# Is older really better



## zuti car (Apr 20, 2015)

As we all know ,  civilization progressing over time in all areas of human activities . Science in general , including natural and social sciences , technology ,society its self , quality of life , everything is better today than it was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago . Only in martial arts there is a believe that something old is better than something new . We are all witnesses of lineage wars where everybody is trying to have a connection to some famous ancestor and we also see how "history " is changing over time and founding date of some art is pushed further back in the past . 
Now , if we know that development of any given activity is directly influenced by by exchange of information and of course experiment how i is possible that people from 200 years ago had better skills and more knowledge than people today . 
We also witnessing very obvious thing in martial arts , "traditional" styles, kept in secret . without any exchange with other styles are proved ineffective ,at least in sport , full contact competitions , while styles open to exchange and concentrated on gaining more experience (information) from other styles are usually more effective in a combat situation ( full contact competition , i don't have any statistics data on self defense , therefore i will not comment that area) .
Question , if we have obvious examples of modern and "ancient" arts effectiveness , why people tend to believe that some 1800's or 1600"s art is better than something new .


----------



## ShortBridge (Apr 21, 2015)

I see your logic and there's something to it, but I could poke a few holes in it.

Orchestral instruments (or Fender basses or Martin guitars) for example tend to be more valuable with some vintage. Some of that may be sentiment, but some of it is that they were more carefully made, but craftsmen. Their market wasn't as big and they took time and pride in making them.

As they got more popular and markets grew (sound familiar to martial arts) shortcuts were taken to produce more, cheaper materials, cheaper labor, more marketing, less craftsman ship and some people feel pretty strongly that the quality of the product is lesser than an equivalent vintage instrument.

What I find odd about martial arts is the belief that if you learn what someone else learned that you'll have their capabilities. No one thinks that about anything else. Learning the bit of wing chun the Bruce Lee did doesn't make you Bruce Lee. Being Bruce Lee makes you Bruce Lee. MMA guys fall into the same trap, joining an MMA class doesn't make you Chuck Lidell.

No one thinks that if they did the drills that Michael Jordan did growing up that they could dominate the NBA. No one.

(Oh, and by the way, my dog has settled this. If I take her to the park with a new tennis ball, she will trade it in for an old stinky one, every time. What more proof do you need?)


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 21, 2015)

What secrets? Its not about "In olden days they did it better" More about trying not to adapt the hell out of something until it no longer resembles the original. Of course if you are making money out of it the more different the better. Martial arts for some are a educational/traditional sportlike activity. In Japan that's how they have survived after being banned a few times. Best not knock it too much.

No amount of training on earth will make you into a good fighter unless you were a fighter already. Through generations we see people with varied ability pass through.


----------



## K-man (Apr 21, 2015)

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are looking for a sport then you will obviously train it using modern methods in a way that makes you competitive in your area of interest. If you are learning a traditional martial art then you will train it the way it was originally trained.

Many of us learned Latin in a past life. If we wanted a language to use in Italy we would have learned Italian.


----------



## Pat M (Apr 21, 2015)

In my non martial art life I have a love of cars from the 70's MAZDA rotaries in particular, they sparked my interest in my youth being different from the norm and having enormous power to weight output. We have an RX8 as well and to me it is just a car. Why on earth would this be the case as it is new? So I would strongly contend you cannot generalise in this manner. 



zuti car said:


> Only in martial arts there is a belief that something old is better than something new .



I love old stuff and prefer to fix than replace, I may be out of the ordinary?

Being involved in the MA is now for me more about the Art than the Martial, studying something that has a set content that will take time to absorb and perhaps master, this system is based in combat with some history however I don't need to learn to fight. That in no longer the point, I can hang out at the pub anytime I like for practice but wait that's why most do MA, so they don't have to hang out at the pub.

It's and Art ... respect it.

Wing Chun is a relatively young MA the origin myth is just that, I would suggest it was and original MMA as it is a true amalgam of various styles and disciplines brought together in the bustling melting pot of Southern China.


----------



## Pat M (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car

I would like to compliment you on the third really great post, this last one not as interesting as the previous two however still great. Thanks mate.

Pat


----------



## zuti car (Apr 21, 2015)

When we talk about "traditional" ,how we determine what is traditional ? Wars in the past , as well as today made constant changes if fighting technology in general . Strategies , weapons technology ,military training ,all that progressed over time , form stone axes and fighting without any order to space programs highly coordinated military actions that include enormous number of people ( some countries have more military personal that my country have people ). If we look in the past , we can see that "traditional" didn't play any role in conflicts and people  adopted new and better ways to kill the opponents without second thought . For most part of its history, CMA cannot be separated from the army , only the second half of 19th century and final replacement of old weapons with fire arms pushed CMA into civilian hands and made it some kind of upper class activity . That is the time when CMA finally changed their focus from weapon training to empty hands training. All , now known as traditional ,MA  their final shape got in the period from 1850's to 1930's . In this period there was a lot of mixing , exchanging , innovating , there is no martial style older than 1880's in its final form , no matter what the legends say . How come these styles became "traditional"? My opinion, only styles that refuse to change , to evolve , to grow , they become "traditional" and "original" . Emphasis in these cases in not on functionality and efficiency but on something else , that is why we have constant changing of "histories" and constant pushing back trough time the origin date .


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 21, 2015)

My take on it - People used to fight differently before today. Older styles are supposed to be methods made from the gathered data of real combat. People needed to actually use MA to _actually fight_ and survive. They were more immersed in it back then. 
Basically, methods were made, and they were actually tested and used in the higher stress situations. And because people apparently used it and survived whatever situation they were in, it worked, and it's still around and popular. We don't fight so much using melee weapons anymore. Rarely, if at all. So there isn't any certainty in whether or not the training methods and techniques will actually work when they need to. Compared to the old styles, which apparently worked *for their situation*, they must be effective to at least some degree.

About the popular comment - Generally, when something is popular in MA, it is supposed to be because it's effective.  Loads of people didn't practice certain methods or use certain weapons because they heard about much the didn't work. The chose them because of how effective they've heard or found it is. The weapon combination of Shield and Spear is a great example. It was an extremely popular combination found all over the world. Or even just the spear by itself was great. In a situation where you life depended on it, ineffective styles literally couldn't survive, or would the styles reputation would be tarnished by its lack of success and people would choose to practice and use other things. When the majority of people come to any kind of consensus, odds are it's good in some way, or there is truth to be found.
There are obviously exceptions to that. Using a weapon in each hand? Not common compared to other things, but it can be effective. Context is everything. Especially so with weapons. 
Today, this doesn't apply nearly as much. Most people don't need that level of verification today, or arts are almost impossible to discredit in any meaningful way because of what I've mentioned above. Even with anecdotes of failure, there are a lot of variables as to why the failure occurred, and there aren't nearly enough to accurately determine the effectiveness of certain things for certain tasks. 

