People are always so quick to defend Kung Fu?

People always find excuse about why Kung Fu never fight or take part in tourney. They alway talk about how Kung Fu guys woud totally tear up anybody easily and how dangerous they're.





So I decide to do some research. I come up with few videos, here they are:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CHoWzBBN...





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqD8Odae...





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL3JZUm0i...





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFuX7Wpd... (gotta LOVE the windmill punches :-D )


Longer version:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo5t-GMDM...





Here's the nearest thing to respectable level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT6FUfID2...





Now where's all those "deadly techniques" that no one dare to speak of? Where's all those one punch that end the fight? Howcome those guys end up on ground if they're a such great fighter? Where's all graceful movement?

People are always so quick to defend Kung Fu?
Are you seriously attempting to disprove what took the culmination of thousands of years to attain through six youtube videos? Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserve, ninedemons.





Anybody can be great at something or horrible at another. An individual cannot possibly represent everybody else in similar standing all the time. I have seen plenty of poor Chinese boxers, but I have also seen excellent ones. Besides, one person's weakness may be another's strength despite both being in the same system.





Do you really expect to see a "deadly technique" in a tournament anyway? I could imagine the headlines now! It makes me wonder how you define competition versus an actual fight.





Also, you do realize that Mantis, Wing Chun, and Tai Chi Chuan are usually grouped together as kung fu, so what does showing two fighters from similar backgrounds prove as far as your argument is concerned?





You generalize too much.
Reply:A picture is worth a Thousand words.


I have yet to see a Great Kung Fu fighter fight anyone,


So far none yet, Cung Lee would be a great example.


If you actually got an experienced Gung Fu fighter, then weapons need to be involved. Gung Fu has weapons established as a means to kill you with to ensure victory.


This was proven when Japan invaded China and left, Korea the Hwrang warriors killed many Samurai, to this day Britan still uses Gurka warriors as in Grenada as they kill anyone fast with a knife.


When a form of combat shines it does not diminsh the others, it shows the value of our past. Each system will have a benefit that has kept it recognized as a gift for all to study. To much prejudice in people and in arts.


I remember when we all liked each other ( self defense in the us has changed ) and tried to work together, this is not Mortal Combat.


Martial Artists represent where mankind is headed in it's view of what we term as a means of self preservation.


Fighting has nothing to do with being Safe.


I believe Pride etc does not represent Self Defense


or Martial Arts in a manner suited for public use.


It is as Boxing, for those who want to get hit.
Reply:it all comes down to people defending THEIR choices. no one wants to say their choice is a crap one. after 20 years at something, it would be psychological suicide to admit it was a waste of time.





so it s not so much defending kung fu, it becomes a defense of their choice to do it.





just like religion, it is a waste of time to express your opinion against an opposing one, because very few people self analyse themselves, so sty blind to dogma. martial arts is the same.





unless you take an honest look at whats going on, you will be part of the problem not part of a solution.





everyone should be critical of what they learn and think. if we are not, we are blind to possibility, and therefor at a disadvantage.
Reply:Every art has weaknesses as far as techniques go, but by far the weakest link in any art is usually the practitioner. No matter how powerful the art, if the person using it isn't any good, then they will always lose.





In the first video the kung fu guy was lousy. His strikes and kicks had no power, he was afraid to get hit, and he obviously had never heard of combinations. His opponent showed good technique and power, and that kick that took the kung fu guy down showed he had the strength and balance to completely follow thru even after the main force of the kick was spent.





I liked the Mantis v. Wing Chun too, but the WC guy was afraid to get hit too and seemed therefore afraid to push to get inside where his style is strongest, even though when he did he was able to quickly get his opponent off balance and take him down even. He seemed weak on his "sticking hands" techniques too.





It's not the style, it's the practitioner.
Reply:any martial artist worth his salt knows all styles have weaknesses and strenghts.street defence and ring fighting are completely different.if ma got in the ring to use techniques that can kill there wouldn't be many if any ring fights now would there?and when you get 2 ppl that have equal abilities any so called one punch etc. techniques are just not going to happen.hey i love my mauy thai and am good at it but i wouldn't use it in a self defence situation because i know thats not what it is designed for.but that doesn't in any way mean its no good?just because something isnt good for a particular application doesnt mean its no good overall.and that includes kung fu.
Reply:I think there is much to see on "youtube"





Like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_jbU2XN...


It appears the Thi fighter breaks his "Own leg",leg kicking a Western American Boxer.The Boxer appears to be fine.


Sure is different from the "Masato vs Boxer" video you posted.


Does this mean "All" Thi fighters are poor?Leg kicks are bad?
Reply:dude your right northern kung fu is so unpratical and worthless its just a dance and this movie is proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmcqIlJuV... ..its the artist not the art... sides lots of ppl say thier arts the best.... and kung fu has become such a broad term... some ppl train just on pratical combat and some have it more like a dance... for compatitions n stuff.. and if u ever grapple with a kung fu guy whos good at chi'na.... well.... it hurts and nomatter what ya do he always had a counter...ne ways there are good kung fu pratictioners and bad... same as karate or aikido.. u know this
Reply:OK. As a practitioner of Tien Shan Pai, I'd like to respond in defense of all the Kung Fu styles.





