REAL Kung Fu

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Bruce Lee was a fucking idiot and I'm not joking!

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

great vids.
glad we basically share our own opinion yet enjoyment of the martial arts and/or competitive aspect about it.

Im surprised no one mentioned the dog brothers though. I love these guys too and they practice what they preach live.. a bit brutal,, to the point that UFC didnt want them to do an exhibition match for the fans, but still fun to watch. Makes me want to practice my modern arnis,,but im scared /versus/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
]

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Agreed, he should have learned Vale Tudo because that's the only style that works in real life.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

The video is essentially proof that Bruce Lee had no idea what he was talking about.

Yes he advocated cross training and "using what works, and discarding what doesn't".

But, there was also an unusually heavy emphasis on sidekicks and wing chun. Things that people know DON'T WORK. Meaning, the guy honestly thought that wing chun works... wow.

So, he had the right idea, he was just dead wrong.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Maybe those things worked for him, which is all he really cared about, what works for the individual....

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Yeah you gotta put these things in context to the person's surroundings access to knowledge etc,
to be honest Bruce Lee was an amazing human and you can't deny that, heck he's even influenced the games we play now, law tekken, Jacky Vf.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
_optimus_ said:

Yeah you gotta put these things in context to the person's surroundings access to knowledge etc,
to be honest Bruce Lee was an amazing human and you can't deny that, heck he's even influenced the games we play now, law tekken, Jacky Vf.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh.......
why was he amazing? he was only great due to popular cultures fascination with the unknown then eastern martial arts. The west needed a figurehead for this new fascination and he was there at the right time and place.

a good actor in olden day terms, but an AMAZING human?

come on, everyone knows no one can beat Capt James tiberius kirk at being that, even if hes imaginary.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
KS_Vanessa said:

[ QUOTE ]
_optimus_ said:

Yeah you gotta put these things in context to the person's surroundings access to knowledge etc,
to be honest Bruce Lee was an amazing human and you can't deny that, heck he's even influenced the games we play now, law tekken, Jacky Vf.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh.......
why was he amazing? he was only great due to popular cultures fascination with the unknown then eastern martial arts. The west needed a figurehead for this new fascination and he was there at the right time and place.

a good actor in olden day terms, but an AMAZING human?

come on, everyone knows no one can beat Capt James tiberius kirk at being that, even if hes imaginary.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does depend on what our definition of amazing is I suppose, but one example I would say is the incredible physical shape he got himself into for a man of his size.
The training he went through I would constitute as amazing, plus the films, output of phlisophy , books, charisma etc etc
Yeah it's easy to critisize but "in my opinion" he was tings /versus/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
p.s Kirk karate chops PWNED hard!

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
Ev2 said:

Maybe those things worked for him, which is all he really cared about, what works for the individual....

[/ QUOTE ] But he didn't do shit, he never fought. And no, wing chun works for nobody.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

You all know that bruce did not produce any of those videos....

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
. And no, wing chun works for nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

fucking wash your mouth out with soap rite now.

man you're a bigger fool than i originaly used to think

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Wing Chun works if you can combine it with VALE TUDO.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Traditional martial arts are still the best, the real kind of course.


MMA is 50 grappling/wrestling, 50% kickboxing.

The fact that MMAists would rather take the fight to the ground means they aren't very good at taking someone standing up, and if you can't beat one attacker without grappling them to the ground, then there's no way you can beat two attackers or an armed attacker.


Sure MMAists wouldn't take the fight to the ground if they were against two or more attackers or if the attacker was armed but, if they can't even beat one attacker without taking the fight to ground, then how can they beat more than one? or one who has a weapon?

If you could beat an attacker standing up then there's no reason to take the fight to the ground. The tactics and strategies of MMA is only effective against one unarmed attacker.

Grappling is the crudest and least effective form or way of fighting.

And any fighter who relies mostly on that isn't a very good one.


Stand up fighting is better because it can be effective against one or more armed or unarmed attackers, unless the arms used are firearms of course. And that is what the TMAs like kung fu and and hwarangdo are good at.

Bruce Lee focused more on Wing Chun and side kicks because he's good at wing chun, he is more comfortable with wing chun than any other kung fu style. As for side kicks, he probably just liked them and is very good at them, he is well known for being a very good side kicker.

If you have developed your kung fu or karate well, you don't have to worry about grappling and grapplers. They are the least of your worries.

You should be more worried about street gangs armed with knives crowbars and guns.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
KS_Vanessa said:

[ QUOTE ]
. And no, wing chun works for nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

fucking wash your mouth out with soap rite now.

man you're a bigger fool than i originaly used to think

[/ QUOTE ] Please show me wing chun working, PLEASE.

In the meantime, here's a video of wing chun not working:
http://bullshido.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/536/cat/523

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
InspectorTrue said:

Traditional martial arts are still the best, the real kind of course.


MMA is 50 grappling/wrestling, 50% kickboxing.

The fact that MMAists would rather take the fight to the ground means they aren't very good at taking someone standing up, and if you can't beat one attacker without grappling them to the ground, then there's no way you can beat two attackers or an armed attacker.


