Information needed on style

someotherguy, i thought ur original question was what Pek Kwar was? Yet when someone was kind enough to provide info on the style all u do is bash that style. what is ur beef, man! It is obvious that the human body is not like a monkey and monkey style does not strictly imitates the movements of a monkey. Animal styles do not seek to copy the animal but to use some of the principles used by animals that r helpful to good use.

Apparently Pek Kwar is not monkey style.

Found web stuff that indicates Pek Kwar is cantonese for Pi qua.

Tai Shing Pek Kwar IS monkey style kung fu. The direct translation isn't "monkey kung fu" but it is the name of a popular Chinese system. I just went to Google and typed in pek kwar, got several hits. Typed in shaolin pek kwar and got several more hits including this one.

http://tspk.com/english/pekkwar.htm


Someotherguy,
No one ever said a human was a monkey. MAGr was only saying that some of the movements and techniques are BASED on a monkey’s movement. Just like early airplane design were BASED on birds, more specifically the shape of the wing in order to create lift. An airplane isn't a bird but it still flew because of the observations of birds. For someone who claims to have studied "studied fluid dynamics and mechanics for 3 years" you seem to be having a hard time grasping this basic concept. You don't have to be a monkey to mimic one. The world is full of advancements based on the OBSERVATIONS of other non related components. There are a variety of Chinese martial arts that are derived from the observations of animals, insects and reptiles.

You complain that MAGr was committing personal attacks but your second post directed at him was condescending. It's not his fault you didn't make the connection.

What you refer to as beatyfull bu impractical are the forms. What you see on tv are the forms. Fighting never looks like the forms. If someone sees the si lum tao form from wing chun, they wouldnt understand its pactical application. Ok there are some excessive movement, but the forms are supposed to teach you balance, grace, breathing, flexibility, and the movement. When they fight it doesnt look likt that. The forms contain the principles, they are part of a martial art. There are two words in martial arts. MARTIAL and ART. Just because its not 100% practical, and wouldnt stand up in the UFC does not make it invalid. Some people appreciate grace of movement, they apreciate meditation, thats not going to save you ion a fight is it? Not everything has to be 100% about fighting. And that is not to say that those animal styles are not applicablre to combat, its just that their sole purpose is not combat.

Thety contain 'secrets' and 'treasures' within the forms that can be applied to combat, they contain grappling techniques, they contain striking methods, different types of fist allignment.

Again, if you dont know then all you have to do is ask, rather than dismiss.

be well

This is what I was talking about, the use in fighting. If you wish to do MA for non-combat reasons then of course that is perfectly acceptable and I never claimed it was "invalid" if you seek non-combat goals from MA. Your answer has essentially agreed with what I was originally proposing - that animal styles are not the most practical for fighting.

Its both!!!!
Through the forms you get the application of the effective techniques. The combat non combat goals are interklinked, they should be interlinked. Thats why it MARTIAL ARTS, notice again TWO words. They are intelinked and interdependent. Fighting ability can come through grace, and flexibility. Awareness of surroundings and positioning can come through the forms, also the ability to concentrate comes through the forms. Yes you will learn to defend yourself much quicker if yuo do boxing or Bjj. But martial arts for the people who developed these arts are a development of the body and mind, and of the fighting spirit and of fighting techniques.
I have not agreed with what you are proposing. READ MY SIGNATURE!
You CAN use them in fighting, just not right away, its a different type of development that has emphasis on both aspects of MAs the martial and the art, and they acnnot be separated. Any one who practices the martial without the art is not a martial artist, he is a street fighter, or a sportsman, or a thug.

Its the old question of are katas applicable on the street? well yes and no...they are applicable because they contain the principles but they are not because you are not going to do a kata on someone.

Please try to understand.

Someotherguy, I think that getting the most from an animal form depends completly on the practitioner and the teacher, not the form itself.

Someotherguy, you ask what is the benefit to using animal or insect styles when fighting. I think there is a large benefit. A lot of the tactics that animals use when they fight are useful.

When two strikers fight, it is usually in an upright position. The two combatants use footwork and timing to create and opening and then strike. Using some concepts from monkey kung fu, you would alter the height and angles of attack, thus adding new dimensions and possibly catching the other person off guard.

Also, some people are thrown off by the movements themselves when you use a style that imitates an animal. They are not sure how to counter against something so foriegn to them.

I have used a few animal style techniques in sparring in the past and it does throw off the opponent. If it is unusual, that distraction alone may be enough to give you a slight edge.

I have found that simply by changing my striking hand from a fist to a leopard hand strike, in some cases I am able to hit a smaller target more effectively, fit a strike into a target area that I normally could not hit, and increase the damage by being able to apply more force to a smaller area.

Just like any other Art, animal styles, if applied properly can be effective, beneficial, and very dangerous.

Thank you Razorfoot for actually addressing my question, and providing your opinion on how these styles are useful in real fighting. I will think about your comments.

This was much more useful than being told to "please try to understand", as if I am a stupid child failing to grasp the single truth being spoon fed to me. MAGr and I obviously have very different approaches to martial arts.

Heres what Ive found so far before checking the links provided on this thread.

shaolin Pek Kwar was derived for the use of imperial Guards to protect the emperor. The system was to be used solely for this purpose and was strictly forbidden to be used or taught for any other purpose and was punishable by death. The style was mainly low stances and arcing open hand chops.

Thats what Ive found. I understand that there is sopposed to be some link to Monkey Style Kung Fu, but Im not sure where or what that pertains to since Monkey is a style whose imformation is readily available and this is supposed to be a highly secretive system. So I remain skeptical of many of the things Ive found relating it to the Monkey lineage.

Also Ive found that it was a system designed for the quick incapacitation and death of the opponent. From what Ive seen and understand of Monkey style, it just doesnt fit. Monkey is aggressive enough, relying more on evasiveness and potshotting that straight forward aggression. Again this is what Ive gathered. Perhaps I am wrong.

It has been added to the monkey style-taught side by side.
They are still 2 seperate arts, that is my understanding.