npk9

Just out of curiosity - in your opinion - which do you find to have more fundamental combat application? Wu Shu or Tradition. I just want to know peoples opinions on this one.

Oh please reply if you're a CMA or at least have started studying at least 6 months. I really don't care for ppl outside the Chinese martial arts system. I'm looking for an insiders opinion.

---

SimonM

This is a complicated question because Wushu is Derived from certain styles of Traditional Kung Fu.

Also Traditional Kung Fu is about as broad a category as you can get. For example:

The following styles of kung fu are all "traditional"

Wing Chun
Hung Gar
Choy Li Fut
Eight Immortals Drunken Kung Fu
Seven Star Mantis
Chen Taijiquan
Yiquan
Bagua
Baji Quan
Shaolin Five Animal
Omei
Xingyi
Monkey Style Kung Fu

This is just a random sample of just some of the MOST well known varieties. Within these some (such as the first three) have a reputation for combat effectiveness. Some (such as Monkey and Drunken boxing styles) are IMHO nearly useless in real combat vs. a trained opponent, they rely too much on risky, high energy cost, gambit type moves.

This is further complicated by the fact that even within more-combat effective styles you can potentially have large groups of students and masters with NO REAL SKILL AT ALL. And within some of the least effective styles you get an occasional prodigy who manages to pull off the risky moves without getting burnt.

And many people (especially the eight immortal guys who DO have a decent reputation) would disagree with my opinions. I know many TCMA practicioners who thing Wing Chun is useless!

What most people probably would agree on is that Wushu is less applicable to real fighting than those forms of traditional Kung Fu which have been stress tested over the last few hundred years. This is (simply put) because Wushu does not have fighting as it's goal! Wushu is in some ways very simmilar to gymnastics; you have to be strong, agile and graceful. You don't need to know how to rip a guys arm off and beat him to death with it though, that usually doesn't come up during a solo forms presentation in a big auditorium.

---

m.artist

Based on the "generality" (if that's even a word) of the question, you have to remember, wu shu is pure sport. There's no (as far as I know) sparring, and is just for competition and fun. At least with the "traditional" styles, you know that in some point in time, those styles were used for combat.
Just keep that in mind.

__________________
"Before you open your mouth to speak, please make sure it's an
improvement upon the silence."

---

Yu Law

[QUOTE=SimonM]This is a complicated question because Wushu is Derived from certain styles of Traditional Kung Fu.

Also Traditional Kung Fu is about as broad a category as you can get. For example:

The following styles of kung fu are all "traditional"

Wing Chun
Hung Gar
[QUOTE=SimonM]

hey is HUng GAr similar to Wing Chun? I know that both use kicks below waist, both have blocking and striking as 1 attack. Both use the wooden Dummy. So what are the main differences?

---

SimonM

They are simmilar. Both are southern styles of Kung Fu derived from Shaolin Five Animal. However whereas Wing Chun is mainly derived from Snake and Crane styles of Kung Fu Hung Gar is more influenced by Tiger and Crane styles of Kung Fu. As a result Hung Gar tends to be more robust than Wing Chun, the bridge hands are not quite so soft as Wing Chun bridging. Hung Gar also contains more standing throws than Wing Chun. Hung Gar training depends more on body conditioning too.

---

IBOPM

Hung Gar is more harder (external) than WC.

Modern wushu has evolved to the point that they are mostly for performance only. So even though there is SOME application, it is not taught in most places.

Concerning the wooden dummy. The wooden dummy is actually a Kung Fu thing in general. A LOT of TCMAs have wooden dummy. But most people just don't know about it. This is because the wooden dummy came from the original shaolin temples.

BTW: This is a very unknown and rare idea. However, Wing Chun is actually considered to be the style that incorporates the best of TCMA. This is considered true by many masters and is actually quite evident in the techniques. This would be the Chinese equivalent of TKD being the combined MA of Korean MA.

---

SimonM

Although Hung Gar tends to be harder I would argue that it, like many other of the more legitimate forms of fighting art to develop from Shaolin, does not actually distinguish between internal and external. Propper body alignment and use of vectors of approach to maximize gain vs. output are factors in both WC and Hung Gar. To practicioners of either art this would be seen as part of the propper application of technique to combat situations. That being said Hung Gar tended to be more forceful in it's approach to WC.

I am assuming that you are not using "internal" to refer to an outmoded concept of some magical force.

If you are using the idea of "uses Qi" vs. "uses strength" to denote "internal" than WC is also not the best example since WC - at least as I have been taught - is entirely rational in it's justification rather than relying on mysticism.

---

Tjang

Dear Martial Artists:

Let us see kung-fu and wu-shu from another angle: their terminology and meanings.

Kung-fu actually means "a quality as the result of hard work that is done in a relatively long period of time with determination, perseverance, or persistence."

A Chinese cook who can show such great and sometimes fascinating skills when cutting the vegetables or when cooking in front of his wok can be said to have a good kung-fu. A farmer who has for years been beating rice with a Chinese traditional wooden tool (that looks like a double-stick used as a weapon in Bruce Lee’s films, or nunchaku known in Japanese martial arts) can also said to have a good kung-fu. Thus, kung-fu basically just means having such delicate skill of doing something after going through a long experience.

The term "kung-fu" was, I believe, was used to refer to the Chinese martial arts in the era of Bruce Lee. First, it is correct in that the skill resulted from a perseverance training of the Chinese martial arts can be called "kung-fu". Second, Bruce Lee at that time introduced a new style of the Chinese martial arts that may have deserved a new way of addressing it, that is "kung-fu" instead of just self-defence or martial arts. That was the time, perhaps, when Jeet Kune Do was not yet well-known.

