# Five Martial Arts Principles



## Primal Monk (Jan 26, 2018)

I've had the exact same principles in mind, but saw it nicely represented in the Kengan Asura manga.




I would add "Physical Fitness", but besides that, this seems like a complete diagram.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 26, 2018)

Jeezuz.  Just...jeezuz...


----------



## geezer (Jan 26, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Jeezuz.  Just...jeezuz...



Yes indeed! _That's_ the most important principle that this brings to mind. Also known as the *face-palm *principle...

...demonstrated below by _Pirate Hunter Zoro:
http://i26.tinypic.com/ojng4w.jpg_

And again by Inuyasha:
https://orig00.deviantart.net/d7f7/f/2012/204/8/f/inuyasha_facepalm_by_animalsandanime-d58dapf.jpg

...also by Ichigo:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/137152/3100116-9296622235-bleac.jpg

...Krillin
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LlzMs3Btiv0/hqdefault.jpg

....need I go on?


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

I only know that if you stiffen your entire body at the right time at impact, you can double or quadruple the force because you lose no kinetic transfer and effectively put your entire weight behind it.
I also know that when moving your footwork should be as changeable as possible, as in, you can move anyway anywhere at any moment. Ideally.
I also know that when grappling, locking, and for certain defenses and evasions, you want a soft, flexible body, (and strong obviously) so you can be receptive to your opponents movements/position in that moment and use them against him or maneuver around them rather than butt into him and create chaos. As well, being flexible is an advantage here.
I also know that you want to redirect and manipulate your opponent's body to use his own force and movements against him, and to find the weak points in his power so you can overwhelm and throw him completely out of whack. Prevent him from generating torque and speed and collapse in at his weakest moments in his movements to take control of his body.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

Elitism and snobbishness gets you nowhere, when you are actually inferior. It should be called Martial Science or Martial Mastery. If chemistry principles or lessons were in a children's cartoon, it would be legitimate either way. Same with anything. The writers of the manga have over 10 years of experience (at least two of them do) and they'll go to matches to learn more.
The 'repressed' human psyche finds outlet in creative works; and in accord with ancient and now Jungian psychology, the human unconscious is largely understood as a collective one. With this in mind, I look at creative works as an expression of locked human potential attempting to signal itself into existence. The more intense and volumous the genre or species of fiction, the more likely that human potential is severely 'repressed'/suppressed.
"The drive to achieve or have something is not the ability to do so" some may say. But that is incredibly unAmerican, unManly, and are made by people who are like crabs in a bucket. I spit on those fools.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Elitism and snobbishness gets you nowhere, when you are actually inferior. It should be called Martial Science or Martial Mastery. If chemistry principles or lessons were in a children's cartoon, it would be legitimate either way. Same with anything. The writers of the manga have over 10 years of experience (at least two of them do) and they'll go to matches to learn more.
> The 'repressed' human psyche finds outlet in creative works; and in accord with ancient and now Jungian psychology, the human unconscious is largely understood as a collective one. With this in mind, I look at creative works as an expression of locked human potential attempting to signal itself into existence. The more intense and volumous the genre or species of fiction, the more likely that human potential is severely 'repressed'/suppressed.
> "The drive to achieve or have something is not the ability to do so" some may say. But that is incredibly unAmerican, unManly, and are made by people who are like crabs in a bucket. I spit on those fools.



The problem with works of fiction is that even if they include "scientific" elements into them, they often leave key points out that make the science they discuss impossible. Just as an example, just look at how often you see someone in a cartoon wielding a huge heavy weapon at high speed. Even if you could explain how they would have the strength to swing around something so heavy, the laws of physics will tell you that it is impossible, due to the way forces work. According to Newton's third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In other words, if you swing around a huge heavy weapon it will generate centrifugal force that your body has to then absorb in equal measure. Get a heavy enough weapon swinging fast enough and you can literally tear your own arms off just by swinging it, no matter how strong you are. Like it or not, there is a huge difference between what works in fiction and what works in reality, no matter how much creativity you put into it.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

Strong isn't strong. A gymnast can walk into the gym for the first time and deadlift 400 lbs. Lifting heavy weights isn't what makes you strong. A bunch of big muscles with atrophied or overall **** connective tissues and poor smaller muscle strength can't transmit the necessary forces required. You always hear this ******** physics, when it's grade school level comprehension of physics. For example: something of the number 2000 N is transmitted through your SI Joint when performing a weighted squat. Big number. Yet a shoulder is torn instead. What?
Think a little deeper about it and you'll realize that human potential is limited by will, knowledge, wisdom and imagination, not physics. A powerlifter or strongman can't do what a gymnast can. A gymnast can do what a powerlifter or strongman of similar weight can (relatively, and with minimal training they can shore up the difference). The body can be developed to an abnormally complete standard. Besides that are the fact that a 120 lb mother can lift a car when her child is underneath it, and be uninjured afterword. Access to this would entail what? You don't know, but someone does, and has done it.

You also try to spin what I say into a 2D understanding of me while injecting your own shortcomings in understanding reality. I'm not saying that because fiction exists of it, it can exist in the real world. I am saying that, because so much and so intently does it exist, there is a strong enough drive behind it to push human ability much further than any other aspect of a human. Just think, "Animal strength and reflex" if you want a clearer picture of what a raw and low intelligence being can achieve. Science isn't science when they start abstracting and applying what they see in extremely simple systems and objects onto complex systems and objects, whilst never challenging their perceptions or opinions of the complex systems and objects, thus reducing them to their own simplistic understanding. I have a low regard for modern science. They are haughty and elitist, and cling to their status as "science" to give themselves the authority to determine the true and false of anything and everything, often whilst borrowing the opinion of other scientists rather than forming their own from the original science experiments, observations and systematic modeling. They then explain away reality that contradicts their views to protect their pride and authority. Socio-politico at its best.


----------



## Buka (Jan 27, 2018)

Welcome to MartialTalk, Primal Monk.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Think a little deeper about it and you'll realize that human potential is limited by will, knowledge, wisdom and imagination, not physics. A powerlifter or strongman can't do what a gymnast can. A gymnast can do what a powerlifter or strongman of similar weight can (relatively, and with minimal training they can shore up the difference). The body can be developed to an abnormally complete standard.



If that is true and your potential as a human being is only limited by your will, I challenge you to do Saitama's workout from One Punch Man. 100 pushups, 100 sit ups, 100 squats and a 10k run every single day for 3 years. I guarantee that your body will literally destroy itself before you achieve the strength to punch through a wall. You could have the strongest will and imagination in the world, but the human body does have limits.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

Once again, you misrepresent what I've said with these prepared responses based on bias and prejudices that you can't seem to put aside to have a direct conversation with someone. Must I speak to you through your own cultural lense, and handicap myself severely in order to evoke a non-cookie cutter response?

You neglect the concepts of wisdom and knowledge in favor of responding to the flavor of my initial post, which was a snapshot from a manga of which I asked what people thought of the principles outlined. I also explained that I already held the principles in my mind prior to seeing them in the manga. You seem to be responding to an imagined nostalgic and naive emotional charge rather than look at what I'm saying explicitly. Physics do indeed exist, but their application to the human body is simplistic and unsophisticated in the context of training and combat.

Here is a link showing how a pulley system can result in lifting a 90 kg object with 15 kg of human force: The 6:1 Pulley System - ropebook

Here's a modified version of the original picture at the top, setting what I believe to be the human potential as it is relative to elite human athletes/sportsman:


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

Hello to you Buka.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Once again, you misrepresent what I've said with these prepared responses based on bias and prejudices that you can't seem to put aside to have a direct conversation with someone. Must I speak to you through your own cultural lense, and handicap myself severely in order to evoke a non-cookie cutter response?
> 
> You neglect the concepts of wisdom and knowledge in favor of responding to the flavor of my initial post, which was a snapshot from a manga of which I asked what people thought of the principles outlined. I also explained that I already held the principles in my mind prior to seeing them in the manga. You seem to be responding to an imagined nostalgic and naive emotional charge rather than look at what I'm saying explicitly. Physics do indeed exist, but their application to the human body is simplistic and unsophisticated in the context of training and combat.
> 
> ...



Right now you are saying all these fancy words that I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of. This has nothing to do with my bias and prejudices, and what exactly do you mean by my "cultural lense"? Do you even know what that means? Anyway, let's move on. You asked before how a 120lb mother is able to lift a car to save her child, and although the true answer still eludes scientists, there are a few theories, one being a severe adrenaline rush, which effectively makes your body much more efficient by increasing your heart rate, increasing blood pressure and expanding the air passages in your lungs. All this allows more oxygen to get to your muscles, letting them work harder than normal. However, prolonged exposure to high adrenaline can have serious consequences for your health, as anyone with high blood pressure will tell you. Scientists estimate that even when exercising as hard as we can, your average person only uses around 60% of their total muscle mass, and an athlete uses around 80%. So yes, you could theoretically become stronger just through willpower, but chances are you couldn't sustain it for long periods of time without your cardiovascular system giving out. 

Anyway, what do I think about the principles outlined? There are all things I have seen and heard of before, although it's hard to tell just how effective they are in a real combat situation. While all the principles outlined in your picture are backed up by physics and biomechanics, there is a big difference between theoretically talking about them, and applying them in combat. They sound impressive and mystical which is precisely why they are used in fantasy settings, but at the end of the day there are very few people in the world who can actually make use of them.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

I'm not disagreeing about the rarity or difficulty of it. I just don't see how talking about 4 or 5 simple principles for a fighting style was ridiculous.
The bias is your selective attention on the willpower aspect of it, when I mentioned knowledge, wisdom and imagination, which adds up to methodology. This is due to your experience of youth who think they can accomplish anything through shear willpower after watching fiction. This is what is meant. You ignore what I say and recall all the youth that make that mistake after viewing the corresponding stimulus (eastern fiction), as I presented a snippet of.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I'm not disagreeing about the rarity or difficulty of it. I just don't see how talking about 4 or 5 simple principles for a fighting style was ridiculous.
> The bias is your selective attention on the willpower aspect of it, when I mentioned knowledge, wisdom and imagination, which adds up to methodology. This is due to your experience of youth who think they can accomplish anything through shear willpower after watching fiction. This is what is meant. You ignore what I say and recall all the youth that make that mistake after viewing the corresponding stimulus (eastern fiction), as I presented a snippet of.


Because it is very simplified, and suggesting that these are separate things, while in reality they intermingle, and aren't as easily separated as the diagram would suggest.

Your responses also very much suggest elitism and snobbishness, which you complained about. A tad hypocritical.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I'm not disagreeing about the rarity or difficulty of it. I just don't see how talking about 4 or 5 simple principles for a fighting style was ridiculous.
> The bias is your selective attention on the willpower aspect of it, when I mentioned knowledge, wisdom and imagination, which adds up to methodology. This is due to your experience of youth who think they can accomplish anything through shear willpower after watching fiction. This is what is meant. You ignore what I say and recall all the youth that make that mistake after viewing the corresponding stimulus (eastern fiction), as I presented a snippet of.



If the principles you talk about are so simple everyone would be able to manage them. As it is, the ability to use those principles together in combat is so rare that many people believe they are a load of mystical nonsense peddled by charlatans.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Strong isn't strong. A gymnast can walk into the gym for the first time and deadlift 400 lbs.


Of course, you have examples of an untrained lifter walking into a gym and lifting 2.5 to 3 times bodyweight? Happens all the time, right?


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Because it is very simplified, and suggesting that these are separate things, while in reality they intermingle, and aren't as easily separated as the diagram would suggest.
> 
> Your responses also very much suggest elitism and snobbishness, which you complained about. A tad hypocritical.



It's essentially hypocritical if I act elitist and snobbish by borrowed authority to dismiss the possibility of something, which is the context of the accusation. I'm challenging held beliefs in a confrontational and critical manner rather than with leading questions and comments (yielding and manipulative manner). It's hypercritical or just critical, not hypocritical.



Midnight-shadow said:


> If the principles you talk about are so simple everyone would be able to manage them. As it is, the ability to use those principles together in combat is so rare that many people believe they are a load of mystical nonsense peddled by charlatans.



Same could be said about Zen or the 'Enlightened'. They'll tell you you aren't enlightened, or some mystical nonsense, and then get accused of being charlatans (justified or not).
Speaking of Zen; principles are easier to meditate on and obsessively ponder and seek the perception of directly. Thus they are necessary. When something seems over-complicated, you get to ask yourself what the principles of fighting are and then simplify the learning process (i.e. improve more quickly). Principles are essential for something where getting your cluttered head out of the way is essential: Fighting.

Innovation requires asking obvious questions and getting non-obvious answers i.e. deep thinking e.g. philosophy; if you want to communicate or share the innovation that is. Requiring something less simple is a handicap in the long run. Sophisticated training of the body is great, since it's built in and creates unique effectiveness, but the mind should be simple and even primal.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

frank raud said:


> Of course, you have examples of an untrained lifter walking into a gym and lifting 2.5 to 3 times bodyweight? Happens all the time, right?


Not really no. Gymnasts can be found often with a strong posterior chain necessary for heavy deadlifts though. The point was about the translatability of certain disciplines. Heavy lifters can't do gymnastics but gymnasts can lift heavy (besides squats). It's asymmetric which is important to identify so that you can train effectively. If that information is irrelevant to you it's because you don't care about effectiveness.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Not really no. Gymnasts can be found often with a strong posterior chain necessary for heavy deadlifts though. The point was about the translatability of certain disciplines. Heavy lifters can't do gymnastics but gymnasts can lift heavy (besides squats). It's asymmetric which is important to identify so that you can train effectively. If that information is irrelevant to you it's because you don't care about effectiveness.


So your real world example isn't. It' theoretically possible, but it still fails the smell test
Could someone with strength and flexibility be able to do over double bodyweight after several months of training? Quite likely
 Walk in off the street and do it first time? I will gladly put money against it.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 27, 2018)

frank raud said:


> So your real world example isn't. It' theoretically possible, but it still fails the smell test
> Could someone with strength and flexibility be able to do over double bodyweight after several months of training? Quite likely
> Walk in off the street and do it first time? I will gladly put money against it.



All Muscle, No Iron | T Nation

Give me your money.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2018)

All MA systems are built on "principles". 

Some principles are down to earth such as:

- Get both if you can, otherwise get one first and get the other afterward.
- 1 is better than 1,2. 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.
- You should give before you can take.
- ...

Some principles are so abstract that it can only confuse you and server you no usage such as:

- Cruelty.
- One.
- ...

IMO, the OP's diagram is too "abstract".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's essentially hypocritical if I act elitist and snobbish by borrowed authority to dismiss the possibility of something, which is the context of the accusation. I'm challenging held beliefs in a confrontational and critical manner rather than with leading questions and comments (yielding and manipulative manner). It's hypercritical or just critical, not hypocritical.


Nope. Your specifically being hypocritical. You complained about elitism and snobbishness (not where they come from), while at the same time being elitist and snobbish.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Elitism and snobbishness gets you nowhere, when you are actually inferior. It should be called Martial Science or Martial Mastery. If chemistry principles or lessons were in a children's cartoon, it would be legitimate either way. Same with anything. The writers of the *manga* have over 10 years of experience (at least two of them do) and they'll go to matches to learn more.
> The 'repressed' human psyche finds outlet in creative works; and in accord with ancient and now Jungian psychology, the human unconscious is largely understood as a collective one. With this in mind, I look at creative works as an expression of locked human potential attempting to signal itself into existence. The more intense and volumous the genre or species of fiction, the more likely that human potential is severely 'repressed'/suppressed.
> "The drive to achieve or have something is not the ability to do so" some may say. But that is incredibly unAmerican, unManly, and are made by people who are like crabs in a bucket. I spit on those fools.



*Manga are comics *created in Japan or by creators in the Japanese language, conforming to a style developed in Japan in the late 19th century.

Reality


the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them

the state or quality of having existence or substance.
"youth, when death has no reality"


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I've had the exact same principles in mind, but saw it nicely represented in the Kengan Asura manga.View attachment 21224
> 
> I would add "Physical Fitness", but besides that, this seems like a complete diagram.


Well... if you think about it... one does not necessarily HAVE to be physically fit at the start of one's practice. And then, if the practice is consistent and in proper form, physical fitness won't be far behind. So, it could be argued it is built in.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 27, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Elitism and snobbishness gets you nowhere, when you are actually inferior.


Actually, I don't think being an elitist and a snob is a good idea at any point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Once again, you misrepresent what I've said with these prepared responses based on bias and prejudices that you can't seem to put aside to have a direct conversation with someone. Must I speak to you through your own cultural lense, and handicap myself severely in order to evoke a non-cookie cutter response?
> 
> You neglect the concepts of wisdom and knowledge in favor of responding to the flavor of my initial post, which was a snapshot from a manga of which I asked what people thought of the principles outlined. I also explained that I already held the principles in my mind prior to seeing them in the manga. You seem to be responding to an imagined nostalgic and naive emotional charge rather than look at what I'm saying explicitly. Physics do indeed exist, but their application to the human body is simplistic and unsophisticated in the context of training and combat.
> 
> ...


Your condescending tone does not add credibility to your statements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Not really no. Gymnasts can be found often with a strong posterior chain necessary for heavy deadlifts though. The point was about the translatability of certain disciplines. Heavy lifters can't do gymnastics but gymnasts can lift heavy (besides squats). It's asymmetric which is important to identify so that you can train effectively. If that information is irrelevant to you it's because you don't care about effectiveness.


Having a strong muscle set doesn't translate to being able to do that deadlift. There's neurological development necessary for that skill (deadlift) to develop to a high level. So, no, it's unlikely a gymnast who has never performed weight lifting (first time in the gym, per your original post on that) would step up and deadlift more than 2 times his body weight.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> All Muscle, No Iron | T Nation
> 
> Give me your money.


Isn't it curious that if you type in JJ Gregory gymnast in google( the exceptional student mentioned in the above article), what comes up are discussions about the article, questions about who JJ Gregory is, but no mentions of him competing, no mention of him winning the 1993 rings championship(well there is, but it is showing a list of all 1993 gymnastic champions and his name is not on the list). It's almost like the coach made him up to promote the book he wrote about using gymnastics to gain strength.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Nope. Your specifically being hypocritical. You complained about elitism and snobbishness (not where they come from), while at the same time being elitist and snobbish.


