Does Hung Gar need to look like Hung Gar when fighting?

[ginosifu]

On the kung fu forums, someone posted a video of some Pak Hok sparring clips. Quickly the TCMA bashers started postings comments about the person using Cup Choi and how this trying to look like your style will never work in reality.

In Hung Kuen or any kung fu style for that matter, how much should we attempt to look like our style? Or should we just go the San Shou route and just club people in the thighs with round kicks?

I know there is a point when reality kicks in and some of our Style's techniques may not work quite as well as basic Kickboxing techniques.

Should we try to come together more as the leaders of the era of kung fu and try to help keep the Kung Fu in Kung Fu (a quote from TenTigers) so to speak. Do we need create specific technique based events at tournaments?

Should we just do what most people do, and that is to just teach what you teach and don't worry about the future of Kung Fu?

your comments

ginosifu

[Itinerant_Phenomenologist]

I think we have to take into account a few factors. This is going to take awhile... and I'm tired so it might actually ramble and lose track of itself. Bear with me if you can:

1) A physical confrontation in a ring is different than a physical confrontation outside of the ring (not saying one is better/worse... just different).

2) If we were to reduce TCMA all the way back to its beginnings, I would be willing to wager that the core of TCMA wasn't "technique" but "concept" generated.

3) The techniques work... but not always in its most ideal and textbook fashion.

Addressing the points in order:

1) When met with an opponent in the ring, a whole myriad of conditions and circumstances exist which are completely different than an outside conflict. Even if we were to take away the safety precautions (gloves, cups, pads), and eliminate any type of time limit and refereeing standard, and allow a general free for all regarding techniques to be employed (eye gouging, groin twisting) and objects allowed to be used (from brooms to claymores)...the fact that it is a 1:1 duel makes it vastly different from a non-dueling situation. TCMA evolved out of the necessity for combat... but for the most part not single combat but GROUP combat; soldiers en masse rather than the lone solitary figure standing on the open plains. A man good in a street brawl might fair terribly in a duel. Even movie choreography recognizes this difference and the tempo, theme, techniques employed are all drastically different for a group fight as compared to a duel. The mindset is different. The pressure is different. Thus for the bulk of TCMA (purely my hypothesis now), which evolved out of a situation of massive multi-person combat, special training is required to duel... and for an individual that trains in something which is purely a dueling discipline, a different scheme needs to be adopted to make them better for on the fly, off the cuff, make or break rough and tumble outside of the 1:1 confrontation. If in the 1:1 duel there are the safety precautions and numerous restrictions, than a combat discipline that evolved with, and out of, the intent of military combat will definitely fair a lot worse in the ring because of the numerous handicaps. I'm not sure if this is true, but my uncle once told me, when teaching me the Ng Long Baat Gwa Gwun form, that the Yang Family Spear (of which the staff form is said to have been derived), is one of the best against multiple opponents (because the Yang Family was a famous patriotic military family). However, if the situation is a weapon duel, there are many better forms which cover the 1:1 fighting more fluently than the Yang Spear.

2) Going back to my theme of reverse engineering TCMA, I'm of the opinion that TCMA started out as a bundle of concepts. Essentially a person one day realized that being faster than other people tended toward victory. Another person might happen upon a theory of being able to overpower and individual led to victory more consistently. Perhaps another individual thought being tricky was the key to victory. Another still believed that a balance needed to be struck between two or three elements in order to gain victory. At no point, in this primitive scheme, did these people have a chaap choi or a cup choi or a fu jow. All they had were concepts. They started engaging in independent exploration in trying to find ways to make themselves faster, physically stronger, mentally quicker and fluid in transition between elements. No technique. Then one day, perhaps by chance, an individual discovers throwing out the arm in a straight fashion was an efficient format of striking fast and hard. Thus is born the first technique. The man who likes speed may emphasize more elbow bursts while the one who prefers power might emphasize shoulder and back. The tricky individual decides to change the shape of the striking fist to give it a distinct flavour. More techniques are born. However, as stated, the core of each individual making these techniques weren't more techniques... but concepts trained. Techniques used are modes of expression for the concepts trained. A hard puncher trained with the concept of developing a solid, powerful and devastating punch. A fast kicker trained with the concept of developing quick, sharp and fluid kicks. A tricky fighter trained with the concept of hitting soft places and maneuvering in tight spots. Key are the concepts... for Hung Gar it might be the Twelve Bridge Arm concepts. At no point are those actual techniques... though the poster might lead people to conclude otherwise. The postures shown on that poster are examples of possible expressions of a concept. Thus an individual trained in those concepts might not express them purely with what we consider to be textbook techniques found in the forms... but that's not the point. A real gung fu person isn't constrained by the techniques allotted, but is one who has trained in the concepts, internalized the concepts to see the myriad of expressions, and chooses accordingly in the situation. It just so happens that the person who created Hung Gar decided a tiger claw was an excellent expression of a particular concept, standing in horse stance was an excellent expression of a particular concept, throwing cup choi and crane beaks were an excellent expression of a particular concept.

