I was thinking the other day that kung fu styles seem so caught up in fighting each other. I don't mean rivalries btw arts, but gearing our self defence applications towards other kung fu styles (or even non-kung fu styles for that matter). Personally, I find that quite odd. If were are learning kung fu for self defence, why do we train against other martial arts styles, rather than what we'll need to defend against on the street? ie. brawlers, predators, drunks, ppl with syringes and weapons, etc. They may not have perfect technique and refined skills, but they'll bloody try to take ur head off and won't back off even if u have a bleeding nose. Why are we so concerned with countering lap saus and gwa saus, etc, etc?? Are these techniques something we'll actually come against in a fight? I discussed this with another cma practitioner, but he seems to think kung fu styles were designed to fight against other kung fu styles. That may/not have been the case 150yrs ago, but in todays day and age, kung fu schools still promote 'self defence'. Self defence against what? I suppose more and more ppl are studying ma, so there's more chances of fighting each other, though i always thought ma-ist would keep out of fights, rather than try to pick one. The other practitioner claimed that I gear my training towards predators. ppl, according to him, that purposely go around looking for fights. I thought, well why wouldn't i? if they're the ones looking around for fights, they're the ones i'll most likely come up against. Admittedly, i spar against different martial arts styles. I do this to work on the techniques in my style itself, to see different angles of movement, etc. but I also like to fight against non-ma and ppl who don't have a clue about ma, but sure as hell can beat me to a pulp in a fight. I don't get to do that often though, since I don't go around asking ppl if they're brawlers, but i'd be interested to know if ppl have really thought about their self defence training, and gear it more towards aggressive mofos that don't necessarily train in ma?
First thing first, Kung FU was invented to fight agianst Pirates (seriously) they used weapons and fought dirty so traditional shaolin was all about blocking and attacking. Later because Kung FU was so common in China other styles were made and different Kung FU styles had to adapt to more expierienced fighters. But the basis of Kung FU is how to defend yourself from a dirty fighter. I spar 2 days a week agianst people of styles and it is hard as hell to beat some one who is expierienced, but (and a recent expierience I had proves this) a mugger he doesn't know how to punch right. He will keep his body wide open for attacks, all they know is how to put you in a head lock orbear hug.
Hi, A lot of martial arts techniques(not just kung fu) may be seen as obsolete these days:-for example,i doubt there are many instuctors who advocate flying spinning kicks in a street scenario. We still practice these techniques though to honour a tradition.If a martial art is geared purely towards surviving the streets it would be quite difficult to have a syllabus as your art would constantly have to change in order to adapt to the ever increasing violence. I personally believe(and i bet this causes an argument!) that most martial artists do the art they do because they enjoy it,not for self defence.They may have started out with self defence in mind but ultimately they picked their chosen art for how it looked when they probably watched a class. Having said all that..... I personally know many practitioners of traditional martial arts that would make most attackers wish they hadn't picked them as their "victim". These martial artists have a practical experience of pavement fighting which makes them adaptable to every situation they find themselves in,whether it be tournaments,displays,or street defence. Rocky
The theory is if you can beat someone with skill, you can easily beat someone with no skill. However, since training methodologies are extremely varied, beating someone with skill sometimes doesn't match up to the reality of beating someone from the deadly street. (Shudder. I REALLY hate that term!) And I agree, training against people with no skill, some skill, different styles, multiple assailants is essential in keeping your art as 'real' as possible, otherwise your training against the non existant adversary that will never be... IMHO, you should always adapt your art for the environment you could be fighting in...A wonderful piece of advice from a seminar I had with Steve Benitez. (Guru from Pentcak Silat) So no matter what you use, make it equal to the environment you live/work in.
