Kung fu is bad for self defence

[JowGaWolf]

that a lot of traditional chinese martial arts are not suitable for self defence.

The problem isn't the art. The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training. Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus. By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight. These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem. These things are things you can get without martial arts. Traditionally if you didn't have these things before martial arts then some teachers wouldn't take you as a student. Most traditional martial arts schools that are out there are only traditional in name and in the forms they do. They don't train with a self-defense focus so they can't do self-defense using the techniques they train.

The number of techniques available does not decrease one's self-defense abilities.

There are so many different variations and combinations for every scenario that it just gets confusing. With so much to learn I find it hard to practice it all to the point where I could rely on it in a self defence scenario.

You are correct that there are different variations and combinations, but that's a good thing. That means I only need to learn one movement that can be used 20 different ways vs trying to learn 20 different techniques with one use. If you find it confusing then it's because you are rushing your learning. You are trying to learn how to apply too many things all at once. Take 1 technique to learn how to apply. When you learn that 1 technique then try to understand if there are other variations of that 1 technique or combination. Once you have a good understanding of that one technique then you can add another technique.

As a student your goal shouldn't be to try to learn how to fight with all of the kung fu techniques. Some techniques will work better for you than others based on your own capabilities and fighting style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but the,argument doesn't follow, if out of what you have leant you have a viable defence for a right punch a left punch some sort of kick and some one,swinging a bottle or some such, then you pretty much have self defence sown up. If you then have a have an effective punch, elbow kick , you can knock them down. But I think it fair to say that 90% of it is filler and could be done away with from a SD point of view. But then its said that you only remember 10% of what you have learnt when the pressure is on, so it works out about right

I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Some people are gonna disagree with me on this, but this is how I see it, and I think it makes a lot more sense than working fruitlessly on a never-ending list of stuff that you know, in your heart, you will never be able to actually use

Not many will disagree. Not if they actually train for self-defense. We can think of how limited boxing is, yet boxers always have their on techniques and combos that they prefer vs what another boxer prefers. Some boxers are known for having really good jab where Tyson was known for his uppercuts and hooks. As cool as it would be to be able to effectively use everything in Jow Ga Kung Fu, I understand and accept that there are going to be techniques that I'm just not going to be good enough to do in a self-defense fight or even in a competitive fight. I also accept tha there may be techniques that I can pull off in a self-defense scenario against an unskilled attacker that I could never pull of in a competitive arena against a skilled opponent.

Not matter the system everyone picks the techniques that hey feel most comfortable with and works best for them.

It's just as much the responsibility of someone who wants to teach a functional self defence art to learn the most effective ways to teach the most practical skills.

If the teacher never learned from a self-defense perspective as a student, then there is no way he can teach with a self-defense perspective and we see a lot of this. A good example are the 2 TKD guys that bash other systems. They originally didn't train their system from a self-defense perspective and now one is trying to do so, but he has to look towards other fighting systems to help make up the gaps in his own understanding of TKD. The end result is that he still can't teach TKD from a self-defense perspective as all of his self-defense components come from other martial art systems.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.

That's true. When you think of a fight how do you know the 10% that you choose to train in, is the 10% that will help you win the fight. I can take 10% of Jow Ga Kung Fu and go against a street fighter and still lose if the 10% I choose is wrong for the situation that I'm in.

Edit: The other side of the coin is that the 10% that I choose will help me win against a striker but lose against a grappler.

 

[hoshin1600]

The problem isn't the art. The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training. Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus. By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight. These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem. These things are things you can get without martial arts.

another factor is the teacher. where in the teachers own personal journey is he. if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.

 

[jobo]

I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.

but the part that matters most are the underpinning skills, those are repeated in all of the many forms. The only real question is do you practise those skills in,a few ways or many ways.
its all, block move punch kick at the end of the day, if you can do those to a good level you are good to go

 

[JowGaWolf]

another factor is the teacher. where in the teachers own personal journey is he. if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.

lol Yeah I get the longevity stuff from teachers that are in their 40's. It drives me nuts, but I deal with it because they have some self-defense knowledge that I can learn. For me the health aspect is a by product of self-defense training. But as you stated some teachers focus on the health aspect first and if at all the self-defense aspect as secondary or side note.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think his point is that there's so much there, students don't get good enough at the part that matters most. And if 90% is filler, and you only recall 10% under stress, chances are good that it won't be the right 10%.

