Tae kwon do vs. Kung Fu
- Thread starter goof321
- Start date
I think that's pretty much what you're going to find—the TKD people will prefer TKD and the CMA people will prefer the CMA that they do. And I'm willing to bet that if you ask someone who does both of them (there must be at least a few such on the board), mostly you'll hear that they're both good.
I've seen that list before somewhere, XS. And it seems like you could spend a lifetime just learning the names of the various CMA styles, let alone learning one of the styles itself!
To me, that's great, one of the terrific things about the CMAs. You have to be glad there was no central CMA directorate a few hundred years back stamping out all the variants to produce a monoclonal one-size-fits-all product...
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Not wishing to hijack the post but yes... and no.
The variety is mighty cool and looking at things form different perspectives is good but I can do without the politics, lineage fights and true, secret, direct, fake transmissions.
But I do love the CMA styles so I guess more yes than no
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Honestly, I find the practitioner needs to see what art fits their physical and physological abilities.
Long time ago, Master Chu told us that Kung Fu masters were very very good (Chu was 7 dan Tang So Do and 8th dan Tae Kwon Do himself.) He also said it took 10 years to get a 'black belt', if that's the term, in Kung Fu. He said the motions they used were not natural and thus took alot of time to prefect.
Still, to me the style reflects the inner person. I prefer striking (heaven know what a shrink would interpet that) and lots of physical activity. Others might find more subtile methods to their liking or grappling or methods that flow and are artistic.
So I really don't care about TKD .vs. KF or SBD .vs. JuJitsu or ishen ryu .vs. Muy Thai, etc....
There are outstanding pratictioners in every art that I wouldn't want to mess with!
Long time ago, Master Chu told us that Kung Fu masters were very very good (Chu was 7 dan Tang So Do and 8th dan Tae Kwon Do himself.) He also said it took 10 years to get a 'black belt', if that's the term, in Kung Fu. He said the motions they used were not natural and thus took alot of time to prefect.
Still, to me the style reflects the inner person. I prefer striking (heaven know what a shrink would interpet that) and lots of physical activity. Others might find more subtile methods to their liking or grappling or methods that flow and are artistic.
So I really don't care about TKD .vs. KF or SBD .vs. JuJitsu or ishen ryu .vs. Muy Thai, etc....
There are outstanding pratictioners in every art that I wouldn't want to mess with!
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
I have to agree with XS on this. The variety of CMA is a great attraction for me. Even though I have only briefly dabbled in JKD and have trained extensively in bagua I still have a sense of variety. It may be the nature of the internal arts or it may simply be the interconnectedness of the CMAs, but studying even a single style as I do you get a variety of areas into which to develop. We have striking techniques (hands and feet), grappling techniques, movement strategies, weapons training, and qigong training. Even staying within the one style one can specialise in one of these subsets.
One of the impressions I get of TKD is a lack of that variety. Furthermore, I get an impression that it was probably once there, but the art has been paired down to an efficient minimum. That's fine, but it limits the areas one can specialise in within the art.
One area in which TKD and the CMAs are very similar is politicking and lineage fighting. But in this TKD has the advantage of actually having many living founders, the CMAs cannot really make this boast as most newly developed styles have been built on the shoulders of long dead giants. As a result lineage disputes can be monumental, take a look at Yang taiji for an example.
But, like XS, I think that the good outweighs the bad.
I don't know much about Kung Fu, so I really can't speak to it. I've been into TKD for 4 years now, and I do like the simplicty with which the art is constructed (simple to me, anyway. A series of stances and positions upon which everything is built). Not so much a tremendous amount of movement and technique, but more of a focus on how to combine these movements and techniques into different patterns and series. On top of that, to echo what somebody else said, the SD component is nice as well.
Marginal
Senior Master
That's until you get into the politics etc. Then you get people practicing the exact same style right down the pre class warmup sessions telling you you're not doing "true TKD" etc, not to mention the various spins the numerous Kwans have put on TKD from one to the next. At that point it seems just as pissy as the next art. :high5:
It depends on so many things--your body type and movement style, what you want out of the martial arts, etc. Both can work! Try some schools.
As mentioned, while TKD orgs. vary, kung fu really covers a lot of territory. Northern and Southern styles can feel quite different, for example.
As mentioned, while TKD orgs. vary, kung fu really covers a lot of territory. Northern and Southern styles can feel quite different, for example.
I would prefer to train Kung Fu and watch TKD in the OlympicsI would prefer to train TKD and watch Kung Fu movies
I would prefer to watch TKD in the Olympics.
Really? Huh? I guess there's something for everyone:lol:
still learning
Senior Master
Hello, If comparing art to art....both are excellant for what they do!
When two arts complete against each other? ...than it is the person who makes the art win. NOT the style of the art.
Most times the better skill person, one with more cardio, will have the advantage....Aloha
PS: A street fighter with more cardio...in a real fight will have the advantage..
When two arts complete against each other? ...than it is the person who makes the art win. NOT the style of the art.
Most times the better skill person, one with more cardio, will have the advantage....Aloha
PS: A street fighter with more cardio...in a real fight will have the advantage..
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
Amen, still learning!
14 Kempo
Grandmaster
Which is better? It's all a matter of skill and movement. Distance comes into play as well. Just about every art has its most desirable distance, find it and you have the advantage. Both arts mentioned here will give you an intense workout, and self defense skills.
Most important in a decision such as this is the school and the instructor. Both arts have their good and bad, the instructor is going to be the most important aspect. There are great martial artists that can't teach and great teachers that aren't so good at martial arts. Check out the classes, have a list of questions for the instructor. Talk to other students.
Good luck!
Most important in a decision such as this is the school and the instructor. Both arts have their good and bad, the instructor is going to be the most important aspect. There are great martial artists that can't teach and great teachers that aren't so good at martial arts. Check out the classes, have a list of questions for the instructor. Talk to other students.
Good luck!
chinto
Senior Master
If I had to choose which to train in, I would choose Kung fu in say choy li fat or crane or one other of the many good combat effective systems. I would not choose Tae Kwan do because so many of the schools for that styel are not teaching it as a combat efficient and effective system aimed at self defense and survival. Most seem to be teaching it for Olimpic competition. and in my opinion good judo schools teach better for the street then most of the sport tkd types seem to. ( at dan level the good judo schools teach basically all the stuff that was taken out so you learn the old school Japanese jujitsu techniques and strikes and things that were removed for safety.)