As wcrevdonner said, the theory is that if you can defend against a 'perfect' martial arts attack you should find a sloppy right hand from a drunk no problem. I think if you've done enough sparring and live applications then this would be true, but a lot of the time TMAs train against set patterns and the like only. This can stop you actually reacting at all and when that wild right does come it's like nothing you've ever seen before - let alone reacted to. Also from a practical training point of view, if you have a class full of Wing Chun students what are you going to be practising against if not Wing Chun? some poor guy off the street? lol
There is a saying in the world of chess, even an ignorant can beat a master, by pure chance. Look within your chosen CMA, there is a deep treasure, full of fighting principles, that if understood and applied will give you the edge on 99.99999 recurring percentage of those who do not know how to fight, once in a blue moon someone may get in a lucky punch, but that is rare exception rather than the rule, that is if you are thoroughly instructed by your chosen CMA. Look beyond the techniques, look beyond the forms, see what is really there, and you will start to understand. Be patient with your fighting way, and let it teach you, listen to what it has to tell you, and you will understand the basis of your own ignorance, and find the way to the reality of what is. If you need to try and get some people from different styles, and see if you can throw in some people who do not understand MA and have some sparring sessions, test you skill against them, but dont get caught up on lap sau, bong sau etc, these are simply tools to be applied only if the situation demands and only to reflect, accuratly the principle that is called for in that situation.
thanks for the comments, very beneficial to see other's viewpoints. i also agree that training against skilled ppl increases the chances of beating someone with no skill. if u train against refined hooks and punches, etc. then it'll be easy peasy against wild swings. but i don't assume the average joe doesn't know how to throw a decent punch, and only throws haymakers. i should rephrase that i'm not thinking of unskilled fighters who telegraph their moves, but ppl with pure aggression. their arsenal of technique isn't the main issue, but just their intent to hurt/kill you. for eg. there use to be a guy that i trained with, who unfortunately turned into a gangster/junkie. he came back to class one day and wanted to spar me. despite his drug habit and all that, i got along with him really well, so there was no problems when we sparred. i still remember to this day though, that perfect/refined technique was the least of my worries. i had in my mind, ideas of how to counter this and that, but this guy did not fight like anything i had visualised practicing against. he just kept coming at me, staying at the level of my waist and keeping his arms up to guard his face. alls i remember was alot of hits on my body, and being driven back. i'd like to think i've improved in 5yrs though rocky, i agree that some techs are obsolete these days. i also believe in practicing whatever is in ur art to keep the tradition alive, but surely there's a handful of techs that are practical against 'street' stuff for lack of a better word, so i would practice those against full blown attacks for the self defence aspect. my thoughts aren't about using ALL the techs in ur style, just using stuff against what u'll most likely meet on the street. from a practical viewpoint, even though a class is full of the same practitioners, i'm sure everyone knows how to throw decent hooks, crosses and jabs... my problem is actually getting students to throw them full force, though we're all taking baby steps to work up to that. i guess i'm lucky that i have many friends from other styles, including boxing and muay thai who add a bit of variety to the self defence. i'd just feel a bit hypocritical and like i'm kidding myself when i say i practice for self defence, but it's all against fighting styles that i probably won't come up against in the street, ie. other kung fu styles. in my experience, i love sparring against boxers and mt because they contain the basic techs that any joe tries to imitate, and esp. cause they go full force, and keep going! these are just thoughts i've pondered about over the last few wks because i've been training with a few other practitioners from the same style as me (different school), and i noticed the way they practice their techniques had countering other kung fu styles in mind. i've been really interested in realistic hand to hand combat, so that got me thinking as to what i've been visualising practicing against. weapons is a whole different ballpark that i haven't thought about yet, let alone train against. but plenty of yrs ahead to learn if i ever get interested
I could be wrong, (and a very minor point really) but I thought that Kung Fu was developed because the Monks needed exercises within their temples. Eventually it probably would have developed a more martial arts flavour to it. Some students might have left the temple subsequently, and then use the MA skills would definitely been used on pirates and just land thieves etc.