I think then, people tend to associate a MA's age with its credibility. People fear the unknown. You know that old arts where used. You know they can be effective. With new arts, unless they've faced this brutal testing, are one more thing you don't know for certain. Rationale may dictate that it should be effective, but you don't *know* for absolute certainty that it will work as intended, as it's needed.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 21, 2015)

My point is, old arts actually arn't that old , and they rarely faced life threating situations . What old arts looked like we will never know because they died out with invetion of fire arms . Really old art were weapon arts , empty hands training if there was any , usually served as a peraparation for weapon training , but in most cases there wasn't any empty hands training. "Traditional" arts we know today are invented since 1880 till 1930. Ba Gua, Tai Chi ,Hsing Yi , White Cranes , Wing Chun , Choy Lee Fut ... all of them are created in the second half of 19th century . Hung Gar , Bai Mei , Hakka Mantis , just to mention the most famous ones are invented in the first decades of 1900"s. Wudang styles actually were never practiced in Wudang before 1928 ( I am not sure about the year , I have to check it again , but I think it should be correct) . Any style who put emphasis on empty hands cannot be found prior to 1850's . About real fighting experience , founder of the arts didn.t have it . It was popular at the time to practice kung fu , just like on the west in 1980's . We all know what happened and what good and even more , bad things regarding unqualified instructors with a lack of fighting experience ,mistification , magic ,invetion of endless leves of drilss , techniques ect., happened . Same thing was going on in China during the last years of Ching rule and republican period .


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> everything is better today than it was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago .



But everything is not better than in was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago, some things are, but not everything


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 21, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> But everything is not better than in was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago, some things are, but not everything


-----------------------------------

good point


----------



## kung fu fighter (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> As we all know ,  civilization progressing over time in all areas of human activities . Science in general , including natural and social sciences , technology ,society its self , quality of life , everything is better today than it was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago . Only in martial arts there is a believe that something old is better than something new . We are all witnesses of lineage wars where everybody is trying to have a connection to some famous ancestor and we also see how "history " is changing over time and founding date of some art is pushed further back in the past .
> Now , if we know that development of any given activity is directly influenced by by exchange of information and of course experiment how i is possible that people from 200 years ago had better skills and more knowledge than people today .
> We also witnessing very obvious thing in martial arts , "traditional" styles, kept in secret . without any exchange with other styles are proved ineffective ,at least in sport , full contact competitions , while styles open to exchange and concentrated on gaining more experience (information) from other styles are usually more effective in a combat situation ( full contact competition , i don't have any statistics data on self defense , therefore i will not comment that area) .
> Question , if we have obvious examples of modern and "ancient" arts effectiveness , why people tend to believe that some 1800's or 1600"s art is better than something new .



I would be in total agreement with you if no knowledge was withheld, however in my opinion martial arts of the past were more advance in comparison to the watered down arts being practiced today due to the fact that the goal was to seriously maim or kill the opponent not to win a combative sport bout. to further illustrate my point what happens when the toughest MMA fighter such as Randy Couture get poked in the eye accidentally? they immediately stop fighting or slow down completely, their mma training goes out the window because this is illegal in mma, but perfectly good on the streets or battle field. Certain knowledge (aka Secrets) were purposely withheld for immediate family members only in order to have an advantage. You've got to remember this was a time when martial skills were were the top weapon at the time since guns were not readily available.  I believe in the ancient knowledge of the past combined with modern training  such as MMA. neither one by it's self will give the complete picture.

In terms of cars, imagine if all the we had to work with was the body of the most advance car of the year 2000 without the engine or know how of how to build one. Think about how much time and effort would be needed to develop an engine, and how far behind they would be  in terms of technology of that engine. Another good example is computers, imagine if i removed the knowledge of the microchip and other key components of the most advance computers of the 1990's, what would the computers be like today?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> My point is, old arts actually arn't that old , and they rarely faced life threating situations . What old arts looked like we will never know because they died out with invetion of fire arms . Really old art were weapon arts , empty hands training if there was any , usually served as a peraparation for weapon training , but in most cases there wasn't any empty hands training. "Traditional" arts we know today are invented since 1880 till 1930. Ba Gua, Tai Chi ,Hsing Yi , White Cranes , Wing Chun , Choy Lee Fut ... all of them are created in the second half of 19th century . Hung Gar , Bai Mei , Hakka Mantis , just to mention the most famous ones are invented in the first decades of 1900"s. Wudang styles actually were never practiced in Wudang before 1928 ( I am not sure about the year , I have to check it again , but I think it should be correct) . Any style who put emphasis on empty hands cannot be found prior to 1850's . About real fighting experience , founder of the arts didn.t have it . It was popular at the time to practice kung fu , just like on the west in 1980's . We all know what happened and what good and even more , bad things regarding unqualified instructors with a lack of fighting experience ,mistification , magic ,invetion of endless leves of drilss , techniques ect., happened . Same thing was going on in China during the last years of Ching rule and republican period .



Is the discussion about China specifically? I was speaking in general.
I don't know about the history of China, but I would wager that guns were still uncommon things to encounter back then. Not unlike living in France or Japan, or any place where you can't get the top of the line gear that the military and law enforcement use. So... hand to hand would still be a big deal. 
Didn't China's weird weapons come from even longer ago? Hook swords and deer antler blades and so on? Aren't there arts for those?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 21, 2015)

If older is inherently better, there are a few of us who are ready for our World Championship belts any time now...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> When we talk about "traditional" ,how we determine what is traditional ? Wars in the past , as well as today made constant changes if fighting technology in general . Strategies , weapons technology ,military training ,all that progressed over time , form stone axes and fighting without any order to space programs highly coordinated military actions that include enormous number of people ( some countries have more military personal that my country have people ). If we look in the past , we can see that "traditional" didn't play any role in conflicts and people  adopted new and better ways to kill the opponents without second thought . For most part of its history, CMA cannot be separated from the army , only the second half of 19th century and final replacement of old weapons with fire arms pushed CMA into civilian hands and made it some kind of upper class activity . That is the time when CMA finally changed their focus from weapon training to empty hands training. All , now known as traditional ,MA  their final shape got in the period from 1850's to 1930's . In this period there was a lot of mixing , exchanging , innovating , there is no martial style older than 1880's in its final form , no matter what the legends say . How come these styles became "traditional"? My opinion, only styles that refuse to change , to evolve , to grow , they become "traditional" and "original" . Emphasis in these cases in not on functionality and efficiency but on something else , that is why we have constant changing of "histories" and constant pushing back trough time the origin date .