This is true, and each person needs to evaluate why they train and how much they need. I am not always convinced that the material is just filler (it can be), but it certainly can be unnecessary. It is easy to fall into thinking that you need to learn an entire system or else you are "missing" something. That simply is not true. Some systems have grown very large. My own system is one of them. Life circumstances cut my training short with my sifu and I did not learn the full system. In some ways that is disappointing, but in others it is liberating. I have far far more material than I strictly need, plenty to keep me working hard, and plenty to teach if I decide to do so. Nobody needs ALL of it. After a while, if there is too much material to keep on top of it all and too much to practice with the regularity to build skills with it, then it simply is too much and it is detrimental to the training.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes Xue Sheng, I am well aware of the proper terminology and meaning of "Kung Fu", and you'll notice that in my actual post I used the phrase "traditional chinese martial arts". I'm not exactly sure what any of this has on the conversation we were having in this thread though....

Having read your original post and noting "traditional martial arts" being mentioned and also being aware that "Kung Fu" is generally misused but still part of "Traditional Martial Arts" as it is used, I thought it might help top clarify to many, not just you, what one is actually saying when they use the terminology "Kung Fu".

Might I recommend Sanda/Sanhou, it is focused solely on application and drills, although it is not considered traditional.

my apologies for intruding in your thread, I shall leave it alone from this point on

 

[DanT]

My Sifu always said, if you want to learn to fight, I’ll teach you 3 punches and 2 kicks and you can just go to the heavy bag and practice the same 10 combos over and over 6 hours a day for the rest of your life. Fighting isn’t “everything”, but in my opinion, Kung Fu does have thousands of techniques, so pick the 20 you like the most, practice the hell out of them, and use them the most in sparring. This is especially true if you’re not practicing 6 h a day 6 days a week. If you were then you could pick 200 techniques and practice them and be effective.

White Crane is a complete art, it has distance fighting, clinch work, takedowns, joint locks, and grappling. Obviously when you’re dealing with so many ranges, you want to be competent in techniques to work in all those ranges.

So let’s say if you take 10 techniques from distance fighting, 10 from the clinch, 10 takedowns, 10 joint locks, and 10 grappling submissions. Right there you have 50 techniques to master. It seems like a lot, but it all comes down to practice.

 

[ShortBridge]

Fujiun White Crane is not bad for self defense.

Something else is the problem here, but let's not blame the art.

 

[jobo]

So let’s say if you take 10 techniques from distance fighting, 10 from the clinch, 10 takedowns, 10 joint locks, and 10 grappling submissions. Right there you have 50 techniques to master. It seems like a lot, but it all comes down to practice.

why not three of each?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Having read your original post and noting "traditional martial arts" being mentioned and also being aware that "Kung Fu" is generally misused but still part of "Traditional Martial Arts" as it is used, I thought it might help top clarify to many, not just you, what one is actually saying when they use the terminology "Kung Fu".

Might I recommend Sanda/Sanhou, it is focused solely on application and drills, although it is not considered traditional.

my apologies for intruding in your thread, I shall leave it alone from this point on

I just found it odd that you would focus on the terminology of the title which I even admitted was more click-bait than anything else, rather than the post itself. I know you are one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum when it comes to traditional CMA and I value your opinions on this matter. I actually do Sanda as well as BaiHe Quan with the same instructor, but he makes it clear that the Sanda training is competition focused, and the BaiHe Quan is self-defence focused. This is partly what made me think of this topic, because I currently feel more confident using what I learned in Sanda training for self-defence than the stuff I have learned in BaiHe Quan.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

The problem isn't the art. The problem is that many schools claim to be traditional , but they are only traditional in form and not in training. Traditionally martial arts has a self-defense, self-development focus. By self-development, I mean that the body and the mind is trained so that you can deal with risks, dangers, and challenges that are present when you actually fight. These days self-development refers to confidence, respect, and self-esteem. These things are things you can get without martial arts. Traditionally if you didn't have these things before martial arts then some teachers wouldn't take you as a student. Most traditional martial arts schools that are out there are only traditional in name and in the forms they do. They don't train with a self-defense focus so they can't do self-defense using the techniques they train.

The number of techniques available does not decrease one's self-defense abilities.

You are correct that there are different variations and combinations, but that's a good thing. That means I only need to learn one movement that can be used 20 different ways vs trying to learn 20 different techniques with one use. If you find it confusing then it's because you are rushing your learning. You are trying to learn how to apply too many things all at once. Take 1 technique to learn how to apply. When you learn that 1 technique then try to understand if there are other variations of that 1 technique or combination. Once you have a good understanding of that one technique then you can add another technique.

As a student your goal shouldn't be to try to learn how to fight with all of the kung fu techniques. Some techniques will work better for you than others based on your own capabilities and fighting style.

It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I just found it odd that you would focus on the terminology of the title which I even admitted was more click-bait than anything else, rather than the post itself. I know you are one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum when it comes to traditional CMA and I value your opinions on this matter. I actually do Sanda as well as BaiHe Quan with the same instructor, but he makes it clear that the Sanda training is competition focused, and the BaiHe Quan is self-defence focused. This is partly what made me think of this topic, because I currently feel more confident using what I learned in Sanda training for self-defence than the stuff I have learned in BaiHe Quan.

