OK, for those of you who like classical kung-fu, regardless of style, what qualities do you look for in a "good" school as compared to a "bad" one. Specifically, what do you like to see emphasized and what can you do without?
One that is using modern combat sports training approach and encourages a lot of sparring and resistance training while throwing out forms and useless "application" training like grab arm, claw face, rip out throat, etc.
I dont go to other KF schools so I cant say what they do/dont do. Just base stuff on what others have gone through. The one thing I would get rid of is what FOD says. Blind Adherence. I have heard of 1 school, kicking someone out of a club because they asked if they can also train in another style. Just the one school I heard of.
For respect - Regular push hands training and push hands competition outside of the schools own organisation. Regular sanda/sanshou training and competition outside of the schools own organisation. Students that compete outside of a kung fu tournament arena/environment. If I were looking to attend - All the above Lack of emphasis on forms and two man sets. No mandatory weapons curriculum. Alive drilling. Physically demanding training. no mythologies. Sifu spars with students. All students spar and drill together regardless of grade
Thing's I'd look for: 1. The teacher can kick my ass. (This is a prerequisite for me unless the teacher is truly ancient and his senior students can also kick my ass.) 2. The students spar, at least after the basics. Traditionally, this is done with teacher/senior supervision without any gear and at full contact. (Unless students are dying or getting seriously injured left and right. The above means that good defense is cultivated in the school and/or some of the raining is devoted to conditioning the body to take the blows that inevitably get through your defense) 3. The attitude that it is your responsibility to defend yourself properly against attacks, especially during sparring. (Less than common common sense) 4. Teachers and students know multiple applications of each step of the forms they are teaching and will be able to show you how to objectively test if each step of each form has been learned properly. (Each part of a form is supposed to have obvious and hidden applications. A form is designed so that each part of it can be applied or tested in some way. If a part of a form cannot be applied or tested, then it is useless) 5. The teacher knows first aid or some traditional healing art (This shows that the teacher is concerned for the welfare of his students) 6. The teacher has good moral character (or things could get ugly later) Bad schools in my region have had the following: (I won't name names) A renamed traditional martial art style... and the "founder" is now its grandmaster! ( :cry: ) Students who continuously attempt to do moves that don't work and look like they belong in a video game... during an MMA tournament!!! (This was both awesome and painful to watch. Another student of the same school was so busy taunting his opponent in the ring that he got knocked out on the verge of victory) Students who hit you and try to pick a fight because they want to prove that their style is so much more awesome (I thought that only happened in movies) A teacher who just likes to pick fights and cannot explain his fighting style except in terms of other fighting styles. ("You know, it's like better than long fist and has throws like aikido and I beat Bruce Lee with this style!") A style that cannot be explained by the teacher at all. (You just put a bunch of moves together didn't you?) No sparring or the equivalent :cry:
Well personally I think good kung fu is a person sticking to the traditional roots while bringing in all the modern day techniques that they can and making them fit the particular principles of the art they study. And making sparring the major part of classes.But you can only go so far...I for one dont want to go rolling around on the ground..only time I do that is when I change the oil in my car (which isnt as often as I should)
And if you cant make them fit with you principles at least find a way around them...and learn how to use them on the offensive
A few more random observations. My old Escrima instructor gives open seminars which stress fighting concepts over specific techniques. People from a lot of backgrounds have studied with him. Even though I'm a 'chunner, training his concepts has been very helpful, and I'd expect to see them represented in some fashion in a good kung-fu school... or in any good martial arts school. Basically he breaks it down like this: Balance: Which for me is being solid and stable whether moving or standing still. Some kung -fu places excessive emphasis on static balance. You know, 15 minutes in a deep horse stance or standing motionless on one leg like a ballerina. That may be physically challenging, but I find that dynamic balance, or being balanced as you move to attack or defend is most important. Speed: Not the flicky-slappy speed that people like to show of on Youtube, but functional speed which comes in part from relaxation, from explosiveness, and in a greater part from positioning (angle and distance) and timing. Applying this concept can enable a person who is not naturally "fast" (in the sense of having quick reactions) to have more functional speed than another fighter who has very fast hands. Power: Especially "short power"... the ability to develop maximum force in a short distance, and without having to withdraw your hand to deliver another hard hit. Focus and Attitude: Everybody talks about focus... but you really have to train it. And attitude or mind-set is a very important part of maintaining your focus and achieving your goal. I don't think you can really train this without some hard sparring. Transition: This is the ability to move seemlessly from one situation or position to another. In Escrima, it can also apply to adapting and using whatever tools are at hand: stick, blade, staff, or any manner of improvised weapons. But it also means instantaneously adapting and redirecting your force if your opponent does something unexpected... you know, the classic "Oh shizzle!" situation. You have to make the transition and adjustment in stance, steps, posture or structure and technique to recover. Or you're done. Sure these five concepts are just one of a million ways to break down some of the things that go into learning a fighting art, but it's a breakdown that I found useful. And these are things I'd want to see taught in any school I would attend. Including Kung-fu schools. Even including Wing Chun. So, for example, I work hard at trying to develop the same kind of total body power in my WC front thrust punch that I had to train in my Escrima punches. because if I can't hit hard, what's the point of hitting someone at all. Or worse, slapping them a zillion times with a fast but weak chain punch. Yes I do practice chain punching... but if I have to, I'd rather slow it down and make it count. BTW it is absolutely possible to use your whole body, and not just your arm, in a WC punch. Just that a lot of people don't train for that.