Then "for the record", "They are haughty and elitist, and cling to their status as "science" to give themselves the authority to determine the true and false of anything and everything, often whilst borrowing the opinion of other scientists rather than forming their own from the original science experiments, observations and systematic modeling. They then explain away reality that contradicts their views to protect their pride and authority." --> ".. and cling" should have been "... clinging" as in they are haughty and elitist for clinging to their so on and so forth. That makes them literally  hypo-critical (no negation) of their source that they derive from to justify their hyper-critical negation (the emphasis not on the validity of the attitude but of the authenticity of their claims as to whether something is possible or causation of something). Whether this attitude on its own is a bad thing is another discussion. I'm claiming they're wrong, and taking a critical approach to the sources of information and "common sense" regarding human ability, learning, and application in the context of fighting and fitness.



Xue Sheng said:


> *Manga are comics *created in Japan or by creators in the Japanese language, conforming to a style developed in Japan in the late 19th century.
> 
> Reality
> 
> ...



Like I said, I just like the diagram. I already held similar principles in my mind beforehand.



AngryHobbit said:


> Well... if you think about it... one does not necessarily HAVE to be physically fit at the start of one's practice. And then, if the practice is consistent and in proper form, physical fitness won't be far behind. So, it could be argued it is built in.



A lot of that is lower intensity though. And proper form isn't necessarily proper without the necessary power. You might be able to do the form, but your joints and muscles and bones might not be strong enough to deliver a strong hit or move very quickly. Since this is about combat, the singular principle is body damage, domination or negation. 



gpseymour said:


> Your condescending tone does not add credibility to your statements.



It's "anti-authoritarian"; or, "when death has no reality" (jk-ing)



gpseymour said:


> Having a strong muscle set doesn't translate to being able to do that deadlift. There's neurological development necessary for that skill (deadlift) to develop to a high level. So, no, it's unlikely a gymnast who has never performed weight lifting (first time in the gym, per your original post on that) would step up and deadlift more than 2 times his body weight.



Gymnastics engages many of the same muscle groups. Traps, Lats, Back. If they ever performed a squat in their life, then they would have the necessary strength to deadlift 2x bodyweight. A high level gymnast could likely perform 2.5x bodyweight.



frank raud said:


> Isn't it curious that if you type in JJ Gregory gymnast in google( the exceptional student mentioned in the above article), what comes up are discussions about the article, questions about who JJ Gregory is, but no mentions of him competing, no mention of him winning the 1993 rings championship(well there is, but it is showing a list of all 1993 gymnastic champions and his name is not on the list). It's almost like the coach made him up to promote the book he wrote about using gymnastics to gain strength.



I couldn't find anything on him either. I guess he's a schmuck. "Gymnast tries deadlifting" isn't getting me anywhere either, so I can't find a clear case where a gymnast that doesn't deadlift tries deadlifting. Unprovable either way for now.


----------



## Balrog (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I've had the exact same principles in mind, but saw it nicely represented in the Kengan Asura manga.
> 
> I would add "Physical Fitness", but besides that, this seems like a complete diagram.


Welcome to the board, PM.  Interesting diagram.

As far as the limitations of the human body, they are numerous.  Most of them can be overcome by simple goal-setting, then creating a plan to achieve the goal, then working the plan.  Some of them can't be and setting a goal to overcome them will fail because the goal is not realistic.

Bottom line - work every day toward becoming a better person mentally and physically.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA systems are built on "principles".
> 
> Some principles are down to earth such as:
> 
> ...



One could be applied as Zen. Perhaps not as Zen as O (nothing) but still Zen. "be one with the enemy, the fight, the punch, the throw, yourself, the world. Tao".
Cruelty can be applied as a predatory instinct that is cultivated. This way you know how a "cruel" opponent would rip your nuts off in so and so position, and gouge your eyes in another, etc., while learning how to cruelly take advantage of every opening and shortcoming of your opponent.
Not very abstract. You named a Cruel Zen Predator with realistic expectations and fighting style, with a quick and perceptive mind with superior technique.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

[QUO
TE="Primal Monk, post: 1883858, member: 38720"]

A lot of that is lower intensity though. And proper form isn't necessarily proper without the necessary power. You might be able to do the form, but your joints and muscles and bones might not be strong enough to deliver a strong hit or move very quickly. Since this is about combat, the singular principle is body damage, domination or negation.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said "at the start of one's practice". One of my greatest challenges at developing good strikes was that my first instructor focused too much on classical form, the exact position of limbs, but not enough on actually hitting something. For those of us with physical impairments, this was doubly challenging - since some of us could only achieve the proper position through excruciating pain AND we had no advice as to how to adjust the form to also gain power and precision.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> [QUO
> TE="Primal Monk, post: 1883858, member: 38720"]
> 
> A lot of that is lower intensity though. And proper form isn't necessarily proper without the necessary power. You might be able to do the form, but your joints and muscles and bones might not be strong enough to deliver a strong hit or move very quickly. Since this is about combat, the singular principle is body damage, domination or negation.


That's why I said "at the start of one's practice". One of my greatest challenges at developing good strikes was that my first instructor focused too much on classical form, the exact position of limbs, but not enough on actually hitting something. For those of us with physical impairments, this was doubly challenging - since some of us could only achieve the proper position through excruciating pain AND we had no advice as to how to adjust the form to also gain power and precision.[/QUOTE]

Have you tried straight arm work? Maximal contraction and strength in a straight arm position is a core aspect of a powerful punch. It's the difference of being hit by a sack of sand or dirt, and hit by an iron bar. Besides that is the weak muscles in your hips, low back, glutes, feet, ankles, calves, knees... etc. The kinetic chain. The transfer of power, torque, tension... can be painful. Finding pain when trying to hit harder is a good thing. Or slowness, if your body stops you before hurting yourself. If you apply a "battle to the death" mentality though, you will push the weak and injury-prone tissue into action rather than your body stopping yourself. This is a good thing, as you know your weak points now.  You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness (straight/long limb being best usually, as your joints an dbody contract maximally in order to stay together and avoid injury aka strengthen). That's why active stretching can be very good; such as getting into a split and holding your body above the injury point with your own muscle. Similar principle, just make sure you can hold yourself up and have something to catch yourself with.
Connective tissues around your joints have to be incredible strong in order to decrease the space that the liquid in your joints is in whilst having the strength to include dynamism in the liquid's pressure changes in order to act effectively as shocks. Weak joint muscle/connective tissues can't squeeze in a controlled and appropriate manner to distribute force safely by manipulating the liquid and bones methodically and vigorously. 

You might not have a problem with power now, but I hope my advice is something new and you can recognize the sense in it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's "anti-authoritarian"; or, "when death has no reality" (jk-ing)


No, it's not. I chose my words carefully.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Gymnastics engages many of the same muscle groups. Traps, Lats, Back. If they ever performed a squat in their life, then they would have the necessary strength to deadlift 2x bodyweight. A high level gymnast could likely perform 2.5x bodyweight.


Engaging the same muscles doesn't train them for the activity. Part (a large part) of "strength" is coordinating the muscles appropriately for the exercise. @jobo can speak to that better than I, as can some others.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

Balrog said:


> Welcome to the board, PM.  Interesting diagram.
> 
> As far as the limitations of the human body, they are numerous.  Most of them can be overcome by simple goal-setting, then creating a plan to achieve the goal, then working the plan.  Some of them can't be and setting a goal to overcome them will fail because the goal is not realistic.
> 
> Bottom line - work every day toward becoming a better person mentally and physically.



I approach limitations more like an engineer or computer scientist. Tinker and find some underlying mechanisms. Understand. Reinvent. It's as much an intellectual challenge as a physical one. With that in mind, let me point out that gymnasts have some of the strongest joints. Others get tendinitis, gymnasts get iron crosses at age 80. 














So beginning with the warrior instinct and body control/training of a gymnast along with relevant martial arts training (body control, difficult movements, other similar or complimentary aspects) you can build a body that can withstand higher forces than say, a power lifter. And now how about Iron Body training? They use a relaxed body while striking progressively harder substances or hitting their body with progressively harder things, whilst taking an herbal medicine usually, to strengthen connective tissues and bones. All together that's a body that can take extremely high loads and impacts. 
What about old strongmen, carrying horses and bending metals? They also did plenty of 1 armed, straight armed, and isometric training. They didn't have great bodies in terms of a beach bod (usually) and didn't have plenty of muscle mass either. They weren't even fat half of the time. Of course, many had strong looking bodies, but many did not as well.
Being well put together then isn't about big muscles. It's about connective tissues. And these are built with disadvantageous levers, isometrics, and building stabilizers. Now we have a foundation. What happens if we were to build this body ourselves? What would our next step be? It would be to extend the training to be even better at it, while complimenting it. Disadvantageous lever to be introduce: a sledgehammer. Apply the same principle to the sledgehammer now; gain complete "hammer control". Be strong and powerful from every lever angle. Incorporate isometrics by holding the hammer at these disadvantageous leverage points. Besides the arms, something could be invented for the torso and legs, such as pinching your feet between something at knee level and then strengthening your legs "straight arm" style, or doing planks/bridges spread eagle and putting weight on yourself. Balancing the weight would be part of it. Figuring out hand/foot exercises with similar principles applied wouldn't be too difficult. Go from a flat palm plank to a finger tip plank as smoothly and incremental as possible, etc.

Putting it all together would result in a body that would be ready for "impossible" things, if you were thorough enough. The weakest link of the chain breaks first; that's why removing weak points is how you develop "supernatural" strength; that's why gymnastics, joint/connective tissue strengthening and training you can perform all day every day is best (no moments of weakness; fatigue strength a la material science definition).

The only thing limiting us is our body intelligence. We gave up body intelligence for other intelligence, which was the right move as it boosted our potential and abilities well past all other animals. If we now sublimate our symbol and social intelligence (am I missing something?) for body intelligence, we'll bring with us the wisdom to be incredible; beyond even animals. I call that balance.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> No, it's not. I chose my words carefully.



I'm fine with being condescending. Descend love. My constitution needs it anyhow. It's for my health.



gpseymour said:


> Engaging the same muscles doesn't train them for the activity. Part (a large part) of "strength" is coordinating the muscles appropriately for the exercise. @jobo can speak to that better than I, as can some others.



Gymnasts are incredibly coordinated, at maximal loads/tensions. They both have maximal effort engagements of similar muscle groups. The only thing lacking are the glutes and hams, which if the athlete has any strength of, they can still use to accomplish a 2x or 2.5x deadlift. Gymnasts will perform bodyweight squats if the coach or athlete are any good and don't want chicken legs.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> That's why I said "at the start of one's practice". One of my greatest challenges at developing good strikes was that my first instructor focused too much on classical form, the exact position of limbs, but not enough on actually hitting something. For those of us with physical impairments, this was doubly challenging - since some of us could only achieve the proper position through excruciating pain AND we had no advice as to how to adjust the form to also gain power and precision.



Have you tried straight arm work? Maximal contraction and strength in a straight arm position is a core aspect of a powerful punch. It's the difference of being hit by a sack of sand or dirt, and hit by an iron bar. Besides that is the weak muscles in your hips, low back, glutes, feet, ankles, calves, knees... etc. The kinetic chain. The transfer of power, torque, tension... can be painful. Finding pain when trying to hit harder is a good thing. Or slowness, if your body stops you before hurting yourself. If you apply a "battle to the death" mentality though, you will push the weak and injury-prone tissue into action rather than your body stopping yourself. This is a good thing, as you know your weak points now.  You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness (straight/long limb being best usually, as your joints an dbody contract maximally in order to stay together and avoid injury aka strengthen). That's why active stretching can be very good; such as getting into a split and holding your body above the injury point with your own muscle. Similar principle, just make sure you can hold yourself up and have something to catch yourself with.
Connective tissues around your joints have to be incredible strong in order to decrease the space that the liquid in your joints is in whilst having the strength to include dynamism in the liquid's pressure changes in order to act effectively as shocks. Weak joint muscle/connective tissues can't squeeze in a controlled and appropriate manner to distribute force safely by manipulating the liquid and bones methodically and vigorously.

You might not have a problem with power now, but I hope my advice is something new and you can recognize the sense in it.[/QUOTE]

I work out and stretch almost every day - with a variety of exercise, including core, balancing, strength, and cardio. I don't think you fully understand the kind of physical limitations I am talking about. I'll give you an example: I have osteoma in both hips. It is a benign bone growth, not anything lethal, but something that can seriously limit how far your joint can go and in which direction. In my case, to execute a high round kick parallel to the floor in the form we were taught as classical, I have to lean back so far I can no longer see my target. Otherwise, I literally cannot get my leg up - my joint doesn't work that way. So, I don't do those particular kicks. I had to develop a modification, where I can reach both height and strength in a different way.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to absolutely state that "pain is a good thing". There is soreness from exercise - it happens. That type of pain eventually goes away as muscles develop. However, there is also pain from tearing tissue or a cracked bone. Telling someone it's a good thing, because it's all part of the practice is misleading, cruel, and downright harmful, because it can worsen the injury and impair one's ability to train for the rest of his or her life.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 28, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Have you tried straight arm work? Maximal contraction and strength in a straight arm position is a core aspect of a powerful punch. It's the difference of being hit by a sack of sand or dirt, and hit by an iron bar. Besides that is the weak muscles in your hips, low back, glutes, feet, ankles, calves, knees... etc. The kinetic chain. The transfer of power, torque, tension... can be painful. Finding pain when trying to hit harder is a good thing. Or slowness, if your body stops you before hurting yourself. If you apply a "battle to the death" mentality though, you will push the weak and injury-prone tissue into action rather than your body stopping yourself. This is a good thing, as you know your weak points now.  You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness (straight/long limb being best usually, as your joints an dbody contract maximally in order to stay together and avoid injury aka strengthen). That's why active stretching can be very good; such as getting into a split and holding your body above the injury point with your own muscle. Similar principle, just make sure you can hold yourself up and have something to catch yourself with.
> Connective tissues around your joints have to be incredible strong in order to decrease the space that the liquid in your joints is in whilst having the strength to include dynamism in the liquid's pressure changes in order to act effectively as shocks. Weak joint muscle/connective tissues can't squeeze in a controlled and appropriate manner to distribute force safely by manipulating the liquid and bones methodically and vigorously.
> 
> You might not have a problem with power now, but I hope my advice is something new and you can recognize the sense in it.
> ...


Beware taking advice from strangers on the internet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I'm fine with being condescending. Descend love. My constitution needs it anyhow. It's for my health.
> 
> 
> 
> Gymnasts are incredibly coordinated, at maximal loads/tensions. They both have maximal effort engagements of similar muscle groups. The only thing lacking are the glutes and hams, which if the athlete has any strength of, they can still use to accomplish a 2x or 2.5x deadlift. Gymnasts will perform bodyweight squats if the coach or athlete are any good and don't want chicken legs.


It's not about whether the person is coordinated or not. It's about whether they've trained the muscles to the appropriate coordination for a specific activity. Unless there's a VERY similar single activity in gymnastics (similar to deadlift) their muscles haven't been trained to coordinate for that activity. That lack of trained coordination limits applied strength.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Beware taking advice from strangers on the internet.


No worries. I don't. I would research something extensively before acting on it.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Have you tried straight arm work? Maximal contraction and strength in a straight arm position is a core aspect of a powerful punch. It's the difference of being hit by a sack of sand or dirt, and hit by an iron bar. Besides that is the weak muscles in your hips, low back, glutes, feet, ankles, calves, knees... etc. The kinetic chain. The transfer of power, torque, tension... can be painful. Finding pain when trying to hit harder is a good thing. Or slowness, if your body stops you before hurting yourself. If you apply a "battle to the death" mentality though, you will push the weak and injury-prone tissue into action rather than your body stopping yourself. This is a good thing, as you know your weak points now.  You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness (straight/long limb being best usually, as your joints an dbody contract maximally in order to stay together and avoid injury aka strengthen). That's why active stretching can be very good; such as getting into a split and holding your body above the injury point with your own muscle. Similar principle, just make sure you can hold yourself up and have something to catch yourself with.
> Connective tissues around your joints have to be incredible strong in order to decrease the space that the liquid in your joints is in whilst having the strength to include dynamism in the liquid's pressure changes in order to act effectively as shocks. Weak joint muscle/connective tissues can't squeeze in a controlled and appropriate manner to distribute force safely by manipulating the liquid and bones methodically and vigorously.
> 
> You might not have a problem with power now, but I hope my advice is something new and you can recognize the sense in it.



I work out and stretch almost every day - with a variety of exercise, including core, balancing, strength, and cardio. I don't think you fully understand the kind of physical limitations I am talking about. I'll give you an example: I have osteoma in both hips. It is a benign bone growth, not anything lethal, but something that can seriously limit how far your joint can go and in which direction. In my case, to execute a high round kick parallel to the floor in the form we were taught as classical, I have to lean back so far I can no longer see my target. Otherwise, I literally cannot get my leg up - my joint doesn't work that way. So, I don't do those particular kicks. I had to develop a modification, where I can reach both height and strength in a different way.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to absolutely state that "pain is a good thing". There is soreness from exercise - it happens. That type of pain eventually goes away as muscles develop. However, there is also pain from tearing tissue or a cracked bone. Telling someone it's a good thing, because it's all part of the practice is misleading, cruel, and downright harmful, because it can worsen the injury and impair one's ability to train for the rest of his or her life.[/QUOTE]

I said "Finding pain is a good thing. [...] you know your weak points now." and "You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness..."; As for your condition, I read that the lactic acid from endurance training (or some other acid) will remove bone that's in the way over time. Maybe you need to produce this lactic acid with endurance training for your hip muscles while staying out of the pain zone. The bone groove in the shoulder will expand if the muscle running through it hypertrophies, as long as the hypertrophy is slow enough and there's enough lactic acid from exercising to make its way.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It's not about whether the person is coordinated or not. It's about whether they've trained the muscles to the appropriate coordination for a specific activity. Unless there's a VERY similar single activity in gymnastics (similar to deadlift) their muscles haven't been trained to coordinate for that activity. That lack of trained coordination limits applied strength.



Yet it's similar in the sense of being "maximal" movements, whilst engaging similar muscle groups. If you teach the gymnast proper form on day 1, they'll deadlift 2+x their body weight. No point arguing it anymore. I've spoken my piece, it's redundant past this point.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Then "for the record", "They are haughty and elitist, and cling to their status as "science" to give themselves the authority to determine the true and false of anything and everything, often whilst borrowing the opinion of other scientists rather than forming their own from the original science experiments, observations and systematic modeling. They then explain away reality that contradicts their views to protect their pride and authority." --> ".. and cling" should have been "... clinging" as in they are haughty and elitist for clinging to their so on and so forth. That makes them literally  hypo-critical (no negation) of their source that they derive from to justify their hyper-critical negation (the emphasis not on the validity of the attitude but of the authenticity of their claims as to whether something is possible or causation of something). Whether this attitude on its own is a bad thing is another discussion. I'm claiming they're wrong, and taking a critical approach to the sources of information and "common sense" regarding human ability, learning, and application in the context of fighting and fitness.