First of all, most of those guys don't even use what I would consider Kung Fu techniques. In that first video, I wasn't even sure which guy was the Kung Fu artist. Second, if there are 'deadly techniques' associated with Kung Fu, do you really think You Tube would host a video that showed a guy killing another human being? Guns are deadly, but you don't need to watch a video of a guy getting his head blown off to know that. I'm not saying that I possess any of these so-called 'deadly' techniques, but even if I did, the only videos that demonstrated such techniques would likely be locked up in an evidence locker awaiting my trial.





There have been boxers, Muay Thai fighters, and MMA fighters who have ended fights with one punch. That is not a claim that is exclusive to Kung Fu. As for going to the ground, they guys that took them down were trained grapplers. Guys that don't know how to grapple and try to take someone to the ground often leave themselves open to knee strikes, or other techniques. Trained grapplers know how to shoot and avoid such techniques.





I'm not defending all Kung Fu artists, but I could go to You Tube and download video of any style being beaten by any other style. That only proves that person 'A' beat person 'B'. Neither of those two represent everyone in their art. Would I be able to beat any of those guys? I don't know. I watched the film and saw things that I would do differently. But chances are my opponent wouldn't have done the exact same thing against me, so who can say?





I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I'd just like to point out that your 'research' is anything but scientific or conclusive.
Reply:let me start with this. There is NO perfect martial art - anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Kung fu is no different. But you are basing everything on a few videos and on the statements of people who apparently don't understand true marital arts anyways. Not exactly a convincing arguement. I for one don't fight or do tournaments because I don't feel the need to prove anything. I know what I can do and what I can't, and I don't really care if anyone else does. That's not why I do this. You also need to realize ( as several people have already said) its not the art, its the artist. I'm sure if you talked to 10 different M.A.'s in any style, you would see 10 ways of doing things. It depends on the person and the teacher. I for one have to adjust and modify some things because what works for my teacher doesn't always work for me.


overall, it sounds like the people you've been talking to are just that - all talk. A real Kung fu person knows better.
Reply:without even looking at the vids I know what they are going to show.





Some "wassaah" kung fu (cma) guy who didn't train realistically and believed in his "too deadly one punch kill" which he never trained?





Thats pretty much 99% of CMA out there.





I think it is a huge problem in CMA that most schools don't train to fight.





Instead of stating the obvious, I think you should ask why.





Even styles that claim to have the deadly "knuckle sandwich of death" can train everything else, or why can't I train it with a chest/ head protector?





There are times we have sparred in class, without gloves but with chest/head on to feel "empty hand". Is your "dim mak" too strong to train even against someone wearing a chest/head protector- or neck that even with your "awesome chi power" you can't even train it in a sparring situation with light contact to see if you can even practically land it?





It might not be practical to do this every class, but even if you have "the deadly" what good is it if you don't train it?





If you want to test it out, then get some individuals who don't fall under the term "person" for legality (homicide is against a person) like hare krishnas, scientologists, peta members and metrosexuals.





I think CMA, because of its "light training" rep tends to attract people looking for shortcuts.


If you could be a "fighting master" that is so deadly, without having to train hard and only had to put in an hour a week then who the hell wouldn't?


I could think of a hundred extra things to do with the extra time- fact is, it doesn't work like that.





so the people who want to compete- don't look to CMA because they want to go where they have the best odds and connections. Another thing, someone looking to get into the UFC is going to have a lot better opportunities to be seen as part of a gracie or machado school than "cream of sum yung guy's" tai chi academy.





Personally, I want to see this change, I want to see CMA guys (besides san da or cma guys of other styles who enter san da/san shou tournaments/leagues) come out and fight in the major MMA leagues (although I think we are heading for a wba, wbc and ibf alphabet title situation with new mma leagues).





the problem is that I think most cma schools try to attract these people by teaching "the deadly" and "you don't have to train hard" mentality and this reflects poorly on ALL cma schools.





people who want to be career fighters don't go there because they don't have the rep that they work.





It is harder to get a good rep because people who want to be career fighters don't go there.





I'm hoping to see a CMA fighter excell in MMA, but not for the reason to say "look at the deadly!", but because I think that will go a long way to cleaning up CMAs and lifting people's illusions about fighting.





EDIT: CMA is not "gracefull" by dictionary definition, if it is, you aren't fighting you are LARPing. My definition of grace is being able to strike an opponent powerfully with clean technique- "textbook clean technique".
Reply:According to grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit(A practitioner of shaolin kung fu), Kung Fu has mostly degenerated into mostly a DEMONSTRATIVE form of martial arts. Also, according to Kiew Kit, the instructors of a particular art(any art) will usually give vague explanations or mysterious reasons as to why they cannot demonstrate something or explain something in depth when they have something to hide. And what they are trying to conceal is the fact that they may be phonies.





Phony instructors and teachings are not necessarily limited to the art of shaolin kung fu.