Sure MMAists wouldn't take the fight to the ground if they were against two or more attackers or if the attacker was armed but, if they can't even beat one attacker without taking the fight to ground, then how can they beat more than one? or one who has a weapon?

If you could beat an attacker standing up then there's no reason to take the fight to the ground. The tactics and strategies of MMA is only effective against one unarmed attacker.

Grappling is the crudest and least effective form or way of fighting.

And any fighter who relies mostly on that isn't a very good one.


Stand up fighting is better because it can be effective against one or more armed or unarmed attackers, unless the arms used are firearms of course. And that is what the TMAs like kung fu and and hwarangdo are good at.

Bruce Lee focused more on Wing Chun and side kicks because he's good at wing chun, he is more comfortable with wing chun than any other kung fu style. As for side kicks, he probably just liked them and is very good at them, he is well known for being a very good side kicker.

If you have developed your kung fu or karate well, you don't have to worry about grappling and grapplers. They are the least of your worries.

You should be more worried about street gangs armed with knives crowbars and guns.

[/ QUOTE ] You see, no, you're a moron.

There's no smart way to fight when your opponent has a weapon or you're outnumbered. The idea is, get the fuck out of there. If two attackers are intent on taking you out, you are fucked 99% of the time.

Those dances and choreographing these martial arts call knife defenses are utterly worthless. Teaching that kind of shit to people is what gets them killed.

Again, no, Wing Chun did not "work" for bruce lee. The whole concept of "wing chun" range is utterly bullshit, and it's physically impossible to be in that range and not clinch. Same with sidekicks, the man never sidekicked a single attacker in his entire life, so any speculation is bullshit. All we have to rely on is the practicality of sidekicks today, and they aren't very practical.

Finally, you seem to be missing the whole idea behind MMA. That is, you find the fighting phase that you have the greatest advantage over your opponent, and you force the fight into that phase. (Whether on the ground, clinch, standing, whatever).

So of course if you think you can beat your opponent standing, it's in your best interest to keep the fight standing. Just as if you think you can beat your opponent on the ground, it's in your best advantage to take the fight to the ground.

Yeap... GnP'ers aren't effective fighters... As far as I'm concerned, there is no more effective way to fight than to mount someone and rain down unanswerable blows.

That's why jiu-jitsu was created, because it's stupid to trade firepower with someone who outweighs you or is stronger than you, just take the fight to the ground, and control them there. Any martial art that claims to be able to defend against multiple attackers is indefinitely full of shit. Because none of these martial artists would survive against a single BJJ fighter.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

you're forgetting that most fights on the street (and not in the UFC) dont last more than a minute tops. so sometimes quick strikes are needed and thats where wing chun comes in

if an attacker was to come at me i wouldnt find the time to bring him down or 'make him tapout' with my BJJ submission locks while the guys buddies continue to kick my head in.

sometimes its better to hit and run, and you can do that with wing chun. obviously most people are not fools. if you outnumbered by more than 3 then obviously the best option is ALWAYS to run no matter how many years of versed martial arts youve taken. but a quick hard wing chun hit here and there could help and stun em while you make your getaway. while trying to go all MMA on their ass and trying to get ONE of them in a lock wouldnt be the best option.

in short, dont badmouth wing chun asshole. you're just not ready for it. stick to watching UFC and reading books before you actually try a martial art moron.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

It has been scientifically proven that a boxing punch has more power behind it than a wing chung punch. If your going to hit and run, its better to blast them in the face than slap them.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

Have you ever sparred with a Wing Tsun / Chun practitioner in your life Vanity?

I have trained in lots of things (mostly coming from a karate/kempo/kickboxing background but I've tried to fix my groundwork) and I'll, from my experience, say that their handtechniques are *great* and hard to deal with in a standup war as they control your hands / arms in a way so that it becomes unnatural for you to fight in "your" way. They simply control the pace with semibeats / stickyhands etc (add legkicks and it's hell). And though a -pure- Wing Tsun / JKD guy might not fare well in a cagematch with takedowns etc they can more then hold their own in a streetfight. To this day I've never been as fucked up as the first time I sparred with a Wing Tsun blackbelt that was a friend of a mate of mine.

[ QUOTE ]
vanity said:
Please show me wing chun working, PLEASE.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to humour your request I uploaded some clips of a JKD seminar to my webspace. Can you tell me that this man wouldn't hold his own in a streetfight?

JKD seminar

P.S; There are alot of funny posts in this thread and god damn people have started to abuse googles new videofunction fast! /versus/images/graemlins/lol.gif

/KiwE (Still waiting for shadowdean to go on full tilt ^__^)

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

It has been scientifically proven that a boxing punch has more power behind it than a wing chung punch. If your going to hit and run, its better to blast them in the face than slap them.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're probably right.

 

Re: The fallacy of 'self defence' in the modern world.

I'm sorry, but the video you uploaded of the guy doing uncommitted slaps don't hurt. if he fought someone with 1 week boxing experience he would get killed.

I mean honestly, who does wing chun, then does boxing, and then goes, "wow, my wing chun is really practical".

These slaps look really nice, I'll admit, but I've still never seen them used on a resisting opponent. Simply because they don't work.

Not to mention anyone with a decent double leg could take that guy to the ground.