Except at that point, you had no knowledge of why people had an issue with it, and just that they did. The only two comments was someone saying jeezus, and someone making a multiple facepalm post. You then made an assumption, called them elitist, snobbish, inferior (to yourself), and ranted about what you thought there issue was.

Clearly though you have no actual interest in discourse or feedback, so enjoy.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I said "Finding pain is a good thing. [...] you know your weak points now." and "You can take it safe and go for some strength and endurance training to shore up the weakness..."; As for your condition, I read that the lactic acid from endurance training (or some other acid) will remove bone that's in the way over time. Maybe you need to produce this lactic acid with endurance training for your hip muscles while staying out of the pain zone. The bone groove in the shoulder will expand if the muscle running through it hypertrophies, as long as the hypertrophy is slow enough and there's enough lactic acid from exercising to make its way.



And I suppose you have consulted extensively with qualified medical professionals to confirm that exercising to a point where lactic acid in your body starts removing bone is a safe and sane thing to do. Do you?

There are studies that discuss the impact of lactic acid bacteria on bone structure - that is true. However, they approach the subject at the microscopic level and point out impacts of environment, diet, stress level, and unique properties of one's organism - all of them playing into the equation.

Personally, reaching the level of physical activity to the point of altering one's chemical balance to the extent you describe, doesn't sound safe to me at all. I'd rather just find alternative strikes.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Engaging the same muscles doesn't train them for the activity. Part (a large part) of "strength" is coordinating the muscles appropriately for the exercise. @jobo can speak to that better than I, as can some others.



Indeed. You can use the same muscle group in multiple different ways to produce different outcomes. For example, I practice both springboard diving and pole dancing. Both activities require you to engage the shoulder muscles, but they are engaged in completely different ways for each activity. In diving you push up through the shoulders to create extra rotation, whereas in pole dancing you roll the shoulders inwards to provide more stability as you spin around the pole. Same muscle group, totally different use and outcome.

And since you were talking about gymnasts lifting heavy things, here you go.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Indeed. You can use the same muscle group in multiple different ways to produce different outcomes. For example, I practice both springboard diving and pole dancing. Both activities require you to engage the shoulder muscles, but they are engaged in completely different ways for each activity. In diving you push up through the shoulders to create extra rotation, whereas in pole dancing you roll the shoulders inwards to provide more stability as you spin around the pole. Same muscle group, totally different use and outcome.


That is fascinating! Both sound like terrifically challenging and athletic exercise forms. I know nothing at all about springboard diving (other than... you know... what one might see on TV) and a tiny little bit about pole dancing. You are my hero for taking on both of those - that must be quite a challenge. Amazing... 

And to your point - in many yoga poses, your focus on broadening your back and "sliding" your shoulders back and down to avoid strain and maintain stability. So, yet another use for the same muscle group producing yet a different result.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I'm fine with being condescending. Descend love. My constitution needs it anyhow. It's for my health.
> 
> 
> 
> Gymnasts are incredibly coordinated, at maximal loads/tensions. They both have maximal effort engagements of similar muscle groups. The only thing lacking are the glutes and hams, which if the athlete has any strength of, they can still use to accomplish a 2x or 2.5x deadlift. Gymnasts will perform bodyweight squats if the coach or athlete are any good and don't want chicken legs.



I just want to clarify something here. Do you mean that gymnasts don't use their glutes or that deadlifting doesn't use the glutes? If you were talking about the gymnasts not using their glutes I would wonder if you knew anything about gymnastics at all, since in order to maintain a handstand with proper form you need to engage your lower abs and your glutes. Failing to do so will cause you to arch your back and lose balance.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Except at that point, you had no knowledge of why people had an issue with it, and just that they did. The only two comments was someone saying jeezus, and someone making a multiple facepalm post. You then made an assumption, called them elitist, snobbish, inferior (to yourself), and ranted about what you thought there issue was.
> 
> Clearly though you have no actual interest in discourse or feedback, so enjoy.



lovely ********. I focus on trends, psychology, modern and retro/ancient training, thought currents, expert advice and opinions, critiques, etc. for anything that interests me. If you want something more penetrating, how about this: People lack the courage to push themselves outside what is believed possible. This is as simple as dealing with the unending doubts you have every single night, or whether you can really bend at that angle and not snap, or otherwise. People then develop a complex surrounding this cowardice (justified or not), trying to convince others that they're full of **** when they say you can do it, and that you can bend at that angle, or that you can train that often and that hard if you have the passion and the diligence, or the spirit, to not listen to your body when it tries to jerk or fall limp or rest or cry or squirm or die a little when performing some exercise or movement or just to get up and start all over again the next day. When you tell yourself, "Then die.",  you develop the tenacity to actually achieve great things. This parallel is drawn with the case of the super-mom who can lift a half ton when her child is under the vehicle; there's no way out, do it or die, it's all on the line. When you have that kind of unity of purpose you can achieve that sort of thing.
I have plenty of lovely knowledge of why people have a problem with it. I try to draw it out explicitly and "take the punches" so I have an opportunity to have a clear and non-vague rather than indirect discussion about it.
It's tic for tac, and don't say it isn't.



AngryHobbit said:


> And I suppose you have consulted extensively with qualified medical professionals to confirm that exercising to a point where lactic acid in your body starts removing bone is a safe and sane thing to do. Do you?
> 
> There are studies that discuss the impact of lactic acid bacteria on bone structure - that is true. However, they approach the subject at the microscopic level and point out impacts of environment, diet, stress level, and unique properties of one's organism - all of them playing into the equation.
> 
> Personally, reaching the level of physical activity to the point of altering one's chemical balance to the extent you describe, doesn't sound safe to me at all. I'd rather just find alternative strikes.



lactic acid is produced in every single physical activity of strain. It's the "burn" when exercising. When the bone groove in your shoulder is too small, due to muscle hypertrophy, it will widen by the lactic acid as mechanism. I suggested that if you tried exercising your hips in a way that doesn't hurt,whatever that range of motion is, it would begin to dissolve the bone growth. You already exercise your hips. I'm not suggesting anything radical. More burn in a more targeted fashion (hips, glutes, hip flexors, etc.), more lactic acid, faster the bone growth will dissolve and the more range of motion you have.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 28, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> That is fascinating! Both sound like terrifically challenging and athletic exercise forms. I know nothing at all about springboard diving (other than... you know... what one might see on TV) and a tiny little bit about pole dancing. You are my hero for taking on both of those - that must be quite a challenge. Amazing...
> 
> And to your point - in many yoga poses, your focus on broadening your back and "sliding" your shoulders back and down to avoid strain and maintain stability. So, yet another use for the same muscle group producing yet a different result.



Thanks. I haven't been training pole dancing for very long but it is very rewarding, not to mention the hardest workout I've ever had. It's rather curious, comparing diving and pole. Diving is much simpler technically but requires a lot of guts. If you don't trust your body and put 100% into the movement, you will fail. On the flip side I find pole dancing physically harder and more complex.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I just want to clarify something here. Do you mean that gymnasts don't use their glutes or that deadlifting doesn't use the glutes? If you were talking about the gymnasts not using their glutes I would wonder if you knew anything about gymnastics at all, since in order to maintain a handstand with proper form you need to engage your lower abs and your glutes. Failing to do so will cause you to arch your back and lose balance.



Gymnasts don't engage glutes or hams maximally, unlike their upper body.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Gymnasts don't engage glutes or hams maximally, unlike their upper body.



It depends what discipline they are doing. The rings require a lot less glute usage than the parallel bars or the pommel horse for example, but all the disciplines use the glutes at least a bit.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 28, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Thanks. I haven't been training pole dancing for very long but it is very rewarding, not to mention the hardest workout I've ever had. It's rather curious, comparing diving and pole. Diving is much simpler technically but requires a lot of guts. If you don't trust your body and put 100% into the movement, you will fail. On the flip side I find pole dancing physically harder and more complex.


I can only imagine. I am terrified of heights, and the closest I come to conquering them is making myself climb the tall obstacles during mud runs. So, I have huge respect for anyone who can stand at about the height of a four-story building and not go crazy before having to jump down.

I should do some research and see if there is a good pole-dancing class in the area. I love dancing, and this sounds fascinating and challenging. I don't know if, at my age, this is something I can conquer but hey... no law against trying, right?

One of my favorite books also describes the art of hyppoginnes - horse-dancing. Most information about its history is lost, but, from the little that we know, it originated from the legendary Amazons. Not the mythical creatures, but the real women of Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe who, fed up with their male-dominated societies, left their homes and gathered together to form their own city-state - Thermodontus. 

Being excellent warriors and riders, they eventually evolved the horseback riding to the level of a true art. Hyppoginnes performers danced in the nude, save for a traditional bracelet, while riding a horse bareback. The dance involved both a series of balancing moves on the horse, and a series of forms the dancer performed sliding to one and then the other side of the horse, her body forming sacred letters and symbols, with the horse as the backdrop.

Now wouldn't that be fun to learn?


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It depends what discipline they are doing. The rings require a lot less glute usage than the parallel bars or the pommel horse for example, but all the disciplines use the glutes at least a bit.



Which isn't too relevant in a maximal movement like the deadlift. If they do a large set of bw squats (relative to their strength/endurance level), they'll have done more for their glutes and thighs (for the purpose of deadlift) than from 30 minutes of gymnastic work. Gymnastics is great for deadlift though, and vice versa, as the deadlift engages the grip, arms and especially back and core, which gymnasts have incredible strength, coordination and endurance in.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 28, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> lovely ********. I focus on trends, psychology, modern and retro/ancient training, thought currents, expert advice and opinions, critiques, etc. for anything that interests me. If you want something more penetrating, how about this: People lack the courage to push themselves outside what is believed possible. This is as simple as dealing with the unending doubts you have every single night, or whether you can really bend at that angle and not snap, or otherwise. People then develop a complex surrounding this cowardice (justified or not), trying to convince others that they're full of **** when they say you can do it, and that you can bend at that angle, or that you can train that often and that hard if you have the passion and the diligence, or the spirit, to not listen to your body when it tries to jerk or fall limp or rest or cry or squirm or die a little when performing some exercise or movement or just to get up and start all over again the next day. When you tell yourself, "Then die.",  you develop the tenacity to actually achieve great things. This parallel is drawn with the case of the super-mom who can lift a half ton when her child is under the vehicle; there's no way out, do it or die, it's all on the line. When you have that kind of unity of purpose you can achieve that sort of thing.
> I have plenty of lovely knowledge of why people have a problem with it. I try to draw it out explicitly and "take the punches" so I have an opportunity to have a clear and non-vague rather than indirect discussion about it.
> It's tic for tac, and don't say it isn't.



I'll retract this statement since it's inflammatory and I have bodily inflammation issues. Intense stress requires intense rejuvenation techniques and efforts; medicines and tonics can do this, as can a diet built to resolve training stresses, as can a very large calorie surplus, as can intensive stretching and flow yoga, self massage, breathing practices and meditation; beyond that are the more "mystical" things, such as qi gong and acupressure, or visualization techniques, or prayer.
Don't do what you're not prepared to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Indeed. You can use the same muscle group in multiple different ways to produce different outcomes. For example, I practice both springboard diving and pole dancing. Both activities require you to engage the shoulder muscles, but they are engaged in completely different ways for each activity. In diving you push up through the shoulders to create extra rotation, whereas in pole dancing you roll the shoulders inwards to provide more stability as you spin around the pole. Same muscle group, totally different use and outcome.
> 
> And since you were talking about gymnasts lifting heavy things, here you go.


Those guys had way too much fun with that. Kudos to both of them!


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 29, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> I can only imagine. I am terrified of heights, and the closest I come to conquering them is making myself climb the tall obstacles during mud runs. So, I have huge respect for anyone who can stand at about the height of a four-story building and not go crazy before having to jump down.
> 
> I should do some research and see if there is a good pole-dancing class in the area. I love dancing, and this sounds fascinating and challenging. I don't know if, at my age, this is something I can conquer but hey... no law against trying, right?
> 
> ...



It's not just about the heights, but the movements you are doing in diving. The first time you do an inward dive on poolside is very scary, because your mind is telling you that you are going to hit your head on the board:


----------



## AngryHobbit (Jan 29, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It's not just about the heights, but the movements you are doing in diving. The first time you do an inward dive on poolside is very scary, because your mind is telling you that you are going to hit your head on the board: View attachment 21227


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 29, 2018)

The 7 Principles Of Shaolin Martial Arts


> 1. Never Give Up
> 2. Always Practice
> 3. Integrate Yin And Yang
> 4. Turn Yourself Into Zero
> ...



3 Principles in Traditional Martial Arts to Strike with Power


> Principle 1 – Using the entire body to strike with.
> Principle 2 – Sinking your hips and dropping your weight.
> Principle 3 – Posture and Relaxation.



Philosophy of Martial Arts - Shen Wu


> In summary, it is important to remember that an almost unlimited number of efficient martial techniques (those based on true balance and natural power, which allow us to use our strengths against an opponent's weaknesses and remove us from the threat of physical harm as quickly as possible) are created and developed from a relatively small number of basic principles of body use and technical application. It may be helpful to think of techniques (including the methods of body use as well as martial applications) as being physical manifestations of underlying principles. The principles of body use and application are the unchanging foundations of unlimited technical expression. And the focused awareness of mind and body unity in practice is the method through which martial movements and techniques become internalized, and therefore useful. These principles and their method of internalization form the essence of martial art.


----------



## Primal Monk (Jan 29, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> The 7 Principles Of Shaolin Martial Arts
> 
> 
> 3 Principles in Traditional Martial Arts to Strike with Power
> ...



Thanks. I'm familiar with these principles. I noticed at least one mistake while skimming through. On the 3 principles of the second link, the author makes a mistake in why you drop your shoulders and avoid punching with your traps; it's not because "tense muscles are slow", but that you should be engaging the lats to properly transfer force from your lower body into the strike and increase total stability, improving the kinetic chain and directionality of the force.
Soft bodies learn technique better, but hard bodies actually execute many of them. Most people can't learn or do much when under pressure and in crisis, so how do you expect your body to? Others are built differently, but soft body techniques are still better at certain junctions. It's not a striking principle; more of an issue of physical and mental conditioning.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Then "for the record", "They are haughty and elitist, and cling to their status as "science" to give themselves the authority to determine the true and false of anything and everything, often whilst borrowing the opinion of other scientists rather than forming their own from the original science experiments, observations and systematic modeling. They then explain away reality that contradicts their views to protect their pride and authority." --> ".. and cling" should have been "... clinging" as in they are haughty and elitist for clinging to their so on and so forth. That makes them literally  hypo-critical (no negation) of their source that they derive from to justify their hyper-critical negation (the emphasis not on the validity of the attitude but of the authenticity of their claims as to whether something is possible or causation of something). Whether this attitude on its own is a bad thing is another discussion. I'm claiming they're wrong, and taking a critical approach to the sources of information and "common sense" regarding human ability, learning, and application in the context of fighting and fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm having trouble picking your actual points out, as you seem to be going in every direction at once.

so a few to start with,

i i would expect a full grown male gymnast to be able to dead lift two x body weight, that really the lower end for any body who is athletic, even with out specific training.

people who are" gymnasts", are so because. They were born with the genetics to allow that, a normal/ average person following the,same training will Not derive the same out comes in strengh or agility. Just as an average person will not end up dead lifting 800 lbs. If you are going to make comparisons you need to compare like with like. A top level gymnast will out perform hobby power lifters most of the time, and that's with out the fact that they quite probably do some weights as part of their training anyway.

have you any tangible evidence of 100lbs Mother's lifting cars off children, its either a complete myth OR is incredibly rare.

it is perhaps possible to triple your strengh in such circumstances, but that two ton car is still not getting lifted


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I've had the exact same principles in mind, but saw it nicely represented in the Kengan Asura manga.View attachment 21224
> 
> I would add "Physical Fitness", but besides that, this seems like a complete diagram.



Ok, so what? You've got a very arbitrary division of some rather obvious yet extremely vague concepts spilled out on a pretty diagram with some Asian sounding names.

Anyone that does any sort of martial art already know mobility and power are important.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 1, 2018)

What an enjoyably humorous thread.  Thanks to all who made it so.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm having trouble picking your actual points out, as you seem to be going in every direction at once.
> 
> so a few to start with,
> 
> ...



One end of the car, not lifted over your head like the hulk. That's about 1/2 the weight, + the fact that it's stable, and that the shocks will take care of some weight for the first few inches. That's probably 250-300 lbs for a 1500 lb car. 500 - 600 lbs for a 3000 lb car. Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped Child
SuperMom: Could a mother actually lift a car to save her child?
Superhero Daughter Lifts Car Off Dad

Genetics doesn't prevent you from developing gymnastic ability. You can do all the same, standard moves after a couple years of training. If you half *** it or throw a god damn pity party the whole time, you won't achieve anything. If you use visualization and KNOW you're going to get god damn results after two years on par with high level gymnasts, then you will.

It's this pathetic genetics ******** and other "I can't do it" ******** that keeps people from achieving anything. Even if you have so many factors against you, if you are a "can do" person rather than "can't do", you'll "reach the moon" even if you're "shooting for the stars". If you're shooting for something beyond the stars, you'll at least reach somewhere between the moon and the stars, and more than likely reach the stars. The best aren't even thinking about stardom, or being as good as the elite. They'll just go, "Huh? Whatever. I just do it, I don't think about how high I am or falling. I look for what I could be doing better in every moment, in everything I do. When I reach a certain point where I'm stuck, I just know I'm at a plateau and try to break through my limitations.". It's about diligence, determination, effort, excellence, and focus. Your average person doesn't have any one of these, let alone five.



Martial D said:


> Ok, so what? You've got a very arbitrary division of some rather obvious yet extremely vague concepts spilled out on a pretty diagram with some Asian sounding names.
> 
> Anyone that does any sort of martial art already know mobility and power are important.


 
Sorry, I should provide examples. I like brain storming so I was hoping some kindred spirits were here that wanted to talk about techniques that fall into each category, and how they would be achieved by what training. When you have the intention of learning how to do only what's normal to do, that's all you learn. If you have the intention to learn a different kind of skill set and level of ability, that's what you develop. People don't try to, so it doesn't happen.