We are both right, Long Fist was made for exercise because northern shaolin temples were not attacked and SOuthern Fist was self defense, both styles are both good for self defense though.
Crumpet,it sounds like what you're talking about is pressure testing your art. I highly recommend books by Geoff Thompson.He has wrote about the concerns you have in Animal Day,Pavement Arena,and 3 Second Fighter. I must also disagree with the comments about none-trained individuals not being able to punch very well:- 1.How do you know an attacker is untrained before physical conflict begins?The way he carries his posture or moves before the fight is no guarantee he can't fight. 2.What they may lack in skill,they can make up for with a vicious sadistic mentallity. 3.What do you class as unskilled?Many "street fighters" have a very good practical knowledge of how a fight starts and ends without having done any formal training. I personally believe if a fight took place between a fighter who's never done a martial art and a martial artist who's never had a fight then the "unskilled" fighter would probably win.Not because their skill level is higher or that they are faster,more powerful,stronger,etc,but because they have probably found out through painful trial and error what works and what doesn't. Of course there are always going to be drunken attackers who can barely stand up straight let alone punch straight,but shouldn't martial artists be training for a worse case scenario,not an easiest one? I hope none of this offends anyone as i do traditional arts myself.It's just my opinion based on what i have witnessed/delt with myself.
No disagreement there. theres a misnomer there, which you have subtly pointed out - the "unskilled" fighter is obviously skilled because he/she has the experience. Exactly. Hence the reason you train hard in the training hall... No offence taken from me. Exact points as to why training methodologies have to be scrutinised carefully.
The misnomer you picked up on was the point i was trying to make:-It seems(and if i'm mistaken please excuse my ignorance) that some of the posts on this subject imply that if an individual doesn't do a martial art then they are unskilled. I think that to underestimate an opponent because you do a martial art and they don't is the first step to being on the recieving end of a vicious beating.
Thats actualy not a bad way of looking at it and i dont blame you for having this kind of veiw on it,however what some of the other Martial Artists have been saying about Kung Fu are correct,it was invented,well,in the beggining by Stone Age Chinese,to defend themselves from wild animals and other cave men,later after BodhiDharma came from India to spread Buddihsim he saw how weaks the monks were from not meditating and wrote three different books on the subject of proper exercise and meditation in action for good health.After this happened Kung Fu went through a sort of incredible evolution when it became Shaolin,when this happened everything from formulas of defense to attack became more advanced and complex. It was then that the peaceful Shaolin Monks used this art as self defense from theives and bandits.The styles were northern,using primarily feet for defense and southern using a little more muscular power and relying on the hands for defense since in nothern China you got around on foot(thus making your legs strong and relying on them)and in the south you went by boat wich meant you developed balance and couldent use your feet other than to throw low kicks and you used your hands to defeat your oponant. Since the Shaolin spent most of there time realisticly fighting bandits and criminals of other sorts all the time it turned out these various styles and formulas were actualy intended for use against broken rythem I.E. Normal fighters,fighting. So basicly it was intended for defense against regular people,not just other Martial Artists. Lau Gar Gung Fu Sifu
You've hit upon the difference between Martial Arts and Self-Defence. And you could level the same accusation at most Martial Systems and be right. You ever heard the saying 'Mantis Fears Hsing-I'?, it's an example of how even when specific Fighting systems had been developed, the practitioners were still facing problems in countering technical aspects of other systems, it gives an insight into the mindset of a lot of the earlier Chinese Martial Art practitioners, where their true higher aspirations lay. A lot of Martial Arts are designed to counter themselves and in the case of a very specific orientated country such as China where specialisation was taken to extraordinary lengths, other styles. Hence why one of Tai Chi Chuan translations is Grand Ultimate Fist. It was a system that you learnt after you had mastered a few others, not neccesarily other Internal systems either, just that it was a system that you graduated to (hard to believe now, when most 'Tai Chi' is people wafting their arms