Most Sanda you find is competition focused this is absolutely true both in and out of China, however there are 2 other versions that are not, but they are hard to find. 1 is more of a local version not seen much outside of China that is just plain fighing and the other is taught to the police and military. Had a chance to briefly train the police version and it appears to have little in common with the sports version, but sadly I was not able to continue training it.

 

[DaveB]

It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.

That's just bad teaching, nothing to do with the system.

At best your teacher is trying to give you a feel for how to use the techniques without fixing you into patterns. But I still think it's a sucky way to teach.

 

[JowGaWolf]

it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure.

This is an easy problem to fix. You have to use what you train in sparring. When you spar, you have to spar to learn. That means don't spar so hard that you are afraid to get hit. Don't spar so hard where you can't make mistakes without worrying about being knocked out. The only way you are going to learn how to use your techniques is to work it out and learn how to apply them in sparring. Just doing drills and forms is only part of the training. Once you learn a technique you have to try to apply it in sparring.

Just remember you will fail a lot during this learning process but stick with it. Look at your failures as learning opportunities. Analyze why did you fail. For example, when you do a technique and it fails you ask yourself things like:
1. Was I forcing the technique or did I follow the same motion as in the form?
2. What happened when I tried to used the technique? Did I get hit or kick? Was it blocked? This will help you determine if you are applying the technique to the wrong situation or if you need to make adjustments. For example, I use half of a technique. In the form it is referred to as 1 technique, but in reality it's 3 different techniques put together to make 1. I learned the technique as a defense and counter, but when using the technique as an attack, I only need to use half of it.

Eventually you'll learn the proper timing, distance, and situations in which a technique can be used. You MUST ALWAYS ANALYZE your sparring, try to understand how the attacks are being launched at you and think of a technique that you can use to either counter or attack.

For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm.

This is not an easy technique to begin learning. Try something easier maybe something that deals with blocking and countering. Grabs always look easy in practice and in drills, but when 2 bodies are moving with fists and feet flying, then the grabbing becomes more difficult. How difficult is it to grab a punch? Think of how often BJJ practitioners grab people, now try to remember a fight where you saw one grabbing a punch.

One you learn some of the blocking and redirecting techniques, then you'll begin to understand how to grab. There are certain things that you must do in order to grab a punch. Those things that you have to learn first are found in blocking and redirecting techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's not so much the learning of the technique and understanding the applications that I am struggling with, it's being able to spend enough time practicing them to the point where I can use them effectively under pressure. For example, some time ago we practiced a very nice defence against a straight punch, where you would grab the punching arm with a tiger fist and than grab your attacker's throat with your free arm. I could see the application of this clearly and learned the technique quickly, but we after that lesson we never revisited the technique at all. This is not an isolated example either, as there are a lot of techniques that we look at a single time and then months go by before we practice it again in class. I don't have anyone outside of class that I can train with so it makes it very difficult to consistently practice what I'm learning in the classes.

Well, in line with what I have been saying, were you able to see the foundational principles at work in that application? That is the more important thing, more so than doing enough repetition to work that particular sequence into automatic muscle memory.

Sure, if you like that sequence, train the hell out of it. That is your choice. But it may be that the sequence itself is less important than seeing the principles in use in a variety of situations and options. You start to see and understand that, and you don't need a go-to standardized sequence. You do what you need to do based on the situation, and that can be anything at all, including something that you devise on the spot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's true. When you think of a fight how do you know the 10% that you choose to train in, is the 10% that will help you win the fight. I can take 10% of Jow Ga Kung Fu and go against a street fighter and still lose if the 10% I choose is wrong for the situation that I'm in.

Edit: The other side of the coin is that the 10% that I choose will help me win against a striker but lose against a grappler.

I was thinking more of the esoteric techniques that exist within Nihon Goshin Aikido. There are some that (IMO) are there to teach principles, and are not directly applicable. If someone put equal effort into all 50 classical techniques (we'll ignore the non-classical work, to keep the math easy), they won't be developing the right 10% for any situation. The esoteric techniques (about 25% of NGA's classical curriculum, and I think there are some in most TMA) should be a minor part of training, and mostly used for more advanced students to explore and improve on key concepts and principles. Most of the training time should be spent on the most effective techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

another factor is the teacher. where in the teachers own personal journey is he. if he is in his 30's or 40's he may be in the prime of his fighting ability and that will be the focus of his teaching. however if he is in his 80's then his focus will more likely be on the health and longevity aspects and passing on the art as a whole to the next generation.

Agreed. And older instructors often are more focused on the "finer" principles, because those are how they stay effective with the art, despite loss of power and speed.