Training ideas:
>*For Flame*, or footwork/agility,
you can develop the strength in your toes, feet, ankles, calves, knees, thighs, hips etc in a number of ways. With the intended result being able to shift weight from foot to foot in an instance, to move extremely well with just one foot, to change direction or move from just the toes, to change direction near-instantly, and to move forward towards or backwards away from someone without creating any openings or creating opportunities for yourself to attack.​>Ballet training would definitely help in this.
>Exercise ideas:
Hook your feet under something and do glute ham raises/holds or quad/ankle raises/holds. Become proficient in soccer and soccer juggling with a weighted medicine ball. Perform calf intensive things (like soccer) with a weighted vest on, and/or crouched (makes it much more difficult). Squat [variations]. Trying pulling yourself forward and pushing yourself back with your toes and feet rather than lifting them off the ground. Lift **** with just your toes, such as one end of a dumbbell resting on your toes.  Develop fine motor control by learning how to move each toe individually. Develop the inside and outside of the leg by the previous heavy soccer method, but specifically hitting the ball against a wall with an outter or inner rotation of the knee AND ankle, and even whilst crouched, partially or fully.​>Train for extreme, spontaneous balance and rootedness;
this includes stopping on a dime and in the midst of movements that would normally throw a person forward or backward or off balance in general.​
I shouldn't have to say it, but use progressive overload, not "I want results today" hurt yourself load.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> One end of the car, not lifted over your head like the hulk. That's about 1/2 the weight, + the fact that it's stable, and that the shocks will take care of some weight for the first few inches. That's probably 250-300 lbs for a 1500 lb car. 500 - 600 lbs for a 3000 lb car. Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped Child
> SuperMom: Could a mother actually lift a car to save her child?
> Superhero Daughter Lifts Car Off Dad
> 
> ...


Your problem seems to be your approach here. You are coming at a group of subject matter experts with first day basic revelations as if we should find them deep and meaningful, all the while managing to seem arrogant about it.

Big yawn. Got anything interesting?


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Your problem seems to be your approach here. You are coming at a group of subject matter experts with first day basic revelations as if we should find them deep and meaningful, all the while managing to seem arrogant about it.
> 
> Big yawn. Got anything interesting?



You stole my line. Are you reading my mind?

Show me something interesting.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> You stole my line. Are you reading my mind?


Question. What martial art do you train in, and for how long have you trained it?


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Question. What martial art do you train in, and for how long have you trained it?



So you have nothing interesting to show me?


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> So you have nothing interesting to show me?


It's not that sort of forum buddy.

Good luck I guess.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

Martial D said:


> It's not that sort of forum buddy.
> 
> Good luck I guess.



It's not that kind of forum, where you can post a video of you in action at any moment, or of someone you spar with?
Or it's a forum of amateurs who wish to remain amateurs?

Even if every single person on this forum were amateurs, we should try to provide a way to becoming not-amateurs.  Maybe some friendly competitions even; challenges, contests. I notice "members in action" is pretty empty and never posted in. It's as if people don't want to open themselves to criticism. Maybe they'll give up on learning how to fight then, eh? That's a pretty toxic mindset, all that pretense and weak determination; not the criticism. A website-wide phenomena. Or rather, a global phenomena. Seems pretty backwards. 

What would be progressive is if people started posting themselves in action, and they got tore apart, but improved because of it, and came back later with their progress they made from all the feedback. They might even grow a thicker skin, which is in fact relevant in a fight.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's not that kind of forum, where you can post a video of you in action at any moment, or of someone you spar with?
> Or it's a forum of amateurs who wish to remain amateurs?
> 
> Even if every single person on this forum were amateurs, we should try to provide a way to becoming not-amateurs.  Maybe some friendly competitions even; challenges, contests. I notice "members in action" is pretty empty and never posted in. It's as if people don't want to open themselves to criticism. Maybe they'll give up on learning how to fight then, eh? That's a pretty toxic mindset, all that pretense and weak determination; not the criticism. A website-wide phenomena. Or rather, a global phenomena. Seems pretty backwards.
> ...



I personally have no problem with remaining an "amateur" at Martial Arts. Would you like to know why? Because the only difference between a "professional" and an "amateur" at something is that the professional gets paid, whereas the amateur doesn't (or very rarely gets paid). Just because you don't get paid for doing something doesn't automatically make you less good than someone who does get paid. 

On a side note, it seems to me that you want the rest of us to prove our worth to you by posting videos of us in action. That's all well and good except for one slight problem......nobody here gives a damn what you think of their combat skills. Most of us are here to discuss the various Martial Arts, swap training methods, philosophies, etc, not to have a chest-beating ego-fest to try and prove who is the superior Martial Artist. The other more practical problem with posting videos of us in action is that most of us here come from different Martial Arts background. Different styles, lineages, teachers, etc. As such there is no uniform standard to benchmark our performances against, and a lot of times it's pointless trying to correct technical aspects when you don't know the context and philosophy behind the movements. Unless you have a very good understanding of the style and philosophy of the person you are watching (i.e. you both study the same style and lineage), you can generally only give a very vague critique. That's partly why I have never posted a video on here, because I know the person who will give me the best advice to improve is my own instructor.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> One end of the car, not lifted over your head like the hulk. That's about 1/2 the weight, + the fact that it's stable, and that the shocks will take care of some weight for the first few inches. That's probably 250-300 lbs for a 1500 lb car. 500 - 600 lbs for a 3000 lb car. Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped Child
> SuperMom: Could a mother actually lift a car to save her child?
> Superhero Daughter Lifts Car Off Dad
> 
> ...


hang on, you were saying that lifting cars was a super human power, now your saying its not that heavy anyway!

raising the body work a few inches is easily achievable, there is a big spring to help you, but lifting the car, which is what you said, ie wheels off the ground is not , and doing so is lifting far more than 300lb. Particularly at the front were the big engine is, 
those links you posted mostly disagree with what you are saying, did you read them? And not one off them related to a 100lb woman, which is your main claim.

i can lift the back of a small car to get the wheels off the ground an inch or so, but I'm a 200 lbs male, so again have you any proof of a 100lb female lifting a car?


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I personally have no problem with remaining an "amateur" at Martial Arts. Would you like to know why? Because the only difference between a "professional" and an "amateur" at something is that the professional gets paid, whereas the amateur doesn't (or very rarely gets paid). Just because you don't get paid for doing something doesn't automatically make you less good than someone who does get paid.
> 
> On a side note, it seems to me that you want the rest of us to prove our worth to you by posting videos of us in action. That's all well and good except for one slight problem......nobody here gives a damn what you think of their combat skills. Most of us are here to discuss the various Martial Arts, swap training methods, philosophies, etc, not to have a chest-beating ego-fest to try and prove who is the superior Martial Artist. The other more practical problem with posting videos of us in action is that most of us here come from different Martial Arts background. Different styles, lineages, teachers, etc. As such there is no uniform standard to benchmark our performances against, and a lot of times it's pointless trying to correct technical aspects when you don't know the context and philosophy behind the movements. Unless you have a very good understanding of the style and philosophy of the person you are watching (i.e. you both study the same style and lineage), you can generally only give a very vague critique. That's partly why I have never posted a video on here, because I know the person who will give me the best advice to improve is my own instructor.



You're using the MMA definition of amateur. I'm just using the regular definition. This has to do with ability, competence. If you're not competent, you should be striving to become competent. If you don't expose your incompetence, you will never be competent. Your instructor is pacing his critique to fit your expectations + a bit or lot of his own. You're paying him, he isn't going to scare you away, and is going to use a "common denominator" training method for lazy cowardly people. He'll tell you "this training is intimidating. Not everyone can do this." to make you feel special and competent. You aren't. People who aren't paid by you will tell you that you could be knocked over by a breeze when you're kicking, you're so imbalanced and uprooted. People who aren't being paid will tell you that your punches have no power, no speed, and your body is weak as ****. If you don't want an honest assessment of yourself for of ALL THINGS: FIGHTING, then be my guess and play fight your whole life, wasting your time and money. Your ego is weak, like a child's. You're more worried about being sensitive to feelings than actually improving. Black Belt my ***. "Instructor knows best." my ***. What are these belt rankings even based on? Post count? Jesus.

If you post a video and people critique it, and you disagree, defend yourself. That's what fighting is. You fight. You don't avoid them when all it does is help you improve.

Try to develop some grit.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> hang on, you were saying that lifting cars was a super human power, now your saying its not that heavy anyway!
> 
> raising the body work a few inches is easily achievable, there is a big spring to help you, but lifting the car, which is what you said, ie wheels off the ground is not , and doing so is lifting far more than 300lb. Particularly at the front were the big engine is,
> those links you posted mostly disagree with what you are saying, did you read them? And not one off them related to a 100lb woman, which is your main claim.
> ...



Even wheels off the ground.
http://rense.com/general20/trap.htm
Teen girl uses 'crazy strength' to lift burning car off dad
One of the links I posted was already a woman, without springs, lifting the wheelless corner off of her father. This one is a woman doing the same thing; the truck is easily 4000 - 10000+ lbs total, though likely it took only 600 lbs to lift. Another small woman. I stated 120 lbs as well, not 100 lbs. Lifting 4x bodyweight in the moment proves my point. The other link is a 110 lb woman lifting a van 4-5 inches.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> You're using the MMA definition of amateur. I'm just using the regular definition. This has to do with ability, competence. If you're not competent, you should be striving to become competent. If you don't expose your incompetence, you will never be competent. Your instructor is pacing his critique to fit your expectations + a bit or lot of his own. You're paying him, he isn't going to scare you away, and is going to use a "common denominator" training method for lazy cowardly people. He'll tell you "this training is intimidating. Not everyone can do this." to make you feel special and competent. You aren't. People who aren't paid by you will tell you that you could be knocked over by a breeze when you're kicking, you're so imbalanced and uprooted. People who aren't being paid will tell you that your punches have no power, no speed, and your body is weak as ****. If you don't want an honest assessment of yourself for of ALL THINGS: FIGHTING, then be my guess and play fight your whole life, wasting your time and money. Your ego is weak, like a child's. You're more worried about being sensitive to feelings than actually improving. Black Belt my ***. "Instructor knows best." my ***. What are these belt rankings even based on? Post count? Jesus.
> 
> If you post a video and people critique it, and you disagree, defend yourself. That's what fighting is. You fight. You don't avoid them when all it does is help you improve.
> 
> Try to develop some grit.


i think he is using the accepted defintion of amateur, what defintion are you using ?


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Even wheels off the ground.
> http://rense.com/general20/trap.htm
> Teen girl uses 'crazy strength' to lift burning car off dad
> One of the links I posted was already a woman, without springs, lifting the wheelless corner off of her father. This one is a woman doing the same thing; the truck is easily 4000 - 10000+ lbs total, though likely it took only 600 lbs to lift. Another small woman. I stated 120 lbs as well, not 100 lbs. Lifting 4x bodyweight in the moment proves my point. The other link is a 110 lb woman lifting a van 4-5 inches.


no, you need one that a) involves at least one wheel of the ground AND b) a 120 lb woman. Just putting random news paper reports that don't make it clear what was lifted and how heavy the woman was it not proving your claim


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> i think he is using the accepted defintion of amateur, what defintion are you using ?



Amateur, as in, you have little skill and competence.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, you need one that a) involves at least one wheel of the ground AND b) a 120 lb woman. Just putting random news paper reports that don't make it clear what was lifted and how heavy the woman was it not proving your claim



I threw in another link before you replied. Check it.


----------



## Hanshi (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I've had the exact same principles in mind, but saw it nicely represented in the Kengan Asura manga.View attachment 21224
> 
> I would add "Physical Fitness", but besides that, this seems like a complete diagram.





Interesting; never have seen that before.  I teach principles that I was taught, of course, but there were significantly more of them and not quite as specific.

I have come to the conclusion, after many decades in the martial arts, that the teaching of "principles" is just as important, if not more so, than teaching techniques.  Often I've seen techniques performed correctly and not work.  On the other hand I've witnessed techniques done "not so well" but employing the principles I teach work very well.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Amateur, as in, you have little skill and competence.


that appears to be your own defintion, !


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

Hanshi said:


> Interesting; never have seen that before.  I teach principles that I was taught, of course, but there were significantly more of them and not quite as specific.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion, after many decades in the martial arts, that the teaching of "principles" is just as important, if not more so, than teaching techniques.  Often I've seen techniques performed correctly and not work.  On the other hand I've witnessed techniques done "not so well" but employing the principles I teach work very well.



I'm thinking the same thing. Cool. I've always been better with techniques; understanding them, absorbing them, memorizing them, taking them apart; but principles were always more effective. In anything, that is, not just fighting.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I threw in another link before you replied. Check it.


which one?


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> that appears to be your own defintion, !



You appear to be full of ****, !
"one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"
Definition of AMATEUR

You should talk to some people, you might learn what words mean without a dictionary.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> which one?



5' 2" Woman Lifts Van Off Trapped Husband


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's not that kind of forum, where you can post a video of you in action at any moment, or of someone you spar with?
> Or it's a forum of amateurs who wish to remain amateurs?
> 
> Even if every single person on this forum were amateurs, we should try to provide a way to becoming not-amateurs.  Maybe some friendly competitions even; challenges, contests. I notice "members in action" is pretty empty and never posted in. It's as if people don't want to open themselves to criticism. Maybe they'll give up on learning how to fight then, eh? That's a pretty toxic mindset, all that pretense and weak determination; not the criticism. A website-wide phenomena. Or rather, a global phenomena. Seems pretty backwards.
> ...


Why join a new forum just to start arguments? What's the point of that?


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> You appear to be full of ****, !
> "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"
> Definition of AMATEUR
> 
> You should talk to some people, you might learn what words mean without a dictionary.



the first and therefore main defintion is one about working unpaid, the above defintion still doesn't fit what you said it was above


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Why join a new forum just to start arguments? What's the point of that?



It's the principle of fighting. "Why join a forum about fighting to fight?". "Why get better at fighting?". "Why fight?". This is what your question boils down to. Like ol' Miyamoto back a page realized, principles are more important than techniques.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> 5' 2" Woman Lifts Van Off Trapped Husband





Primal Monk said:


> 5' 2" Woman Lifts Van Off Trapped Husband


but that doesn't say she lifted a wheel, just that she raised it on the suspension,


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Why join a new forum just to start arguments? What's the point of that?


he seem a very angry man,


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> the first and therefore main defintion is one about working unpaid, the above defintion still doesn't fit what you said it was above


 "Amateur, as in, you have little skill and competence."
"one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science" -> "lacking in experience and competence" 



jobo said:


> but that doesn't say she lifted a wheel, just that she raised it on the suspension,


It says she raised it OFF the suspension. And it's a heavy van, not a light VW bug or something. Cars go down to 800 lbs or so. This one was 4000 to 5000. In each case, their emergency primal response only permitted the exact amount of strength necessary to save the person. The point has already been made that you can normally do one thing, and do another in an emergency or primal situation. Now stop bullshitting me and go train harder, with more ferocity and due diligence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's the principle of fighting. "Why join a forum about fighting to fight?". "Why get better at fighting?". "Why fight?". This is what your question boils down to. Like ol' Miyamoto back a page realized, principles are more important than techniques.


Nope. Not the same, at all. Unless you go to a gym and are a complete jerk to everyone there, too.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> "Amateur, as in, you have little skill and competence."
> "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science" -> "lacking in experience and competence"
> 
> 
> It says she raised it OFF the suspension. And it's a heavy van, not a light VW bug or something. Cars go down to 800 lbs or so. This one was 4000 to 5000. In each case, their emergency primal response only permitted the exact amount of strength necessary to save the person. The point has already been made that you can normally do one thing, and do another in an emergency or primal situation. Now stop bullshitting me and go train harder, with more ferocity and due diligence.


it does not say she lifted a wheel, you have had about 8 goes at this now, we may have to face the fact you will never be able to actually support your claim!


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> it does not say she lifted a wheel, you have had about 8 goes at this now, we may have to face the fact you will never be able to actually support your claim!



I never said anything about lifting a wheel. I said lifting a car off a child. If you lift a van high enough that someone can get out from under it, it fits my original statement. Besides that fact, is that lifting anything beyond normal capacity in any situation was the point of the statement. The claim was supported. You're too dense and dishonest to really argue anything of value.



gpseymour said:


> Nope. Not the same, at all. Unless you go to a gym and are a complete jerk to everyone there, too.



A fighting gym? If they're **** they're ****. If you don't want them to improve, then don't tell them or don't push the fact when they resist your assessment. Maybe you should rile them up in fact, then take them to the ring. They'll start to actually punch, kick, and grapple well because they're so lovely pissed off at you that they throw away their delusions. You'll have a chance of pointing that out and their training will improve immediately.

Such a "fine" distinction between fighting physically and mentally is the luxury of those who never have to fight, and won't ever. I guess I'll employ a nurturing mentality and emotional response whilst fighting then? There's such a disconnect between cognition and reality, afterall. Such a dissonance has no meaning, right?

Wake the f uck up.


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I never said anything about lifting a wheel. I said lifting a car off a child. If you lift a van high enough that someone can get out from under it, it fits my original statement. Besides that fact, is that lifting anything beyond normal capacity in any situation was the point of the statement. The claim was supported. You're too dense and dishonest to really argue anything of value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but very nearly Anybody can take the suspension sag out of a car so that someone can escape, it is not therefor proof of extreme strengh in adversity, just normal every day,strengh


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> but very nearly Anybody can take the suspension sag out of a car so that someone can escape, it is not therefor proof of extreme strengh in adversity, just normal every day,strengh



No they can't. They can't take a van body off the suspension. Note that when she tried to do the same thing for reporters, she could get it up an inch, vs four to five inches. Also note that the weight increases the further up you go until it's off the suspension. Note also that one of the links I mentioned had a guy crack eight teeth after lifting a car off someone, which he only realized once he got home. Clearly there's a strength increase. 
You know so little about your body that you have to be convinced that you can wipe your own ***.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 1, 2018)

Interesting, you have insulted someone every single time you responded..... it seems you have a need to do this.....very intersting


----------



## jobo (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> No they can't. They can't take a van body off the suspension. Note that when she tried to do the same thing for reporters, she could get it up an inch, vs four to five inches. Also note that the weight increases the further up you go until it's off the suspension. Note also that one of the links I mentioned had a guy crack eight teeth after lifting a car off someone, which he only realized once he got home. Clearly there's a strength increase.
> You know so little about your body that you have to be convinced that you can wipe your own ***.


you can't take a van off the suspension with out a spanner, you can most certainly and,with ease raise a,van body 4inches taking out the,suspension sag. The artical said,she had no idea how high she lifted it as nobody was measuring, you don't read your own links, which is possibly why you have little idea that they don't,agree with you


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I never said anything about lifting a wheel. I said lifting a car off a child. If you lift a van high enough that someone can get out from under it, it fits my original statement. Besides that fact, is that lifting anything beyond normal capacity in any situation was the point of the statement. The claim was supported. You're too dense and dishonest to really argue anything of value.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really need to grow up and learn to communicate. Seriously.

