I took a couple Kyokoshin classes. I was coaxed in by a friend who thought I would enjoy it. I was blown away by the ignorance of the school. During the introductory speech the teacher (shihan?) gave he informed the new students that kyokoshin karate was built to defeat every other style of martial art, and had done so. After this, the new students were sent to train with an elder student who worked us through basic stances and techniques (just like every other style). Throughout the evening of training I saw nothing that made the style look any better than my own, or any other. Infact, I felt hampered and disadvantaged by their sparring rules (No hand attacks to the head? That limits ones ability to set anything up.). Also, It was more of a "Blow For Blow" Brawling match, as none of my opponents used a thorough defence.
Now I must admit, Im from a pretty small town, so the classes we get here are in no way a representation of Martial art orginizations anywhere else. On top of that, it is unwise to judge a style by one school. So I dont. But this was still an eye opener for me... and kinda explains TO ME why they cut the footage of the one artist doing well.
Just my two cents.
PS. They have amazing cardio and conditioning
__________________
"In ruling, the sage attends to the stomach, not to the eye."- Tao Te Ching
Well, just to add to that post by Lotus, I didn't know which bloke in the clip was supposed to be WC (weird to have a Jap Wing Chun school anyhow, though I do know at least one exusts) but Wing Chun works from the clinch- from short distance, and there wasn't anyone doing that in the footage we saw!
Originally
Posted By: Lotus_41
I was blown away by the ignorance of the school.
”
strange...
the kyokoshin guys I train with are probably the most openminded ma-ists I've seen
much more than any CMA school around
“
Originally
Posted By: Lotus_41
They have amazing cardio and conditioning
”
I can totally agree to that....
Chief108
__________________
“
Question Authority. Question Society. Question Reality. Question Yourself. Question your conclusions, your judgments, your answers. Question this. If you question everything thoroughly enough, the truth will eventually hit you upside the head and you will know. But here’s a warning: It won’t be what you imagined. It won’t be even close.
Originally
Posted By: FightingFat
I think all the evidence in the Wing CHun vs. Anything is that Wing Chun loses
”
Well, in its admitted history, the style is incomplete.
It is the greatest project never to be finished, as far as I'm concerned.
Bruce Lee took issue with this very thing, and it was after fighting a famous nothern stylist he decided to do away with style; finding Wing Chun too limiting, not enough kicks, etc.
But what it does do, it does very, very well.
That's a happy thing.
And taking the post's questions to heart: It does no good to say "it depends" even though it is the absolute truth. This is a hypothesis, essentially, and its assumed parameters are,
1. That the combatants be of equal skill. (Just as the people in the video were not)
2. The combat take place under equal circumstances with no apparent advantage.
Really it is a question to judge the "superiourity" of the martial art.
And again, it does no good to say that this question cannot be answered, even though it is, once again, absolutely true that it can never be answered.
But where is the fun in a no-answer?
Let us assume for the moment that the poster meant "Shaolin Boxing" rather than the umbrella term Kung fu.
Let's look at this:
- Both have good breathing philosophies for generating chi/ki
Advantage: too close to call.
- Long, medium and close range striking techniques.
Advantage: Karate. That is their focus.
- Grappling and in-fighting.
Advantage: Shaolin. Only for the versatility involved.
- Ground Fighting; rising from prone, taking advantage of a fallen opponent.
Advantage: Karate. I think this is much more covered in Karate.
- Both have martial philosophies that influence their combat, giving them an advantage over the layman.
Advantage: too close to call.
- Versatility of techniques cross-situation.
Advantage: Shaolin. Karate lacks versatility. Many Kung fu masters say whatever happens in Karate, also happens in Shaolin, but because Shaolin is so big, people don't notice that.
Therefore I state a Kung fu master would beat a Karate master because Kung fu is more versatile, they have a greater array of techniques, and this is the only clear advantage I can see that a Kung fu master has over a Karate master of equal skill and circumstance.
fer cryin' out loud, this is why this kind of thing is useless
“
Originally
Posted By: Monkey Lifting Water
Therefore I state a Kung fu master would beat a Karate master because Kung fu is more versatile, they have a greater array of techniques, and this is the only clear advantage I can see that a Kung fu master has over a Karate master of equal skill and circumstance.
~Monkey Lifting Water
”
And I suppose you have a great depth in equal proportions in both areas of study upon which you base these conclusions?
Originally
Posted By: Monkey Lifting Water
Well, in its admitted history, the style is incomplete.
It is the greatest project never to be finished, as far as I'm concerned.
Bruce Lee took issue with this very thing, and it was after fighting a famous nothern stylist he decided to do away with style; finding Wing Chun too limiting, not enough kicks, etc.
But what it does do, it does very, very well.
That's a happy thing.
”
Errr- you do know Bruce never was taught past Chum Kui don't you? I mean, his whole 'no style' thing- his Jeet Kune Do (way of the intercepting fist)...How much did this guy want to learn Bui Jee?? Isn't the whole concept based on those ideas???
The explanation is next to meaningless. "Kung-Fu" - this is what ? Xing Yi ? Taiji ? Baji ? Mantis ? Hung Gar ? And to say that Karate addresses this and that better than any of those is a little "optimistic". The winner of any competition is the guy who imposes his gameplan, and has the edge on it. Add to this athletic skills, and you know the plot. Karate is a watered down version of old Karate, which directly came from certain CMA schools. So technically it is the same as certain CMA branches. The only thing you can say is that the guy who trains his stuff more and serious has the foot in the door, he could still fall to circumstances, make a mistakes, etc.
__________________ "Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases) "Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne "Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.
Originally
Posted By: Nik
Karate is a watered down version of old Karate,
”
There are several different types of karate being taught these days, sure some of the more popular styles that are taught are probably the watered down, easy to learn styles, but I'm sure there will be some places still teaching traditional karate.
As for a clip with the third fight in, i did find one, but he doesnt actually do as well as i can remember.
Originally
Posted By: Unkotare
And I suppose you have a great depth in equal proportions in both areas of study upon which you base these conclusions?
”
No, I do not have great depth and equal training in both areas.
Are we going to wait for someone who does before we have an answer to the question?
To give an answer is more important, in the context of this forum, than sifting through ho-hum givings like "You can't really say", "That can't be answered", or to say that you cannot answer without the "authority" to do so. Even if those responses are more accurate, honest and true than to answer the question itself. You have a point - do I have the authority to provide an answer? And even if I did; who is to measure that authority? If someone comes along of greater authority, and disagree, what happens? And something that often comes up in MA - if two people of equal authority and credibility completely disagree, who is "right"?
If you want to think along the lines of right-to-answer, ho-hum over the fact that it cannot be, then you are being taken down a line of thought that only results in the fact that there is no answer period, that no one can answer it, period, and that the world is entirely subjective. QED.
So, I took an academic approach, presenting a thesis and supporting it; no to say that is what is "right" or "true", but what for this instance of theory is proven.
If you disagree, present an argument.
If you agree, then say why.
But saying that it cannot be answered only leads to no answer, the issue is never thought about, and we all get stupider.
This is the result of when you have movie kung fu techniques rather than actual real skill and real techniques. You can see for a fact that the karate guys actually spar and practice their skill. The so called kung fu guys even when they had openings they didn't know how to close the gap, and you could even see the result of bad sparring with them pulling some of their strikes.
jeff
__________________ History will be kind to me for I intend to write it ~ Sir Winston Churchill
