Is Kung Fu effective in combat and is it good for a Martial Artist, i have been looking at it and it seems to be very alive and free. If anyone has any opinions i will apreciate it alot.
Kungfu is such an expansive term but as a practitioner of a shaolin style and as a student currently taking Wing Chun and Hung Gar I can tell you that Shaolin kungfu is not incredibly effective as a fighting tool as many of the movements and ideas are antiquated in this modern age of mixed martial arts with long distance communications and travel allowing unprecedented growth in theory and styles. However, that's not to say it's bad, most of the time you get into a fight on the streets or someplace like that, your opponent is not going to have 5 years of brazilian jiujutsu or be a muay thai champion, so Shaolin will put you in good stead there.
The main advantage of Shaolin styles are that they are very fun to practice and you can learn good stuff which can be applied to any style. I have very fond memories of practicing very quick strikes and thrusts and doing splits and all manner of cool stuff. Just make sure whatever kungfu you take teaches the Chin Na grappling techniques.
As for Wing Chun, it is largely considered the main progenitor of Jeet Kune Do and it has many principles which are of value to a JKD practitioner. Wing Chun, by itself, is probably the most effective form of mainland kungfu in terms of real combat effectiveness and it's very fun too.
Yes, as NWFish said, Wing Chun as a method of effective combat is far superior to the shaolin schools of technique. But martial arts is not always about learning what will be most effective in a fight, it should be about having fun, and if aesthetics is your thing, nothing will beat Shaolin in terms of looking pretty. Except maybe Chinese Zui Quan (Drunken Fist).
Also, if you want to impress your friends with a shadow boxing routine or something, shaolin is much better at impressing people than wing chun is because it is much more cinematic.
To shaolin's defense as a viable combat system, if weapons fighting is your cup of tea, all of the shaolin styles have very cool and effective methods for using traditional weapons.
Kung -Fu @Wushu was invented few thousand years ago. Every form of kung -fu no matter it used animal moven or natural moven had it's own use and each of them can overcome each other. Few kung-fu like, tai chi,ba gua zhang,shan sou, ba ji quan,tang lang quan,and nan quan r very effactive against real fight .A well train kung-fu person can fight against any stituation and even can take down many people at one time .This is why kung-fu is so useful.....it not just attack one but every direction. The represent form is Ba Gua Zhang , tai chi and ba ji quan , they use the princip of round against straight and soft against hard and they don't need much power .
I think the most strong but hard 2 train kung-fu is qi gong(technic of using breath). It can heal or damage every lifeform . There is legend said , the highest lever of it, it can take down a lifeform in a distance by just controling the energy(air) ,the high presure cover the lifeform and crash it like a cakebut it need year or even centuries or training . It is quite impossible but what can we say every thing is possible if our heart think like that .
Kung-Fu is a dead technic but it is alive when we use it unlimited just like JKD use it !
Who are complet (sic) idiots? Anyone who trains in something
you don't? More baseless assertions. I guess that's all we'll
ever get from you.
> that could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag!
Are you suggesting I can't fight? In fact, I have fought in
a world championship (under the auspices of FISU) in a certain
sport (not karate).
And with regard to idiocy, you take top honors. Your posts are
typically quite inane. And I am beginning to doubt your ability
to fight your way out of the proverbial wet paper bag, based on
your poor attitide and obvious insecurity.
First IT is never just the art be it kung fu kartate jujitsu judo ect. It boils down to how the person training in it can perform. Not every one can turn out to be a very skilled fighter. It takes skill and heart. The more any one trains to fight and asorb the better they get. SOME arts do however. Have better learning skills at the lower level. Just like some one said karate is stiff. THAT is wrong. the person may be but the tools are not. Whan you have learned per say. Then you flow more in doing. NOt being tence and stiff . Look inside what you learn see it as seperatew from form kata ect. AS a defence or delivery tool. train it if its a tool for you keep it. If it not discard it. What traditional arts cover is many ways to defend aginst the same attack. THE average person needs but just a few to be effective. And really. IT agin is the person. NOT set 12 then 24 back to 6. But the action at the time of need . What dosent work for you may work for someone else. That is what different styles have in comon JKD has a base structure then a indivdidual need. Same with all arts. On the streets its what get the job done. In the ring about the same. But differrnt methods apply. Rules. is one. And conditioning . most of all rounding the nessasry tool in order to compete at that level of need. So we will allways have different styles and need to remember the person makes the style work.
Well, some styles are more effective than others. It's as simple as that. I know more Eagle Claw than I know Wing Chun by a longshot, but if I were to get into a fight right now I'd use what I know about Wing Chun because it simply is more efficient. However, there are applications and theories from Eagle Claw I can use in Wing Chun to make it even more effective. If I do a Wing Chun slap to the neck, why not snap my wrist a little bit and turn it into an Eagle Claw throat lock, that is frankly much scarier to be the target of. I'd use my Wing Chun techniques to get to the point where I can apply Eagle Claw in a way that it would be effective.