And stop trying to sound tough and experienced. You sound childish when you do that.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 1, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> You're using the MMA definition of amateur. I'm just using the regular definition. This has to do with ability, competence. If you're not competent, you should be striving to become competent. If you don't expose your incompetence, you will never be competent. Your instructor is pacing his critique to fit your expectations + a bit or lot of his own. You're paying him, he isn't going to scare you away, and is going to use a "common denominator" training method for lazy cowardly people. He'll tell you "this training is intimidating. Not everyone can do this." to make you feel special and competent. You aren't. People who aren't paid by you will tell you that you could be knocked over by a breeze when you're kicking, you're so imbalanced and uprooted. People who aren't being paid will tell you that your punches have no power, no speed, and your body is weak as ****. If you don't want an honest assessment of yourself for of ALL THINGS: FIGHTING, then be my guess and play fight your whole life, wasting your time and money. Your ego is weak, like a child's. You're more worried about being sensitive to feelings than actually improving. Black Belt my ***. "Instructor knows best." my ***. What are these belt rankings even based on? Post count? Jesus.
> 
> If you post a video and people critique it, and you disagree, defend yourself. That's what fighting is. You fight. You don't avoid them when all it does is help you improve.
> 
> Try to develop some grit.



Wow, there is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. Sigh, here we go.

1. Dictionary definition of professional: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main occupation rather than as an amateur"

2. There are many ways to show competence in Martial Arts, and the ability to beat someone to a pulp is just 1 of them.

3. You know nothing about my instructor, how he teaches or what he says to me, so please stop making stupid ignorant assumptions.

4. Fighting comes in many forms and is just a very small aspect of Martial Arts. If you don't understand that concept I suggest you start listening to others instead of insulting them.

5. I never claimed to be a blackbelt and in fact the system I practice doesn't even have a regular belt ranking system. You get a red sash when you pass your first grading and that is it. Everyone is treated the same under the instructor.

6. If you haven't figured it out already, the belt rank under our names is just for showing how many posts you have made on this forum. In essence is means nothing.

7. "Try to develop some grit" is very tough talk for someone hidden behind a computer screen. Why not put your money where your mouth is and post a video of yourself. Show us "amateurs" how it's done and lead by example instead of badmouthing everyone who replies to you. If you can't do that then don't expect other people to do it either.

8. Do you even realise how stupid you sound right now? I don't go onto internet forums looking for a fight. I come here to discuss Martial Arts in a mature atmosphere with like-minded people. Yes we have our disagreements but we don't come here looking for fights. Do you have this same attitude when you speak to people in real life? Do you walk into a group of strangers at the bar looking to start a fight with them? Or do you only do it online where nobody can beat you for your arrogance?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 1, 2018)

Have you guys realized he's a troll yet? My bet is a high schooler sick with the flu.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Have you guys realized he's a troll yet? My bet is a high schooler sick with the flu.



Sad thing is that I don't think he is a troll, especially when he appears to be the only person getting angrier with each post. Definitely young and inexperienced at dealing with confrontation but not a troll.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 1, 2018)

I remember when I was 12 and watched Van Damm and seagal movies and believed I knew it all.

I was still less insufferable than this guy.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 2, 2018)

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful. 

Jks9199 
MT Administrator 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> If you post a video and people critique it, and you disagree, defend yourself.


Hopefully, you also try to learn from their disagreement. If someone says there's a structural issue with a throw, and you just decide they are wrong without trying to understand their point, you might as well have kept the video to yourself - it's doing neither you nor anyone else any good.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Have you guys realized he's a troll yet? My bet is a high schooler sick with the flu.


no not a troll, he came on to " educate" us and is getting quite angry that he isn't being treated as a god of ma knowledge


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> no not a troll, he came on to " educate" us and is getting quite angry that he isn't being treated as a god of ma knowledge


And he's got you and me agreeing. That's never a good thing, man.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 2, 2018)

*Admin's Note:*

Keep it civil and clean, folks.  Warning points have already been handed out, and further such disruptive behavior will result in more points that will lead a ban.  

-G


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Grenadier said:


> *Admin's Note:*
> 
> Keep it civil and clean, folks.  Warning points have already been handed out, and further such disruptive behavior will result in more points that will lead a ban.
> 
> -G


Thanks, boss.

Oh, and as usual...EEEEEEKK!


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> you can't take a van off the suspension with out a spanner, you can most certainly and,with ease raise a,van body 4inches taking out the,suspension sag. The artical said,she had no idea how high she lifted it as nobody was measuring, you don't read your own links, which is possibly why you have little idea that they don't,agree with you



When Fear Makes Us Superhuman

"
"There's no way I could lift that car right now," he says.

Boyle, it should be pointed out, is no pantywaist. He carries 280 pounds on a six-foot-four-inch frame. But think about this: The heaviest barbell that Boyle ever dead-lifted weighed 700 pounds. The world record is 1,008 pounds. A stock Camaro weighs 3,000 pounds. Even factoring leverage, something extraordinary was going on that night.
"
Experienced deadlifter states he wouldn't be able to lift it in a non-crisis scenario.
"
Under conditions of competition a trained athlete can improve as much as 12 percent above that figure. Zatsiorsky calls this higher level of performance "competitive maximum strength." This parameter is not a fixed number—the more intense the competition, the higher it can go, as the brain's fear centers progressively remove any restraint against performance."
Vladimir Zatsiorsky, a professor of kinesiology at Penn State who has extensively studied the biomechanics of weightlifting, states that as the competition or fear increases, one's strength increases.
"
But under intense pressure—whether it's a bodybuilding competition, a kid trapped under a car, or an attacking bear—you just won't feel that pain. The body pulls out all the stops and lets you turn up the dial up to "11". You don't feel the ache of your muscles. You don't feel the pain. You just do what needs to be done."




gpseymour said:


> You really need to grow up and learn to communicate. Seriously.
> 
> And stop trying to sound tough and experienced. You sound childish when you do that.



Life isn't about appearances. A forum about fighting, martial arts, shouldn't be so ridiculously contradicting the reality and spirit of fighting, or improving in martial arts. Calm conversation is akin to armchair philosophy. There's plenty of talk and assumptions. There needs to be more confrontation if you want to get the mill wheel turning and grind out something authentic. Equilibrium and "being reasonable and mature" is the opposite of the dynamic tension necessary. That's the reality of it.



Midnight-shadow said:


> Wow, there is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. Sigh, here we go.
> 
> 1. Dictionary definition of professional: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main occupation rather than as an amateur"
> 
> ...



1. I already linked the dictionary and quoted its second definition as listed. Note that it's an irrelevant topic with no meaningful substance.
2. The ability to win a fight is THE ONLY show of competence in Martial Arts. I would probably include physical fitness  as part of competence as well though, and "not dying". The fact that you and others think otherwise shows how inauthentic the people here are. You aren't actually martial artists.
3. You're not in the unique 1 - .1 % that has someone who teaches you how to win fights, be incredibly fit, and not die but still win a street fight. This is based on what you say and believe, which is "fighting is just a very small aspect of Martial Arts".
4. ^^^
5. Ok. The belt rankings just seemed dumb.
6. Which I already guessed at.
7. So you agree that you and everyone else is scared of criticism? Alright I will post a video. I never claimed to be anything above amateur. I don't have to be to know when someone else is just as terrible or hardly any better. I'll post past this month even. What should I post a video of? I guess I'll get a baseball, throw it up, then see how far I can punch and kick it; also, the punches and kicks on their own. I don't have anyone to fight or spar with. I'll even post the misses or bad ones.
8. I don't think I can find like-minded people, the maturity you speak of is not the kind that's relevant to martial arts, you seem to think words hurt as much as knifes, I don't go to bars, and you're talking about people who have no relevance to the world of martial arts. Being so friendly and inclusive isn't conducive to the development of martial arts. Pushing for better and better results, and removing delusions as to what martial arts is about does. I came here to see some skill and competence, but no one even posts videos of them in action.



gpseymour said:


> Hopefully, you also try to learn from their disagreement. If someone says there's a structural issue with a throw, and you just decide they are wrong without trying to understand their point, you might as well have kept the video to yourself - it's doing neither you nor anyone else any good.



"
Even if every single person on this forum were amateurs, we should try to provide a way to becoming not-amateurs. Maybe some friendly competitions even; challenges, contests. I notice "members in action" is pretty empty and never posted in. It's as if people don't want to open themselves to criticism. Maybe they'll give up on learning how to fight then, eh? That's a pretty toxic mindset, all that pretense and weak determination; not the criticism. A website-wide phenomena. Or rather, a global phenomena. Seems pretty backwards.

What would be progressive is if people started posting themselves in action, and they got tore apart, but improved because of it, and came back later with their progress they made from all the feedback. They might even grow a thicker skin, which is in fact relevant in a fight.
"
 I've already stated that we should open ourselves to criticism, but that if you're scared of posting, you have to realize that you aren't defenseless and should post anyway.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

Hysterical strength - Wikipedia

Includes case of individual trapped under a tire, and the vehicle being lifted off the pinned individual.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2018)

Before you go down this road any further you appear to be on, you may want to take a look at this page

MartialTalk.com Forum Rules and Procedures


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Life isn't about appearances. A forum about fighting, martial arts, shouldn't be so ridiculously contradicting the reality and spirit of fighting, or improving in martial arts. Calm conversation is akin to armchair philosophy. There's plenty of talk and assumptions. There needs to be more confrontation if you want to get the mill wheel turning and grind out something authentic. Equilibrium and "being reasonable and mature" is the opposite of the dynamic tension necessary. That's the reality of it.


Then you understand little, if anything, about how ideas work.


----------



## _Simon_ (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Life isn't about appearances. A forum about fighting, martial arts, shouldn't be so ridiculously contradicting the reality and spirit of fighting, or improving in martial arts. Calm conversation is akin to armchair philosophy. There's plenty of talk and assumptions. There needs to be more confrontation if you want to get the mill wheel turning and grind out something authentic. Equilibrium and "being reasonable and mature" is the opposite of the dynamic tension necessary. That's the reality of it.
> 
> ...
> 
> 8. I don't think I can find like-minded people, the maturity you speak of is not the kind that's relevant to martial arts, you seem to think words hurt as much as knifes, I don't go to bars, and you're talking about people who have no relevance to the world of martial arts. Being so friendly and inclusive isn't conducive to the development of martial arts. Pushing for better and better results, and removing delusions as to what martial arts is about does. I came here to see some skill and competence, but no one even posts videos of them in action.



Just curious.. so because it's a forum about martial arts, you believe the conversation should replicate fighting? So in essence you're literally looking for a fight? I'm just curious, that's a very different view on life... It's like you're saying that we should be unfriendly and uninclusive, how does separating us further result in anything constructive, or in any place conducive of learning?

In an actual fight there is no coherence, logic or rationality. Primarily pure animalistic emotions arise, it's just about survival. Is that how you want this forum to be? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering. Because if you really wanted to 'just' learn survival techniques, and believe that aggressiveness and being unfriendly is the way to go, probably a forum (which is all about conversation, communication, and hopefully being respectful) isn't for you. If you wanted to live like that you'd just go out in the streets and just fight everyone, constantly, and learn that way.

I know what you're getting at, that being overly polite can be a hindrance. And I think confrontation and conflict can be healthy for sure, but to say that a forum should be like that so we learn... not quite understanding. And there have been comments throughout that I think have been a little unhelpful, but anyways we'll see how this all goes.

I was actually quite interested in the original diagram you posted up, had some interesting ideas there, but then we seemed to go to a whole other place hehe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Even if every single person on this forum were amateurs, we should try to provide a way to becoming not-amateurs. Maybe some friendly competitions even; challenges, contests. I notice "members in action" is pretty empty and never posted in. It's as if people don't want to open themselves to criticism. Maybe they'll give up on learning how to fight then, eh? That's a pretty toxic mindset, all that pretense and weak determination; not the criticism. A website-wide phenomena. Or rather, a global phenomena. Seems pretty backwards.
> 
> What would be progressive is if people started posting themselves in action, and they got tore apart, but improved because of it, and came back later with their progress they made from all the feedback. They might even grow a thicker skin, which is in fact relevant in a fight.
> "
> I've already stated that we should open ourselves to criticism, but that if you're scared of posting, you have to realize that you aren't defenseless and should post anyway.


See, you've come on here and decided what this forum should be, by your own vision, in a couple of days. You miss 4 key elements:

People on here disagree regularly. Hence my earlier comment about me and @jobo agreeing (we argue and debate a lot).
People on here do occasionally post videos of themselves. And they usually get some useful critiques.
There's more to this site than just blathering on about fighting. We actually discuss other topics, and much can be learned in earnest discussion.
You do not get to dictate the rules of discussion and learning to this site, nor to any other group you walk into fresh. If you don't like the community's approach, find one you do like.
You've charged in here like a teenager who expects to get his way, and expects to always be right. The person most apparently upset with being contradicted is you. I don't know how old you are, but by maturity I'm going to guess mid teens to early 20's. And you are quite certain you know more than the people you're lashing out at, without knowing a single thing about their background and experience level. And without bothering to share a bit of your own background or experience level.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> When Fear Makes Us Superhuman
> 
> "
> "There's no way I could lift that car right now," he says.
> ...



That appears to be yet another link that you haven't read that disagrees with the point you are trying to support.

towards the end, its deals with the proverbial 100 lbs woman lifting a car of her kid, and says its not at all likely, giving an estimated lift a max / panic strengh of 135lbs. That as it says in your link will Not get a car off a kid.

if i was  trapped under a car, i would far sooner a 300 lbs weight lifter showed up to help me that my mother,


----------



## _Simon_ (Feb 2, 2018)

Alright, vids of us in action! Here we go, some bagwork I did about a year ago!








Here's another: XD


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> Alright, vids of us in action! Here we go, some bagwork I did about a year ago!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that spinning back kick needs work


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> Just curious.. so because it's a forum about martial arts, you believe the conversation should replicate fighting? So in essence you're literally looking for a fight? I'm just curious, that's a very different view on life... It's like you're saying that we should be unfriendly and uninclusive, how does separating us further result in anything constructive, or in any place conducive of learning?
> 
> In an actual fight there is no coherence, logic or rationality. Primarily pure animalistic emotions arise, it's just about survival. Is that how you want this forum to be? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering. Because if you really wanted to 'just' learn survival techniques, and believe that aggressiveness and being unfriendly is the way to go, probably a forum (which is all about conversation, communication, and hopefully being respectful) isn't for you. If you wanted to live like that you'd just go out in the streets and just fight everyone, constantly, and learn that way.
> 
> ...



It's already a very constructive medium (conversation) and I've been rather constructive this entire time. There's a growing global, species wide trend towards nurturing, overly-constructive, weak, limp, soft, womanly value systems and ways of thinking and believing that's many degrees separated from reality. That's the future we're moving towards, that's the time we live in. Martial arts, or fighting, of all things, should be much more masculine (what silly liberal and social justice bleeding hearts would call this authentic masculinity is "hyper-masculine chauvinistic misogynistic mental illness") and non-inclusive, yes. If you are rejected for being terrible at fighting, or knowing nothing about fighting and doing empty movements that have no application in a real fight, then you should be rejected and go train legitimately on your own or with your friends until you are worth your weight in salt. If you truly want to improve and take legitimate advice though, and show improvement, then the more inclusive 'gateway' communities should accept you even if you're still terrible. I call them gateway communities because they are a gateway to communities of a higher standard of membership, if you want to go further.

You can be unfriendly and exclusive, but still constructive or 'have a point'. Bottom line. This chaos you speak of isn't a meaningless nightmare that you say it is. There are real things happening the entire time, and it's rich with details, principles, techniques, mind games, even spiritual struggles. Your "animalistic emotions" aren't something abstract or very far away. I haven't trained much my entire life, so after a bit of training (including fighting specific training) I'll be comfortable walking the streets, confronting **** talk, building up and defending my pride and dignity. If I die I die, but that would be weak ******** so I'd rather burn in the afterlife and crawl my way back to life than accept death; realistically that means surviving a stabbing or beating that would kill others, and recovering faster.  Avoiding it is cowardice. I'm not going to live forever and neither is anyone else. If I really want to live I have to face death.

If you want to talk about the diagram I'm game.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Life isn't about appearances.


That is a very generalized statement that shows someone who has a rather narrow view of life. There is a reason we have organs of perception, as do other living things in this world. The systems responsible for our senses and feeding information to our brain contribute to that very thing you think life isn't about - appearances. Visual, auditory, olfactory, and kinesthetic appearances. Our first impressions are driven by appearances. Our interests are driven by appearances. Our choices are driven by appearances. That's quite a lot for something life isn't about.



Primal Monk said:


> A forum about fighting, martial arts, shouldn't be so ridiculously contradicting the reality and spirit of fighting, or improving in martial arts.



You didn't create this forum and you don't get to decide what it should or should not be. You could set up another forum and dictate the rules there. If you want to continue being a part of this forum, then work with how this forum operates.



Primal Monk said:


> Calm conversation is akin to armchair philosophy.


Another extremely generalized statement which suggests a lack of variety in conversation. 

You know... after composer Frederic Chopin broke up with his lover of eight years, writer George Sand, his main frustration was not that it was a nasty breakup, but that her remarks about him were taken by others as absolute truth. For example, she described his method of work as very emotional, with constant running up and down the room, tugging at his hair, groaning, breaking quills, ripping paper, etc. In fact, he himself stated he was a very calm, methodical worker, with a very well-defined schedule and a very structured approach to work. People had a hard time believing it because his music was imbued with such great emotion. But that's the way it was - he arrived at it through a very calm approach. 

So, just because something is calm doesn't mean it's ineffective or meaningless. As an engineer and an analyst, I can testify the best ideas can be generated through all sorts of interaction - both the calm, structured ones and the crazy, bouncing off the wall ones. I have over 20 years of professional experience to prove it. Perhaps you should try it before you dismiss it.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> Alright, vids of us in action! Here we go, some bagwork I did about a year ago!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's the weight and material of the bag?