3) The people who bash and say trying to express a technique in a textbook fashion in real life would never work aren't completely wrong... but they aren't right either. You train in the perfect textbook fashion to gain the benefits of the training. But in a physical confrontation, nothing is promised. There is no guarantee that your tiger claw will latch on precisely where it is needed, or that you are properly rooted to sink into the shoulder sockets, or that your fingers are actually stronger than the opponents muscle groups to be able to penetrate properly. But saying that is exactly the same as suggesting a boxer shouldn't try to throw the perfect jabs he's been working on for years, or that textbook uppercut that the trainer has been drilling him regarding best spots to hit, proper posture and breathing etc. Of course he's going to try. No guarantee it would be successful... but the proper training in the technique gives him a higher chance of success than not. Going on my earlier theme, the thing being trained is first, and foremost, a concept. The techniques are expressions of a concept. Thus even if a slap dash technique is being used, if the concept attempting to be expressed solid (person has trained well, person has internalized and made the concept their own), it's still better than the undisciplined or erratic strongman flail.

People who insist on "looking like their style" probably watch too many kung fu movies. In a large spur-of-the-moment conflict, no one is going to give you time to bai jong (get into a proper fighting posture). In a 1:1 duel, there is a higher chance of a proper fighting posture, but it's a fighting posture, not a training posture.

[Subitai]

IP...wow that was a long post!!!
I think you're saying something allong the lines of what i'm about to say but I can't be sure.

My Grandfather once said; "if a man comes to your door and barks like a dog...then treat him like one"

How does this translate to fighting. If a guy is willing to STAND UP and fight with me then...Yes I can issue power from my feet connected to the ground, transmitted through the waste and out to my arms, ultimately to do some damage. If looking like Hung gar means punching a guy in the face...I think we got that covered.

If a guy jumps to his back and askes me to jump on top of him with the intention of trying to make him tap...then he'll have a long wait on the floor by himself. Honestly brother, I can't believe you're asking this question...Unless it's retorical one.

As for San Shou...

I went to Shaolin Temple back in 98' : before they went comericial and built a highway to it and before the government Ordained it's own Abbot. (Ha go figure, history once again repeating itself)

*** Anyway, I went with a group and trained in San Da for a week and then we all got attacked by random people in the end and I scored the highest.

I have also won 2 belts in San Shou competition 85kg class, I've done MMA and I'm still doing Hung style since the 80's and I can say that in my opinion... San Shou aka San Da is NOT HUNG. again My Opinion.

Anyone who doesn't believe me can hire me to do a seminar on real Hung fighting concepts. It's what I do well and I can back up what I say.

Lastly Kung Fu is not in any danger, it's just a reality that NOT everyone has the same capacity for understanding the martial concepts. IN Truth = not everyone is a fighter...it's just a fact.

Just the same that not everyone has the same capacity for Music or Sciences ect ect.

[ginosifu]

Thanks IP & Subitai;

I understand everything both you are saying. Applying principles and concepts of your system may not "LOOK" like exactly like your system.

In the ring I have fought San Shou for many years. And yes applying principles from what my teacher has taught me. San Shou does not look like Hung Gar... nor should it. It is a different animal altogether.

However, when I spar or practice self defense or prepare for the the street I use Tiger Claw strikes. When I block a students technique with numbing hard hits and they cry that my forearms are too hard. If I get to grab one my students while sparring, I grip them very hard with 2 Tiger Claws etc etc when using Hung Gar style.

When I play Monkey, I put my hands in student faces (Pretend to eye rake) and then hit the groin (Yes I hit their groin). Everytime I practice monkey street self defense while sparring it ends up with a submission. etc etc.

When I teach self defense to my higher ranking students we always take it to a submission or tap out. Does not neccessarily mean to the ground though. I use pressure points, chokes, arm bars, etc etc and we truly try to use what we are learning.

While I realize that reality or street self defense is different and I may never get to "Tiger Claw someone, I will always practice using Hung Gar "LOOKING" techniques.

ginosifu

[Subitai]

Gino,
I knew it was a question to provoke thought

You're also skilled in Shuai Jiao don't forget....you're being modest.

Let's put more Peas in the Pot for discussion now. My statement is this; "You must adapt to what a person is showing or giving to you and cannot force what is not there"

You shouldn't try to LOOK Hung Gar. Yes, train bridges and fundamentals of kung fu and Gong skills and all that. But in the end, it comes downs to what is given to you...not what you WANT to look like.

A few examples:

Presentation (1) A grapplers shot (collegient level) is not some HOKEY I bend over without a set up and try to grab you around the waist or legs. Like you see in MA magazines.

It's very tactical and usually set up with a fake High in order to shoot low. A good grappler will lower his level (his hips and center) and pentrate always when you're at your most vulnerable. That is the truth.

I don't care what flak I get for this (my opinion ok) but HG is not a GROUND grappling style. It's foundation is TCMA and that is... Root throught the feet and waist and project your bridges onto your opponant. SO its and stand up style...not a fight from your back style.

What HG can do very well is trap and grapple while standing up. HG's "Hook bounce and sweep method" is the A- Typical perfect example for this.

SUMMARY: Standing you have a chance to LOOK HG, but taken off your feet... bye bye and switch methodology until you get up again.