No established martial art is ineffective, but some have better applications than others.
Not all martial arts are equal, and none are perfect. You can learn something from all of them. Combine what you find works for you to create your own perfect martial art, that is what being a fighter is about.
kung fu as it usually is taught is ineffective. hasn't anyone here ever seen a fight--pro or street?
honestly, have any of you kung fu cats seen anyone winning a fight against via kung fu? you might say that kung fu is good against unskilled people, but so is country boy brawling. why prepare to fight a pansy?
theories are theories, not actualitites.
I feel the need to back up NWfish. Being opposed to the rigidness of karate is one of the fundamentals that defines JKD. The same is true for pre-Jun Fan gung fu. It is fun, aesthetic, and even relaxing, but one must be very careful. I would not trust my tiger-claw to beat up an old woman!
The point I was leading to. Remains the same. THE person is first to make any art work. JKD can be over come by a karate person and any art can. BUT it is the person. When you learn any art. IT is yours. Be it JKD or ect. . All arts have good and fare practitioners. Sure I prefure JKD on its method. BUT WONT say yes its the best art. AS no art is. some will get you there faster then others. Thats about it. ONLY so many ways to punch and kick. perfomance in the doing is the difference. When you fight on the street . Its not about style .Its about surviving the attack. TRUTH is in the person. I am not defending any one art. But my door remains open BEst thing to look at in different arts is exposer to. You have an understanding of the background tools. Which lead to a better defence to over come As fighting compares to chess. the right move over takes the other. And in the end the out come is yours to have over come. skill aginst skill. You can not drive a car if the tires are gone. Same as you can not fight in a method of style .Unless that method has become a part of how you can perform with the tools. Its all attack and defend method of combat. Just do not become a robot to it. let it flow from you. Then you are the giver of your truth. And style was your stepping stone to the method of delivery.
I like Kung Fu's pretty dances, but will that really help you in combat?
Kung Fu can be effective in THEORY. But most people in this modern age don't want to spend their whole life to master it. They want to spend as little time as possible to be good at something. Why not just go to a boxing gym and learn how to fight.
--------------------------------------
Reasons why I would rather join a boxing gym
-cheaper then Kung Fu
-Take less time to learn
-You can SPAR
-Most of the time you can develop better conditioning
Kung Fu is very practical on the street, it's not like the movies. Tapping someone in the head with a foot will take anyone out, a palm uppercut to the chin will drop anyone ect. Many many serious moves there to use.
I have a few friends in Karate that just come at you wildly and with bad feetwork and too open by far, Feetwork and evasion is easy to use with them. Too rigid is an understatement. Firing from the hip is rediculous and their feetwork totally stinks. A few decent kicks though.
I trained several years in Shoalin and no one ever beat me in combat whether on the street or in the ring. It all depends on the personal atributes of each fighter, The thing that sucked about Shoalin training was the massive forms with moves that are not as practical as in JKD or Wing Chun. Wing Chun and JKD liberated me totally away from this. But all kung fu is way more relaxed than the Karate arts, hence a much faster fighter and fluid fighter. Feeding off of the other fighters energy ect.
We would go to there dojo's and our students with a year experience would beat their black belts. Most of them train in lame points matches. Power breaking until the ref lifts his hand. Very stupid stuff.
And then you have the grapplers, coming in for the legs and getting a boot up their nose. an elbow is real effective when they try their take down but so is good feetwork. When a grappler goes to grab you just nail him in the head with a powerfull Elbow, end of story, but there is many many ways to take out these so called tough guys that think they are all bad because of half truth ring fighting. If a guy comes in to grab my legs he totally opens himself up. Fast footwork cancels it out totally. Besides it's o easy to snap the neck of a guy trying to grab your legs. But that iis not allowed in the ring as is many tactics that will take these so called big and bad grapplers out. We always get a good laugh out of the grappling ideals of superiority. far far from the truth! and always will be.
If I have a blade especially.
So we just let these egg heads preach the nonsense and think they are all that. Right mikee boyyyyyyyyyyyy?
"Kung Fu is very practical on the street, it's not like the movies. Tapping someone in the head with a foot will take anyone out, a palm uppercut to the chin will drop anyone ect. Many many serious moves there to use."
So your saying these moves will work 100% of the time and never fail!?
"I have a few friends in Karate that just come at you wildly and with bad feetwork and too open by far, Feetwork and evasion is easy to use with them. Too rigid is an understatement. Firing from the hip is rediculous and their feetwork totally stinks. A few decent kicks though."
I agree.
"I trained several years in Shoalin and no one ever beat me in combat whether on the street or in the ring. It all depends on the personal atributes of each fighter, The thing that sucked about Shoalin training was the massive forms with moves that are not as practical as in JKD or Wing Chun. Wing Chun and JKD liberated me totally away from this. But all kung fu is way more relaxed than the Karate arts, hence a much faster fighter and fluid fighter. Feeding off of the other fighters energy ect."