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> It's already a very constructive medium (conversation) and I've been rather constructive this entire time. There's a growing global, species wide trend towards nurturing, overly-constructive, weak, limp, soft, womanly value systems and ways of thinking and believing that's many degrees separated from reality. That's the future we're moving towards, that's the time we live in. Martial arts, or fighting, of all things, should be much more masculine (what silly liberal and social justice bleeding hearts would call this authentic masculinity is "hyper-masculine chauvinistic misogynistic mental illness") and non-inclusive, yes. If you are rejected for being terrible at fighting, or knowing nothing about fighting and doing empty movements that have no application in a real fight, then you should be rejected and go train legitimately on your own or with your friends until you are worth your weight in salt. If you truly want to improve and take legitimate advice though, and show improvement, then the more inclusive 'gateway' communities should accept you even if you're still terrible. I call them gateway communities because they are a gateway to communities of a higher standard of membership, if you want to go further.
> 
> You can be unfriendly and exclusive, but still constructive or 'have a point'. Bottom line. This chaos you speak of isn't a meaningless nightmare that you say it is. There are real things happening the entire time, and it's rich with details, principles, techniques, mind games, even spiritual struggles. Your "animalistic emotions" aren't something abstract or very far away. I haven't trained much my entire life, so after a bit of training (including fighting specific training) I'll be comfortable walking the streets, confronting **** talk, building up and defending my pride and dignity. If I die I die, but that would be weak ******** so I'd rather burn in the afterlife and crawl my way back to life than accept death. Avoiding it is cowardice. I'm not going to live forever and neither is anyone else.
> 
> If you want to talk about the diagram I'm game.


to be honest after that outburst id strongly recommend you take some,counselling

some of the folk on here at expert at fighting, most are very accomplished ma, all are committed to go through the pain to be better, I'm not sure what has given you the idea we have. femine traits, even the females are hard as nails


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> That is a very generalized statement that shows someone who has a rather narrow view of life. There is a reason we have organs of perception, as do other living things in this world. The systems responsible for our senses and feeding information to our brain contribute to that very thing you think life isn't about - appearances. Visual, auditory, olfactory, and kinesthetic appearances. Our first impressions are driven by appearances. Our interests are driven by appearances. Our choices are driven by appearances. That's quite a lot for something life isn't about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"both the calm, structured ones and the crazy, bouncing off the wall ones."
So you're saying you agree with my behavior because you believe both the calm polite mode of conversation and the "crazy, bouncing off the walls" kind both work? Great.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> "both the calm, structured ones and the crazy, bouncing off the wall ones."
> So you're saying you agree with my behavior because you believe both the calm polite mode of conversation and the "crazy, bouncing off the walls" kind both work? Great.


Not at all. Read carefully what I said. 

I am saying great ideas and great conversations can be had both in calm conversations and in emotional ones. So, I am advising against dismissing the calm conversations just because you think they are boring. 

This isn't _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_. There is no running up walls and flying through the air. People here know how to fight, but that's not ALL they do. They also like to have intelligent discussions about what they do and things they have learned. If that is boring to you, that's not anyone's problem but yours. Nobody is going to dance around and throw flying kicks just to entertain you.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Not at all. Read carefully what I said.
> 
> I am saying great ideas and great conversations can be had both in calm conversations and in emotional ones. So, I am advising against dismissing the calm conversations just because you think they are boring.
> 
> This isn't _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_. There is no running up walls and flying through the air. People here know how to fight, but that's not ALL they do. They also like to have intelligent discussions about what they do and things they have learned. If that is boring to you, that's not anyone's problem but yours. Nobody is going to dance around and throw flying kicks just to entertain you.



This entire thread has been a huge misunderstanding, start to finish.
Believing that calm conversation is the ONLY legitimate way was what I was trying to dismiss. I've been strawmanned or misrepresented here and back again; I don't like eastern martial arts movies. This has nothing to do with exploiting people for entertainment. 
Intelligent conversations would mean more if you could see how people are training or executing moves. That's it. That's the point. Then you could critique with substance and know what sort of training is relevant to a person if they seek out advice or recognize their own flaws or not.
The original topic was about four areas to improve in, plus my own addition that I think others would agree with. Then we could have had a conversation about, say, how someone moves at higher levels, how they don't move, post videos of people at different levels, etc.


----------



## _Simon_ (Feb 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> that spinning back kick needs work



Tehehe thought that'd be picked up XD. Which one, the first one (jumping spinning),  or second (normal spinning)? I thought the first was pretty good and accurate with power, but the second wasn't exactly accurate. I was already fairly fatigued at that point, but yeah every now and then there'll be an off back kick which I'm gonna work on...



Primal Monk said:


> It's already a very constructive medium (conversation) and I've been rather constructive this entire time. There's a growing global, species wide trend towards nurturing, overly-constructive, weak, limp, soft, womanly value systems and ways of thinking and believing that's many degrees separated from reality. That's the future we're moving towards, that's the time we live in. Martial arts, or fighting, of all things, should be much more masculine (what silly liberal and social justice bleeding hearts would call this authentic masculinity is "hyper-masculine chauvinistic misogynistic mental illness") and non-inclusive, yes. If you are rejected for being terrible at fighting, or knowing nothing about fighting and doing empty movements that have no application in a real fight, then you should be rejected and go train legitimately on your own or with your friends until you are worth your weight in salt. If you truly want to improve and take legitimate advice though, and show improvement, then the more inclusive 'gateway' communities should accept you even if you're still terrible. I call them gateway communities because they are a gateway to communities of a higher standard of membership, if you want to go further.
> 
> You can be unfriendly and exclusive, but still constructive or 'have a point'. Bottom line. This chaos you speak of isn't a meaningless nightmare that you say it is. There are real things happening the entire time, and it's rich with details, principles, techniques, mind games, even spiritual struggles. Your "animalistic emotions" aren't something abstract or very far away. I haven't trained much my entire life, so after a bit of training (including fighting specific training) I'll be comfortable walking the streets, confronting **** talk, building up and defending my pride and dignity. If I die I die, but that would be weak ******** so I'd rather burn in the afterlife and crawl my way back to life than accept death; realistically that means surviving a stabbing or beating that would kill others, and recovering faster.  Avoiding it is cowardice. I'm not going to live forever and neither is anyone else. If I really want to live I have to face death.
> 
> If you want to talk about the diagram I'm game.



Okeydokey! I think any extreme is really not helpful... there's certainly a time and a place for each approach.

I have a feeling we're all going to be in conflict due to different understandings of definitions (semantics always gets us hehe).

To me the masculine energy is not in being abrasive, disrespectful, conflicting, divisive. To me it's a directness, firmness, and 'yang' energy. It's the focused will. When imbalanced and brought to the extreme then it becomes problematic, not only within interactions, but internally. The female energy is the ultimate 'yin', allowingness, nurturing. Which is NOT weak. When it gets imbalances it can be overly complimentary, overly nurturing and people pleasing for sure. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not sure of this worldview you have that the world is all going "soft"... Feels like a very frightened, pretend to be 'strong' mentality... life doesn't have to be so forceful... but up to you




Primal Monk said:


> What's the weight and material of the bag?



No idea hehe! I'll weigh when I get home!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> This entire thread has been a huge misunderstanding, start to finish.
> Believing that calm conversation is the ONLY legitimate way was what I was trying to dismiss. I've been strawmanned or misrepresented here and back again; I don't like eastern martial arts movies. This has nothing to do with exploiting people for entertainment.
> *Intelligent conversations would mean more if you could see how people are training or executing moves. *That's it. That's the point. Then you could critique with substance and know what sort of training is relevant to a person if they seek out advice or recognize their own flaws or not.
> The original topic was about four areas to improve in, plus my own addition that I think others would agree with. Then we could have had a conversation about, say, how someone moves at higher levels, how they don't move, post videos of people at different levels, etc.



A conversation is the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

For in intelligent conversation you tend to need ground rules such as

(1) Accept the other person WILL disagree with you.
(2) No name calling or personal attacks. Ever!
(3) Always be polite.
(4) Try and understand from their point of view.
(5) Be willing to check your facts, and admit when you need more information or need to do more research.
(6) Separate the emotional from the factual.
(7) Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat.

And if we were to have intelligent conversation based on those rules you have already violate at least 6 of them possibly all 7. And no where in the definition of conversation or intelligence is there a requirement for video proof.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> to be honest after that outburst id strongly recommend you take some,counselling
> 
> some of the folk on here at expert at fighting, most are very accomplished ma, all are committed to go through the pain to be better, I'm not sure what has given you the idea we have. femine traits, even the females are hard as nails


After that one, I'm actually starting to agree with those who called "troll" earlier.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> This entire thread has been a huge misunderstanding, start to finish.
> Believing that calm conversation is the ONLY legitimate way was what I was trying to dismiss. I've been strawmanned or misrepresented here and back again; I don't like eastern martial arts movies. This has nothing to do with exploiting people for entertainment.
> Intelligent conversations would mean more if you could see how people are training or executing moves. That's it. That's the point. Then you could critique with substance and know what sort of training is relevant to a person if they seek out advice or recognize their own flaws or not.
> The original topic was about four areas to improve in, plus my own addition that I think others would agree with. Then we could have had a conversation about, say, how someone moves at higher levels, how they don't move, post videos of people at different levels, etc.


there is a whole section just for the posting of vids, but most people just want to chat, debate about topics,at least loosely connected with ma, and who are you to tell them that wrong?


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> After that one, I'm actually starting to agree with those who called "troll" earlier.


I'm still going with Ernest but has " issues"


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> Tehehe thought that'd be picked up XD. Which one, the first one (jumping spinning),  or second (normal spinning)? I thought the first was pretty good and accurate with power, but the second wasn't exactly accurate. I was already fairly fatigued at that point, but yeah every now and then there'll be an off back kick which I'm gonna work on...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it would make more sense if you set an intention for what to demonstrate and then make the video. Part of the reason why I made this thread. Demonstrate footwork/getting in and out of range, the hardest hits you can manage, dodging in an image fight (shadow boxing/kickboxing) scenario and pantomime a grapple/throw, and comboing while image fighting. Also try to demonstrate athleticism. Try to mix them into one cohesive video. I'm going to look up what boxers and others do and their standards of excellence and put up a video of that.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> This entire thread has been a huge misunderstanding, start to finish.
> Believing that calm conversation is the ONLY legitimate way was what I was trying to dismiss. I've been strawmanned or misrepresented here and back again; I don't like eastern martial arts movies. This has nothing to do with exploiting people for entertainment.
> Intelligent conversations would mean more if you could see how people are training or executing moves. That's it. That's the point. Then you could critique with substance and know what sort of training is relevant to a person if they seek out advice or recognize their own flaws or not.
> The original topic was about four areas to improve in, plus my own addition that I think others would agree with. Then we could have had a conversation about, say, how someone moves at higher levels, how they don't move, post videos of people at different levels, etc.


Maybe - just POSSIBLY - it would be a little less of a misunderstanding if you expressed yourself clearly and stopped putting words into people's mouths. And complained less about how you are being misunderstood in your self-perceived depths.

Nobody here said calm conversation is the only legitimate way. Not one person. People pointed out that calm conversation was a legitimate way to exchange ideas. You seem to have a problem with it. 

Also, it's not like people go to a martial arts class with a video camera. So, not many of us have any videos of ourselves training. Are we supposed to create some just so you would believe we train? If you want videos, go to YouTube - there are plenty of good ones and plenty of really awful ones. There are videos of the great masters showing a variety of forms. Go watch those.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> A conversation is the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.
> Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
> 
> For in intelligent conversation you tend to need ground rules such as
> ...


I love you, Xue! Can I send you chocolates?


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> No idea hehe! I'll weigh when I get home!


Hey, while you are at it, you might want to also do a density measurement and spectral analysis of the stuffing in the bag, and determine the exact composition of the alloy of the ring the bag hangs off of. ;-)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I think it would make more sense if you set an intention for what to demonstrate and then make the video. Part of the reason why I made this thread. Demonstrate footwork/getting in and out of range, the hardest hits you can manage, dodging in an image fight (shadow boxing/kickboxing) scenario and pantomime a grapple/throw, and comboing while image fighting. Also try to demonstrate athleticism. Try to mix them into one cohesive video. I'm going to look up what boxers and others do and their standards of excellence and put up a video of that.


If that was your intention, where is your video?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Hey, while you are at it, you might want to also do a density measurement and spectral analysis of the stuffing in the bag, and determine the exact composition of the alloy of the ring the bag hangs off of. ;-)


Nerd.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 2, 2018)

_Simon_ said:


> Just curious.. so because it's a forum about martial arts, you believe the conversation should replicate fighting? So in essence you're literally looking for a fight? I'm just curious, that's a very different view on life... It's like you're saying that we should be unfriendly and uninclusive, how does separating us further result in anything constructive, or in any place conducive of learning?



There is at least one other poster here who has stated outright that he considers conversation to be akin to a sparring match; something to "win." It's a good enough reason to ignore most of what they say.



> In an actual fight there is no coherence, logic or rationality. Primarily pure animalistic emotions arise, it's just about survival. Is that how you want this forum to be?



This is not even close to true. I am involved in physical confrontations regularly. Far more regularly than I'd like. And at no time, even when my life has been in danger, have I ever responded in anything other than a calculating manner. I think. I plan. I do. If you're responding emotionally, I suspect your training and experience is lacking. Or you're just a person who can't control their emotions. 
You can debate on what percentage of people fall into which category (emotional vs non-emotional response) but I do not think that you'll find anything other than anecdotal evidence.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nerd.


Oh, and calculate the heat transfer rate as a function of the  duration and frequency of punches. WHAT?!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Oh, and calculate the heat transfer rate as a function of the  duration and frequency of punches. WHAT?!


We have a "useful" rating. Why not a "useless" one?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> I love you, Xue! Can I send you chocolates?



Dark Chocolate will suffice...no nuts


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Dark Chocolate will suffice...no nuts


And he's good with quite dark chocolate. But not 99%.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Dark Chocolate will suffice...no nuts


Between us - smart, sophisticated, and humble individuals - is there any other kind of chocolate?


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We have a "useful" rating. Why not a "useless" one?


I think, from the standpoint of theoretical thermodynamics and heat transfer, there are really no useless ratings. Just... some of the more obscure ones. Besides, wouldn't you really want to know how hard and fast you'd have to punch the bag for it to explode in flames?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> 7. So you agree that you and everyone else is scared of criticism? Alright I will post a video. I never claimed to be anything above amateur. I don't have to be to know when someone else is just as terrible or hardly any better. I'll post past this month even. What should I post a video of? I guess I'll get a baseball, throw it up, then see how far I can punch and kick it; also, the punches and kicks on their own. I don't have anyone to fight or spar with. I'll even post the misses or bad ones.
> 8. I don't think I can find like-minded people, the maturity you speak of is not the kind that's relevant to martial arts, you seem to think words hurt as much as knifes, I don't go to bars, and you're talking about people who have no relevance to the world of martial arts. Being so friendly and inclusive isn't conducive to the development of martial arts. Pushing for better and better results, and removing delusions as to what martial arts is about does. I came here to see some skill and competence, but no one even posts videos of them in action.



7. Not at all, we just know that the criticism we will get will be rather limited due to the nature of Martial Arts. Contrary to your beliefs there is no right or wrong way of doing things, and many of the differences in technique come from the huge variety of styles and lineages available. And you can post whatever kind of video you like, but it doesn't prove your worth as a Martial Artist or a fighter.

8. Words are very powerful things, and some would argue they are the most powerful weapons we have access to. Entire countries and civilisations have been destroyed because of something someone said. I would advise you to think more carefully about the words you use in future. 



Primal Monk said:


> It's already a very constructive medium (conversation) and I've been rather constructive this entire time. There's a growing global, species wide trend towards nurturing, overly-constructive, weak, limp, soft, womanly value systems and ways of thinking and believing that's many degrees separated from reality. That's the future we're moving towards, that's the time we live in. Martial arts, or fighting, of all things, should be much more masculine (what silly liberal and social justice bleeding hearts would call this authentic masculinity is "hyper-masculine chauvinistic misogynistic mental illness") and non-inclusive, yes. If you are rejected for being terrible at fighting, or knowing nothing about fighting and doing empty movements that have no application in a real fight, then you should be rejected and go train legitimately on your own or with your friends until you are worth your weight in salt. If you truly want to improve and take legitimate advice though, and show improvement, then the more inclusive 'gateway' communities should accept you even if you're still terrible. I call them gateway communities because they are a gateway to communities of a higher standard of membership, if you want to go further.
> 
> You can be unfriendly and exclusive, but still constructive or 'have a point'. Bottom line. This chaos you speak of isn't a meaningless nightmare that you say it is. There are real things happening the entire time, and it's rich with details, principles, techniques, mind games, even spiritual struggles. Your "animalistic emotions" aren't something abstract or very far away. I haven't trained much my entire life, so after a bit of training (including fighting specific training) I'll be comfortable walking the streets, confronting **** talk, building up and defending my pride and dignity. If I die I die, but that would be weak ******** so I'd rather burn in the afterlife and crawl my way back to life than accept death; realistically that means surviving a stabbing or beating that would kill others, and recovering faster. Avoiding it is cowardice. I'm not going to live forever and neither is anyone else. If I really want to live I have to face death.
> 
> If you want to talk about the diagram I'm game.



This kind of attitude is going to end you up in one of two places: The cemetery or prison. I have a question for you. Have you ever been in a proper fight? Have you ever been stabbed or beaten to within an inch of your life? I wonder if you would be so willing to die for your "pride and dignity" if you are staring death in the face.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And he's good with quite dark chocolate. But not 99%.



No that's my wife, I go about 88%...although I have had 99%


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> No that's my wife, I go about 88%...although I have had 99%



Sounds far too much for me. I usually go with 70-85%


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Sounds far too much for me. I usually go with 70-85%



My youngest tried the 99%...and promptly spit it out and called it disgusting. I can eat it, but I really do not find it enjoyable... told my wife she should illiminate the middle man and just chew on cocoa beans


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Sounds far too much for me. I usually go with 70-85%


88% is a stretch for me. I can enjoy it on odd occasions, but usually 85% is my top end, too.


----------



## _Simon_ (Feb 2, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I think it would make more sense if you set an intention for what to demonstrate and then make the video. Part of the reason why I made this thread. Demonstrate footwork/getting in and out of range, the hardest hits you can manage, dodging in an image fight (shadow boxing/kickboxing) scenario and pantomime a grapple/throw, and comboing while image fighting. Also try to demonstrate athleticism. Try to mix them into one cohesive video. I'm going to look up what boxers and others do and their standards of excellence and put up a video of that.