No legends but there are historical facts; You have an interesting discussion here, but your history is a bit off in some cases. And most Chinese arts are labeled Traditional based on Lineage

- Baguazhang comes form Dong Haichuan who lived from Dong Haichuan (13 October 1797 or 1813 to 25 October 1882
- Xingyiquan historically tied to Ji Jike (1588–1662) as first verified practitinoer
- Taijiquan origin is Chen Wangting (1580–1660)
- More Taijiquan: Yang Taijiquan origin is Yang Luchan (1799-1872) however much of the Yang stlye you see today comes from Yang Chengfu (1883–1936)
Wu style is historically interesting interesting because it split into Southern and Northern Wu and it is possible that Nortern Wu has an origin that has not changed much since its Wu Jianquan (1870–1942) who is the son of the first Wu style practioner Wu Quanyou (1834–1902)

There are many reasons why Martial arts changed in China and most of those were based on money not guns, you may want to check out Kung Fu tea and read some of the research papers he has done there, they are rather good. There is a lot there on Wing Chun as well since he is a Wing Chun guy


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> If older is inherently better, there are a few of us who are ready for our World Championship belts any time now...



older is not inherently better...that is unless I'm older than you... then of course older is inherently better


----------



## wtxs (Apr 21, 2015)

... partial quote ...



kung fu fighter said:


> In terms of cars, imagine if all the we had to work with was the body of the most advance car of the year 2000 without the engine or know how of how to build one. Think about how much time and effort would be needed to develop an engine, and how far behind they would be  in terms of technology of that engine?



We don't need to develop no stinking motor!!!  Being the super martial artist, we already have the "snake engine", just shoe horn that baby in and slliiide on down the road.

Sorry ... couldn't help myself, the devil made me do it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 21, 2015)

I still think this ancient weight training is better than all the modern weight training that we can see in today's modern gym. It achieves the "body unification" and develops the twisting power that you use both your arms and your body as "one unit".


----------



## yak sao (Apr 21, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I still think this ancient weight training is better than all the modern weight training that we can see in today's modern gym. It achieves the "body unification" and develops the twisting power that you use both your arms and your body as "one unit".




Man...I bet his wife is always giving him jars to open.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 21, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> But everything is not better than in was 10 , 100 or 1000 years ago, some things are, but not everything


name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?


----------



## zuti car (Apr 21, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> No legends but there are historical facts; You have an interesting discussion here, but your history is a bit off in some cases. And most Chinese arts are labeled Traditional based on Lineage
> 
> - Baguazhang comes form Dong Haichuan who lived from Dong Haichuan (13 October 1797 or 1813 to 25 October 1882
> - Xingyiquan historically tied to Ji Jike (1588–1662) as first verified practitinoer
> ...


I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.

The most important part is :"There are many reasons why Martial arts changed in China and most of those were based on money not guns" . Back then (endo Ching dynasty and republican period) , same things happened to CMA as later happened in the 1980"s and it still happening today . We all know McDojos , watering dwn the cintent of the art ect, but these aer not  inventions of our time


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?



air quality, water quality, face to face human interaction..... you are stating "everything" other than martial arts and that is simply not the case


----------



## dlcox (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> My point is, old arts actually arn't that old , and they rarely faced life threating situations . What old arts looked like we will never know because they died out with invetion of fire arms . Really old art were weapon arts , empty hands training if there was any , usually served as a peraparation for weapon training , but in most cases there wasn't any empty hands training. "Traditional" arts we know today are invented since 1880 till 1930. Ba Gua, Tai Chi ,Hsing Yi , White Cranes , Wing Chun , Choy Lee Fut ... all of them are created in the second half of 19th century . Hung Gar , Bai Mei , Hakka Mantis , just to mention the most famous ones are invented in the first decades of 1900"s. Wudang styles actually were never practiced in Wudang before 1928 ( I am not sure about the year , I have to check it again , but I think it should be correct) . Any style who put emphasis on empty hands cannot be found prior to 1850's . About real fighting experience , founder of the arts didn.t have it . It was popular at the time to practice kung fu , just like on the west in 1980's . We all know what happened and what good and even more , bad things regarding unqualified instructors with a lack of fighting experience ,mistification , magic ,invetion of endless leves of drilss , techniques ect., happened . Same thing was going on in China during the last years of Ching rule and republican period .


 
Agree, most TCMA today is a product of 1800's. Old TCMA arts focused mainly on weapons. Emphasis on empty hand skills became vogue in Victorian age and rose in popularity alongside of Western Boxing, much of it was sport based, not battlefield. This was to compete financially with European Boxing events. Taolu also became codified within lines during this era, before Taolu was "Set in Stone" TCMA practiced Frame Training, which is a practice method of linked Sanshi. Weapons were still widely employed when trying to kill someone and during settlement of disputes, fist fighting was generally for entertainment. Many of the Red Junks also had cannon and other firearms on board to defend themselves. The knives were a hold over, and a popular weapon used on the river boats, especially by pirates when boarding other ships. Similar things happened in Japan with the disbandment of the Samurai, only then did empty hand skills become popular. Throughout history hand to hand skills became popular in times of peace.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.



This is not news to me I have studied this, but you are still not exactly right here either. There are a lot of arts with similar names in CMA history that are actually not at all related. And there was a lot of mixing of arts, Bagua after Dong Hai Chuan is mixed with whatever his students practiced before coming to him, but the basic concepts are all the same.

And my apologies Ji JIke was XInyiquan and Xingyiquan comes from Dai xinyiquan and then it splits into 3 different styles Shanxi, Hebei, Henan xingyiquan. Hebei and Henan come from Shanxi. Li Luoneng did not modify Xingyiquan, he modified Xinyiquan and Dai Xinyiquan still exists and is still practiced by the Dai family and Xinyiquan still exists as well and is practiced by other people. As far as anyone proving anything about Taijiquan pre Chen family, I am sorry but I seriously doubt that as I think many studying this in Chinese universities do as well. Chen Taijiquan did come from whatever art that the Chen family was doing but that art was modified by Chen Wangting and that is the origin of Chen Taijiquan. That art has been modified by the Chen family but it was likely a split of the form into Laojia yilu and logy erlu. It was then also modified by Chen Fake but that did not mean the end of Laojia, it just meant the addition of xinjia. And then there is the Zhaobao taiji folks who claim their art is older or as old as Chen but so far, historically, it seems to come from Chen style.