Certainly a theme going on here. Just a thought, is the lesson the place for sparring? Surely that's for learning technique and then after the lesson should be the time to put into practise what you've learned, for those that want to, not everybody does.
So you're not interested to train for the eventuality that you may be taken down or swept or knocked to the ground? You don't see the need to have defend yourself while down and/or be able to pull a reversal for a submission on the ground or get back to your feet and stand up striking range? How odd. That pretty much gives you a hole in your defense so large you can drive a bus through it. :hat:
Jeez, I hope all the people who prefer to spend their time doing hobbies that dont lnclude fighting are aware of that logic! Imagine, the chef at Ruths Chris realizing he has holes in his self-defense because he doesnt supplement his culinary skills with ground fighting! Im ALL for training ground work, Ive spent a few years with it in the past. But the fact is that you assume you know exactly what everyones goals are when they train martial arts. What if they dont train martial arts so they can be well-rounded in all realms of self-defense? What if self-defense has nothing to do with why they started? What if they just happen to enjoy "kung fu" type arts as their hobby? What if they like the philosophy that is inherent in a lot of Kung Fu systems? Even for as bad a time as people give to Wing Chun, if they are into playing the chi sao trapping game, they should not have to put up with your attitude about why they shouldnt train it! I dont plan to get into an argument with you slip; this is just the way I feel, and I believe that many people look up to you on this forum and they may be hesitant to say anything in fear that you will eat themfor lunch. So my hope is that youll simply take into account the above for what its worth and move on, maybe with a bit more open of a mind about what people like and prefer. At any rate, I dont mean to derail the thread but the above attitude is very close-minded in terms of allowing people to have their own set of goals. If people want to train on the ground, then they will, and they will do it for their own reasons. So as to actually contribute something relevant to perpetuate the topic at hand, here is what I think makes good kung fu: Kung Fu, to me, is not entirely about fighting. Kung Fu is a cultural training of philosophies from a given group/lineage in China, to include health and longevity, fighting, flexibility, philosophy, special "skills", and potentially other items as well. Good Kung Fu encompasses the holistic approach to life and learning, and in todays day and age focuses most of its time on the fighting aspects. Good Kung Fu is able to examine small pieces of a whole and perfect them one slice at a time, so as to provide an appreciate that makes the whole seem quite profound when you finally "get it". And in luei of the above, I also believe that good Kung Fu sometimes purposely sacrifices the most efficient fighting method for the sake of "beauty" and potentially even health, and because of this, provides an extra level of challenge to make it actually work. Good Kung Fu is deep in layers, both mentally as well as physically. And its within this depth that many Kung Fu schools fail today--Many get lost in the depth and never really fully master anything...
I'd like to address Kibble's 1st point-"teacher must kick my..." Unless at this time you're really poor at coming up to scratch don't limit yourself to "teacher must kick my tail".I had three teachers I could have wiped the floor with but they knew more about their systems than I did.If I hadn't studied with them I'd be poorer for it.They should be competent but the idea that they should be able to overcome every non "virgin" who comes thru the door is fantasy.Some people are excellent teachers/coaches w/out being championship caliber or just plain "super bad". Our recently retired boxing coach stated some years ago -(when he was in his 30s)- that the word on him when he was competing was "moves good,has a nice left,can't hurt you".In a county of 100,000 and a town of about 36,000 he turned out more than just a couple Gold Gloves champs and at least one pro (high school classmate of mine) who fought undercards on national TV.Should GF teachers be held to some higher standard? Try teaching football players who outweigh you by 100 pounds.Could I have taken them out barehanded in a real altercation?Possibly,but it wasn't something I would have looked forward to trying out.I admit it,I ain't "super bad".
