What's better Kung FU (general martial arts) or Special Forces training

[NakedJehutyV2]

like elite military?

or those fancy kung fu moves

[OculusMortis]

Well most western military forces are trained in a form of hand-to-hand combat derived from the Sykes-Fairburn techniques of WW2, very deadly techniques meant to kill and incapacitate quickly and mercilessly.

While someone well trained in kung fu would undoubtedly be a dangerous opponent most versions of kung fu taught nowadays are more sports than martial arts, and very rarely feature full contact in sparring.

I feel in most situations a well trained elite soldier is going to take down the guy trained in kung fu, the SF guy's techniques will be simpler, less elaborate, but more deadly.

[Peoples_General]

Kali and MuayThai are more dangerous than Kung Fu. And as far as Kung Fu is concerned there's no training with firearms....

[uknesvuinng]

It really depends upon the form and mastery of said form. Military martial arts are generally fast to the kill, whereas other martial arts tend to have a less lethal philosophy. What would actually be considered "kung fu" (there's a lot of chinese language stuff I'm too lazy to get into) emphasizes learning to fight so that you can avoid fighting unless it is truly necessary. And the people with a real mastery (a few decades) of certain forms can do some crazy things and don't necessarily have to worry about things like guns. It's rather impressive the speed, precision, accuracy, endurance, and force of which a well trained human body is capable.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a link that describes in detail some of the military type close combat techniques.

http://www.wanderworks.com/chilichok...atives_toc.htm

Which is better will probably depend on whether you want to spar with people in tournaments or gain some spiritual insight/discipline or whether you want to learn the best way to gouge some guy's eyes out and smash his skull in with your bootheel, or prevent him doing the same to you.

If I wanted to get in shape or pursure martial arts as a lifestyle/hobby I'd probably pick something more traditional. If I was getting dropped into a warzone and going to have to fight for my life then I'd rather be trained in the military stuff.

[TrustNo1]

A lot of military training is based off martial arts.

Martial arts schools still teach you how to kill someone easily, they don't encourage it of course until you are in a life and death situation, but both are equally lethal if you wanted it to be.

I think kung fu would have the advantage of speed, agility and pressure points.

[OculusMortis]

Martial arts schools still teach you how to kill someone easily, they don't encourage it of course until you are in a life and death situation, but both are equally lethal if you wanted it to be.

I think kung fu would have the advantage of speed, agility and pressure points.

Depends on the Martial Art, most Kung Fu taught in the West is more sport than Martial Art and has few moves which will do more than incapacitate, maybe kill.
But military CQB techniques are solely lethal with the odd few moves thrown in for hard arrests; grace, speed and pressure points will not help you when the soldier breaks your leg while you pirouette, and then boots you in the face
Because of the sporty nature of Kung Fu and most Westernized Martial Arts few people will have sparred properly (i.e. anything other than essentially playing Tag with elaborate kicks and punches), Whereas most military H2H training involves very painful lessons in what happens if you miss a block or fail to knock the opponent to the floor.

This is just my 2p after all but I would put money on the SF guy over the Kung Fu student any day, however if it was a student of Bujinkan Vs SF guy I would probably reconsider .

[uknesvuinng]

Depends on the Martial Art, most Kung Fu taught in the West is more sport than Martial Art and has few moves which will do more than incapacitate, maybe kill.
But military CQB techniques are solely lethal with the odd few moves thrown in for hard arrests; grace, speed and pressure points will not help you when the soldier breaks your leg while you pirouette, and then boots you in the face
Because of the sporty nature of Kung Fu and most Westernized Martial Arts few people will have sparred properly (i.e. anything other than essentially playing Tag with elaborate kicks and punches), Whereas most military H2H training involves very painful lessons in what happens if you miss a block or fail to knock the opponent to the floor.

This is just my 2p after all but I would put money on the SF guy over the Kung Fu student any day, however if it was a student of Bujinkan Vs SF guy I would probably reconsider .