I would welcome read of the book written by Tang Hao, but when you are looking at Chinese marital arts history you cannot base that on only one book because there are a plethora of people considered reputable sources that are spouting what they believe to be true based on what thier teacher told them. And yes many martial arts were modified in the 19 century for various reasons but the main reason was money. However not "all" were modified or changed. You seem to like using "all" and "everything" and that encompasses a lot more in CMA than I think you know.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?



 Wootz! Damascus steel! 
That's kind of cheating though.


----------



## geezer (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.



OK. Perhaps in most cases the systems we think of as "traditional" did take on their present form in the late 19th Century (during Leung Jan's time in the case of Wing Chun). But they certainly weren't invented _ex-nihilo. _People were fighting with both weapons and empty hands since the dawn of time. And certainly, social and cultural factors shaped the methods of combat of different groups. Just look at the similarities between many southern Chinese systems. These speak of a tradition that stretches back quite a long way. To imagine that untrained individuals with raw fighting talent just concocted these sophisticated systems in the late 1800s is a far greater stretch.

Now as to whether things get better of deteriorate over time? I'd say that depends on the particular situation. If the art is being used and tested in combat by a large number of people, it will evolve accordingly and become a better _combative_ system. On the other hand if it is practiced for sport, or for health, or for some purely historical interest in "preserving" a cultural artifact, it will evolve towards each of those ends respectively. I guess _better_ is a relative term.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 21, 2015)

geezer said:


> OK. Perhaps in most cases the systems we think of as "traditional" did take on their present form in the late 19th Century (during Leung Jan's time in the case of Wing Chun). But they certainly weren't invented _ex-nihilo. _People were fighting with both weapons and empty hands since the dawn of time. And certainly, social and cultural factors shaped the methods of combat of different groups. Just look at the similarities between many southern Chinese systems. These speak of a tradition that stretches back quite a long way. To imagine that untrained individuals with raw fighting talent just concocted these sophisticated systems in the late 1800s is a far greater stretch.
> 
> Now as to whether things get better of deteriorate over time? I'd say that depends on the particular situation. If the art is being used and tested in combat by a large number of people, it will evolve accordingly and become a better _combative_ system. On the other hand if it is practiced for sport, or for health, or for some purely historical interest in "preserving" a cultural artifact, it will evolve towards each of those ends respectively. I guess _better_ is a relative term.



I would like to add that context is also important to that. Different people are probably going to find different things more useful, even without taking personal preference into account, just because they need to fight against a different situation. To that end, I agree with modifying an art to fit your own needs so long as the modifications work within the system.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 21, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> This is not news to me I have studied this, but you are still not exactly right here either. There are a lot of arts with similar names in CMA history that are actually not at all related. And there was a lot of mixing of arts, Bagua after Dong Hai Chuan is mixed with whatever his students practiced before coming to him, but the basic concepts are all the same.
> 
> And my apologies Ji JIke was XInyiquan and Xingyiquan comes from Dai xinyiquan and then it splits into 3 different styles Shanxi, Hebei, Henan xingyiquan. Hebei and Henan come from Shanxi. Li Luoneng did not modify Xingyiquan, he modified Xinyiquan and Dai Xinyiquan still exists and is still practiced by the Dai family and Xinyiquan still exists as well and is practiced by other people. As far as anyone proving anything about Taijiquan pre Chen family, I am sorry but I seriously doubt that as I think many studying this in Chinese universities do as well. Chen Taijiquan did come from whatever art that the Chen family was doing but that art was modified by Chen Wangting and that is the origin of Chen Taijiquan. That art has been modified by the Chen family but it was likely a split of the form into Laojia yilu and logy erlu. It was then also modified by Chen Fake but that did not mean the end of Laojia, it just meant the addition of xinjia. And then there is the Zhaobao taiji folks who claim their art is older or as old as Chen but so far, historically, it seems to come from Chen style.
> 
> I would welcome read of the book written by Tang Hao, but when you are looking at Chinese marital arts history you cannot base that on only one book because there are a plethora of people considered reputable sources that are spouting what they believe to be true based on what thier teacher told them. And yes many martial arts were modified in the 19 century for various reasons but the main reason was money. However not "all" were modified or changed. You seem to like using "all" and "everything" and that encompasses a lot more in CMA than I think you know.


Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories"  without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art


----------



## geezer (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories"  without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art



Interesting. From my own experience talking to a few Chinese scholars at universities here in the US, I've found that to the Chinese intelligensia the martial arts are considered sort of lower class and cheesy, ...suitable for entertainment, but not really worthy of serious scholarship. Actually, this is not too different from prevailing attitudes in the West, at least as I have experienced them.

Now, that bit about evolutionary theory _in the West _confuses me. Understanding evolution is essential to understanding the physical world and our place in it. Is this not equally true in scientific disciplines in China?!


----------



## Eric_H (Apr 21, 2015)

zuti car said:


> name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?



Sword Making.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> Interesting. From my own experience talking to a few Chinese scholars at universities here in the US, I've found that to the Chinese intelligensia the martial arts are considered sort of lower class and cheesy, ...suitable for entertainment, but not really worthy of serious scholarship. Actually, this is not too different from prevailing attitudes in the West, at least as I have experienced them.
> 
> Now, that bit about evolutionary theory _in the West _confuses me. Understanding evolution is essential to understanding the physical world and our place in it. Is this not equally true in scientific disciplines in China?!


I have made a parallel , if you go against theory of evolution on the west your a ademic carer is over, I don't know if that is case on the east. If you research martial arts in China your academic career is pretty much over


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?



Air quality. 
Water quality. 
My aching back. 


Oh. You only wanted one. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Wootz! Damascus steel!
> That's kind of cheating though.