On the other hand, wu-shu literally means the arts of combat, and refers to the Chinese martial arts, which you know have many styles.

Thus, firstly, in fact wu-shu should perhaps refers better to the more classical and traditional styles of Chinese martial arts. However, nowadays wu-shu is more well-known to refer to the styles that are performed in championship tournaments in many places around the globe. Because these styles have been designed more for tournaments and performance, they don’t emphasize on the techniques and principles for combats.

Thus, actually kung-fu and wu-shu can refer to the same martial arts. It is perhaps the purposes that determine the differences – is the training aims at surviving or winning in combats, or just winning championship tournaments. However, of course the aims determine the way of the trainings.

Any corrections are welcome.

__________________
Chinese Martial Arts saying: You are a high mountain, but there are always higher mountains.

---

VeggiMomi

Tjang - Well said.

Also, the term "Wu Gong" means "Martial Skill". So, you may want to (for comparison sake) consider the difference between wushu "martial art" and wugong "martial skill."

This is the way I see it. In our school, we teach both. Wushu for those who want to compete and like the physical challenge and traditional for all. The problem with some schools is that they *only* teach wushu and don't emphasize the technique. They're taught to dance rather than learning that the movements they're making have an applicable basis that's just emphasized in wushu.

The fun, fancy moves of wushu can be considered the "art" of martial arts. The fighting technique and application can be considered the "skill" of martial arts. That's my opinion anyways.

__________________
Whenever people say 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.
Brigid Brophy

---

Tjang

Thanks, VeggiMomi, for your compliment, and for the additional information you have kindly given. Your opinions are very valuable.

First, the word Gong (in Wu Gong) and Kung (in Kung-fu) are, I believe, just one same word of the Chinese character, only the way it is written in Latin alphabets is different.

Second, because different people have different likes, dislikes, and purposes, different people learn the Martial Arts / Skills with different purposes too.

Some people learn it for "defence or fighting", some others learn it just for "getting fit or healthy", some others regard it as "performance arts", some others for "traditional cultural events and ceremonies", some others for "taking part in tournaments", some others for "becoming film stars", and there must also be people who practice the arts only to "earn some money."

No wonder, the emphasis will also be different, as you have said that some people may better be called to learn to dance kung-fu rather than to learn to apply it.

And I actually wonder if some of the above objectives can be considered to have lower respectable values. What is your opinion?

Finally, I would like to mention that in my area quite a long time ago, the Chinese martial arts also used to be called Kun-tao, which literally translates into the "fist".

__________________
Chinese Martial Arts saying: You are a high mountain, but there are always higher mountains.

---

ZillaBilla

Wu Shu is a performance sport, like gymnastics. Kung Fu is martial arts. However, in a literral transaltion Wu Shu means Martial Art and Kung Fu means something along the lines of Hard Work.

So, who would win in a fight a gymnast or a boxer? My guess is whoever hits hard in the right place would win.

However, some Wu Shu does look very cool.. some nice clips here:

http://www.beijingwushuteam.com/

---

VeggiMomi

Never thought of that. Makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tjang Second, because different people have different likes, dislikes, and purposes, different people learn the Martial Arts / Skills with different purposes too. Some people learn it for "defence or fighting", some others learn it just for "getting fit or healthy", some others regard it as "performance arts", some others for "traditional cultural events and ceremonies", some others for "taking part in tournaments", some others for "becoming film stars", and there must also be people who practice the arts only to "earn some money." No wonder, the emphasis will also be different, as you have said that some people may better be called to learn to dance kung-fu rather than to learn to apply it. And I actually wonder if some of the above objectives can be considered to have lower respectable values. What is your opinion?

I think they're both great. Wushu is a violent art. A great art. An art of the body and mind. We've taken something so violent and horrific (some of the moves are just down right dirty) like war and gained something beautiful out of it (physical fitness, discipline and healthy lifestyles). Of course, there are some exceptionally bad people out there that abuse their knowledge. But for those of us that are living our lives properly and as good martial artists, we have the luxury of having the benefits of Wushu without worrying about being attacked all the time, having our villages raped and pillaged and such (here in the U.S. anyway). In today's society of weaponry we don't *need* kung fu. We don't *need* to be the best fighters to survive. So there are a lot of people out there that don't care about the martial aspect and only want to look good. I say, as long as they're working hard to achieve it and respecting the martial aspect of what they're doing - More power to'em.

Personally for me, I believe that in order to be a well-rounded martial artist, you should know both sides of the art. The sports/dance side and the origins of it all - the fighting. I'm not a great fighter. I used to hate sparring, but the more I do it, the better I'm getting and the more interested I am in doing it because I'm starting to understand things a little better. I'm more of a forms person myself, and if I were to hide under my own umbrella I would only do forms. But I love the idea of being able to rock out a form like compulsory chang chuan and then be able to use all of the techniques in combat.

I was once told that you can't do both because it takes too long to study either of them. I disagree... Sure you may not be grand champion of the world in both by the time you're 25, but if you balance form, technique and theory, I think you'll be a better martial artist all around.

But.. that's just my opinion

__________________
Whenever people say 'We mustn't be sentimental,' you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add 'We must be realistic,' they mean they are going to make money out of it.
Brigid Brophy

---