That's true. It's not actually necessary for a great teacher to be a great fighter. You can get great training and knowledge from a coach who himself never lifts a finger and some awesome fighters have been awful teachers. Just I'd rather have someone clearly above my level to train me and what I personally look for.
sigh.... here we go....:bang::cry::hat: My question was in direct response to Melb's post which came off as rather dismissive of anything to do on the ground. To my way of thinking that might be a bit myopic if for no other reason than you may want to know how to get up off the ground if you end up there. Not as uncommon as people think. Important to understand that the word 'martial' still precedes the word art in 'martial arts' - so no matter how you slice it... fighting is somehow part of it. Your analogy of the chef fails largely because most chefs do compliment their main skills with a subset of related skills. So a savory chef will have dabbled at least a bit in proper butchers work or for that matter may have touched up pastry or chocolate work. He's not however going to look to porting carburetors on street racing engines. If you're going to try and make a point using an analogy... at least try one that is relevant. I didn't assume anything about the poster. Again... go back and look what I posted... and what is addressing. Seriously. Again I'm not trying to limit what each person can train in. Not like that's even possible. I was directly addressing what Melb himself posted about rolling on the ground. It's not as if there isn't some element of that in certain styles of Kung Fu anyhow. Chinese Kung Fu has a form (or several) of groundfighting. So it's not like it's something that was just brought in. People training can train in all the above that you mentioned or some of it or choose just a particular thing. But again... that I was posting in regards to something specific that he himself posted should be recognized for what it is. Oh do get over yourself. So far you are the only one that has brought WC into this. Seriously... a bit of reading comprehension and less jumping to conclusions is well in order on your part. I've not said word one about what people can or can't train. You are seriously putting words into my mouth and have somehow figured I have a position that I don't actually have. Christ on a cross. Go back and read my bloody post and understand what I'm responding to. You simply have missed it by a country mile. :bang: Wrong, wrong and wrong. You didn't understand what was being addressed and you charged in and start posting before thinking it through. I've never posted anything contrary to allowing people to choosing their own goals so really stop trying to paint things any differently. My attitude is hardly close minded... and you wouldn't have a clue what it is because you clearly have missed what specific instance I was addressing. There is no narrow mind set being put forth... in fact to this point in this thread the only narrow mindset was the one I was specifically addressing with my comments. Oh the irony. How about understand what is being posted by me before commenting on it and attempting to denigrate it? and to directly address the OP's original question one of the things that some practitioners of Kung Fu found relevant or meaningful to train was a grappling and throwing/sweeping range. The works of Kung Fu practitioners from the past like Liu Jin Sheng and Zhao Jiang have been translated by modern day authors like Tim Cartmell and they provide a very interesting insight into the history of Kung Fu and it's regional styles and differences but also to the training and physical conditioning that were practiced in earlier times. Many of the practitioners of Shuai Jiao also delve heavily not only into the history of Kung Fu but also the conditioning methods needed to be able to effectively use techniques in actual combat style applications. What seems to be missing from lots of modern kung fu is pressure tested combat applications. So many westerners seem to get far too caught up in the overly romanticized western versions of oriental mysticism and pageantry that seem to have become de riguer in much modern kung fu.
Slip, I find that a lot of people around here tend to support their arguments by attacking the logical faculties and reading comprehension of others. Just as Im certainly sure you have absolutely no problems understanding various types of "logic" and mental concepts, Id appreciate if you would extend the same courtesy to me--Id be happy to provide to you my GRE scores if will make you any more civil. Fact is, none of us are really stupid as you might try to represent in your posts. So on with things I guess, whether youre willing to give that consideration or not: OK, youve misintepreted what was meant by my analogy, and admittedly, it may have required more articulation on my part: My point was not that people dont need to supplement their chosen activities with other concentrations, but more so that having a well-rounded self-defense set is hardly the goal of many martial artists, and it exhibits a really controlling tone when you claim that you should atleast be prepared if a fight does go to the ground--If your goal is to be prepared for fights to go to the gorund, then of course. If your goal is one of a milllion other things, then its really not a concern. People often seem to correlate that just becuse one studies martial arts that they actually care about all ranges in terms of covering all scenarios. Being well-rounded in regard to various ranges is one specific goal for some people who study the arts--for others, like the original poster, he would rather spend his time on other things, than to "roll around on the ground" and cover that possibility. Sure, of course they can and as a public forum you are granted the capacity here to reply to whatever piece of a post you see fit. But perhaps, rather than try to offer any type of real rhetoric towards "rolling on the ground", you simple reply to the intent of the original post and let everyone know what you think makes good kung fu...? Coincidentally, the OP spoke of WC in post #10, prior to my posting. However, the real issue here doesnt have anything to do with WC itself. It was simply to illustrate that while WC generally has a horrible reputation, that doesnt make it bad for others to train it if theres something about it that is fulfilling to them...even if it does cover only a very specific skill set. Alternatively, if ground work is fulfilling for someone they should study it. And if either of these 2 things are not fulfilling for someone,then they should not. As usual, you blame it all on my lack of ability to understand anything that is being typed. Slip, Im reading what you say and my intepretation is what it is. If you didnt mean to come across the way you did, then just say so. But the fact is, I think you meant to imply that the OP is stupid for seeing things in the way he does. If thats not the case so be it, I dont claim to be able to read your mind. Thats just the way I see you come across in many of your posts. At any rate, I think Ive probably contributed too much to the derailment of this thread so Ill just back off now...You want to reply, Ill certainly read what you reply with and even take it all into consideration; seriously.