Not at all true. Both metallurgical and forging technology are much better than they were 100 years ago. 
The metals used are of a more consistent quality and alloy. 
Anyone who knows anything about bladesmithing will agree that one of the most vital factors in forging is consistency from stroke to stroke. Something drop hammers and presses are much better at than any human. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> air quality, water quality, face to face human interaction..... you are stating "everything" other than martial arts and that is simply not the case


Climate changes with or without human influence , we had severan big life extinctions in the past as a result of sudden climate changes. Would climate change so rapidly without human influence , probably not, would it change anyway , yes , how , we don't know. About human interaction became worse , I do not agree, maybe in some parts of the world , but not everywhere, and in some areas actually becoming better


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not at all true. Both metallurgical and forging technology are much better than they were 100 years ago.
> The metals used are of a more consistent quality and alloy.
> Anyone who knows anything about bladesmithing will agree that one of the most vital factors in forging is consistency from stroke to stroke. Something drop hammers and presses are much better at than any human.
> 
> ...



I agree that we have superior ability to make metal and tools from that metal now. Way superior.

Damascus steel was an odd occurrence that we have not yet figured out how to reproduce. There was an impurity in the ore that resulted in incredibly flexible, strong, and sharp swords. "Wootz" originally referred to the technique of flattening the metal that was used to make the blade, and so blades were said to have "wootz steel".  That was supposedly brought to the table with the special ore, even though we still only speculate as to method used. The smiths learned specials ways of handling that ore, but the methods were lost, and the exact makeup of the ore is unknown. 
Now, "damascus steel" is the generally accepted term for a technique that makes the blade _look_ like damascus, even though it isn't. 

Damascus steel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

Now, back to the original question, why people think older is better . Besides stories we have no proof of efficiency . On the other hand we have proof of Mike Tyson of Fedor Emeilanenko , we can see how they fought and how efficient they were\are . We also have proof that "old" arts " especially "soft , internal" ones have no place in full contact /  MMA competitions . Now if there is something observable , something easy to comprehend by simply watching it , why we still have people who believe the opposite of what they see .


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

Eric_H said:


> Sword Making.



Not really. But I get where you would pick up that idea. 
The quality of metal and forging techniques is actually a pretty complicated subject. You could talk for a long time about just one country, continent, or time period. 
Suffice to say, no, they didn't used to be better. It did used to be a lot more diverse to meet the challenges of the day for different tasks (different treatments of the metal and techniques used to make different things - crazy complicated), but it was actually of lesser quality than it possibly could be today because we have better science to analyze it all with now. We have more compiled knowledge on the subject too. Now the only discovery and debate is on what they actually did to survive. I.E. - *Why *did they make swords a certain way?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories"  without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art



Tang Hou is the only one...really....interesting....incorrect.... but interesting.....

Most of what you posted has nothing to do with what I wrote by the way, you are currently defending Tang Hou not responding to any of what I wrote, especially the Li Luoneng bit where, if you are getting from Tang Hou that he changed Xingyiquan then both he and you are wrong since he changed Xinyiquan and developed Xingyiquan. There are other books that are older, there are people at universities who are studying this in China. You like to make gross generalizations, "all", "everything" and "nobody" but appear to base this only on Tang Hou. It is impossible to study, research or understand anything Chinese Martial Arts history from only one source and since I do not know Tang Hou sources at the moment, but I will, I cannot tell if what he says is actually historically verifiable.

But you want to believe you are now an expert based on one book by one guy who tells you everything so be it. I will not try and change your mind, you are not right, but that is your choice and I will quit posting corrected histories and leave you to your 1 book view


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Climate changes with or without human influence , we had severan big life extinctions in the past as a result of sudden climate changes. Would climate change so rapidly without human influence , probably not, would it change anyway , yes , how , we don't know. About human interaction became worse , I do not agree, maybe in some parts of the world , but not everywhere, and in some areas actually becoming better



Listen, you said "everything" which means "all things; all the things of a group or class" I am not even talking about climate change, I said nothing about human interaction so why bring it in at all. You asked me to name 1 thing I gave you more than one and there are many more as well. And what does human interaction have to do with climate change by the way. They also has a slower pace of life 10, 100, 1000 years ago to is that climate change. Again your response has nothing to do with what I posted You said everything which means all things and you said everything except martial arts and that is just plain incorrect.

You don't want to be called on things like this do not use gross generalizations and apply them to "World" history


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Now, back to the original question, why people think older is better . Besides stories we have no proof of efficiency . On the other hand we have proof of Mike Tyson of Fedor Emeilanenko , we can see how they fought and how efficient they were\are . We also have proof that "old" arts " especially "soft , internal" ones have no place in full contact /  MMA competitions . Now if there is something observable , something easy to comprehend by simply watching it , why we still have people who believe the opposite of what they see .



Because there are still variables to those situations and people don't know how what the results will be in different contexts.
For example - Is your boxing going to work in self defense, or will it be push through by some rough aspect of fighting you haven't observed? Will I break my hands? Will the style I've trained in result in fail due to a bad training method? Will I freeze up because I don't believe in my ability or the methods aren't intuitive? Will it work against whatever my opponent brings to the table?  It will probably work. Depends on the practitioner. Your hands could very well break in some way.

We don't have much proof that older arts won't work. I would love to see that. Probably the closest thing we have right now is this person that was a shaolin monk and went into IKF kickboxing.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Tang Hou is the only one...really....interesting....incorrect.... but interesting.....
> 
> Most of what you posted has nothing to do with what I wrote by the way, you are currently defending Tang Hou not responding to any of what I wrote, especially the Li Luoneng bit where, if you are getting from Tang Hou that he changed Xingyiquan then both he and you are wrong since he changed Xinyiquan and developed Xingyiquan. There are other books that are older, there are people at universities who are studying this in China. You like to make gross generalizations, "all", "everything" and "nobody" but appear to base this only on Tang Hou. It is impossible to study, research or understand anything Chinese Martial Arts history from only one source and since I do not know Tang Hou sources at the moment, but I will, I cannot tell if what he says is actually historically verifiable.
> 
> But you want to believe you are now an expert based on one book by one guy who tells you everything so be it. I will not try and change your mind, you are not right, but that is your choice and I will quit posting corrected histories and leave you to your 1 book view


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 22, 2015)

Both propositions-older was better ad newer is better are flawed over generalizations


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Both propositions-older was better ad newer is better are flawed over generalizations



Absolutely, I am not saying older is better, I am saying some things are better and some things are not and you cannot base anything as it applies to Chinese Martial arts history, or Chinese History for that matter, on one source


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Both propositions-older was better ad newer is better are flawed over generalizations



I think he's asking why older arts are more respected, or are considered better. Not so much that they actually are or aren't.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

My ques


Xue Sheng said:


> Listen, you said "everything" which means "all things; all the things of a group or class" I am not even talking about climate change, I said nothing about human interaction so why bring it in at all. You asked me to name 1 thing I gave you more than one and there are many more as well. And what does human interaction have to do with climate change by the way. They also has a slower pace of life 10, 100, 1000 years ago to is that climate change. Again your response has nothing to do with what I posted You said everything which means all things and you said everything except martial arts and that is just plain incorrect.
> 
> You don't want to be called on things like this do not use gross generalizations and apply them to "World" history


Ok,you have a need to be right. I admit , my mistake , can we move on ?


