For those of us in the West; how do we know if we are learning "real kung fu"?

Sorry, I do not believe that lineage is the best answer. An example using Aikido shows my point. O Sensei's belief is that Aikido be used in a benevolent and non-competing manner. All aikido instructors can trace their roots to O Sensei - even those who practice Tomiki-style Aikido, complete with this style's penchant for competition and aggressive defensive tactics. Nearly the entire world of Aikido distains the concept of Tomiki-style Aikido, but it doesn't mean that this style is wrong or ineffective. The founder is a direct student of O Sensei. Is this style legitimate? That's debatable. If you use lineage, then you would come to the conclusion that it is, in fact legitimate. If you compare the style's philosophy to that of the founder, then, you may conclude that it is not.

But who is to say this is legitimate or not? and whether or not one can make this determination, is it the responsibility of a new student? I don't think so.

To apply this categorically to other martial arts, then the same could be true: who says a student-become-teacher is teaching in his/her teacher's philosophy? Just because you can trace lineage, doesn't mean that the philosophy and effectiveness will be transferred to the new student.

I believe that you are only as good as your last act, and so is a martial arts school. It is only as good as it's teacher - no matter from whom that teacher learned. If the philosophy is compatible with the student and the techniques are effective, that should be the end-all-be-all. Unfortuately, most new students will not know that the techniques are effective, and knowing lineage isn't going to change that. Even if the teacher is legit, it doesn't mean that teacher is competent enough to teach those skills and philosophies (there are teachers to teach well, and those who teach poorly - regardless of their technical competency). It also doesn't mean the student is going to learn those skills, either (there students who learn well, and those who don't).

I would venture to guess that the more supporting knowledge the teacher has, the more likely the instruction is going to be legitimate. For instance, if a teacher can show that the techniques being taught are similar to historical writings of that art, then chances are the teacher is legit.

And there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to legitimacy. What would you think of a teacher who taught techniques and philosophy of the martial art, yet couldn't place the country or region of origin on a map? What would you think of two teachers who differed in some matters of technical style, yet were philosophically identical, and you otherwise agreed they were legitimate?

Bottom line, I think the prospective student needs to perform due dilligence. Factors like lineage may be important to the student, and that's fine. But to gain a true picture of legitimacy, then the student should rely on neutral points of view. Other students are not the most neutral, happy ones will be biased for the teacher and unhappy ones will not. But perhaps a peer review - for example, if other community leaders had respect for the teacher - this would be best. It is not likely that an entire phalanx of reporters, columnists, high-ranking martial artists, etc would all be delusioned into thinking an instructor was good when s/he in fact, is not.

Here's another way to look at it: how do you know the website you are going to will protect your credit card purchase transaction? The answer lies in the web site's certificate. If the certificate was issued by Verisign, then you should be able to trust that site. If you find that the certificate was self-issued, you should think twice. The same is with a martial arts school. Rely on critiques by someone you trust, and not on what the school advertises. If you don't know what a certificate is, or how to tell what certificate a site was issuing, then you are in no better position than a brand new student to a prospective school. You would be giving your credit card and personal identification information to someone who you don't trust, just as the student were about to embark on a martial arts journey to devote a significant portion of life to someone who might turn out to be a charlatan.

There's a lot to consider, and really, I agree with your points about discovering if what we're learning is crap or not.

I was invited to Guanzhou this Christmas to train at a temple there for the month. Unfortunately, the notice was too short for me to schedule time off, so we are planning two trips for the future. The one for me to train at the end of next year, and then another one the following year as a group to celebrate Sifu Chen Qingzhou's 80th bday. Should be fun; cake and training! I'm sure that I will know if what I'm doing is the 'real thing' by other world standards.

I really don't think that one has to travel or compare themselves to the originating country to find prime examples of the way kung fu should be done. They just have to find the right person, and that as we've discussed endlessly on here is a complicated issue to deal with. Something that may back up this sentiment would be the videos that you've offered us. Poor quality martial arts can come from China as easily as they can come from America, and the opposite would have to be true.

Lineages are probably the most important thing. U can always check on the instructors qualification by contacting someone from his or her lineage. With lineages, they dont tolerate teaching of any style of Kung Fu unless they are qualified (well at least for the most part). I have come across a few Sifus who were less than qualified when i was in Hong Kong. McDojos and greed are present every where.

I was lucky enough to study under a good Sifu in Hong Kong. He wasnt a well known or famous Sifu but he knows how to properly teach his art and take the time to explain techniques and applications for each form.

He raised the bar pretty high. I wont waste my time or money with less than qualified Sifus.

