several forms of Pencak Silat and Japanese martial arts in general have lost any combative element that they once had. In the old days when duels to death were commonplace, every martial art style had very strong combative elements. People didn't learn martial art as a sport, they learned to fight, and to kill.
When the "martial arts boom" occured after the WWII the world was a much safer place than before and duels to death were forbidden. So it's natural that little by little, those styles lost any combative element that they once had. It's just that people didn't had to fight to survive anymore.

Then the UFC came and revitalized the martial arts scene. Now "serial martial artists" (sarcasm) have a reason to improve and to fight. In that new highly competitive enviroment (the cage) where (almost) anything goes, "new" techniques were being discovered (actually, old techniques were being re-discovered). Those that remained ignorant about the bloody roots of martial arts (yep, it was all about disable or kill your opponent as fast as possible), that had grown up after the martial arts boom and had somewhat felt betrayed by the lack of utility of the TMA were drawn to that new event like flies to the dung. Entertainment? Yes. Sport? Maybe. Martial Arts? Hell no. The close you will get to true martial arts today, besides those elusive "Kung Fu" sifus, are the several military self defence systems throught the world. Those guys are trained to disable and kill, and that's where the true martial arts roots lie.

 

Re: I write legal briefs

Both you and tianyuan2k2 are on crack. You don't think that if I can choke you out, I can't choke you to death? You ever watch Chuck Liddell fight? He poke people in the eyes all the time. Don't give me this crap that it took eye poking to the next level. Are you going to tell me that the three stooges are kung fu masters?

 

Re: I write legal briefs

fear my flailing arms of death ROFLOL

Thanks smurfy!

 

kung fu etc

I have to say I am enjoying this thread. Dean, you have to stop taking such a hardline stance on the whole TMA versus MMA thing.

But fodose, I gotta say...this is the first I've ever heard someone say UFC wasn't violent enough. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

more to say, less time to do it in,

GE

 

Re: I write legal briefs

[ QUOTE ]
fodase said:

Those so called "no hold barred" Vale-Tudo tournaments have so many rules that it's just pathethic. The good ol' chinese kung fu duel that was trully no holds barred was the best way to find out what really works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think no holds barred is a more accurate way of testing technique. I don't mind rule sets that prevent death or serious injury and I think that you can test the effectiveness of certain techniques with them in place.

It's not unlike learning a martial art in the first place. You don't learn by being killed. you go slow. Learn the moves, practice and refine and then get experience through fighting others in your club/dojo/hall in the mountain. Eventually the best rise to the top, they improvise and create new techniques and methods of teaching. some leave their club/dojo/hall in the mountain and seek out "new challengers" or new arts to incorporate into their own.

All of this is essentially a warm up to the point where you may have to use your art to kill.


[ QUOTE ]

The UFC started as a publicity event for the Gracies so it's natural that most rules give advantage to ground fighters. I agree with you there: If you take all those rules into account, 6 months of boxing or muay thai and 6 months of any ground fighting style is all that you will need at the UFC. Even at street fighting someone that practices 6 months of any ground style hybrid will have good chances against a black belt karateka.


[/ QUOTE ]

given some of the black belts I've seen walking around I'd say better than 50/50. This has mostly to do with the for profit system of awarding belts and point tournament system than the effectiveness of the actual martial art.

[ QUOTE ]

Those "dirty moves" are not just in the kung fu. The first thing you will learn in Krav Maga (Israeli Self-Defence System) is how to properly kick someone in the nuts. All those "dirty moves" are somewhat simple, and thats why they are so good. They are easy to perform and have a devastating effect on your opponent. In the hayday of "Kung Fu", it was all about simple techniques to disable your opponent fast. Today, sadly, it's all about looking good.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. ball kicking is pretty much a staple of technique. It may not appear in a statement of purpose but I've never seen it stricken off the list. A kick is meant to disable by breaking hard parts of the body and penetrating soft parts. The testicles certainly qualify. In my club we aim for the groin before the knee, much easier to hit, more consistent results.

I agree about the "looking good" comment. Sport Karate, point tournaments and gymnasts doing "kata" are all rendering TMA fairly moot as an art that is capable of being relevant.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not only the Kung Fu that was watered down: the several forms of Pencak Silat and Japanese martial arts in general have lost any combative element that they once had. In the old days when duels to death were commonplace, every martial art style had very strong combative elements. People didn't learn martial art as a sport, they learned to fight, and to kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that even in NA there are competent training areas that still teach the proper way but they are few and far between. When I started in Martial Arts I trained in Karate, went to Tae Kwon Do, some kung fu/T'ai Chi and then back to Karate. I was very lucky in all of my choices because at the time the schools were all top knotch and the point of instruction wasn't "winning at a tournament" or "shed pounds through karatecise". The Tae Kwon Do club certainly became that a year before I left. It is completely crap now, useless even as a tournament house.

The biggest issue facing clubs is the impatience of the parents and students. They are practically willing to buy their belts just so they can point to an accomplishment. Their needs are different and there are clubs willing to meet those needs. Still, capable clubs abound but you do have to keep your eyes open. Looking for honest instruction and being patient pays off.