No one likes a show-off, especially when the show-off has no proof.
"We would go to there dojo's and our students with a year experience would beat their black belts. Most of them train in lame points matches. Power breaking until the ref lifts his hand. Very stupid stuff."
(Rolls eyes)
"And then you have the grapplers, coming in for the legs and getting a boot up their nose. an elbow is real effective when they try their take down but so is good feetwork. When a grappler goes to grab you just nail him in the head with a powerfull Elbow, end of story, but there is many many ways to take out these so called tough guys that think they are all bad because of half truth ring fighting. If a guy comes in to grab my legs he totally opens himself up. Fast footwork cancels it out totally. Besides it's o easy to snap the neck of a guy trying to grab your legs. But that iis not allowed in the ring as is many tactics that will take these so called big and bad grapplers out. We always get a good laugh out of the grappling ideals of superiority. far far from the truth! and always will be."
1. Kicking a grappler while he is in the middle of a double-leg takedown is possibly the dumbest thing to do. You'll be on your back and in an arm-bar so fast!
2. An elbow won't necessarily take someone out.
3. Fast footwork is important, but a grappler is rediculously fast with takedowns as well. Who are you to say that they all suck?
4. Snap a neck!? LOL! It's not as easy to snap someones neck as you may think.
JKD is kung Fu. NON CLASSICAL COMBAT MODIFIED GUNG FU . Which GUNG FU is also known as Kung Fu. Many karate styles bleed down from a blended kung fu base. But first KUng Fu can mean many things. a And it looks like several people has closed there door .Or do not really know that much about the different aspects of the m/a Just as a boxer. sure you get hands on training. But how many of the thousands of boxers have you ever heard of. Agin the person who puts the effert forward. Which is stepping up to the extra skill training. Pushing there self beyond what others do. Reaps the reward in a better understand of need. We never fight each day. And many people never have a real street fight in there lifetime. But we train in a combat sence. And improve not only our skills but our life as well. Take Joe Lewis. A karate fighter. He was is a good fighter. Bill Wallace. Mike Stone. Jeff Smith. Chuck Norris A tang soo do. Real simular to Tae kwan do. A very good fighter. Today Mixed fighters are coming up. Because a new time has arrived. Wanting the old concept though. In years back training was harder. More real. No airconditioned schools . No real heated schools. Hard workouts. No given ranks You earned it. Then came the selling and mass produced instructors. So mixed fighters are just finding the same as say boxers. You have to train towards real needs not as a preserved method of less. Karate was one time called karate jutsu. not DO. But life changed less combat needs. Kung Fu the same. The gun changed the need to train the body for ever. So softer aspects went into place. Would you go to a class in the hot summer say 105 degrees outside and 110 maybe 115 degrees inside .And workout for 2 3 hours three four times a week. Or go in the winter and have the temps be just above freezing. Not alot will now days. So perhaps what has turned soft is an easyer world of people. But There are those that train hard and fight well. A street fighter can be tough and never study any art. He has guts heart and never gives up. A good m/a should be the same. NO matter what style way they train. But train to fight and train to live. Because a good M/A will most likely be a good person also.
Depends on style and training method. San Shou is potentially
very effective on the street, whereas other flavours of kung fu
can be nearly useless. The same goes for karate. Kyokushinkai
is potentially very practical on the street, or close to useless
if you train infrequently and your sparring partners are
out-of-shape slobs.
The general message being communicated by the more sensible people
here is that the level of training and quality of instruction/sparring
partners make you a good fighter. Competition and serious training
are keys to the CONSISTENT production of formidable fighters, and
keeping the skill set useful.
> I have a few friends in Karate that just come at you wildly
> and with bad feetwork and too open by far,
So when people who study kung fu come at you wildly with bad
footwork, what do you conclude?
> Feetwork and evasion is easy to use with them. Too rigid is
> an understatement. Firing from the hip is rediculous and
> their feetwork totally stinks. A few decent kicks though.
I know a few hockey players with no footwork, but with (1) incredible
endurance, (2) hard punches, (3) granite chins, (4) very strong legs.
I believe these hockey players, with their real-fight mindset, would
easily KO both you and your karate friends. What do you think?
> I trained several years in Shoalin and no one ever beat me
> in combat whether on the street or in the ring.
Gosh. I guess you're invincible!
> It all depends on the personal atributes of each fighter,
> The thing that sucked about Shoalin training was
... the spelling tests?
> But all kung fu is way more relaxed than the Karate arts,
> hence a much faster fighter and fluid fighter. Feeding off
> of the other fighters energy ect.
This is, of course, fantasy. Normally when speaking with someone with
real fighting experience, a certain wisdom will quickly become apparent.
You are failing miserably here.
> We would go to there dojo's and our students with a year
> experience would beat their black belts.
Is this the erotic portion of your fantasy post?