about for health). That's not to say that these earlier practitioners weren't concerned with having to fight off a churl in a bar, but that their ultimate goal lay in defeating other fighting systems. In that respects it was a kind of arms race, both in a Military and Civilian context. We can only speculate as to why this style beats style evolution happened, perhaps some of it-like in the case of most systems of Ba Gua for example-came about through the founders being Bodyguards to the Royal Court, hence they would have to be familiar with many Martial Arts in order to counter trained fighters who would try to kill their employers. Or the village Martial Art teacher who made their living in difficult times teaching Kung Fu, they would of had to have some kind of working knowledge of many Martial Arts in order to face challengers who turned up on their door to beat them and have the right to take their sign down etc etc. Also Militarily some systems come into being. Both Eagle Claw and Hsing-I were ment to have been developed by General Yue Fei in order to counter the Mongols. Eagle Claw was taught to the Rank and File Soldiers and Hsing-I was taught to the Officers and was the basis of Chinese army Spear work and later Modern Rifle/Bayonet work. Most Martial Arts occupy a broad space between Martial Art and Self-Defence, meaning that some of the system is geared to work against Habitual Acts of Violence (Common Street Attacks), that haven't really changed much since Stone Age Man and then some of the system is for fighting against either practitioners of the same system or those of other specialised styles. Depending upon what system you are learning, depends where it's affiliations lie and what sort of balance it has between the two poles. Of course a lot of this depends upon an individuals interpretation of the terms 'Self-Defence' and 'Martial Art'. To me the initial purpose of Kung Fu should be a system of self-protection against Common Assaults and most of the Chinese systems that I have trained in have been primarily just that. If you are that concerned about learning to counter the more 'street' type attacks, then you could look into Combatives/ RSBD type training to bolster your training, most of which are a distilled version of a Martial System, with an attacking mindset and bang up to date training methodology, that also deal with many aspects outside of much standard Martial Art training, such as Awareness Drills, Dealing realistically with Multiple Opponent scenarios, Legal issues, and realistic physical drills all based in our modern day environment.
i should probably rephrase and say non-martial artists as 'undisciplined' rather than unskilled. undisciplined meaning they don't train in a discipline, ie. a martial art. i don't want to get anal about the definitions, but i hope you all understand what i mean in this context. regardless of why kung fu was developed 2000yrs ago, in 2004, most schools still promote it as a self defence (amongst other things). is not self defence the core of any martial art? if you insinuate that any stylist's art is ineffective for fighting, no bets they will get upset. doesn't matter if u believe in ur heart that it works, but when someone says u can't use ur ****, you're ego is hurt. so if we still practice kung fu for self defence isn't it common sense to adapt it to your environment? it's a wonder many kung fu schools are laughing stocks since they don't adapt to the environment they teach in. 150yrs ago in china and hk, kung fu was as much the exposure as you got (lets leave out any instances of russian boxers, which every kf style seems to have beaten). gangsters trained in kung fu, so of course it's logical to gear your techniques against other styles. in 2004, in western countries, there are hundreds and hundreds of different martial arts.... and not only that, there is a 'new' brand of fighting strategies that kung fu was never exposed to before. things like ground and pound, groundfighting (that's on the basis once u hit the floor, the fight is over. not so the case today), and lets not forget sadistic lunatics such as rapists and serial killers. i hardly think those types of ppl are trained in any martial arts. point is, there are so many different types of 'things' we need to defend against ourselves today, things that kung fu styles weren't exposed to. but if we're still practicing it for self defence, for godsake, practice it against what you'll realistically come up against in the environment u live in!
oh seems we posted at the same time sokklab. btw i train in kf myself, so this is not an attack on another art for the sake of it. like a friend said to me, sometimes i'm quite embarrassed to admit i train in kung fu. there's so many wishy washy schools out there who give us a bad rep. i suppose at the end of the day, there's not much we can do about it but concentrate on our own training. still interesting to discuss though