Ah right, nah I just posted a video just cos it was asked for, wasn't really demonstrating anything as such XD. But that would be cool though.

And everyone glazed over my second video! Come ooooon hehe



Dirty Dog said:


> This is not even close to true. I am involved in physical confrontations regularly. Far more regularly than I'd like. And at no time, even when my life has been in danger, have I ever responded in anything other than a calculating manner. I think. I plan. I do. If you're responding emotionally, I suspect your training and experience is lacking. Or you're just a person who can't control their emotions.
> You can debate on what percentage of people fall into which category (emotional vs non-emotional response) but I do not think that you'll find anything other than anecdotal evidence.



Ah fair call, I retract my statement, I should have been more specific, I guess I was referring to very untrained people fighting purely by emotions (the reason the fight would have started), but you're right, someone who knows how to handle it would indeed be more well thought out.

I'm not personally responding only emotionally in fights, nor have there been any real proper escalations to begin with for me! But in the thick of a scrap with untrained fighters it would seem to be very not-as-calculated and pure instinct-based. Anyways, I didn't provide the context well! XD

And moreso to relate it to what the OP wanted our conversations to be (like a 'fight')


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> 88% is a stretch for me. I can enjoy it on odd occasions, but usually 85% is my top end, too.



If you have not already tried it, you should try this one. This is one of the better 88%. There are other 88% I do not like, but this one is one of my favorites


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 3, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> 7. Not at all, we just know that the criticism we will get will be rather limited due to the nature of Martial Arts. Contrary to your beliefs there is no right or wrong way of doing things, and many of the differences in technique come from the huge variety of styles and lineages available. And you can post whatever kind of video you like, but it doesn't prove your worth as a Martial Artist or a fighter.
> 
> 8. Words are very powerful things, and some would argue they are the most powerful weapons we have access to. Entire countries and civilisations have been destroyed because of something someone said. I would advise you to think more carefully about the words you use in future.
> 
> ...


Thank you, MS! I keep wondering all the same things! For someone who had just dropped in out of nowhere, there is an awful lot of talk demanding credibility from others and not enough substance at the source.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you have not already tried it, you should try this one. This is one of the better 88%. There are other 88% I do not like, but this one is one of my favorites


I've had this once! It is excellent! Truly, very smooth. Goes well with hot whiskey with honey and lemon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you have not already tried it, you should try this one. This is one of the better 88%. There are other 88% I do not like, but this one is one of my favorites


I'll watch for that. I think I know a store around here that carries it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you have not already tried it, you should try this one. This is one of the better 88%. There are other 88% I do not like, but this one is one of my favorites


This, by the way, may be the most useful thread swerve I've ever participated in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you have not already tried it, you should try this one. This is one of the better 88%. There are other 88% I do not like, but this one is one of my favorites


Is it made with bits of real endangered species?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 3, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Is it made with bits of real endangered species?



Yes, but only the ugly ones...none of the cute ones


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, but only the ugly ones...none of the cute ones


It's all relative anyway. Koalas can be terrifying.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> 7. Not at all, we just know that the criticism we will get will be rather limited due to the nature of Martial Arts. Contrary to your beliefs there is no right or wrong way of doing things, and many of the differences in technique come from the huge variety of styles and lineages available. And you can post whatever kind of video you like, but it doesn't prove your worth as a Martial Artist or a fighter.
> 
> 8. Words are very powerful things, and some would argue they are the most powerful weapons we have access to. Entire countries and civilisations have been destroyed because of something someone said. I would advise you to think more carefully about the words you use in future.
> 
> ...



There is always a better way of doing things. Countries and civilizations have been destroyed when leaders of said countries and civilizations instigate it. People have been destroyed for staring at someone a little too long. Countries have been destroyed for killing people. People have been destroyed for starting fights. Countries have been destroyed for doing nothing much. What's your point?

I guess it's just strange that there are no extremely active but confrontational, progressive (far-sighted and future-oriented) and challenging communities in general, even for martial arts.
And if I were beaten/stabbed to near-death, that would be motivation to be more competent not less competent.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> 7. Not at all, we just know that the criticism we will get will be rather limited due to the nature of Martial Arts. Contrary to your beliefs there is no right or wrong way of doing things, and many of the differences in technique come from the huge variety of styles and lineages available. And you can post whatever kind of video you like, but it doesn't prove your worth as a Martial Artist or a fighter.
> 
> 8. Words are very powerful things, and some would argue they are the most powerful weapons we have access to. Entire countries and civilisations have been destroyed because of something someone said. I would advise you to think more carefully about the words you use in future.
> 
> ...



Additionally: I suppose Bruce Lee was an idiot who knows nothing about martial arts for accepting any challenge to a street fight to verify his authenticity then?


For the thread:





[



]


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Additionally: I suppose Bruce Lee was an idiot who knows nothing about martial arts for accepting any challenge to a street fight to verify his authenticity then?
> 
> 
> For the thread:
> ...


AND ANOTHER THING!!!  blah blah blah...


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)




----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


>


This impresses you?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> There is always a better way of doing things. Countries and civilizations have been destroyed when leaders of said countries and civilizations instigate it. People have been destroyed for staring at someone a little too long. Countries have been destroyed for killing people. People have been destroyed for starting fights. Countries have been destroyed for doing nothing much. What's your point?
> 
> I guess it's just strange that there are no extremely active but confrontational, progressive (far-sighted and future-oriented) and challenging communities in general, even for martial arts.
> And if I were beaten/stabbed to near-death, that would be motivation to be more competent not less competent.



Countries and civilisations were destroyed based on differences of opinion, not on who was objectively right or wrong. After all, nobody believes they are "evil", and even the most terrible acts can be justified in the eyes of the person performing those acts. And nobody here is saying that being more competent at defending yourself is a bad thing. All I said was your gun-hoe attitude towards fighting to defend your pride is going to get you hurt. There is nothing glorious or noble about being beaten half-to-death, especially if you started the fight by insulting someone who was bigger and stronger than you. If you get a chance, take a look at some of the threads by @Ironbear24 who used to have a similar attitude, getting into fights and letting his emotions and pride dictate his actions. It rarely ended well.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> This impresses you?



The needle, boiling oil, and guy just standing there taking punches (Yi Long) was neat. I think the water running one would improve someone's footwork quite a bit. The spear video was impressive.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> The needle, boiling oil, and guy just standing there taking punches (Yi Long) was neat. I think the water running one would improve someone's footwork quite a bit. The spear video was impressive.


I don’t find it impressive. I am certain that some of it is smoke and mirrors, some is trick photography, and the stuff that is real requires such constant dedication to training and maintenance that one’s life becomes consumed by it.  One-trick pony.

No thanks.  There is more to life than that.   It does not impres me.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> The needle, boiling oil, and guy just standing there taking punches (Yi Long) was neat. I think the water running one would improve someone's footwork quite a bit. The spear video was impressive.



The majority of those demonstrations are a mere matter of applying physics correctly, and more often than not you can be an average joe and still pull them off. The throat-bending spear for example uses a blunt tip and the monk places the tip against a piece of cartilage in the neck which is hard enough to not get pierced when applying the pressure. Combined with the fact that the shaft of the spear is made of hollow-pliable bamboo and it's easy to see why it bends. These demonstrations are nothing but illusions, designed to impress tourists:






Does this impress you too?


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Countries and civilisations were destroyed based on differences of opinion, not on who was objectively right or wrong. After all, nobody believes they are "evil", and even the most terrible acts can be justified in the eyes of the person performing those acts. And nobody here is saying that being more competent at defending yourself is a bad thing. All I said was your gun-hoe attitude towards fighting to defend your pride is going to get you hurt. There is nothing glorious or noble about being beaten half-to-death, especially if you started the fight by insulting someone who was bigger and stronger than you. If you get a chance, take a look at some of the threads by @Ironbear24 who used to have a similar attitude, getting into fights and letting his emotions and pride dictate his actions. It rarely ended well.



I'm generally more calculating. I think about what kind of person I want to become and the future of the human race when making decisions. As national/group powers increase, I believe humans should develop the ability to be powers in and of themselves. Biological, bodily, willful power. It's the human 'blindspot'; the weakness of the species. The mind is well-developed in the human species, but the more physical has yet to catch up.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


>



At some point you might examine martial arts that exist now, have a decent collection of  movement patterns, examples of which can be easily found,  and are based on principles which are made known to the MA community. This I think would be well received by this viewing audience. One example that comes to mind might be Stephen K Hayes Toshindo knowledge base organized into an "Earth Water Fire Wind Void" conceptualization. Or Tai Chi Chuan's four major energies of ward-off, roll-back, press, push and the companion energies of split, pull-down, shoulder and elbow. 

If you are looking for Neii JIa internal energy connections to the physical arts, IMHO that is tougher row to hoe, although there are people writing about it.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> I'm generally more calculating. I think about what kind of person I want to become and the future of the human race when making decisions. As national/group powers increase, I believe humans should develop the ability to be powers in and of themselves. Biological, bodily, willful power. It's the human 'blindspot'; the weakness of the species. The mind is well-developed in the human species, but the more physical has yet to catch up.



I seem to recall Hitler having similar ambitions when he planned to improve the human species by creating the Aryan "Master Race" and sort to exterminate any group of people he considered to be inferior and "unworthy" of living. Or maybe you are thinking more of turning everyone into Spartan-like entities, who were deemed as the strongest and most physically advanced civilisation ever created. Want to know how they did it? On the backs of millions of slaves, or "Helots" who's only purpose was to grow the crops and make the weapons that the Spartans used in war, allowing the Spartans themselves to train their bodies all day every day. And here lies the problem with your grand idea. Any pro bodybuilder or powerlifter will tell you that it takes a great deal of time, effort and food to get to the physical peak, and there are simply not enough hours in the day to do all the training and everything else required for daily life. 

Your average Olympic athlete trains 6 hours a day, 6 days a week. If they get 8 hours sleep a night, just the sleep and training alone takes up 14 hours, leaving just 10 hours a day for everything else, including eating the vast quantities of food required to sustain that level of training. Imagine if everyone in the world trained the same amount; who would take care of the livestock and crops needed to maintain their training? There's a reason why Olympic athletes get sponsored so that they can focus on their training rather instead of getting a normal job to pay their way.


----------



## Primal Monk (Feb 5, 2018)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I seem to recall Hitler having similar ambitions when he planned to improve the human species by creating the Aryan "Master Race" and sort to exterminate any group of people he considered to be inferior and "unworthy" of living. Or maybe you are thinking more of turning everyone into Spartan-like entities, who were deemed as the strongest and most physically advanced civilisation ever created. Want to know how they did it? On the backs of millions of slaves, or "Helots" who's only purpose was to grow the crops and make the weapons that the Spartans used in war, allowing the Spartans themselves to train their bodies all day every day. And here lies the problem with your grand idea. Any pro bodybuilder or powerlifter will tell you that it takes a great deal of time, effort and food to get to the physical peak, and there are simply not enough hours in the day to do all the training and everything else required for daily life.
> 
> Your average Olympic athlete trains 6 hours a day, 6 days a week. If they get 8 hours sleep a night, just the sleep and training alone takes up 14 hours, leaving just 10 hours a day for everything else, including eating the vast quantities of food required to sustain that level of training. Imagine if everyone in the world trained the same amount; who would take care of the livestock and crops needed to maintain their training? There's a reason why Olympic athletes get sponsored so that they can focus on their training rather instead of getting a normal job to pay their way.



Tarahumara Running Tribe Featured In A New Documentary | Competitor.com
Rarámuri people - Wikipedia

Here is an article and wikipedia entry about a people who run up to a couple hundred or more miles at a time. They still exist. They survive on corn. They think it's fun and will stop for a smoke break.
If a people live their lives being athletic, each generation will become more and more athletic. The modernized members that don't run lose their ultra-endurance.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 5, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> Tarahumara Running Tribe Featured In A New Documentary | Competitor.com
> Rarámuri people - Wikipedia
> 
> Here is an article and wikipedia entry about a people who run up to a couple hundred or more miles at a time. They still exist. They survive on corn. They think it's fun and will stop for a smoke break.
> If a people live their lives being athletic, each generation will become more and more athletic. The modernized members that don't run lose their ultra-endurance.


Do you believe that acquired athletic conditioning is inherited?  Because that is flat out wrong.

People as a species have a tremendous potential for long distance running, but that varies widely between individuals.  However, actualizing that potential depends on the individual doing the work for himself.  My natural athletic potential can be passed along to my offspring.  But if I become an excellent runner through my own hard work, that conditioning does not get passed along to my offspring.

People living an athletic lifestyle does not mean the next generation will be even more athletic.

This is high school level biology.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

Primal Monk said:


> There is always a better way of doing things. Countries and civilizations have been destroyed when leaders of said countries and civilizations instigate it. People have been destroyed for staring at someone a little too long. Countries have been destroyed for killing people. People have been destroyed for starting fights. Countries have been destroyed for doing nothing much. What's your point?
> 
> I guess it's just strange that there are no extremely active but confrontational, progressive (far-sighted and future-oriented) and challenging communities in general, even for martial arts.
> And if I were beaten/stabbed to near-death, that would be motivation to be more competent not less competent.


Cooperation has created more advancement than confrontation. Useful, purposeful, and periodic confrontation can be a catalyst, but will never actually create purposeful change. Purposeful change requires people working together - cooperating. 

As for progressive and future-oriented, there are groups like that within MA. If you haven't seen them, your experience is limiting your view.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Cooperation has created more advancement than confrontation. Useful, purposeful, and periodic confrontation can be a catalyst, but will never actually create purposeful change. Purposeful change requires people working together - cooperating.
> 
> As for progressive and future-oriented, there are groups like that within MA. If you haven't seen them, your experience is limiting your view.


not sure if that's true, wars have given rise to significant progress in technology, even cold wars where no one get shot have driven society forwards at an increased rate . Certainly co operation on the national scale is required, but this is easier to find if the nation has a common enemy


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> not sure if that's true, wars have given rise to significant progress in technology, even cold wars where no one get shot have driven society forwards at an increased rate . Certainly co operation on the national scale is required, but this is easier to find if the nation has a common enemy



You can't really generalise it either way. Some conflicts have been necessary in advancing a particular nation, while other conflicts have destroyed a nation and stopped it advancing. For example, the Russian and French revolutions in the long run made lives better for the lower classes and paved the way for democracy (eventually). Without those conflicts I doubt the aristocracy of those nations would have given up their power that was crushing the peasants. 

On the flip side, the various conflicts in China have in my opinion done nothing but restrict their progress as they have a nasty habit of wanting to destroy things they don't agree with. Many sources of knowledge have been lost in these conflicts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> not sure if that's true, wars have given rise to significant progress in technology, even cold wars where no one get shot have driven society forwards at an increased rate . Certainly co operation on the national scale is required, but this is easier to find if the nation has a common enemy


The war was the catalyst. Cooperation created the new technology in response to that catalyst.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The war was the catalyst. Cooperation created the new technology in response to that catalyst.


I'm not sure you know what a catalysts is, 
from memory,..... it a medium that cause a reaction between other things, but its self remains unchanged by the process, 

clearly the war was its self changed by the technology developed, so it cant by defintion be a catalysts


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure you know what a catalysts is,
> from memory,..... it a medium that cause a reaction between other things, but its self remains unchanged by the process,
> 
> clearly the war was its self changed by the technology developed, so it cant by defintion be a catalysts


You're using a chemistry definition. We're not discussing chemistry.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You're using a chemistry definition. We're not discussing chemistry.


but its chemistry term you are using, it has no meaning outside of that arena  , or perhaps any meaning if you insist on misuse

petrol is not a catalyst to air and fire, its part of the process .

war is not a catalyst for society and progress, it to Is part of the process

if you had called an agent of change, you would be correct,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> but its chemistry term you are using, it has no meaning outside of that arena  , or perhaps any meaning if you insist on misuse
> 
> petrol is not a catalyst to air and fire, its part of the process .
> 
> ...


It's a term used in the common vernacular outside chemistry.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It's a term used in the common vernacular outside chemistry.


I'm not disputing that, people miss used all sorts of words, it generaly causes me to correct them, but you were using it in a scientific context, which then rather requires the scientific use,
you can't discuss science, if people just keep making up their own scientific defintions


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

To those still duking it out with @Primal Monk! I opted to ignore him, and my quality of interchange here suddenly went up.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> To those still duking it out with @Primal Monk! I opted to ignore him, and my quality of interchange here suddenly went up.


why do you feel the need to tell people who you are ignoring that you are ignoring them, they have either noticed or don't care or are grateful for the fact


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm not disputing that, people miss used all sorts of words, it generaly causes me to correct them, but you were using it in a scientific context, which then rather requires the scientific use,
> you can't discuss science, if people just keep making up their own scientific defintions


We've discussed this before. Words have the meaning people ascribe to them, not the other way around. Since the word is now commonly used also to refer to something that starts or leads to change (but isn't a part of the change process, itself), that's what it means in that usage.

And, no, I wasn't using it in a scientific context. I've no idea where you got that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> To those still duking it out with @Primal Monk! I opted to ignore him, and my quality of interchange here suddenly went up.


Ah, but where's the fun in that?


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, but where's the fun in that?


Oh, I don't know... There is no hope of education or enlightenment. We know he will learn nothing and understand nothing - due to sheer lack of interest in hearing anyone's opinion but his own and a firm belief the world should mold itself to his liking. Eventually, the fun of watching someone so persistently ignorant and impulsive bounce off the walls just wears thin.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And, no, I wasn't using it in a scientific context. I've no idea where you got that.


possibly because we were discussing anthropology, which comes under the general heading of science,


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> but its chemistry term you are using, it has no meaning outside of that arena  , or perhaps any meaning if you insist on misuse
> 
> petrol is not a catalyst to air and fire, its part of the process .
> 
> ...



There are 2 definitions for Catalyst in the Oxford Dictionary:

1. A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

2. A person or thing that precipitates an event.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> Oh, I don't know... There is no hope of education or enlightenment. We know he will learn nothing and understand nothing - due to sheer lack of interest in hearing anyone's opinion but his own and a firm belief the world should mold itself to his liking. Eventually, the fun of watching someone so persistently ignorant and impulsive bounce off the walls just wears thin.


Can’t you say the same about a certain evil clown?


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Can’t you say the same about a certain evil clown?


Indeed I can - the Ignore switched served me well there too.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you believe that acquired athletic conditioning is inherited?
> 
> This is high school level biology.