> And then you have the grapplers, coming in for the legs and
> getting a boot up their nose. an elbow is real effective when
> they try their take down but so is good feetwork. When a
> grappler goes to grab you just nail him in the head with
> a powerfull Elbow, end of story,
I guess this must be how you imagine it would work if you actually got
into a fight. In reality (a tricky word for you), your elbow would
probably do little more than mess up your opponents coiffure (on the
off-chance that you actually hit the target) before he took control.
Watch pure judoka (Yoshida) choke out a good striker (Tamura) where
elbows and kicks to the face are allowed:
Do you see the punishment some people can take and still continue?
Can you get an idea how important conditioning would be if you
tried to mix it up with, say, a hockey player who could similarly
take many shots and keep coming? You know, I went to school with
John Kordic. Even at my best I estimate he would have KOed me easily,
despite my superior footwork. He fought for real more-or-less
daily, and effectively. What style was he?
nwfish, drive or levitate (since it is obvious you are a kung fu master) to a bjj club or boxing gym and challenge the best students at each place.
nwfish, can you dim mak me by placing your hand on my post, thus killing me five years later while i'm taking a dump.
Fish you are one of the biggest retards I have ever had the misfortune to know. I agree with Robert who said it is essentially down to the student.
As to being relaxed in fact in Karate you should also be relaxed. Go to Japan and get taught by a master there. See how long they let you stay stiff. The other point is the Karate prior to 1936 (when Japan invaded Manchuria) was know as Chinese hand. This was because it was Kung Fu from China brought to Okinawa maybe 2-3 hundred years ago. Another point, I have done both Shoalin and Wing Chun and I would argue that neither exibited what I would call relaxed now, but then this is the West.
Another point is, how many Wing Chun guys do you see in major tournaments hell what about JKD? We have had this debate before, but the reality stands Karate has proved its credentials on the streets and in the ring. Of course street rep is only hearsay, but that is all the wing chun and JKD have is hearsay and egos. I am sure there are individuals here practicing the wing chun and jkd who can fight, but I am trying to make the point to Fish that he should stop talking out of his arse and be more humble. You really know very little fish, this is apparent by the way you talk. I dont care if you been doing it for a hundred years or how many kids you beat up.
Your an embarassment to the JKD community not least the martial arts community. If you want to reply reply with examples facts and other logical point.
If you guys are such big karate and bjj advocates, then why not go onto a different webkwoon. If you dont understand that jkd is fundamentally superior to any other art, then you dont understand jkd. It is a science, and it is formless. Anyone who is a master of karate would be an even better ma had he started in jkd.
I would also like to re-iterate what jkd has said all along about grappling. Too much effort for too little results. You cant just throw economy of motion out the window.
PS: If elbows dont stop grapplers, knees do.
This message has been edited by unterdenbieren on Jun 9, 2004 4:16 PM
Its not about for or aginst a M/A. Its about if you do M/A. No matter what it is. You are responsible for your out come. The instructor guides you learn. If you learn to be part of what you are doing. Then it will work for you.If not it will not. No art is fool proof. And no art has a ten easy lesson time period. No art is the best art. Some have more complex or less complex learning steps. AND never has a art beat any body. The person trained in a art does. And that is skill level of knowledge. Boils down to hard work and dedication. You get what you put in. An open mind will see more then a closed mind.
> If you guys are such big karate and bjj advocates, then why
> not go onto a different webkwoon.
Dude, are you even reading the posts? Who exactly is
advocating karate over anything else? The point is that
denigrating an entire art, sans good justification, is
really a sign of immaturity with regard to training and
fighting.
> If you dont understand that jkd is fundamentally superior
> to any other art, then you dont understand jkd.
You're living in a fantasy world, guy. Reality does
not now show JKD in such a favourable light.
> It is a science, and it is formless. Anyone who is a
> master of karate would be an even better ma had he
> started in jkd.
That's not clear, see. It DEPENDS on how the karateka
trained. If he got in lots of sparring time, then it
might well have been more useful than JKD theory.
> I would also like to re-iterate what jkd has said all
> along about grappling. Too much effort for too little
> results. You cant just throw economy of motion out the
> window.
Its nice that JKD asserts this. Too bad its false.
> PS: If elbows dont stop grapplers, knees do.
You know, this statement tells me one thing: you never
stood face to face with a good grappler. Maybe the
grappler also has a black belt in TKD (my old coach
had both judo and TKD black belts) and by virtue
of hundreds of full contact sessions, knows how to
bridge the gap before he throws you and executes a
clock choke.
Several times in this thread has bjj been advocated. I will admit, karate not as much.
It IS a little presumptuous to say that any one art is superior to all of the others, but it is not too much of a leap to say that the absense of a style is better that any style. You argue with fish about the stiffness in karate. Well, more important than the physical stiffness is the mental stiffness.
