Why is Kung Fu not considered to be truly effective in actual combat?

[yipmanfan]

the problem might be the training methods. if u look at the arts that are considered effective, its because they spar and fight eachother so much. if u want to be good at fighting, u have to fight. the more u fight the better. mt, boxing, judo, bjj, wrestling are all effective because they spend so much time sparring/grappling/fighting one another.it doesnt matter how good u have a technique down, or how hard u train, if u arent sparring vs partners who want to kick ur ass as well on a very consistent basis, u arent gonna be able to fight effectively.

i was talkin to some guy who worked at a shitty mcdojo. he was tellin me how they have started to train in judo at their school, and how some of them really like it and want to compete in judo. so i asked him often they do randori. they fruitcake had never even heard of randori. they just take turns throwing eachother willingly at the school, and think they can go compete.

sparring/fighting is probobly the most important aspect of training. in fact, i spar so much that i dont do enough bagwork. and guess what, despite the fact that i spend much less time on bagwork and technique, i can fight well because i have been sparring about 3 times a week for past 8 months or so.

and you don't train in kung fu... so how do you know what the methods are? You are right about the amount of time spent will make you better fighting and that there are a lot of crappy schools and teachers, but it is the application from the individual and how they train. If you fight as well as you brag, you would know not to assume things about systems you do not study.

[EmptyneSs]

and you don't train in kung fu... so how do you know what the methods are? You are right about the amount of time spent will make you better fighting and that there are a lot of crappy schools and teachers, but it is the application from the individual and how they train. If you fight as well as you brag, you would know not to assume things about systems you do not study.

ur the ones complaining how kung fu sucks ass not me.

btw im glad i dont train in kung fu

[sdizier]

ur the ones complaining how kung fu sucks ass not me.

btw im glad i dont train in kung fu

With remarks like that is only shows that you have not learned anything from your art. Your comments are full of "EmptyneSs" so to speak. :-)

[EmptyneSs]

With remarks like that is only shows that you have not learned anything from your art. Your comments are full of "EmptyneSs" so to speak. :-)

as i said before, ur the ones complaining that ur art sux balls, not me so stfu

[yipmanfan]

ur the ones complaining how kung fu sucks ass not me.

btw im glad i dont train in kung fu

I'm glad you don't as well. What a brilliant retort.

[SergeTk]

Both the Chings and their european allies feared the kung fu rebellions in the boxer rebellion for their skill in hand to hand combat. So tell me again why kung fu isnt effective???

Don't compare today with ancient China they fought to death back then, today you brake someone’s hand and you get sued and arrested even in self-defense.

[jubaji]

Don't compare today with ancient China they fought to death back then, today you brake someone’s hand and you get sued and arrested even in self-defense.

Ah, to be young...

[sherwinc]

Both the Chings and their european allies feared the kung fu rebellions in the boxer rebellion for their skill in hand to hand combat. So tell me again why kung fu isnt effective???

you dont need to prove if kungfu is effective in the ring/UFC/etc.... because the evidence is already made at the past..... what the kungfu ancestors made before is an effective evidence since in the past - you could not be put to court if you break someones forearm using kungfu.....

[HtTKar]

Lack of Humility

But the past doesnt really matter right now. Almost all civilizations had a method of fighting, however, some fighting techniques were better than others.

Yes; there is evidence to say that Kung Fu could be effective, but that doesnt mean that it is at this time.

An art that does not evolve and adapt to modern times is not effective.

What made Kung Fu so effective in the past is that it was constantly evolving. If someone had something to contribute to the art, the knowledge was taken most humbly. Then the knowledge was integrated into the art. Now however, people seem to say that "it worked fine in the past, it must be good now".
That is only an assumption.

It's almost like kung fu has snubbed off all other arts as being deficient. But remember Kung Fu evolved by aquiring knowledge and integrating it into a better artform. Not by rejecting everything that wasn't Kung Fu. Kung fu did not just materialize.

If you have to fight for your life, any knowledge gained has to be used to your advantage.

[sdizier]

Yes; there is evidence to say that Kung Fu could be effective, but that doesnt mean that it is at this time.

You could say that about every art.

[Ironpalm]

1234567890

[Ironpalm]

2468011214

[jubaji]

Just because we train slowly in the air (when YOU are looking, anyway) dont be foolish enough to believe an art lasted this long without being effective.

.......................................

[Ironpalm]

.......................................

Yep, you seem to be runnin outta steam jumanji. Sorry your video games dont have any buttons for this so we understand you being in over your head. as usual.

[jubaji]

Yep, you seem to be runnin outta steam jumanji. Sorry your video games dont have any buttons for this so we understand you being in over your head. as usual.

Oh yeah, that's the problem. You are just too complex for me!