[ QUOTE ]
Entertainment? Yes. Sport? Maybe. Martial Arts? Hell no. The close you will get to true martial arts today, besides those elusive "Kung Fu" sifus, are the several military self defence systems throught the world. Those guys are trained to disable and kill, and that's where the true martial arts roots lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is all three. I don't champion UFC styled forums as a completely positive thing but I don't think you can discount it from being a martial art. It is a form of weaponless combat designed to disable the opponent. The accepted methods can kill if the person employing them wishes to use it in that manner. I see very little different from TMA in that regard except that we're more conditioned to bristle when we see it in action and being promoted.

It does have some seriously overwhelmingly loud promoters too. As I've said before, ground work has been a component of many martial arts long ago so it isn't like a new wheel was invented but many techniques have been neglected, ignored and forgotten about. I think most TMA schools were caught with their collective pants down and got a HUGE spanking when they thought they could compete with people who had a completely different mentality. The new era is a returning to martial arts clubs that teach techniques that are more comprehensive and relevant than before. It should be good for the whole idea of martial arts.

GE

 

You can't make me do anything

[ QUOTE ]
DissMaster said:

Plague, it seems that you have forsaken the olive branch in favor of the shit stirrer.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK, ok. I guess stirring shit with olive branches is transparent. Sorry about that.


I'm big on personal responsibility and I like to call bullshit the instant I see "I did this but it was because of this (even partially)." Personal responsibility = I don't have to do it. Nothing makes me do it. I do only what I want.

I'm probably too strong in the "my way is the only way" department.

 

Re: I write legal briefs

So are you saying that without the "Dirty" moves/techs these types of TMA would be unable to win in a vale tudo rule setup? Unless it's a fight to the death?

 

Re: I write legal briefs

Groin strikes were legal in the early ufc's, this did not give kung fu guys any advantage.

Actually, there really weren't ANY kung fu guys in the UFC. (Some might argue jason delucia, but he claims to be aikido now).

And finally, the main argument is that TMA'ists don't train alive, whereas MMA'ists do. While a TMA might "train" to eye gouge, they would never have in their entire training actually performed an eye gouge.

Thus, the people who train full force will be better able to apply their training to a real life situation than those who do not.

In fact, it is arguable that those who do not train in a full force environment are no better able to perform any techniques better than someone who has not trained a day in their life.

So, while it is possible that the techniques being "taught" are more deadly at a kung fu school, there is no evidence that those "learning" those techniques will be better able to apply them than someone else who has never been "trained to". (Mostly refers to nut kicking and eye gouging).

So finally, the MMA fighters who train to apply are undoubtedly the superior fighters. Not to mention the fact that they condition their bodies like nothing else. And if someone is willing to say that some asshole training in a mountain could beat fedor in a no rules contest, they need to get their head checked.

EDIT: And I got in an argument with my friend over this, and he conceded that he just does shotokan (he's a blackbelt) because he enjoys it. Sorry, but if your martial art isn't teaching you to defend yourself, just stop it. (Although, he is like 5'10 180lbs, and more than capable of defending himself -- ALBEIT NOT BECAUSE OF HIS TRAINING!)

 

Re: I write legal briefs

[ QUOTE ]

So finally, the MMA fighters who train to apply are undoubtedly the superior fighters. Not to mention the fact that they condition their bodies like nothing else. And if someone is willing to say that some asshole training in a mountain could beat fedor in a no rules contest, they need to get their head checked.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. An isolationist dojo can still produce a superior fighter based on whatthey are training. Stand up martial arts do train to apply but the majority of dojos out there fail their students with nonsense set ups and enforce bad habits with touch sparring.

It is completely alright to say that fedor will fall before "some asshole training in the mountains" in much the same way the reverse is true. Its all theory, anything can happen and you can't discount training you haven't experienced. Suprises abound!

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: And I got in an argument with my friend over this, and he conceded that he just does shotokan (he's a blackbelt) because he enjoys it. Sorry, but if your martial art isn't teaching you to defend yourself, just stop it. (Although, he is like 5'10 180lbs, and more than capable of defending himself -- ALBEIT NOT BECAUSE OF HIS TRAINING!)

[/ QUOTE ]

ehn. doing what you enjoy is harmless. As long as the people participating are honest with themselves and what they are accomplishing I don't see a problem.

GE

 

Re: I write legal briefs

Those mountain guys do train by punching walls barehanded n stuff at full force. And the Chi Sao drills are all about getting it home in a real fight.

The sparring usually is touch based but when you have set up someone for a clean blow there isn't the need to punch him fully. You can't just punch your training partners like you punch walls claw them like you do with sand.
What about non-clean hits? Well, from my internal style practice at least, you don't execute them. Waste of movement. Otherwise the powerfull punches you train would also be pretty useless. Karate is a prime example of people with good striking power but no clue what to do with those straigth punches in a combat since the otherone isn't a brick you smash.

I think MMAs should take a look a the combination Shuai Jiao and Chin Na. And it's as usual not just the techniques but the way you are trained to apply them. On stills it unfortunately looks kinda like Judo.
Well, those are a bit better:
http://www.dragonsclub.ch/shuaijiao/foto.html

I also once saw a demonstration of Shou-bo in France. Let's say I never imagined you could throw people in seemingly effortless slow motion

P.S: For those who do not understand. Try throwing someone slowly. Then quickly, then slowy again. And it really was that, breathtaking total control. Maybe I can find the VCR footage again but I think I lost it when moving.