As for the reason that "reality" does not seem to favor jkd, jkd was not built for any sport, nor can it be tested in any ring. Fully clothed, bare nuckled, no holds barred, full contact combat is the intended application of jkd. In other words, the street. jkder's are no more likely to win an nhb match than a swimmer. (Well, slightly more likely)
If that is your test for the legitamacy of an art, then perhaps jkd is not for you. At that point you are just talking about jkdc and applications of jkd outside of its original realm.
It is also an interesting coincidence that one of my teachers was a blackbelt in both judo and tkd. 6th and 9th degree respectively.
I would like to say that you can not touch what is not there. I'd prefer to avoid a conflict before entering it. I do not like to talk about fighting though I find myself doing it. We never know if the next person that walks up to us can kick our a##, the only thing you can do is hope that the tools you have can get you through.
Myself, I've been trained in Tai Kwan Do, and Hwar Do (which also teaches a little of Judo, Tai Kwan Do, Kick Boxing, Kung Fu, Karate, and Hap-Keido). If it came down to a street fight that I can't avoid, almost all bets are off and I'll go all out using everything I have to come out on top. In truth, I'd rather use a joint lock over anything hard, because the purpose is not to harm your attacker but to teach him/her not to do it again and to think twice before attacking someone else.
The fact is, martial arts is not about power over your opponent, it is power over oneself. If you can overcome yourself you can overcome anything. I believe this is what Bruce Lee was teaching. Martial Arts should not be veiwed as a way to inflict violence (as many of us Americans believe) but to bring peace and balance to both yourself and those who are in need of proctection and help.
And nwfish, I'm offended that you call yourself a martial artist, because either your instructor is a complete mental case or you never listend in class, or possibly all you do is sit all day watching kung fu movies, type on your computer and wish you were Jet Li.
> Several times in this thread has bjj been advocated.
> I will admit, karate not as much.
You have a reading problem. In this thread, BJJ has been mentioned
twice:
JKDFOR: "I would choose a BJJ guy over a Kung Fu Master"
findog: "drive or levitate ... to a bjj club or boxing gym"
In both cases, BJJ is mentioned only as an alternative (there are
others, like boxing) to kung fu. If this is advocacy, it is a
weak form of it.
When was karate advocated?
> It IS a little presumptuous to say that any one art is superior
> to all of the others,
It is often indicative of the claimant's insecurity, especially when
such an all-encompassing term like 'karate' is used. What does NWFISH
know about full-contact Karate, for example? How does he know so much
about its universal weaknesses?
> but it is not too much of a leap to say that the absense of a
> style is better that any style.
I don't follow you.
> You argue with fish about the stiffness in karate. Well, more
> important than the physical stiffness is the mental stiffness.
You're losing me, again.
> As for the reason that "reality" does not seem to favor jkd,
> jkd was not built for any sport, nor can it be tested in any ring.
Why not? Sounds like you are trying to rationalize away the fact
that JKD fighters without ring experience would may be missing the benefits of ring training: endurance, ability to take shots, how
to throw combinations whilst getting hit, how to take a glancing
shot to return a harder one, how to react and stay calm when your
opponent is trying to take your head off, and so on.
> Fully clothed, bare nuckled, no holds barred, full contact
> combat is the intended application of jkd.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> In other words, the street. jkder's are no more likely to win
> an nhb match than a swimmer. (Well, slightly more likely)
I doubt that. A JDKer at a given weight will be more likely to
win NHB/MMA than a swimmer (but perhaps not a hockey player) at
the same weight.
> If that is your test for the legitamacy of an art, then perhaps
> jkd is not for you.
JKD is not for me. My glory days are long over, and I have no
interest whatsoever in street fighting. If preparing for street
encounters is what motivates one to train, then one needs to grow
up a bit and start meeting new people
> It is also an interesting coincidence that one of my teachers
> was a blackbelt in both judo and tkd. 6th and 9th degree
> respectively.
So, did you hit him with an elbow when he tried to grapple?
I presume he's Korean, since achieving those ranks is rather a
political feat. What is/was name?
if jkd could not be tested in a ring then bruce lee would not have trained joe lewis to win karate tournaments and joe lewis would not have used any of lee's teachings in full-contact kickboxing.
> if jkd could not be tested in a ring then bruce lee would not
> have trained joe lewis to win karate tournaments and joe lewis
> would not have used any of lee's teachings in full-contact kickboxing.
Forgive me if my memory fails me here, but I believe Joe Lewis already held
some sort of title (which may have been a world karate title in name but a
USA title in reality) in 1966, before he met Bruce.
Nevertheless, you make a very important point: Lewis did in fact ring-test
early JKD ideas and he and Lee threw out those which apparently didn't work.
In these days, competition rules for karate were exclusively non-contact
(well, a weird sort of semi-contact). The technique therefore quickly
evolved to a characteristic (and unsatisfying) style. I presume that Lee
and Lewis were suspicious of how many of those techniques would carry over
to the ring (or street). Fighters of that era believed they would simply
"not pull" punches and suddenly have knock-out power. Lewis showed that
this was far from the truth. So, JKD's origins point to the great value
of contact fighting.
