Should good Kung Fu be successful in the ring?

[Yung Apprentice]

Ralek define "repeatedly". I hope you are not baseing your opinion on cage matches. If so, then what does that say about boxing? They have some boxers in UFC. But they get their ass's handed to them. But if Mike Tyson or someone of his caliber stepped in the ring, they would be the one handing out ass's.

[Xebsball]

Yes it should, but the level of effectiness may change acording to the rules, the same goes to all other martial arts or martial sports.

Think of:
Judo guy on boxing tournament
Boxer on wrestling tournament

See what i mean?

But indeed, overall kung fu or any other martial art should be able to at least put on some decent fighting.

[Gargoyle again]

To the original topic...

Good kung fu should have:
Limb breaking, eye striking, throat striking, weapons weapons and more weapons, multiple opponent fighting, groin ripping, maiming strikes, deadly strikes, ear rupturing strikes, knowledge of pressure points and meridians and medicine...

Funny, I see none of that in the ring no matter what "the ring" gets defined as.

So, no. Ring fighting has no relationship to good kung fu. Take all that away, and your good kung fu gets stripped down to simple sport brawling.

[Reappah-X]

Gargoyle...

It shouldnt matter...within the confines of the rules and everything being equal it shouldn't matter what style the person trains in, provided they supplement their regular training by training specifically for the rules of the event.

All that crap about "our moves are too deadly" is total BS...If you can land moves like that then you should have no trouble landing basic strikes and applying basic holds.

Its that stupid "our moves are too deadly" attitude that gives all traditional stylists a bad name.

On the same topic tho, I do think that NHB fightin and real fighting is totally different because then you have X number of factors which change things up, biggest of course is weapons which is a completely different ball game...

Bottom line is(and this has been said before but should be re-iterated)...anyone should be able to put on a good showing regardless of style so long as they train for the event.

Reap

[Paul]

Limb breaking, eye striking, throat striking, weapons weapons and more weapons, multiple opponent fighting, groin ripping, maiming strikes, deadly strikes, ear rupturing strikes, knowledge of pressure points and meridians and medicine...

here come the kung fu is too deadly for the ring type arguements.

If you can't handle one opponent why even worry about multiples.

If you can't connect with basic techniques like punches and open hand strikes good luck with the more complicated "deadly" techniques, nevermind what would happen to you in the legal system for using such things in a simple street fight.

[Gargoyle again]

I agree with you both to a point, I'm not a believer in the "Invincible Kung Fu Touch o' Death" either.

My intent is to point out the hypocracy when someone claims to have set up the ultimate test of fighting, but then yells "No fair! You can't use a katana! No fair, you chewed off my testicle!". Any arbitrary sport rules will result in the most successful people being those who have spent the most effort training to fight within the restrictions of those rules.

To take it further, I would no more expect Gracie or Shamrock to be able to last 10 minutes in a boxing match against Holyfield, than I would expect a TKD champion or Taijiquan master to last in the UFC.

When the reverse claim that "so-and-so isn't good in my sport, therefore their art is inferior to my sport" is made, this is where the absurdity arises.

[apoweyn]

gargoyle again,

well, that's a good point. but the flip side of your argument is this: most martial systems have facets to them other than those you mentioned. perhaps they don't have the facets you mentioned at all. perhaps they feature no pressure point attacks, for example. but they do feature basic kicking and punching, or basic throws and locks, etc.

so if you were to take the elements away from gung fu that you listed, you would still be left with many arguably more basic elements (punching, kicking, throwing, locking, footwork, etc.) so, the question, as i understand it, is whether those elements (found in various martial systems) would hold up in a competitive environment. would the footwork, punching, kicking, throwing, etc. of gung fu be comparable in capability and performance to similar facets of other arts or practitioners?

to my mind, i can't imagine why they wouldn't be. i agree with most of the posters here. it could work just fine if said gung fu practitioners trained like an athlete. not so much with regard to restrictions, but conditioning, activity-specific training methods, intensity, and so on.

now, back to my doughnut.


stuart b.

[Kristoffer]

who cares?

[apoweyn]

kristoffer,

clearly, you care. otherwise, you're engaged in an absurd activity: responding to input about which you feel nothing. that seems kind of unlikely.


gargoyle again,

i agree that a statement like that is a form of hypocrisy. but it's another form of hypocrisy to say that a style is better BECAUSE you train with a katana or chew testicles (remind me NEVER to come to your kwoon, by the way).

if you've never used a katana on someone in a live-fire environment, never punched someone in the throat or clawed at their jumblies, then you're discussing theory. and presenting theory as application is a form of hypocrisy. it's one that many of us (myself included) do, because we live in a time and place in which personal combat is an infrequent reality. we simply don't do the real thing very often. so much of what we do necessarily and thankfully remains theory.

but that which we CAN test, perhaps we SHOULD test. and i think that's what people like merryprankster are calling for. not that NHB represents truth. and not that theory represents truth. but that, by an honest study of both, some measure of truth might be found.


stuart b.