----------



## mograph (Apr 22, 2015)

Older? 

good: has been refined over a long time
bad: associated with orientalism & mystery -> false credibility
bad: stagnant
Newer? 

good: contains more recent refinements
bad: contains shortcuts for $, short attention span
bad: refinements based on atomistic, not holistic, component-based focus
To make a vast generalization, changing something can make it better or worse, right? In the former case, newer is better. In the latter, older is better. So what to do? IMO, learn as much as we can, but combine a critical eye with humility and respect for our elders. (shrug)


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I think he's asking why older arts are more respected, or are considered better. Not so much that they actually are or aren't.


Yes, I am asking why people believe older or so called traditional arts are superior when there is no evidence to support that believe , nor there are evidence to support their traditionality because they are not that  old . On the other hand , by simple observation it easy to see that people from an average boxing  or kick boxing club are far better prepared for fighting than people from let's say average wing chun  or Ba gua club .


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> My ques
> 
> Ok,you have a need to be right. I admit , my mistake , can we move on ?



Interesting, you once again responded and it had nothing to do with the my post since it addressed absolutely none of what I said

and nope, I don't need to be right, but if someone starts making gross generalizations and/or posting things that are flawed or ill-informed as it applies to history they should expect to be called on it...have a nice day


Edit: I just looked op Tang Hou and I know him as Tang Fan Sheng and he is not the only one that did any scientific research, he died in 1959. He was one of the few and possibly the only one at the time, when he was alive, but there have been many since and there are still more than a few doing the same thing in China. But Tang Hou was a reputable historian of the Chinese martial arts he was looking at mythical figures such as Zhang Sanfeng and mythical links such as those to Yue Fei and debunking them and he was in my opinion correct in that, But there has been a plethora of study since then. However, you still need more than the books of Tang Hou to understand CMA history.


----------



## mograph (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Yes, I am asking why people believe older or so called traditional arts are superior when there is no evidence to support that believe , nor there are evidence to support their traditionality because they are not that old .


In the west: orientalism? In the east: filial piety? (By the way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)



zuti car said:


> On the other hand , by simple observation it easy to see that people from an average boxing  or kick boxing club are far better prepared for fighting than people from let's say average wing chun  or Ba gua club .


I wouldn't make the generalization that one art beats another art because of observations of its practitioners in specific contexts. There is too much room for error in the transmission of an art. I'd offer that after viewing an unskilled practitioner, the _most_ one can say is that his/her teacher or club is unskilled at teaching: it would be a bit of a leap to say that the teaching of that art is so consistent that these practitioners represent a well-taught, accurate version of that art.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Yes, I am asking why people believe older or so called traditional arts are superior when there is no evidence to support that believe , nor there are evidence to support their traditionality because they are not that old . On the other hand , by simple observation it easy to see that people from an average boxing or kick boxing club are far better prepared for fighting than people from let's say average wing chun or Ba gua club .



older arts have survived and therefor must have something in them that is good and works.  they are also the base from which the new arts derive.
as for those in kickboxing and boxing being better well that is simply a matter of opinion and everyone has one of those


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

mograph said:


> In the west: orientalism? In the east: filial piety? (By the way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)
> 
> I wouldn't make the generalization that one art beats another art because of observations of its practitioners in specific contexts. There is too much room for error in the transmission of an art. I'd offer that after viewing an unskilled practitioner, the _most_ one can say is that his/her teacher or club is unskilled at teaching: it would be a bit of a leap to say that the teaching of that art is so consistent that these practitioners represent a well-taught, accurate version of that art.


There is one other thing , fighting oriented ,practical people will go to the place where they can results in a short time and where results are measurable . Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts . People who want to fight or to be prepared for fighting understand that training process will not be easy and it will be painful . In most of traditional clubs I have visited people never did sparring , heavy bag training , situational training , sports fighting , but they are full of stories about "internal" powers and great ancestors .


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> older arts have survived and therefor must have something in them that is good and works.  they are also the base from which the new arts derive.
> as for those in kickboxing and boxing being better well that is simply a matter of opinion and everyone has one of those


I didn't say arts are better but people are better prepared , I wouldn't put any art above others , not even arts I am practicing , I am just asking why some people believe in superiority of older arts. On the other hand , MMA ,Boxing , BJJ practitioners think traditional arts are a joke .Now ,what can be reason for that ?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 22, 2015)

people are self centered and believe their art is better than anyone else s


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> There is one other thing , fighting oriented ,practical people will go to the place where they can results in a short time and where results are measurable . Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts . People who want to fight or to be prepared for fighting understand that training process will not be easy and it will be painful . In most of traditional clubs I have visited people never did sparring , heavy bag training , situational training , sports fighting , but they are full of stories about "internal" powers and great ancestors .



Lets also not forget the Big sword divisions of WW2 that used Xingyiquan and also used a Da Dao along with their guns and today they PRC army trains a version of Sanda/Sanshou which is a combination of many things, some of those are from "traditional' CMA styles


----------



## zuti car (Apr 22, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> people are self centered and believe their art is better than anyone else s


I hope that is not the only reason , because if it is , that would be really sad


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> There is one other thing , fighting oriented ,practical people will go to the place where they can results in a short time and where results are measurable . Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts . People who want to fight or to be prepared for fighting understand that training process will not be easy and it will be painful . In most of traditional clubs I have visited people never did sparring , heavy bag training , situational training , sports fighting , but they are full of stories about "internal" powers and great ancestors .



I can see that. However, a method that's easier to get quick results from, arguably, doesn't make the most effective possible warrior. The crossbow for example, is an easier weapon to become effective with than the bow, even though the end results of the bow are usually a lot more effective. As far as equipping an army, I would do the same and recommend the method that gets the most amount of soldiers to be the most effective in the smallest amount of time. 
But if your a school and your students probably aren't going to need to fight for their lives tomorrow, I would take the method that gets better long term results. And on that point, it's really up to individual opinion. There are hand to hand moves for example, that I think to myself, "Wow. If I could execute that exactly the same way every time, even under stress, it would be awesome." The Rolling Flying Spinning Whatever's of martial arts.  But such techniques are often highly technical and the results of good basics applied quickly, efficiently, or cleverly. 
My response to that is to practice the basics until the advanced things come a little more naturally, and they can be practiced in a serious manner. Use one stick before using two, if you follow me.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> The crossbow for example, is an easier weapon to become effective with than the bow, even though the end results of the bow are usually a lot more effective.