I find non-contact training (which means some contact) to be frustrating
and completely unrealistic. Lightning-fast 4-punch combinations can be
developed to look pretty good in non-contact training. Once in the ring,
you will find that everything about your impressive 4-punch party trick
was ill-conceived.
Finddog is correct. Joe Lewis fought both in "point" matches and "full contact" matches. At Bruce Lee's advice he quit doing point fighting and just full contact.
Frankly I find the "point" about Joe being successful before meeting Bruce Lee totally irrelevant to the discussion. To me it speaks volumes that someone who already knew what he was doing would take the time to learn from someone with no ring record. It speaks larger volumes that Joe tried Bruce's ideas and successfully used them in the ring. More on this from Joe's website:
One more thing. The "those who train for the street should mature or get new friends" quip was rather goofy. I suppose it never occured to you that there are people who train who are bouncers, bodyguards, police officers ect? I agree that sometimes the "street" martial artist is too quick to belittle the "sport" person, but I think this is an example of unnecessary disprespect going the other way. Besides, there are many who train for both.
> Finddog is correct. Joe Lewis fought both in "point" matches
> and "full contact" matches.
Yes, we agree. This is a noncontroversial point.
> At Bruce Lee's advice he quit doing point fighting and just
> full contact.
On Bruce Lee's advice? Can you corroborate this claim?
> Frankly I find the "point" about Joe being successful
> before meeting Bruce Lee totally irrelevant to the
> discussion. To me it speaks volumes that someone who
> already knew what he was doing would take the time to
> learn from someone with no ring record.
Um, Lee approached Lewis repeatedly -- almost to the
point of annoyance it seems. In Lewis' own words:
"I first met him at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington
D.C. at the `67 U.S. National championships. I was
defending my title, and he and Robert Culp from the
`I Spy' show were there as guests. Bruce Lee approached
me and introduced himself. That's how everything began.
A few months later I was at Black Belt magazine's Culver
City office to see them to complain about a misquote,
and Bruce Lee was in their offices. when I went to my
car he came running up behind me saying Joe! Joe! Hi, I
want to talk to you. And he spent about 15 minutes
primarily pitching me on his system and trying to elicit
my interest and I basically ignored him."
I believe Lewis said it was Lee's strategy to associate
with big names in non-contact karate (Norris, Stone).
Nevertheless, Lee did obviously have good ideas and
Lewis took the time to exchange ideas with him. Alas,
unlike Lee, Lewis actually got into the ring.
> It speaks larger volumes that Joe tried Bruce's ideas
> and successfully used them in the ring. More on this
> from Joe's website:
Yes, I'm well aware of the Lewis-Lee interaction. You know
the type of misinformation I am trying to counter, right?
Often one hears the "Lee trained Lewis" claim, implying a
teacher-student relationship. This was not the case. Lee
was evidently a training partner for Lewis. When they
met, as I said, Lewis was already among the best in the USA.
Lewis also talks about Lee's weaknesses at the time (kicking,
for example).
> One more thing. The "those who train for the street should
> mature or get new friends" quip was rather goofy. I suppose
> it never occured to you that there are people who train who
> are bouncers, bodyguards, police officers ect?
<LOL> First, yes, it did occur to me. Second, these people
are training for their job, not for the fantasy street
encounter that most students of the martial arts thrive on.
Third, in these professions the training should obviously
focus on grappling and immobilization, not throat and eye
attacks, and so on. Don't you agree?
> I agree that sometimes the "street" martial artist is
> too quick to belittle the "sport" person,
Street versus sport, style versus style. It never ends.
> but I think this is an example of unnecessary disprespect
> going the other way.
I disagree. Are you suggesting that spending hour after
hour training for an imagined street altercation is a
productive use of time? You devote 12 hours per week to
prepare for perhaps 30 minutes per decade of street
confrontation (which might end up at knife or gunpoint).
Isn't that a severe misuse of resources? If this is why
you train, its disturbing to me. If one's training makes
one more likely to actually seek out fights not in
self-defense (I've seen it happen, I'm sure you have too)
then one ought to see a psychiatrist. Competition (or
fitness) would appear to be a more satisfying and socially
acceptable reason to train. Sport training wins on both
these accounts, and in the unlikely event that you are in
a street altercation, will certainly be to your advantage.
"You argue with fish about the stiffness in karate. Well, more important than the physical stiffness is the mental stiffness." Albert do you actually know what you are talking about? Your point about style versus no style also is laughable to me. Why? Because most of the JKD classes I have been to or read about have set sylabuses just like any other style.
According to Lamar about 80% of JKD training is wing chun the rest comprising of boxing and fencing. Jesus man if that is not a style then what is? Tae Kwon Do is made up of Tae Kyon and Karate yet no one is suggesting it is freestyle. The difference in the phylosophy of Tae Kwon Do and JKD is that TKD is not as pretentious.