2) If you are presented with guy who will stand up and be willing to give you something to work with...then by all means look HG as much as you want.

Now, some people who've only learned to strike and pull back again like in boxing are only using a small portion of what HG can do. These people accept using Western Boxing principles for HG fighting because they havn't learned to "Bridge the Gap" and stay there.

Boxing "the sweet science"...gotta love it cause it works and its pure effective. But it's not deep. Energywise it's different than TCMA. If I want to stand on the balls of my feet, Raise my shoulders, Tuck my chin. Jab - Cross - Hook

Jab= hit and return to chin position
Cross= cross over the arm , shoulder , hip and raise the rear heel...and return to position
Hook= ....aaaah You get the idea don't you?

What should I call that? Modified Hung Kuen or Boxing? If I have to resort to that just to make my HK effective than i've been wasting my time as a martial artist.

So the problem lies with most that a boxer doesn't want a constant bridge. He wants it in and out to keep striking and keep mobile on his feet. What's hard for some people is knowing how to once again deal with a person who won't give you what you want. That is a clue allot of people still havn't figured out yet. If they did...they would see that everything they need for stand up is already in Hung...no need to add San Da skills.

(3)Others have learned to use their bridges differently. Like once they make bridges they are on thier opponant like a damn octopus or perhaps a tiger with it's claws sunk in and don't retreat.

Still others don't realize you bridge with the legs as well. Mah bridges with Mah...and also you have to know what direction to crowd your opponant so he always feels uncomfortable. Or suddenly yeild and borrow his energy if you realize he's too strong for you.

I much preffer that than to throw round kicks and look like Tang Po. hahahahaha

[ginosifu]

[ironpalm]

[Subitai]

[crazedjustice888]

I can contribute a tad to this. I have posted a couple of clips of my sifus school and the students sparring, and even a couple where they are actually fighting, and the hop gar is obvious in the videos that even people who have never seen it will look at it and say...okay...that isn't normal, what is it? My sifu makes us use the long arms and the like in the ring when we train. I have used it multiple times thanks to my sifus teachings, and I have used my hung as well, just not as often. It can be used, and it can look like you train, but in my opinion its up to how much a person wants to train these "techniques" to determine how much he/she looks like it.

Just my humble opinion guys, still a new guy

[Daifong]

I could not agree with you more, CJ88...

I can't begin to fathom how anyone could have missed the clips that you've been putting up...

Still, for some of these schools, to simply install a generic San Da program, might actually represent a decided improvement, lol...

Anybody who doesn't have sparring in your school, you can do a whole lot worse than Sanda/ Sanshou:

1) It's standard, and it's popular. That means it's easy to get training in, and find other m/a who will agree upon such rules to come and spar with you.

2) It is a continuous, contact sport, therefore athletic. Participants train hard to get, and stay, in shape. Even non-combative types can benefit from drills.

3) the rules permit takedowns, so it keeps the kickers honest. The action is stopped on the event of a scoring takown, so it keeps the grapplers from turning an activity that reinforces practical skills, into something else entirely.

Learn how to spar, teach sparring, and watch the percentage of "fighters" in your school go up. Not to mention their chances of ever being able to apply effective technique in anything. How else is somebody today to get experience in managing real-time physical aggression, go out and get into fights?

Of course, there are a few concessions to be made. That (groin-level) "Snap Kick" will have to be converted to a "Foot Jab". It's rare to find anyone to agree to the groin as a target. Fish-hooking and claw-hands are illegal, as is attacking the back of someone's neck, but a variety ofl sporting alternatives as counter-takedowns certainly do exist. If you are practicing Jab-Cross Hook-Up, you are not practicing Chun-Gwa-Pau-Kup. But if that's all you have, you need to get busy anyway, so you're already a better fighter once you have a chance to learn...

I doubt that anyone who has ever benefited from his own sparring experience would disagree?

Still, for the student's sake, it might just help to let go of a few "styles", the better to focus on the integration and development of a single system that is functional...



Best,

Michael

[inthebakyard]

Very interesting comments and great discussion. In my opinion, and some small reference from experience, if one practices in a way, when it comes down to crunch time, one will revert right back to the way one has practiced most or is most familiar (look into nerve pathways and reaction times). Its usually to much to "plan" or "decide" what moves should be used in actual free combat, if its not second nature, you just aren't going to be capable of using it in a real fight... been punched in the face/chest a few times "planing" in a fight LOL

I think if you watch MMA fighters that claim other styles (some claim karate and some claim kung fu etc etc) BUT in the ring, it falls back to boxing and grecko-roman wrestling/BJJ Thus supporting my above statement... sorta. It makes /yawn for spectator sport and minimal self-defense applications for real world scenarios.

I also think that TCMA was engendered from real needs, the need for health and exercise, but also the REAL need to keep that bandit from slitting your gizzard... or soldier from decorating his pike with your head. Hung Gar is ranked right in with Krav Maga (sp?) and other modern lethal combat systems, if the need is there it seems an ample tool. All just my opinions, take care

[indrafist]

[indrafist]

[indrafist]

[Daifong]