[Tigerstyle]

Plenty of people here care, Kristoffer. That's why they're posting on this thread.


"Think of:
Judo guy on boxing tournament
Boxer on wrestling tournament"

Xebsball,
The thing about the examples you mentioned is that grappling is not allowed in a boxing tournament and striking is not allowed in a wrestling tournament. Judo doesn't teach striking (for the most part) and boxers don't learn to wrestle.

Grappling and striking are both allowed in a MMA tournament. With the "deadly techniques" removed, kung fu styles are still left with, at the very least, strong basics. If a person's style relies on breaking and killing their opponent in a conflict, then they're a tragedy waiting to happen (What would they do if a friend was drunk and got a little rowdy? Thumb his eyes out? tear out his groin? )

Strong basics is what's winning these tournaments right now. The BJJ submissions we see in the ring are basics taught from the beginning (triangle choke, rear naked choke, arm bar, key lock, etc.). Kick boxers are KO'ing with "bread and butter" techniques (low roundhouse, high roundhouse, basic punches). Wrestlers are grounding opponents and pounding on them (many times with little technique, but great effect).

In my opinion, yes kung fu should be doing good, but I think it does take a different training approach/method to prepare for the ring than what many kung fu schools (and many schools in general) are doing.


Water Dragon,
(If you're serious) Good luck! If you were kidding...

[Water Dragon]

Oh, I'm dead serious.

[Merryprankster]

Water, how much do you weigh?

Xebs, Gargoyle;

Ap's point should be well taken. He does Escrima as a primary martial art. I wouldn't expect him to take escrima to the ring and do well. Heavy weapon emphasis. More precisely, I SHOULDN'T expect an Escrima fighter, who may very well be a bad-ass streetfighter, to be a kick ass ring fighter. While I appreciate the point, two words must be applied when discussing our day to day lives "within reason." You can take anything to its logical extreme, and you will wind up with an untenable position.

Turn the other cheek is an example.... Ok, so I should simply not defend myself when attacked?


But all that aside, I like what is taking place here, keep it coming guys!

So far, I am hearing "Kung Fu and its principles should be fine in the ring, provided the ring is properly trained for in terms of cardio, etc," With a light undercurrent of "Ring and street are too different to make an accurate comparison.

Please, keep it coming!!

[Black Jack]

Water Dragon,

I don't know many of the local NHB events but I have heard of a popular one called the Hook & Shoot that is in your area I believe.

Which events are you thinking about running with?

More of an eclectic tourney or more traditional like San Shou?

[Ray Pina]

A full out punch on the street is the same as a full out punch in the ring -- chances are, the guy in the ring is better trained.

The only differences (besides bitting, neck snapping, ect.) is that they'll break it up in the ring before any major damage can be done. But a beating is a beating. To me, this is gung-fu's specialty, if you have gung-fu.

Many people watch Kung-Fu movies, go to Kung-Fu schools, wear Kung-Fu clothes and swing cheep, flimsy replicas of Kung-Fu weapons, but I'd say maybe 1 out of 15 to 20 practitioners have Gung-Fu. That's the difference, and that's why Ralek keeps talking smack. I have invited him to NYC to see the difference, but he wants to be king of the hill of his one horse town. I like his attitude, calling BS when he smells it, but not the fact that he is unwilling to open his mind to a bigger world. After all, where does he thing BJJ came from? Tekken?

[Golden Arms]

I agree with Tigerstyle's post, the training of most schools seems to be what would limit the fighters the most. The simple fact is that kung fu is a much higher learning curve than many other martial arts styles, and if you want to be able to use it reliably and to great effect, you are going to need to practice hard, against a resisting opponent, and get used to being hit, taken down, kicked, etc, which, sadly is NOT the mentality of many students OR teachers of martial arts schools. I know for example that at my school, i spar with no gear on, on a nightly basis, and I KNOW what i can make work, and what i cant, but it will still depend on the fighter, the opportunity to use the move, and the mindset of the person trying to use it.....Sadly, many kung fu styles are based around being aggressive and moving in on your opponent, and right through them in many cases, and this takes a LOT of training to get good at doing naturally against someone you know, let alone somebody that wants to rip your head off. I am confident though that if someone wants to badly enough, and they train hard, that you will see at least SOME successful kung fu players in MMA fights in the future.

-Golden Arms-