The signiture of freestyle is a lack of conformity to any style, clearly mainstream JKD does not fall into this category, for the reason above.
You say that JKD is the best, I wonder who your teacher is and whether or not s/he would be ashamed to hear such stupidity. Have you tried everything else on this planet? No, I did not think so.
So we go back to your point about mental stiffness. It seems to me you lack the flexibilty to see beyond the JKD propaganda.
To the other fella, we all train for different reasons. It is not necessarily right to train for sport neither is it immature to say you train for the street. For instance I train for neither, but for my own personal development. This point emcompasses many training methods. As does saying you train for the street. (Although I understand why you said it to this individual who clearly knows very little about martial arts).
If I remember right It was 1975 when lewis won the heavy wieght full contact title. Bruce passed in 1973. When bruce and Joe were working out Joe was still doing point matches. As that was befor full contact had arrived. Chuck Norris Was a person to contend with at that time as well. He won over Joe . Joe and bruce worked on what was good for Joe. To help him perform better in the curciut At the time. But credit is due at bothe ends. Both had something to do with the out come.
For the last time, jkd is not a style! Anyone who says so has completely missed the point. Bruce was not saying, if we combine wing chun, boxing and fencing then we will have a great system. He said the gosh darn opposite! Some of you spend too much time in the ring and not enough time at the books.
vres: Believe it or not, it is perfectly reasonable to train NOT for sport. It's been done. It's not about bar fights either. It's about piece of mind and health. If I can keep my body half as sharp as my mind, I feel as though I will be in good shape.
> Believe it or not, it is perfectly reasonable to train NOT for
> sport. It's been done. It's not about bar fights either. It's
> about piece of mind and health. If I can keep my body half as
> sharp as my mind, I feel as though I will be in good shape.
I have already indicated that I believe this is a bona fide reason
for training. As we get older, its a common reason!
But read through the posts on this forum. They're full of street-fight
fantasy, and assertions on the superiority of one style (or training
philosophy, if you like) versus another "on the street".
>> At Bruce Lee's advice he quit doing point fighting and just
>> full contact.
> On Bruce Lee's advice? Can you corroborate this claim?
It's in an interview by Joe Lewis that I read some time ago.
Joe said that Bruce told him point fighting was hurting his
full contact because he was getting in the habit of
"pulling punches" and that he should do one or the other
No I can't put my finger on it. You can take my word for
it or not.
>> Frankly I find the "point" about Joe being successful
>> before meeting Bruce Lee totally irrelevant to the
>> discussion. To me it speaks volumes that someone who
>> already knew what he was doing would take the time to
>> learn from someone with no ring record.
> I believe Lewis said it was Lee's strategy to associate
> with big names in non-contact karate (Norris, Stone).
Again more irrelavancy. Joe kept training with Lee
because he was getting something out of it.
> Nevertheless, Lee did obviously have good ideas and
> Lewis took the time to exchange ideas with him. Alas,
> unlike Lee, Lewis actually got into the ring.
So what?
>> It speaks larger volumes that Joe tried Bruce's ideas
>> and successfully used them in the ring. More on this
>> from Joe's website:
> Yes, I'm well aware of the Lewis-Lee interaction. You know
> the type of misinformation I am trying to counter, right?
> Often one hears the "Lee trained Lewis" claim, implying a
> teacher-student relationship. This was not the case. Lee
> was evidently a training partner for Lewis.
That's not the way Joe Lewis portrays it. If this is
"misinformation" Joe Lewis is the one putting it out.
But I forgot, you know everything.
>> One more thing. The "those who train for the street should
>> mature or get new friends" quip was rather goofy. I suppose
>> it never occured to you that there are people who train who
>> are bouncers, bodyguards, police officers ect?
> <LOL> First, yes, it did occur to me. Second, these people
> are training for their job, not for the fantasy street
> encounter that most students of the martial arts thrive on.
Nice to see you making self-contradictory statements. These
people's "jobs" involve possible (what you call "fantasy")
street encounters. You lumped everyone in one basket. If
you had said "many who train for the street"..... your
statement could have been true. As it stands it's simply
false.
> Third, in these professions the training should obviously
> focus on grappling and immobilization, not throat and eye
> attacks, and so on. Don't you agree?
They should focus on a lot of things. Really it all depends
on what's happening in any given situation. I wouldn't
pretend to know. I guess you've "fantasized" every
scenerio? And note I've not said anything about grappling
pro or con.
>> I agree that sometimes the "street" martial artist is
>> too quick to belittle the "sport" person,
> Street versus sport, style versus style. It never ends.
When people show unnecessary disrespect as you've done it
only adds fuel to the fire.
>> but I think this is an example of unnecessary disprespect
>> going the other way.
> I disagree. Are you suggesting that spending hour after
> hour training for an imagined street altercation is a
> productive use of time?
Police officers do it all the time. Should they spend
less time at the gun range because it's unlikely that
they'll actually have to shoot someone?
Besides, why should you care if someone else is "wasting
their time"? If someone wants to spend all day playing
fantasy football (and they don't work for you) what
difference does it make? You train "sport" martial arts
because that's what you like. Good for you. Other's
like other things. Good for them.
> It's in an interview by Joe Lewis that I read some time ago.
> Joe said that Bruce told him point fighting was hurting his
> full contact because he was getting in the habit of
> "pulling punches" and that he should do one or the other
> No I can't put my finger on it. You can take my word for
> it or not.
It's unfortunate that you can't supply a more direct quote.
I would like to hear it. I believe that Lee was capable
of making such a comment, just as I believe that Lewis
would have known it himself. Does this qualify as Lewis
giving up point fighting "on Lee's advice"? I really
doubt it.
>>> Frankly I find the "point" about Joe being successful
>>> before meeting Bruce Lee totally irrelevant to the
>>> discussion. To me it speaks volumes that someone who
>>> already knew what he was doing would take the time to
>>> learn from someone with no ring record.
>> I believe Lewis said it was Lee's strategy to associate
>> with big names in non-contact karate (Norris, Stone).
> Again more irrelavancy. Joe kept training with Lee
> because he was getting something out of it.
My, is everything but your own text irrelevant? It supports,
and puts into a consistent framework, what I say repeatedly
about the Lewis-Lee relationship (see paragraph LL> below).
>> Nevertheless, Lee did obviously have good ideas and
>> Lewis took the time to exchange ideas with him. Alas,
>> unlike Lee, Lewis actually got into the ring.
> So what?
Isn't it painfully obvious? Lewis was the one with the
actual ring experience. This is further evidence that
the typical picture of the "Lewis-Lee" interaction (see
paragraph LL> again) as "student-master" is incorrect.
>> It speaks larger volumes that Joe tried Bruce's ideas
>> and successfully used them in the ring.
LL> Yes, I'm well aware of the Lewis-Lee interaction. You know
LL> the type of misinformation I am trying to counter, right?
LL> Often one hears the "Lee trained Lewis" claim, implying a
LL> teacher-student relationship. This was not the case. Lee
LL> was evidently a training partner for Lewis.
> That's not the way Joe Lewis portrays it.
You can't be serious. Sure it is. Please find me one bona fide
quote where Lewis points to Lee being his "teacher", "coach" or
occupying any sort of superior role.
> But I forgot, you know everything.
So this is where we switch to ad hominem?
>> <LOL> First, yes, it did occur to me. Second, these people
>> are training for their job, not for the fantasy street
>> encounter that most students of the martial arts thrive on.
> Nice to see you making self-contradictory statements. These
> people's "jobs" involve possible (what you call "fantasy")
> street encounters. You lumped everyone in one basket.
You are mistaken. Here's my original quote:
"You devote 12 hours per week to prepare for perhaps 30 minutes
per decade of street confrontation (which might end up at knife
or gunpoint). Isn't that a severe misuse of resources? If this
is why you train, its disturbing to me. If one's training makes
one more likely to actually seek out fights not in self-defense
(I've seen it happen, I'm sure you have too) then one ought to
see a psychiatrist."
Isn't it obvious I am not referring to bodyguards and police?
I am also clearly not referring people who do MA simply for
interest or fitness. This passage clearly addresses that fraction
of the MA population (and its a real, present fraction) who have
it in their head that they're going to become a badass. It is
particularly directed to that criminal fraction of the MA population
who actually go out and look for fights. There is a police officer
on another thread who is making this same point. Why do you attempt
to evade it with this police-and-bodyguard red herring?
You know, I can think of more ex-cons that I've known who train
MA (where's my basket?) than police officers. Does that make
sense to you? Ultimately, what I see more than I should are
young guys who want to become badasses. They're all over the
place in this JDK and other forums.
> If you had said "many who train for the street"..... your
> statement could have been true. As it stands it's simply
> false.
Oh, lord. Get over your bad reading of my passage.
>> Third, in these professions the training should obviously
>> focus on grappling and immobilization, not throat and eye
>> attacks, and so on. Don't you agree?
> They should focus on a lot of things.
Really? I would have thought they would focus on that small
subset that is relevant for their job. By the vagueness of
your comment, its evident you are not actually interested
in the topic of law enforcement and MA. Rather, you're just
evading the main point: too many people with a "street-fantasy".
Do you doubt this? Don't you know the type I am talking about?
> I wouldn't pretend to know. I guess you've "fantasized" every
> scenerio?
More ad hominem.
> And note I've not said anything about grappling pro or con.
Good for you. Enough "JKD squashes grapplers" rubbish has been
posted already.
>> Street versus sport, style versus style. It never ends.
> When people show unnecessary disrespect as you've done it
> only adds fuel to the fire.
Please remind me where this was, so I can comment appropr