Me too,actually.Also depends on what system I'm pursuing.It just doesn't always work out that way. There's the diff twixt level of knowledge, level of overall expertise,and level of expertise in certain areas. My second TC teacher had excellent PH skills and power,but in a "let's kick each other in the legs" contest against me he'd lose.However as he was a former wrestler and much stronger than me if he tackled me game over! I don't know your history but in general as one develops that preference for an instructor to be better than you in everything becomes less important.Still always nice to find,tho'.(Like my 4th TC teacher was,except in weapons.I turned him on to FMAs and now he'd waste me there,too!).
I didn't really have an argument. I had a post that were direct questions related to a very specific part of MelB's post. You came in and start to wag the finger and attach labels of 'close minded' etc. when what I've posted is entirely relevant to the post I'm responding to and is very clearly acceptable subject matter for the thread and convo at hand. umm... I'm not the one who barged in and started calling people or attitudes narrow minded and been generally dismissive etc. At least take a look at what I'm responding to and tell me if you think what I posted is relevant and within the topic range. If you don't think it is then post up why you think it's not and I'll show you in no uncertain terms why it is. In fact I've already stated that rather clearly. PS. I have no clue what a GRE is but I'll take your word for it that it means your smart to a certain level. I unfortunately won't be able to provide that or any other educational credential as I have none. Ok enough with the passive aggressive crap already. Sheesh. We are talking about me and you and your misunderstanding (call it interpretation if it makes you feel better) of my posts in this thread. This is not about MAP as a whole or any of that. If you have a problem with me then be big enough enough to just step up to bat and say it but as of now your mumbling under your breath. I flat out have no tried to represent anyone as stupid in this thread. But yes I do find it rather astounding that you can pulled so much out of a few simple lines that address directly what someone has posted. 1) your analogy was still off by a wide mark 2) I was responding to MelB's post 3) what I've posted were relevant questions for him 4) why does that bother you so much? It is you who is making the assumptions here. I merely asked questions. 5) the issue of ranges is entirely acceptable subject matter for the thread Because I can post in any order I see fit and I don't need your good graces to do so. Flat out. My post is relevant to what was posted and is well within the boundaries of the thread. Furthermore I went ahead to post up what I thought would be relevant to the original topic. umm... okay. So should I now not address anything that the mention of WC might bring up just because it doesn't directly and 100% relate to the OP? Seriously where are you trying to go with this? 1) my post was a response to MelB... not the OP 2) I'm merely asking some simple and relevant questions 3) Not sure where you are getting that I'm implying stupidity on the poster that I'm responding to... I'm merely (yet again) asking questions that relate DIRECTLY to what he has posted.... how hard is that to get?!?!?!?! I really don't get how you arrived at your interpretation. But to each his own - you're welcome to see it as not relevant to the thread but you haven't come even remotely close to convincing me as to why I shouldn't be allowed to address something that was posted in the thread. Especially not when it relates to Kung Fu. Here have a look for yourself - let's recap: and my response to the emphasized part of his post: What is that some sort of sacred cow... are you died-in-the-wool Kung Fu lot so sensitive that you can't handle any questions put to you about such a statement? Does it ruffle feathers? Step on toes? Send ministers out to consult with wizened sages who sit with their beards mingling in the smoke wafting out of iron braziers? Come it's some very simple questions as to why the sparring should be limited to only stand up. How is that going to make Kung Fu good? Is that so unacceptable to ask for the reasoning behind that tact? I didn't barge in and say 'U @ll sUkz MMA 1s t3h RoxXorz!!!' or that you need to run-don't-walk to the nearest BJJ school... I simply asked if that is what that poster is putting forth as 'good kungfu' then how do they plan to deal with the eventualities on the ground if things ever end up there. Or does that just complicate things and get in the way of silk pajamas and peddling dit da jow? :bang:
