Which version of "MMA" has the least rules ?

Brutal. Wahts teh story behinf that?

 

that looks like just a gym fight. real cowardly to seriously hurt the guy by breaking his arm.

 

Eye strikes can be practiced, and are practiced, but not in "live sparring". You can practice against pads, bags, dummies etc., or simulate an "eye gouge" in sparring just as an armbar is a simulation of a badly broken arm.

Otherwise it is practiced for real in real fight situation.

 

Well, I'm not assuming that "kung fu guy" knew what he was doing at all.
Most of these kung fu guys who get into these matches with grapplers are deluded "martial artists" who learned some fake kung fu from some fake kung fu master. At best it's traditional acrobatics.
I'm talking about real kung fu that was practiced as hand-to-hand combat in times of war.

Obviously no one wants to be underneath a BJJ guy like that. A man who'd practiced finger strikes and gouges may have taken the grapplers' eyes out as him came in.

I totally disagree with anyone saying "eye gouges" etc. aren't a technique, and that everyone can do them equally proficiently. Of course, MMA athletes dont practice them as a technique because they are banned in every version of the sport for other reasons.

 

Yeah, I guess he's trying to prove the point "Kung Fu sucks" . :-(

 

Seems to be a sad trend with "not real" kung fu fighters, you still have that child mentality where you saw "real" kung fu masters in movies and you think they can handle systems that work. No, Kung Fu can't handle boxing, BJJ, Mui That or anything remotely useful in a fight. These martial arts are hung on the art instead of practicality.

 

How large a sampling is there to draw that conclusion? The inadequacy of one particular guy against one particular opponent on a given day is not in and of itself empirical proof of the deficiency of the style practiced by that one inadequate guy. Also, there are what - thousands of regional fighting arts that were developed in China over the last two thousand years or so (all falling under the umbrella of "kung fu", which itself is a term that doesn't really refer to any one style)?

I see MMA snobs dismissing "kung fu" all the time as though it were a single unified discipline with identifiable characteristics, like judo or savate. This isn't the case.

 

Cung Le was a rather successful san shou fighter. San Shou is an offshoot of traditional Kung Fu.

 

Show me evidence to the contrary and I will believe u.

 

That's the point I've been trying to get acros on my thread about Jeet Kune Do. One fights like they train. Whereas a boxer might practice a jab-cross-hook combo and a MMA fighter might train a jab-cross-low kick combo - I train with fingerjab-groin kick-double leg takedown combos. So when I'm face to face with someone in the street - my combinations are already geared towards realistic situations.

Just to clarify - I'm not a street fighter or bad ass or anything. I do my best to avoid fights - but like John Wayne said - "if you're looking for trouble I'll be happy to oblige ya."

 

On the contrary, I'm not talking about stuff in movies. I'm talking about the kung fu techniques practiced on the battlefield and in the lawlessness of medieval China. Proven, tested, practical.
All the flowery acrobatics and the forms and ritual tradition and all that Hollywood crap is of no interest, I'm talking about practicality.

Obviously, no one's training kung fu to survive in medieval society any more, but some of the knowledge must still exist. Even if 95% of what you find in most kung fu schools is crap, there are people who do understand that certain things work in a real fight and understand which of the techniques are real.
But those people probably have no desire to prove it in a challenge match, or become a combat athlete. It's as childish to assume that MMA tournaments are the true test of what works in a real fight as it is to assume what you seen in movies is real.

 

First, again, show me evidence of practicality. As far as I'm concerned, what you say is bull**** that you want to believe. Until I see some concrete evidence of Kung Fu's practicality in a real fight against REAL fighters and not street scrubs what you say is based 100% on faith. UFC was created to prove which combat sport is most practical. Kung Fu and other alike art forms failed. Kung Fu's punching bears no power either, boxing's where it's at. All evidence that has been presented to us to this day point that basic boxing, mui thai and grappling are the systems to train for the best results.

Your make-believe kung fu that was practiced on battlefields etc hasn't shown **** against todays systems. It's old, refined ART FORM. It's by no means a combat system that could shut down other combat systems.

Basically, it would be me saying that wrestlers were whooping up on Kung fu fighters during those battlefields of lawlessness China without bringing any evidence. Having faith in the fact that Kung Fu was any more effective then than it is now is purely speculative.

 

First off, I agree with you that martial arts need to be pressure tested. However, there are a couple points that you should consider:

* Although I'm not an expert in Chinese military history, I'm willing to bet that whatever hand-to-hand systems they used back then were fairly pressure tested. Not because it's TeH De4dl33 Kung Fu, but because whenever people are punching/kicking/grappling each other, they learn pretty quickly what works and what doesn't. Given that there are thousands of systems (many of which were exterminated thanks to our friend Mao's cultural policies) in a WIDE variety of different settings, I doubt that they were all useless...which is not to say that the modern schools calling themselves "kung fu" are the same thing as kung fu as practiced way back when. It's rather implausible that large numbers of aggressive young thugs--which is what many of these martial artists were--wouldn't get into scraps now and again.

* "Kung Fu" WAS pressure tested during China's Nationalist period in Lei Tai matches, which were pretty close to NHB...though I'm not sure if groundfighting was permitted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai

Interestingly, one of the best fighters was a Shuai-Jiao wrestler. In any event, Lei Tai matches are still practiced (under more stringent rules) in Taiwan, where many martial artists fled following Mao's takeover. If you look on Youtube, you can find some "pure" kung fu styles being practiced in the 1986 Lei Tai / Kuoshu matches:

[YT]oIuUeu2B3qA[/YT]

...along with their modern equivalents:

[YT]CR-K_xD_ML8[/YT]

 

Be more specific. Contrary of what? You need to highlight which part of my post you're addressing.

Your problem, and the problem of most MMA snobs, is that you judge based on the very small sampling provided by interdisciplinary competitions under specific sets of rules (which in many cases can easily said to be more reflective of the head to head skill level of the individual combatants; and at the most can be said to reflect on one specific regional or otherwise highly specialized and isolated discipline - not "all two millenia worth of the diverse Chinese fighting styles in aggregate", which is the accepted practical but not literal definition of "kung fu".)

It's easy to say "OMGLOL kung fu movies are so INACCURATE!". Yeah, no **** Sherlock. They're ****ing movies.

Most MMA people have no idea about actual kung fu (which is nothing like what's shown in any movie...the closest to "real" would be Jet Li, who applied techniques he used in competition - but even that doesn't represent the traditional arts taught in China as those are watered down competition techniques - not true "martial arts" taught for the purpose of self-defense at whatever cost") because of sheer ignorance. Through no fault of their own, mind you. It's not that there's anything magical or mystical about it, it's that it's kept very clandestine due to the exclusivity that permeates all Chinese culture. Virtually no Westerners have ever seen authentic traditional kung fu - I know this because I happen to be indirectly acquainetd with one of the only Caucasians in the world (Russian and raised in China) who is authorized to teach it. Traditional kung fu is taught to a select few by an extremely rare few. It is highly based on practicality and efficiency, and doesn't look the least bit like the choreographed ballet you see in some kung-fu movies, nor the ridiculous "chop-chop" style seen in some others.

There's no way to "prove" or "disprove" anything as no practitioner of the authentic traditional martial arts has ever applied them in an interdisciplinary competition setting; nor will they ever, most likely. There are plenty of hacks running around teaching bull**** "Kung Fu" that has nothing to do with the practical hand-to-hand combat disciplines passed down through countless generations in Chinese culture, just as there aer charlatans teaching everything else under the sun. Don't judge based on those clowns. Accept that the MMA vs. Kung Fu debate has to be chalked up to a question mark due to "insufficient data". There just isn't any record of comparison between the two (and even so, as I've said, it isn't really "two", as kung fu is such a broad and inclusive term), and don't hold your breath.

 

I would argue that it's much harder to pull something off that you haven't applied in sparring with some level of contact and accuracy. I'm not quite sure that eye gouges and armbars are equivalent--one cannot get an opponent into a position where an eye gouge is inevitable and then increase the pressure until he taps. This is especially true when you're using them in strikes as opposed to grappling drills.

That being said, if it was possible to accurately/safely simulate eye-gouges in sparring (along with groin shots, biting, whatever), the fighter with that extra training would have a definite advantage over his "MMA rules" opponent as long as he doesn't neglect other areas of his game--including orthodox MMA.