I suppose it really depends on the school of Kung Fu. Tae Kwan Do in its American form is just a sport, with little actual fight value. I haven't personally seen a Kung Fu form that is just sport.

Also, good luck to the soldier trying to break the leg of a guy whom he can never make contact with because of his grace.

[TrustNo1]

Depends on the Martial Art, most Kung Fu taught in the West is more sport than Martial Art and has few moves which will do more than incapacitate, maybe kill.
But military CQB techniques are solely lethal with the odd few moves thrown in for hard arrests; grace, speed and pressure points will not help you when the soldier breaks your leg while you pirouette, and then boots you in the face
Because of the sporty nature of Kung Fu and most Westernized Martial Arts few people will have sparred properly (i.e. anything other than essentially playing Tag with elaborate kicks and punches), Whereas most military H2H training involves very painful lessons in what happens if you miss a block or fail to knock the opponent to the floor.

This is just my 2p after all but I would put money on the SF guy over the Kung Fu student any day, however if it was a student of Bujinkan Vs SF guy I would probably reconsider .

I'm talking about the original martial arts from China and Japan. These American schools are a joke, mainly because it's illegal to kill anyone so most teachers steer away from anything lethal. I don't know about any other styles but one of the requirements for black belt in my style was 60 minutes of full contact sparring at full speed.
I haven't seen anyone pirouette before while fighting but to every strike on the body there is a defence against it, so if any military guy were to strike a martial artist the MA would be able to defend themselves easily enough. Military fighting looks more based on strength to break necks and limbs and knock out people and whatever else. Strength is great but it requires greater effort because it's slower.

[OculusMortis]

I'm talking about the original martial arts from China and Japan. These American schools are a joke, mainly because it's illegal to kill anyone so most teachers steer away from anything lethal. I don't know about any other styles but one of the requirements for black belt in my style was 60 minutes of full contact sparring at full speed.
I haven't seen anyone pirouette before while fighting but to every strike on the body there is a defence against it, so if any military guy were to strike a martial artist the MA would be able to defend themselves easily enough. Military fighting looks more based on strength to break necks and limbs and knock out people and whatever else. Strength is great but it requires greater effort because it's slower.

I concede on this point, because the only forms of chinese Martial Arts i have come across were very westernised, and didnt feature any truely incapacitating or lethal strikes.

[FeloniousMonk]

oh dear, this will be a fun one

Kali and MuayThai are more dangerous than Kung Fu. And as far as Kung Fu is concerned there's no training with firearms....

Eskrima and Muay Thai can both be very combat effective but there are many forms of kung fu as well as systems from other regions that can be just as effective in the right hands. All else being equal a twenty year student of wing tsung is probably going to fare better than a guy who's been training muay thai for only a couple of years.

What so many people in this thread are neglecting to realize is that "kung fu" is an extremely broad term than by definition can be applied to virtually any activity in which skill is aquired through effort but is commonly used to encompass hundreds of Chinese fighting styles, many of them completely unknown to all but a few dozen practitioners.

Military martial arts are generally fast to the kill, whereas other martial arts tend to have a less lethal philosophy.

And the people with a real mastery (a few decades) of certain forms can do some crazy things and don't necessarily have to worry about things like guns.

Two quick points. First of all the US military places a greater emphasis on incapacitation over lethality in its' various CQC methods. Sometimes it's necessary to kill but submission, if possible, is the preferred outcome.

Also, I don't care how good a martial artist one is no one ever is free from worrying about a gun. It's incredibly rare to defend against a knife with unarmed techniques and a near impossibility to do so against a firearm. There are ways but they require massive amounts of luck in that you have to already be in a good position to get the gun in your hands. Extremely rare.

But military CQB techniques are solely lethal with the odd few moves thrown in for hard arrests; grace, speed and pressure points will not help you when the soldier breaks your leg while you pirouette, and then boots you in the face

Speed is no less important to proper execution of technique than strength. Agility, balance, timing, and proper knowledge of how the human body works and how to exploit its' weaknesses are key to any successful form of hand to hand combat.

I suppose it really depends on the school of Kung Fu. Tae Kwan Do in its American form is just a sport, with little actual fight value. I haven't personally seen a Kung Fu form that is just sport.

Tae Kwon Do in its' Korean form is also just a sport. As a combat art it's a good base for conditioning and discipline but is terribly lacking in effective techniques. It's wonderful for cardiovascular conditioning and muscle development, though.

I'm talking about the original martial arts from China and Japan. These American schools are a joke, mainly because it's illegal to kill anyone so most teachers steer away from anything lethal. I don't know about any other styles but one of the requirements for black belt in my style was 60 minutes of full contact sparring at full speed.
I haven't seen anyone pirouette before while fighting but to every strike on the body there is a defence against it, so if any military guy were to strike a martial artist the MA would be able to defend themselves easily enough. Military fighting looks more based on strength to break necks and limbs and knock out people and whatever else. Strength is great but it requires greater effort because it's slower.

Couple things, I'll make this one quick.

1. Martial arts did not originate in China nor Japan.

2. It's illegal to kill people in most countries so that is not what alters the style of training in America. Blame people like Joe Corley.

3. 60 minutes? You sure about that? The best professional fighters in the world barely last into the double digits.

4. Strength is useless without technique but technique is useless without strength.

[FeloniousMonk]

To answer the original question of this thread: impossible to determine. Different militaries have different styles of combat training. Different styles of martial arts are better for different people and fare differently depending on the style they're being pitted against. Try to remember that the majority of close quarter combat techniques taught in most militaries around the world are directly derived from well established martial arts techniques.

The biggest difference is that most martial arts take years if not decades to learn. Military CQC usually needs to be taught in a matter of weeks and is thus stripped down to its' most core necessities.

[TrustNo1]

It's incredibly rare to defend against a knife with unarmed techniques

Couple things, I'll make this one quick.

1. Martial arts did not originate in China nor Japan.

2. It's illegal to kill people in most countries so that is not what alters the style of training in America. Blame people like Joe Corley.

3. 60 minutes? You sure about that? The best professional fighters in the world barely last into the double digits.

4. Strength is useless without technique but technique is useless without strength.

If the person knows how to use the knife then yes, but if you're on the street and some guy comes up to you to steal your wallet, usually they are using intimidation and not knife skill to get the wallet. If someone holds a knife pointed at you it's most likely they don't know how to use it and if they come at you it is easy to defend. But it's best just to give them your wallet

1. Every tribe and nation and region has it's own fighting style for war and self defence. The martial arts we know today like karate and kung fu originated in China and Japan.

3. Yes I'm sure. The style is kiaido ryu and is mainly taught in New Zealand but it is a form of karate with a lot of weapon work from the Philipenes and a lot of katas come from all different styles. One of the requirements to receive your black belt and dans is to last in a 60 minute full contact sparring against people of your level and higher. You are judged on technique and it doesn't matter if you lose, what matters is you can keep going while still being able to keep up at a steady pace.

You also have to do 100 push ups and 100 sit ups, all katas from white belt, all techniques from white belt, all weapon katas, you have to know each technique and kata's name before you perform them and you have to know a lot of pressure points, what they do, their names and demonstrate them.

5. To break a plank of wood all you need is speed and technique, not strength. There are certain parts of the body that only need speed and accuracy to be effected, learning a martial art does develope strength but you don't need strength to win a fight.

[Beal]

When was the last time kung fu or similiar martial arts where actually used to fight a war? 500 years or so? Where as modern combat technique have been used frequently, by people not only wanting to kill their enemies, but by people who also want better ways to kill their enemies. They've been adapted to our modern world just as kung fu was adapted to the time it was native to.

[TrustNo1]

When was the last time kung fu or similiar martial arts where actually used to fight a war? 500 years or so? Where as modern combat technique have been used frequently, by people not only wanting to kill their enemies, but by people who also want better ways to kill their enemies. They've been adapted to our modern world just as kung fu was adapted to the time it was native to.

The human body is still the same.