Kind or depends on how you're measuring "effectiveness."

In fact-as someone who has taken large game with a longbow, recurve, and compound bow, as well as with a standard crossbow and compound crossbow, I have no goddam idea what you mean?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I didn't say arts are better but people are better prepared , I wouldn't put any art above others , not even arts I am practicing , I am just asking why some people believe in superiority of older arts. On the other hand , MMA ,Boxing , BJJ practitioners think traditional arts are a joke .Now ,what can be reason for that ?



Lots of reasons. They don't understand the context of what they see. They have no experience in the art. It's beyond their scope of what they've found can possibly be effective. Or, they've fought people who haven't had enough quality training in their art and demolished them. MMA is fairly mainstream now, so it makes a degree of sense to me that their would be a lot more quality boxers and BJJ practioners than other things. Particularly arts from China. 
In fairness, I've heard the same junk from TMA people. Both sent at other TMAs and things like MMA or Boxing. 

This is coming from a person who's fond of boxing.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Interesting, you once again responded and it had nothing to do with the my post since it addressed absolutely none of what I said
> 
> and nope, I don't need to be right, but if someone starts making gross generalizations and/or posting things that are flawed or ill-informed as it applies to history they should expect to be called on it...have a nice day
> 
> ...


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Kind or depends on how you're measuring "effectiveness."
> 
> In fact-as someone who has taken large game with a longbow, recurve, and compound bow, as well as with a standard crossbow and compound crossbow, I have no goddam idea what you mean?



It's harder to learn to shoot with a bow than it is a crossbow. As far as war is concerned, the benefits of being effective with a bow are higher than being effective with a crossbow. The crossbow was more expensive harder to make. It couldn't be used as effectively on a horse, if at all. After the one shot is released, you need cover to reload or risk being an easy target, and might need to take your eyes off your enemies. In the European context, you had what was called a pavisse, which was sort of like a giant shield that sits on the ground that can be moved around to protect you from other missiles. A bow could shoot missiles faster than the crossbow. Lastly, a bow is a lot easier to carry around both in bulk and weight.
There are differences in each that would make one of them the better choice for different things. Overall though, I would say the bow has more potential for war. But if the war starts tomorrow and I don't already have lots of archers, I'm going to give my people crossbows. They are easier to aim, and the strength required to draw one at a draw weight for war is _generally_ easier compared to the draw weight for a bow.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

The Chinese repeating crossbow was invented about 400 BCE, and was in continuous use until the end of the Boxer Rebellion (mid-1800s).


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> The Chinese repeating crossbow was invented about 400 BCE, and was in continuous use until the end of the Boxer Rebellion (mid-1800s).



That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows. 

I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot? 

In any event, it's got nothing on the Flying Guillotine. xD


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows.
> 
> I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot?
> 
> In any event, it's got nothing on the Flying Guillotine. xD



Other than they exist I do not know much about them, did see a demo once with a reproduction that was pretty cool but that is about it

there is a Wiki link that talks a little about them though Repeating crossbow - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows.
> 
> I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot?


I have just read a book about the "repeating crossbows".

The repeating crossbows was invented while the riffle's bullet and gun power still had to be loaded through the front. While the old riffle could only be effective within 150 yards, the repeating crossbow could be effective within 300 yards. Also the repeating crossbows could be loaded by using the foot. it could be loaded much faster than the old gun power riffle. The repeating crossbows were used mainly to against the horse back soldiers. You have 3 lines of your crossbow soldiers. Those 3 lines took terms to stand up and shoot when the other 2 lines were down on their knee while the enemies horse soldiers were running toward your.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2015)

Actually the earliest archeological find of a repeating crossbow appears to be from the 4th century BC from the Spring and Autumn period which is long before gunpowder


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually the earliest archeological find of a repeating crossbow appears to be from the 4th century BC from the Spring and Autumn period which is long before gunpowder


You are right, it was invented much earlier. But it was heavily used during the early gunpowder era.


----------



## JPinAZ (Apr 22, 2015)

zuti car said:


> There is one other thing , fighting oriented ,practical people will go to the place where they can results in a short time and where results are measurable . Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts . People who want to fight or to be prepared for fighting understand that training process will not be easy and it will be painful . In most of traditional clubs I have visited people never did sparring , heavy bag training , situational training , sports fighting , but they are full of stories about "internal" powers and great ancestors .





zuti car said:


> Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts .



I think it is a misunderstanding of the principles of WC and it's training methods if someone doesn't think you can build quick skill in WC - that is one of the reasons for it's design in the first place.

While I would agree that today we don't see a lot of cases that support this in many WC schools, that doesn't mean it  can't or isn't being done. And while I also feel that to really understand the system in it's depth and width takes many years, you can still train a WC fighter with drills based on basic WC principles and mechanics with similar results (as your example of boxing) in similar amount of time. It's all in the approach and how you train. 
Now, will this type of fighter be a teacher as a result? Most likely not without the in-depth understanding of the system. There is a big difference between quickly developed WC san sau skills and complete WC system concept/principle understanding. But the same can be said for a boxer or most anyone else who develops 'fighting skills' in a short amount of time...


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.


----------



## Drose427 (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.



Ive never heard this before, but i wouldnt be overly surprised to see WC somewhere in police hand to hand training.

Similar things happen currently and did in the past in Korea and Japan leos and militaries with TKD/Hapkido and Karate\Judo


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> . The crossbow was more expensive harder to make. It couldn't be used as effectively on a horse, if at all.



Have you ever fired a bow mounted? I have.

Have you ever fired a crossbow mounted? I have.

With a bow, a right-handed archer is almost entirely confined to shooting to his left. A left handed archer is similarly confined to shooting to his right. A crossbow can be fired more easily  to either side. Both require both hands to fire and reload, so there's no advantage there-the only real advantage to a bow is speed.

Again, it depends upon what you mean by "effective," which, in this context, I'd define as arrows or darts on target and degree of penetration (damage.)

I know that I took a feral hog much more _effectively_ with my crossbow than I would with any of my bows, though  I have to say that next time I'll bring a rifle....maybe a muzzleloader, but a rifle, nonetheless....

