Kungfu fighting animals that are pussies

[darrianation]

They did, but it didn`t work. Not only kung fu but many early people from North America, Asia & Africa have always observed & adopt the fighting meathods of animals. The First Nation people have mostly identify their warrior spirit with that of the bears, eagle & mountian lion. In South East Asia native warriors would relate their fiercness in combat with that of tigers, strength of elephants & stelthness of the snakes.

Human fighting so far base on western definition is boxing, many nonewesterners have a reputation of "fighting like an animal".

Human fighting, what is human fighting style anyway? I don`t think there is any, prehistorically, humans would run, then they learn to throw rocks, then they learn to use weapons. But when it came to hand to hand fighting they were very weak & helpess. It was always the survival of the fittest, but with martial art that weakness has been offset.

Animals are born fighters, they donot need any special training nor weapons to defend themselves. Humans are inventors they need a source of guidance.

Even our modern airplanes or flying machines were all base on the physics of birds & other mamals with flying abilities. Without those birds, probably we won`t have any airplanes.

Human style-
Well believe it or not humans are born fighters. As kids we have rough play just young tigers. As kids we try to get our way through intimidating our playmates, throwing fits, and even at times hitting or even biting.

Of course this is socially unacceptable and our parents punish us and our society admonishes us for it. So we learn to bide the social contract and grow up to be responsible law abiding adults, well at least most of us.

But man in his natural state is a beast where the strong rule, and the weak drool. Man will rule through intimidation and violence if he’s allowed to get away with it. It is natural for a man who gets a little authority to begin to practice unrighteous dominion. We have all seen plenty of cases of this, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong, Saddam Hussein, and so on, and so on. Look at all these huge banks and corporations who steal and bully whole countries as well as governments and us little folk.

As far is what is human style of fighting? There are natural things humans do in fights. When you have observed enough humans fighting you begin to see a pattern. You will notice there is a preflight ritual. First the Triggering event, then the interview, threats, and so on. Then the fighting, and you’ll notice another pattern develop, the most common techniques:

1) Punches (straight and looping)
2) Grabs
3) Clinches
4) headlocks
5) Tackles
6) Chokes

Sure there are a mired of other techniques but these are the most common among untrained humans. Remember kids they do the same thing in play it is instinctual. We are biologically primed to fight or flight we instinctually defend our honor, our families, our homes and property. This is human style, we are warring beasts, we are natural born fighters.

[konghan]

Quote by: As far is what is human style of fighting? There are natural things humans do in fights. When you have observed enough humans fighting you begin to see a pattern. You will notice there is a preflight ritual. First the Triggering event, then the interview, threats, and so on. Then the fighting, and you’ll notice another pattern develop, the most common techniques:

1) Punches (straight and looping)
2) Grabs
3) Clinches
4) headlocks
5) Tackles
6) Chokes

Sure there are a mired of other techniques but these are the most common among untrained humans. Remember kids they do the same thing in play it is instinctual. We are biologically primed to fight or flight we instinctually defend our honor, our families, our homes and property. This is human style, we are warring beasts, we are natural born fighters.[/QUOTE]


Yup, I agree those are human naturally fighting instincts and most of the time too its rolling around the ground until one of the guys gets too exhausted to fight.

Martial art was develop to improve those techniques. A good example is the eagle claw technique in which by observing the gripping power of the eagle man was able to develop that powerful choke & grip by attacking soft spots like the throat & joint locks. In the snake it was the accuracy of eye poking or gouging. In the monkey it was the ability of hit & run & dodging.

The same can be said about flying machines, it was by observing the mechanics of birds that man was able to create flying machines base on those animals.

Picking up those animal forms & convert them to human fighting techniques was the key in becoming a better & superior fighter than any ordinary human. By saying "animal form" it doesn`t mean we have to act & move like them but it is to have their kind of power, agility, kiness, mobility & reflexes.

That is why human fighters most of the time are no match against martial art fighters.

[yentao]

Okay, I am just gonna knock on a few of the fighting animals of the kungfu systems that use them, and one of the theories, cuz I want to know people's opinion on this, and also because I am sick of so many of these stupid kung fu schools and websites and TV documentaries claiming these systems are so superior when it is not true.

Now, I read on a website (and if this is wrong, blame the website), that the praying mantis system of kung fu was started when some guy wintessed a praying mantis and a cicada engaged in a fight. He observed the movements of the mantis to form the art. The part that bugs me is, the cicada has to be one of the DUMBEST insects on the face of the earth. Scientists even wonder how manages to survive. All you have to do is knock it onto its back and it can't even get up. Against a mantis, a cicada would ahve lost in 2 seconds, and that's if even the mantis had any reason to attack the cicada. Which means that this "fight" between the two cannot have occurred.

Another animal that bugs me is the tiger. The tiger is made out in the Chinese arts to some brave, resilient, fighter animal that attacks with such skill and accuracy. Yeah, it can hunt that way, but as a fighter, a tiger is a pussy in the cat world. Against a male African lion, the tiger loses 99% of the time. The tiger is only "quiet, calm, and composed," as the Chinese arts describe it, when it is hunting prey. In the face of a male African lion, it gets super jumpy. The only tiger to ever match the lion consistently was the Bengal tiger, which was/is not in China and is only a match because of its size (600 pounds) and since it lives in a confined space, it is highly aggressive for food and mates. The tiger on average hates to fight and it does not know how to fight. That is even why they had tigers come out at Russel Crowe in Gladiator. In reality, it would have been lions, but in reality, Russel Crowe might be dead if they'd used those. Well-fed tigers are usually like giant pussy cats, just with a bit of wilderness instinct in them (and a bigger body).

And that is not lying when people say "the heart of a lion" either, the lion is a very brave animal.

And what's with the monkey? How is a monkey a fighter, agaisnt other than maybe human that it bites or scratches, or another monkey, or an animal smaller and weaker than it??

Nowe the bear, at least the grizzly bear, I can understand. They have pretty much no match except for maybe an elephant, rhino, or hippo.

And the snake to, they are tough fighter as well (anacondas and pythons can be) anyhow.

It is typical animal movement imitation or maybe a few exagerration. Actually you can't predict what animal can do you just shocked on what they are capable of that is why doctors still observes them and continuously finding something new. None knew if a mantis would have fought with the cicada at that time but it did maybe the master put the both creatures together just for fun or curiosity ending up being inspired to make kung fu. A good advantage of animal styles is surprise. No one knew much martial arts before. The unusual ways always make surprises and the element of surprising your opponent is good when fighting. After all it doesn't matter as long it is useful. Monkey kung fu, has a very useful footwork and agile forms. But form is still not great only by its forms in needs strength in it that is why Tat Chun (Damo) and Lo Han was formed to achieve physical strength.

[yentao]

Nothing proves that Chinese fighting methods-weapons had no equal at their time....
Actually in the malay world (Malaysia-Indonesia-Philippines) there are many stories of chinese experts defeated by local masters (as well as local masters defeated by cma experts).

The Chinese were defeated by the Mongols, when the mongols tried to invade Indonesia they were defeated by Indonesian fighters (using silat fighting methods).....

Chinese merchants traveled a lot and it is also probable that indigeneous fighting methods and weapons were incorporated in kung fu....Actually double edged swords first appeared in Europe before chinese peoples started to use them.....
Exchanges happened but given the secrecy of chinese peoples concerning their martial arts I wouldn't say that so many natives learned cmas in south east asia...

I believe the Chinese where defeated because:

1. Emperor did not concern much about the welfare of the soldiers.
2.They concentrated in commercial. The silk road is starting to get prosperous.
3. They were caught by surprise they thought they can bribe the mongols but the mongols betrayed them.
4. The mongolian are barbarian raiders and most of their greatest warriors conquest on north china to Europe. China is nearer to mongolia than indonesia so it has great difference in the number of troops and how well prepared the soldiers were when they tried to invade indonesia.

5. Cavalry archers is a great advantage of the mongolians so they will fought more in range rather than in foot considering the China is a plain in terrain and archers are good advantage... They only saw a weak point in the Greatwall that is why they were able to conquer through. Cavalry is not an advantage to use in indonesia because of the terrain, land forms as archepeligo and the landscape is full of forest. It was never been easy to mobilize from water and charge through the shore by horse.

Indonesians are good seafarers and sailors they know how to fight in sea, at coasts, and forest battles, mongolians are not good at sea and live in mountains that is why they failed to conquer japan because they are not good sailors they can't manage easily to pass through high waves and tides. They also failed to conquer the entire eastern Europe consdering the more they go west the more their archery less effective because their opponent are having stronger and stronger armor as they mobilized. So technology is really essential.

[darrianation]

Yup, I agree those are human naturally fighting instincts and most of the time too its rolling around the ground until one of the guys gets too exhausted to fight.

What's wrong with winning by attrition?

Martial art was develop to improve those techniques. A good example is the eagle claw technique in which by observing the gripping power of the eagle man was able to develop that powerful choke & grip by attacking soft spots like the throat & joint locks. In the snake it was the accuracy of eye poking or gouging. In the monkey it was the ability of hit & run & dodging.

The same can be said about flying machines, it was by observing the mechanics of birds that man was able to create flying machines base on those animals.

Picking up those animal forms & convert them to human fighting techniques was the key in becoming a better & superior fighter than any ordinary human. By saying "animal form" it doesn`t mean we have to act & move like them but it is to have their kind of power, agility, kiness, mobility & reflexes.

That is why human fighters most of the time are no match against martial art fighters.

One of the principles of functionally is to keep the movements natural. Both natural to neuro-muscle (kinesiology) and startle responses. This means natural to humans, not animals.

Yes you can make improvements but if you make to many modifications then you brake the natural cycle. Movement will take longer to learn and harder to perform, and depending on how much modification and fine motor skill is brought into the movement it can actually be counter productive. At any rate it will be a less efficient way to train.

Know what happens in fighting and design your techniques, strategies, and tactics around what happens in real human fighting, not on fantasy fighting or animal fighting. That’s one of the many problems with TMAs, they have a lot of ingenious solutions to non-existent problems.

[konghan]

What's wrong with winning by attrition?



One of the principles of functionally is to keep the movements natural. Both natural to neuro-muscle (kinesiology) and startle responses. This means natural to humans, not animals.

Yes you can make improvements but if you make to many modifications then you brake the natural cycle. Movement will take longer to learn and harder to perform, and depending on how much modification and fine motor skill is brought into the movement it can actually be counter productive. At any rate it will be a less efficient way to train.

Know what happens in fighting and design your techniques, strategies, and tactics around what happens in real human fighting, not on fantasy fighting or animal fighting. That’s one of the many problems with TMAs, they have a lot of ingenious solutions to non-existent problems.

Look at it this way, the modern MMA as you are refering to trace its roots to the following:
1. animals
2. kung fu
3. karate, TKD, Judo, jujitsu, aikido, JKD,
4. MT
5. MMA

In other words thanks to those animals we have now practical MMA.

Take all that & man will still be fighting like Flash Gordon or Buck Roger.

[Broadsword2004]

Hey Krys, your post's links said pretty much what I had said in reference to lions vs. tigers; it said the lion pretty much always won, except against the Bengal tiger, which was highly ferocious and aggressive. There was a video of a tiger beating a lion, but that was extremely rare, it just happened to be caught on the video. Most of the time, the lion beat the tiger, which was why they went and looked for a more ferocious tiger, and found the Bengal.

Man though, how the hell can people call videogames like Grand Theft Auto 3 and such "too violent"!?!?!? When years ago they'd watch animals rip each other to shreds (and still do).

I find it fascinating to read about how different animals would fight each other, but I don't think I could ever watch one.

Oh there is a movie about tigers coming out, in case anyone wants to know. To the movie theatres.

One thing, now I may be totally off, but weren't the Mongols also stopped from invading Japan because a seastorm hit them both times they tried to invade?? (which led the Japanese to think their gods really REALLY WERE protecting them. I know that happened for some culture that tried to invade Japan.

Also, another thing the Mongols did that helped in battle was they wore silk under their armor. Now, I read this is a high school history textbook so maybe it is wrong, but according to it, when an arrow would strike their armor, it would pierce the armor, but not the silk. Thus the Mongol rider remaiend unharmed, and opponents thought they were not human. I say that might be wrong cuz those same stupid high school textbooks claimed that a fully armoured knight from the Middle Ages would not be able to get up if he fell of his horse, which is TOTALLY WRONG, WHOEVER WROTE THAT BOOK!?!?!?

[darrianation]

Look at it this way, the modern MMA as you are refering to trace its roots to the following:
1. animals
2. kung fu
3. karate, TKD, Judo, jujitsu, aikido, JKD,
4. MT
5. MMA

In other words thanks to those animals we have now practical MMA.

Take all that & man will still be fighting like Flash Gordon or Buck Roger.

Look Kung fu has some good stuff in it regardless whether it came from animals or not. It just has too much stuff, and a lot of unneeded stuff.

Off the subject of animals for a bit here, and on to gross motor skills and lack of over modification to natural instinctive human fighting methods. The best examples I can think of here are boxers.

The most common single natural technique for humans is the punch. Untrained humans throw wild often looping punches that also lack good aim.

Boxers have done some modifications but they did not over modify. I mean they straightened those punches out making them faster, more powerful, and with better aim. From the feet up a punch Jab, Cross, Hooks, and etc has became very scientific from the pivot of the foot, to the twisting of the hips and shoulders, etc. The skill is still primarily gross motor as well as natural. So it was modified but for the better.

Their was a study that one of my combatives instructor related to us several years ago that I think was interesting. It’s been awhile so I don’t remember all the small details but this is what happened.

Standards for study-
5 boxers (amateurs) and 5 karate guys in the same weight class. Both groups have an average of 3.2 years training.

1) They hit a pad that measures power (pounds per square inch). The boxers used a straight right (all in the study were right handed) or overhand and the karate guys used a reverse punches for one rep max power.

The boxers slightly edged the karate guys out, but not by much.

2) They then hit a bag as fast as they could for 10 seconds. This was measuring speed only...

The boxers won this one by a good margin; But they did notice a slight drop off (pace) towards the end of the 10 seconds from the karate guys

3) Then came a test of speed and power. They hit the bag for 10 seconds as hard and as fast as they could to get a ratio between speed and power. Again a slight pace drop of was witnessed by the karate guys.

Again the boxers blew away the karate guys.

What does this show? Well since the participants of the study were all the same size (weight class), so assuming close to the same size and strength the boxers have the superior technique (technical aspects). As well the boxers were in better physical condition as evidenced by the slight drop off the speed hitting by the karate guys.

I do not know how Kung FU guys would have done in this study. I imagine power would be relative to the Karate guys, I say this because the reverse punch is very powerful and I would have thought it would have at least matched the boxer’s power if not exceeded it. I think Kung Fu hand speed would be faster than the karate guys but I still feel they would loose to the speed/power ratio of the boxers.

This is just one small independent study so by it’s self doesn’t mean anything, but I find it interesting.

Having a larger study done with more participants from a larger sample group of styles just might (or might not) put the question of who has more efficient and effective punches (technical aspects) to rest.

And to get back to the to the animal question I never heard of boxers of old talk/write about studying animals to perfect their techniques. Boxing techniques came from trial and error and ring experience. They improved instinctual human techniques to make them more efficient and effective I: E faster more powerful, with good aim.

[m.artist]

Look at it this way, the modern MMA as you are refering to trace its roots to the following:
1. animals
2. kung fu
3. karate, TKD, Judo, jujitsu, aikido, JKD,
4. MT
5. MMA

In other words thanks to those animals we have now practical MMA.

Take all that & man will still be fighting like Flash Gordon or Buck Roger.

im going to have to disagree with that statement. only because, the people in india weren't the first nor only people to have came up with a way of fighting. do you not think that american indians, or greeks, or romans, had any type of fighting that was all their own? do you not think that some of that history was ingrained in the arts that we have now?
it's true that kung fu is the oldest SURVIVING art, but that doesn't it make it the oldest, nor the first
just my 2 cents

[konghan]

im going to have to disagree with that statement. only because, the people in india weren't the first nor only people to have came up with a way of fighting. do you not think that american indians, or greeks, or romans, had any type of fighting that was all their own? do you not think that some of that history was ingrained in the arts that we have now?
it's true that kung fu is the oldest SURVIVING art, but that doesn't it make it the oldest, nor the first
just my 2 cents

Everybody had a natural fighting form. The american indian warriors have always image themselves as an eagle or a wolf thats why they fight like one. The early romans, greeks & europeans warriors have only limited human fighting skills that are base mainly on the use of brute strength also on other attributes as what darrianation have pointed out.

And it was in the east that martial artist have excelled against those human fighters. And later on those skills will serve as a basis for todays` fighting arts development to become more deadlier.

[konghan]

Look Kung fu has some good stuff in it regardless whether it came from animals or not. It just has too much stuff, and a lot of unneeded stuff.

Off the subject of animals for a bit here, and on to gross motor skills and lack of over modification to natural instinctive human fighting methods. The best examples I can think of here are boxers.

The most common single natural technique for humans is the punch. Untrained humans throw wild often looping punches that also lack good aim.

Boxers have done some modifications but they did not over modify. I mean they straightened those punches out making them faster, more powerful, and with better aim. From the feet up a punch Jab, Cross, Hooks, and etc has became very scientific from the pivot of the foot, to the twisting of the hips and shoulders, etc. The skill is still primarily gross motor as well as natural. So it was modified but for the better.

Their was a study that one of my combatives instructor related to us several years ago that I think was interesting. It’s been awhile so I don’t remember all the small details but this is what happened.

Standards for study-
5 boxers (amateurs) and 5 karate guys in the same weight class. Both groups have an average of 3.2 years training.

1) They hit a pad that measures power (pounds per square inch). The boxers used a straight right (all in the study were right handed) or overhand and the karate guys used a reverse punches for one rep max power.

The boxers slightly edged the karate guys out, but not by much.

2) They then hit a bag as fast as they could for 10 seconds. This was measuring speed only...

The boxers won this one by a good margin; But they did notice a slight drop off (pace) towards the end of the 10 seconds from the karate guys

3) Then came a test of speed and power. They hit the bag for 10 seconds as hard and as fast as they could to get a ratio between speed and power. Again a slight pace drop of was witnessed by the karate guys.

Again the boxers blew away the karate guys.

What does this show? Well since the participants of the study were all the same size (weight class), so assuming close to the same size and strength the boxers have the superior technique (technical aspects). As well the boxers were in better physical condition as evidenced by the slight drop off the speed hitting by the karate guys.

I do not know how Kung FU guys would have done in this study. I imagine power would be relative to the Karate guys, I say this because the reverse punch is very powerful and I would have thought it would have at least matched the boxer’s power if not exceeded it. I think Kung Fu hand speed would be faster than the karate guys but I still feel they would loose to the speed/power ratio of the boxers.

This is just one small independent study so by it’s self doesn’t mean anything, but I find it interesting.

Having a larger study done with more participants from a larger sample group of styles just might (or might not) put the question of who has more efficient and effective punches (technical aspects) to rest.

And to get back to the to the animal question I never heard of boxers of old talk/write about studying animals to perfect their techniques. Boxing techniques came from trial and error and ring experience. They improved instinctual human techniques to make them more efficient and effective I: E faster more powerful, with good aim.

Boxers are good in a control ring tournament or in a pre agreed fair fight between two individuals. A lot of times the referee had to step in to break up the fighters becuase they get entangle up or if they fall to the ground.

I have no doubt that that test was accurate, in fact I myself may have a poor rating against a boxer in that kind of test. But in a fight it will be a different story.

And With due respects to boxers: I have spar with boxers both amature boxers & professional boxers who are ranked in the top 15 of IBF (International Boxing Federation Pacific region) light weight division ( this was during my prime years in the 70`s). And their skill is very limited and easy to off set with kicks, throws, & sweep & a little martial punching. Off course if I were to fight in boxing rules they`ll probably easily knock me down.

In fact one boxer got his arm kicked swollen that it immobilized him in a san shou tournament. The boxer couldn`t throw a punch becuase he was out of range, the san shou guy just stood there & keep throwing left & right kicks without even using any takedowns.

But again if we are to look at the roots of todays MMA they can be trace back to the animals style kung fu. Boxers definetly have no animals roots thats` why their techniques are limited that`s when martial art comes in to improve or add more techniques.

The only combat thing that humans are capable of developing without any animal forms or help are weapons, from stones, sling shot, bow & arrow, long bow, cross bow, muskets, rifles, machine guns, grenades, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons & weapons of mass destruction. All these are human natural combat instinct, THE USE & DEVELOPMENT OF WEAPONS.

[Pitbullz]

the mongols were defeated in vietnam and SE asia not by the locals..but by malaria...its history and their tactics are just inadequate....they are used to foghting cavalry style.

[konghan]

same in Japan, twice the mongol armada of invading warship got wiped out by typhoon. The gods were on the Japanese side at that time.

ALso, the mongols succeeded in conquering China with the help of Chinese generals who were not happy with the existing dynasty at that time. And in the end it would be the chinese culture that would conqurered the mongols.

[yentao]

same in Japan, twice the mongol armada of invading warship got wiped out by typhoon. The gods were on the Japanese side at that time.

ALso, the mongols succeeded in conquering China with the help of Chinese generals who were not happy with the existing dynasty at that time. And in the end it would be the chinese culture that would conqurered the mongols.

Mongolian horde never been good in hot weathers and sea battles. They even had a hard time dealing with poisons from plants and snakes and diseases. The farther they are in their home the more they became weaker in number and preparation. The only country i knew who was able to conquer from a far is america with the help of aircraft.

[Pitbullz]

there was this general who fell in love w a concubine,he opened up the gates for the mongols to enter in return the mongols would give hime the concubine.the flaw is not w the engineering of the greatwall,its with the people manning them...specificaly this general that i was talking about...the wall was so succesful that it repelled all barnbarians out and to the west where they sacked rome and created the dark ages...attila was one of the frustrated warlords that drove west.