When I first started training over 30 years ago, my instructor told me that his instructor also taught him a style of gung-fu, and it was blended into his repertoire. I practiced those gung-fu techniques that were shown to me. I never questioned the authenticity of it. I just had faith that it was real. The techniques looked good and it looked like it would work. I was so happy to find an instructor in the martial art that I read about in the martial arts magazines that I trained as hard as I can. Looking back at what I learned 30 years ago, I still believe that what I was taught is authentic, even though I may not be able to accurately traced the exact origins of it.

Well, there's the rub...

So, as you know, I study Ninpo Taijutsu, which is fraught with legitimacy problems. Lineage isn't always a great answer with these things, since so much of lineage is, for lack of a better term, made up. Look at Wing Tsun – Everyone and their dog wants to trace their lineage these days to Yip Man. Was he the only Wing Tsun instructor? No. Was he the best? Not likely. But because, for a time, he taught Bruce Lee, everyone wants to say they trained with him. It's hype. We have the same thing going on in Ninpo – Tanemura Shoto and Hatsumi Masaaki both claiming they were the student of Takamatsu Toshitsugu first, or they were the one handed XYZ lineage... We have problems tracing back Togakure-ryu before Takamatsu; though the question of the existence of Takamatsu's teacher has been answered at the very least, we still have no evidence supporting whether or not Togakure-ryu began with Takamatsu or with Toda-sensei. We have even less information about Kumogakure-ryu and Gyokushin-ryu.

Do videos necessarily prove legitimacy? We have video of the demonstrations of the Shaolin Temple, but we also know that much of the practices of Kung Fu were quelled under the Communist Party. Similarly, in Japan we have issues with the political changes of both the Meiji era, and pre- and post-war doctrines controlling and prohibiting the practice of martial arts. We are fortunate if we can trace arts back to Edo Jidai in Japan with any accuracy. Tracing lineages in China to pre-communism is even more difficult. Much of what is preserved in these areas are oral traditions, which change with telling (like a game of telephone).

When I research ninjutsu traditions, I look for a few things:

1.) A legitimate link to Japan. The name of the school, an instructor, a historical figure. An unbroken line. (Very difficult)

2.) Corroboration of that link. A second person who knows the first and claims the same lineage.

3.) A demonstration of the techniques. Pre-Meiji movement is different than modern movement. If the movement looks Okinawan (which appears more influenced by their contact with the Chinese than the Japanese), it's probably not ninjutsu.

4.) Any evidence of fraud. If a person has a history of fraudulent behavior (Frank Dux using plexiglass and candy-glass bottles to demonstrate power), then it's likely this claim is fraudulent.

5.) Bias. For example, Kawakami Jinichi claims he's the 21st Soke of Koga Ban Family ninjutsu. This is supported by the Iga Ninja Museum, a public museum that houses artifacts of the ninja, which also denounces all other claims of ninjutsu. However, since he's the Honorary Head of the museum, the museum's position is nullified – it can not be said to be without bias. (His movement is clearly post-meiji anyhow).

There are huge caveats here that I don't want to get into, but suffice to say, using your best judgment is key – if it walks like a duck...

Looking for what's real is a fool's errand, like looking for a direct descendant of Christ. We may find the truth, but will it necessarily be worth it? Focus on developing eyes for learning the martial arts, and you'll learn what's effective. Then the only truth that's really necessary is this: When it comes time to teach the next generation what you know, they will be the first generation inheritors of your style, and their students will be the first generation inheritors of their style, onto the end of days.

Lineage is one way. You must know where your Master learned from and back as far as you can go. For instance My Master trains under Keith Maza, Who trains under Willum Cheung Who was IP Man's senior and closed door student. Than of course the real matter is does your Kung Fu deliver it's promise.

Possum, I agree with your statement about quality, usefulness, peer review and such . The question was to authenticity.

I also understand that teachers tend to drift from the original art over time. This is why it is important for the master to continue to train with other masters so as to sharpen steel on steel. I would be in doubt of learning an "authentic" art from someone who has not trained with anyone except their own students for years. That doesn't necessarily mean that the training is bad or the techniques won't work it just means it has drifted from the original art.

I agree with the proposition that real kung fu should be effective. You can observe this in the manner of teaching. Be critical. In the absence of a basis, however, I think it is only proper to check the background and lineage of the instructor.

Good question. The beginning student really has little to go on. If all your information comes from your instructor, how do you objectively evaluate the school? In my experience, I learned from senior students, including those who had done some training at other schools. Their stories made me aware of the caliber of instruction available to me. It is difficult for someone who knows little or nothing about martial arts to compare schools. Do you have a suggestion?

When you go back in time and learn from the monkey king or one of the 5 grandmasters of Shaolin Kung Fu.

Right?

@OC: Interesting bits on pre vs post Meiji era. As well as pre and post MacArthur bans on martial arts training. Where would you fit judo, aikido, and kendo along that timeline?

Ask your teacher where he learned his kung fu from and look at the clubs history