Mounted archers generally could be overcome by foot-archers, and crossbowmen generally have been used against mounted archers through history: the Crusaders used crossbows against Mongol and Turkomen horse archers to great......._effect_, and the Chinese also used crossbows against the Mongols. 

So, again, I don't know what you goddam mean, and, apparently,  neither do you....again.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 22, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Have you ever fired a bow mounted? I have.
> 
> Have you ever fired a crossbow mounted? I have.
> 
> ...



The heavier draw weights for war crossbows would require epic strength to draw when mounted without the muscles and tools you could use on the ground. Versus the bow, which can still be drawn the same way even in the highest draw weights. Although, yeah, the crossbow has more maneuverability in aiming mounted than the bow.

I define effectiveness as the most damage in the smallest amount of time for the least amount of effort. Bows weigh less, are easy to make and carry, and can shoot faster. I'm don't know factually on this last point, but I _think_ crossbows can beat bows in penetrating power. 

This point with the hog has nothing to do with historical war. Although, thumbs up on that. 

This bit at the end doesn't have a beef with me. I said   "There are differences in each that would make one of them the better choice for different things."   That end bit is just examples on that point.  And my opinion remains unchanged that, _overall_, the bow is a better weapon of war because: - it's cheaper, lighter, faster, better mounted, and can be carried easier. That isn't to say they both have things they're going to better at than the other, or like they're aren't situations where one would be more useful than the other.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> The heavier draw weights for war crossbows would require epic strength to draw when mounted without the muscles and tools you could use on the ground. Versus the bow, which can still be drawn the same way even in the highest draw weights. Although, yeah, the crossbow has more maneuverability in aiming mounted than the bow.



As I posted, historically, the crossbow was more effective, and, with the invention of the pushbar and ratchet mechanisms for drawing the bow, the drawbacks (see what I did there) that you've pointed out were largely negated. 

Mostly, recurve bows, or composite  bows for mounted archery simply weren't (and, in the modern era, mostly *aren't*) of "the highest draw weights." 

In both cases, for a single rider (the earliest known mounted archers, the Assyrians, around 800 B.C., are depicted as using two riders, with one controlling both horses and one shooting) the reins must be put aside so that the bow can be manipulated with both hands-making the only real advantage for the lighter recurve and composite bows to be speed of fire. Mounted archers were usually used as skirmishers, wherever they were found, throughout history-and, as I posted earlier,usually defeated by archers on foot, whatever sort of bow they were armed with.....

The point  with the hog has everything to do with "effectiveness," something you don't seem to understand.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 23, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.



Chinese police are taught a police version of Sanda/Sanshou

Wing Chun was used to trained Stewardesses on one of the Chinese Airlines


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2015)

So, not to derail to much more, but for clarity's sake, I thought I'd offer a few more "bow vs. crossbow" (older v. newer?) basics:

The crossbow is more effective in that it can deliver an arrow at greater speed with more penetration, and also has a more effective range-it is also easier to aim and to fire from cover. All things being equal, a skilled archer will deliver a better grouping with a crossbow than a compound, recurve or longbow.
The only  significant "advantage" the last three offer is in reloading for a second and third shot-generally, the more conventional bows will get three shots delivered to  one of the crossbow's.

Orange Lightning also mentioned context: warfare.I've already mentioned the use of cover, and how the crossbow has an advantage there, but let's consider how the bow was used in warfare: with the exception of mounted archery, archers would fire in volleys from a distance, on a parabolic path-they would rain arrows down on opposing troops, not so much "aiming," as mass firing and hoping for the arrows to find a target. They were used in this fashion to take advantage of their range....._range_, where the advantage again belongs to the crossbow. In fact, the only reason we don't really read more about the use of the crossbow in combat is that it was quickly supplanted by firarms.....a standing group of archers with crossbows could position themselves out of range of conventional bows, and deliver volleys on target with impunity, negating the disadvantage of slower rate of fire.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 24, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Mostly, recurve bows, or composite bows for mounted archery simply weren't (and, in the modern era, mostly *aren't*) of "the highest draw weights."



Alright, you have me there.



elder999 said:


> So, not to derail to much more, but for clarity's sake, I thought I'd offer a few more "bow vs. crossbow" (older v. newer?) basics:
> 
> The crossbow is more effective in that it can deliver an arrow at greater speed with more penetration, and also has a more effective range-it is also easier to aim and to fire from cover. All things being equal, a skilled archer will deliver a better grouping with a crossbow than a compound, recurve or longbow.
> The only  significant "advantage" the last three offer is in reloading for a second and third shot-generally, the more conventional bows will get three shots delivered to  one of the crossbow's.
> ...



I agree with all that, except for the bit about the crossbow being _more_ efficient. I'm not saying you're wrong. I agree on all the technical and historical aspects (it's not like they can be debated. They're facts.  ), and yet disagree on this point about efficiency. 
Both weapons express there potency differently. My primary argument on this is simply how much harder crossbows are to make, buy, maintain, and carry, compared to the bow. The materials are harder to find and forge, and more difficult to fix on campaign. With a bow, you get more _for less_, outside of it needing more training. To equip *an army*, these are serious considerations.

The Longbow replaced the crossbow in this example. It won The Hundred Years War for the English. Agincourt in particular, is famous for the longbow winning the day against mounted knights, infantry, and crossbowmen. They were greatly outnumbered. The king Henry V made a law that required all able bodied men to arm themselves with bows and to practice with them. He also outlawed games that would take away from daily archery practice. 
A huge population of peasants were turned into a powerful force _with a treated stick and a string._ I would call that pretty efficient. 

Archery - its the law

Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If your targets are farther away, then yes, the crossbow will shoot farther and be the better choice. Not so if you're....not...farther...away. This is a matter of tactics. Not weapon potency. The crossbow is also better with penetrating. So if you're facing lots of heavily armored units, then point for the crossbow. If you're facing not quite so heavily armored units en mass (pretty normal for history. Most people couldn't afford the best armor), then the bow will bring down more targets than the crossbow. 
Which one is the better choice is situational. One being used more or less than the other is a matter of tactics and what you need to fight against. Due to the arguments stated above, I would still say that the bow is _more efficient_, but not necessarily more _*or*_ less potent. In this way, my opinion is that the benefits of arming your army with a bow outweigh the benefits arming them with a crossbow, overall. That isn't to say the bow is an overall "better" weapon. That's just a matter of contextual relevance. Different weapon, different usage.


----------