This isn’t high school level biology.  I teach grades 4-9 science (including high school biology).  I actually taught this very concept to my 4th grade class this morning.  They’re a very smart group, so I went there with it.  I normally teach that in 5th grade, and 99% of them understand it pretty well.  I start it with “if you dye your hair blonde, your kids won’t have blond hair because of it.  If you get a nose-job, your kids won’t be born with that nose.”  Then I progress to “if you do steroids and get as big as the Hulk, your kids won’t be mini-Hulks” and “if you start training for marathons, your kids won’t be born long distance runners.”

They get it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> This isn’t high school level biology.  I teach grades 4-9 science (including high school biology).  I actually taught this very concept to my 4th grade class this morning.  They’re a very smart group, so I went there with it.  I normally teach that in 5th grade, and 99% of them understand it pretty well.  I start it with “if you dye your hair blonde, your kids won’t have blond hair because of it.  If you get a nose-job, your kids won’t be born with that nose.”  Then I progress to “if you do steroids and get as big as the Hulk, your kids won’t be mini-Hulks” and “if you start training for marathons, your kids won’t be born long distance runners.”
> 
> They get it.


I was being generous.

Mostly because I have little memory of my science education prior to high school.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> This isn’t high school level biology.  I teach grades 4-9 science (including high school biology).  I actually taught this very concept to my 4th grade class this morning.  They’re a very smart group, so I went there with it.  I normally teach that in 5th grade, and 99% of them understand it pretty well.  I start it with “if you dye your hair blonde, your kids won’t have blond hair because of it.  If you get a nose-job, your kids won’t be born with that nose.”  Then I progress to “if you do steroids and get as big as the Hulk, your kids won’t be mini-Hulks” and “if you start training for marathons, your kids won’t be born long distance runners.”
> 
> They get it.


maybe your selling them short, a genetic ability to say run far, is quite likely to be past  on, a strong healthy parent is likely to have a,strong healthy child, fat sickly parents generaly have fat sickly children.

there are peoples in the world that ether has a greater level of fitness genetically or a tendency to be good at certain events .

certainly dyed hair won't be passed on , but big muscles may well be


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> possibly because we were discussing anthropology, which comes under the general heading of science,


LOL, so anything that could possibly be placed loosely under a scientific heading must be a scientific discussion? That means all of martial arts falls under physics and psychology. That's just lunacy, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> maybe your selling them short, a genetic ability to say run far, is quite likely to be past  on, a strong healthy parent is likely to have a,strong healthy child, fat sickly parents generaly have fat sickly children.
> 
> there are peoples in the world that ether has a greater level of fitness genetically or a tendency to be good at certain events .
> 
> certainly dyed hair won't be passed on , but big muscles may well be


Genetic ability, yes. Acquired ability, no.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> LOL, so anything that could possibly be placed loosely under a scientific heading must be a scientific discussion? That means all of martial arts falls under physics and psychology. That's just lunacy, man.


well no, if your indeed discussing the mechanics of ma, then it is indeed a scientific discussion, just as the phycology of ma is a phycology discussion. 

if you stay beyond those boundaries then you are discussing rumour, suposition and folk lore where an term can mean any thing you want and it all become meaning less, a bit like discussing religion


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Genetic ability, yes. Acquired ability, no.


the two are inseperable


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> well no, if your indeed discussing the mechanics of ma, then it is indeed a scientific discussion, just as the phycology of ma is a phycology discussion.
> 
> if you stay beyond those boundaries then you are discussing rumour, suposition and folk lore where an term can mean any thing you want and it all become meaning less, a bit like discussing religion


Nope. Topics that aren't pure sciences can be discussed from many standpoints. We were discussing - not using anthropological terminology (and "catalyst" wouldn't be used as a chemical term in that context, anyway). We were discussing the usage of a word, debating what makes something a "cult" in common usage (not in any anthropological definition - I rather doubt there is one).

You're just playing word games now, because you don't like where the discussion went. You've done that before. It didn't work then, either.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> This isn’t high school level biology.  I teach grades 4-9 science (including high school biology).  I actually taught this very concept to my 4th grade class this morning.  They’re a very smart group, so I went there with it.  I normally teach that in 5th grade, and 99% of them understand it pretty well.  I start it with “if you dye your hair blonde, your kids won’t have blond hair because of it.  If you get a nose-job, your kids won’t be born with that nose.”  Then I progress to “if you do steroids and get as big as the Hulk, your kids won’t be mini-Hulks” and “if you start training for marathons, your kids won’t be born long distance runners.”
> 
> They get it.


That's a great explanation! I love it! We need more teachers like you. 

I wish you could meet my dad - he explained solar system to me twirling Christmas tree ornaments around one another. Of course... you might not have much to say to each other, since he doesn't speak a word of English.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> the two are inseperable


I did not come out of the womb with the in-born ability to juggle a soccer ball or do a hip throw. Nor with the ability to run 10 miles a day. All of those were developed.

If by "inseparable", you mean if I can't run (genetic issue), I can't run 10 miles, you're correct. If you mean the two concepts cannot be separated for discussion (being able to run 10 miles requires specific development for most people, while being able to run does not), then you are incorrect.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I did not come out of the womb with the in-born ability to juggle a soccer ball or do a hip throw. Nor with the ability to run 10 miles a day.



Really...hmm...the first thing I did was Irimi Nage the doctor for smacking me and spinning back kick (like Chuck Norris) the nurse for laughing


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> maybe your selling them short, a genetic ability to say run far, is quite likely to be past  on, a strong healthy parent is likely to have a,strong healthy child, fat sickly parents generaly have fat sickly children.
> 
> there are peoples in the world that ether has a greater level of fitness genetically or a tendency to be good at certain events .
> 
> certainly dyed hair won't be passed on , but big muscles may well be


We discuss that too.  Some people have a genetic disposition to be endurance athletes, some don’t.  Look at the Kenyan marathon runners.  But having the genes doesn’t guarantee anything either.  It takes acquired skill.  Even something as seemingly simple as running 26.1 miles (seemingly simple in the sense of strategy, not physically) takes significant acquired skill to be able to maximize one’s potential.

Here’s another one we discuss (in the older grades) - basketball.  To be a truly elite player most often means height.  Only one way to be 6’5” inches tall - genes.  But how much Michael Jordan’s hand-eye coordination, kinesthetic awareness, strength, endurance, and all around basketball smarts are genetic vs acquired are a debate.  I’m quite sure not everyone from that famous tribe in Kenya is a natural born marathon runner, nor has the genetic potential to be.  There’s a lot to be said for the climate, altitude, and overall social support.

That conversation goes over 4th graders’ heads.  I’ve tried.  7th-9th graders, not so much.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Really...hmm...the first thing I did was Irimi Nage the doctor for smacking me and spinning back kick (like Chuck Norris) the nurse for laughing


First thing I did was cry like a little baby.  Because, well... I was a little baby.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 6, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> That's a great explanation! I love it! We need more teachers like you.
> 
> I wish you could meet my dad - he explained solar system to me twirling Christmas tree ornaments around one another. Of course... you might not have much to say to each other, since he doesn't speak a word of English.


If he doesn’t speak Armenian, then we’ve really run out of options.

At least we could teach each other swear words and phrases.  Hand gestures and drawings while laughing would help us get our point across.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nope. Topics that aren't pure sciences can be discussed from many standpoints. We were discussing - not using anthropological terminology (and "catalyst" wouldn't be used as a chemical term in that context, anyway). We were discussing the usage of a word, debating what makes something a "cult" in common usage (not in any anthropological definition - I rather doubt there is one).
> 
> You're just playing word games now, because you don't like where the discussion went. You've done that before. It didn't work then, either.


no we were discussing the effect of war on human development and culture, no wonder your mixed up if you cant remember in which discussion you miss used the word catalyst


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I did not come out of the womb with the in-born ability to juggle a soccer ball or do a hip throw. Nor with the ability to run 10 miles a day. All of those were developed.
> 
> If by "inseparable", you mean if I can't run (genetic issue), I can't run 10 miles, you're correct. If you mean the two concepts cannot be separated for discussion (being able to run 10 miles requires specific development for most people, while being able to run does not), then you are incorrect.


no, but you aren't your full adult height when you came out of the womb ether, unless your claiming that's not genetic either


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> We discuss that too.  Some people have a genetic disposition to be endurance athletes, some don’t.  Look at the Kenyan marathon runners.  But having the genes doesn’t guarantee anything either.  It takes acquired skill.  Even something as seemingly simple as running 26.1 miles (seemingly simple in the sense of strategy, not physically) takes significant acquired skill to be able to maximize one’s potential.
> 
> Here’s another one we discuss (in the older grades) - basketball.  To be a truly elite player most often means height.  Only one way to be 6’5” inches tall - genes.  But how much Michael Jordan’s hand-eye coordination, kinesthetic awareness, strength, endurance, and all around basketball smarts are genetic vs acquired are a debate.  I’m quite sure not everyone from that famous tribe in Kenya is a natural born marathon runner, nor has the genetic potential to be.  There’s a lot to be said for the climate, altitude, and overall social support.
> 
> That conversation goes over 4th graders’ heads.  I’ve tried.  7th-9th graders, not so much.


but it works either way round, either is a gift of genetics, or it is application of effort, which in its self is a gift of genetics.

its ALL genetics


some people are just lazy, but lazy can be good, its a lazy man who got tired of dragging things and invented the wheel, laziness has brought the human race a long way


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> If he doesn’t speak Armenian, then we’ve really run out of options.
> 
> At least we could teach each other swear words and phrases.  Hand gestures and drawings while laughing would help us get our point across.


He speaks Russian and Ukrainian. The only words he knows in English are the ones he uses in question form with the international crews at his airport, "Fuel? Maintenance? Catering?"


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Really...hmm...the first thing I did was Irimi Nage the doctor for smacking me and spinning back kick (like Chuck Norris) the nurse for laughing


True story - after almost dying at birth, I compensated by making "I am the boss" the first full sentence that came out of my mouth.


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> We discuss that too.  Some people have a genetic disposition to be endurance athletes, some don’t.  Look at the Kenyan marathon runners.  But having the genes doesn’t guarantee anything either.  It takes acquired skill.  Even something as seemingly simple as running 26.1 miles (seemingly simple in the sense of strategy, not physically) takes significant acquired skill to be able to maximize one’s potential.
> 
> Here’s another one we discuss (in the older grades) - basketball.  To be a truly elite player most often means height.  Only one way to be 6’5” inches tall - genes.  But how much Michael Jordan’s hand-eye coordination, kinesthetic awareness, strength, endurance, and all around basketball smarts are genetic vs acquired are a debate.  I’m quite sure not everyone from that famous tribe in Kenya is a natural born marathon runner, nor has the genetic potential to be.  There’s a lot to be said for the climate, altitude, and overall social support.
> 
> That conversation goes over 4th graders’ heads.  I’ve tried.  7th-9th graders, not so much.


My mom explained such things to me via musical analogies. Andrea Guarneri was, arguably, a better violin maker than his teacher Amati and Amati's other great student Stradivari. He had an impeccable pitch, the flawless sense for producing just the right resonance in the wood, and beautifully deft hands. He was also very clever and a fast learner. 

BUT. He had no discipline. Something that could not be built-in genetically. He had no time for sitting there for hours refining some small detail that might transform the instrument's sound. He could not make himself experiment for months, seeking out various types of varnish, trying different ingredients, etc. Thus, he never established himself in a steady way and lacked money for superior materials to do his instruments justice. An occasional job with a well-paying patron gave us a glimpse of the heights he could have risen to. Sadly, only 250 of his instruments reached us. 

His even more brilliant grandson Guiseppe Guarneri had an even shorter career, his often sloppily made instruments somehow still possessing brilliant sound. Guiseppe Guarneri's work was immortalized posthumously - Paganini owned several of his violins and always said they were his favorite.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> First thing I did was cry like a little baby.  Because, well... I was a little baby.


I cried like a man, damnit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> no we were discussing the effect of war on human development and culture, no wonder your mixed up if you cant remember in which discussion you miss used the word catalyst


You drift all over the place in all of your debates. The effect of war wasn't the original point, nor the main point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> no, but you aren't your full adult height when you came out of the womb ether, unless your claiming that's not genetic either


At what point did I say anything about height?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> but it works either way round, either is a gift of genetics, or it is application of effort, which in its self is a gift of genetics.
> 
> its ALL genetics
> 
> ...


So you're saying we're either genetically able to put forth an effort, or we aren't? You're lost, man.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You drift all over the place in all of your debates. The effect of war wasn't the original point, nor the main point.


that was the discussion in which you used the word catalyst, what went before or after doesn't change that matterial fact

your not even in the right thread for the cult discusion


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> So you're saying we're either genetically able to put forth an effort, or we aren't? You're lost, man.


determination or dedication required to perfect a skill, is its self a genetic trait,


----------



## AngryHobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I cried like a man, damnit.


I didn't cry. I was busy scheming.


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> At what point did I say anything about height?


you didn't . i did


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

AngryHobbit said:


> I didn't cry. I was busy scheming.


its spelt screaming


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> determination or dedication required to perfect a skill, is its self a genetic trait,


Where's your evidence to support that assertion?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> you didn't . i did


Then what has it to do with my post?


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Then what has it to do with my post?


it was an anoligy to show how silly your not born juggling statement was


----------



## jobo (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Where's your evidence to support that assertion?


really you want evidence that personality traits are to a large extent genetic


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Where's your evidence to support that assertion?



At this point we're going into pure speculation. Even the people who study and work with genetics every day know relatively little about what traits are passed on genetically and what traits are developed through early childhood. Mental aptitude towards a particular skill-set is even harder to determine. There are just too many factors and not enough chance for controlled experiments to make a clear distinction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> it was an anoligy to show how silly your not born juggling statement was


So, you're saying someone who can juggle would be able to do so if they just waited? Nothing learned or acquired there - they can just wait, like growing to their full height?

And you say my point was silly? Really?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> really you want evidence that personality traits are to a large extent genetic


That this specific trait is. You made a definitive claim, which you should be able to support. Research shows there's a genetic component to personality, but I've seen nothing that indicates it is even remotely close to being entirely genetic.


----------



## jobo (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That this specific trait is. You made a definitive claim, which you should be able to support. Research shows there's a genetic component to personality, but I've seen nothing that indicates it is even remotely close to being entirely genetic.


its funny that when it suits you you claim that our chats are not in anyway scientific and you can us terms in any way you want, but then apply a different standard and insist on scientific evidence.and scientific defintions 

there is a large body of evidence that personality traits in general are heavily influenced genetics, that you seem to accept? But you are not accepting that this personality trait is.

why would you conclusion. That this trait is substantial different to ALL others?


----------



## jobo (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're saying someone who can juggle would be able to do so if they just waited? Nothing learned or acquired there - they can just wait, like growing to their full height?
> 
> And you say my point was silly? Really?


yes, more or less, i can juggle two balls, just as a factor of my basic level hand eye co ordination. Three balls may take a little practise

your height is of course partly an acquired skill as well, as it takes practise to co ordinate the stabilising muscles , with out which you couldn't stand up straight and this you height would be much less,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> yes, more or less, i can juggle two balls, just as a factor of my basic level hand eye co ordination. Three balls may take a little practise
> 
> your height is of course partly an acquired skill as well, as it takes practise to co ordinate the stabilising muscles , with out which you couldn't stand up straight and this you height would be much less,


I had to train to learn to juggle two. It was not natural.

As for the height thing - now you're working really hard to make it what you said it wasn't. Make up your mind.


----------



## jobo (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I had to train to learn to juggle two. It was not natural.
> 
> As for the height thing - now you're working really hard to make it what you said it wasn't. Make up your mind.





gpseymour said:


> I had to train to learn to juggle two. It was not natural.
> 
> As for the height thing - now you're working really hard to make it what you said it wasn't. Make up your mind.



hand eye co ordination like standing up is genetic, your programmed to stand just as you are to be,able to catch things, your point seems to be that because you can't juggle immediately after birth, its not a genetics dependant skill.which is indeed silly

no amount of practise will ever give most people the ability to juggle 5 working chain saws, therefore the only safe conclusion is that's genetics which allows people who can do that, to do that. Just as peoples who can't learn how to stand up can safely assume that people who can have a genetic advantage


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> hand eye co ordination like standing up is genetic, your programmed to stand just as you are to be,able to catch things, your point seems to be that because you can't juggle immediately after birth, its not a genetics dependant skill.which is indeed silly


It is partly genetic. We appear to all have a baseline to work from. Had I not worked for weeks on learning to juggle, I would not be able to juggle today. I was an adult when I took it up (to help build hand-eye coordination), and there was nothing left of genetics-based development to happen at that point. So no, my ability to juggle isn't even mostly genetic. I have worked hard to develop the level of coordination I have, because it was not natural to me.



> no amount of practise will ever give most people the ability to juggle 5 working chain saws, therefore the only safe conclusion is that's genetics which allows people who can do that, to do that. Just as peoples who can't learn how to stand up can safely assume that people who can have a genetic advantage


While I agree that it appears we need a relatively high baseline genetic point to start from to develop juggling to that point (5 complex objects), all that demonstrates is that there is a genetic component. I could probably learn to juggle 5 balls (I briefly worked up to 4). If I learned that, it would almost certainly take me many months. Are you arguing that I'd just be activating genes somewhere that laid dormant until then? And that I can no longer juggle 4 because my genes decayed from disuse? Of course you aren't, because you know there's an acquired component. So I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.


----------



## jobo (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It is partly genetic. We appear to all have a baseline to work from. Had I not worked for weeks on learning to juggle, I would not be able to juggle today. I was an adult when I took it up (to help build hand-eye coordination), and there was nothing left of genetics-based development to happen at that point. So no, my ability to juggle isn't even mostly genetic. I have worked hard to develop the level of coordination I have, because it was not natural to me.
> 
> 
> While I agree that it appears we need a relatively high baseline genetic point to start from to develop juggling to that point (5 complex objects), all that demonstrates is that there is a genetic component. I could probably learn to juggle 5 balls (I briefly worked up to 4). If I learned that, it would almost certainly take me many months. Are you arguing that I'd just be activating genes somewhere that laid dormant until then? And that I can no longer juggle 4 because my genes decayed from disuse? Of course you aren't, because you know there's an acquired component. So I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.


you always make conversations about you, one way or another, which gives you an unfair advantage, as you can change the data we are considering at your whim

so no let's take about juggling in general.

there are people who no matter how they try will Never juggle 3 balls and other who with little effort will manage it in an hour. Why is that,,, genetics

but then the determination to master something, the people who will work for many hours to gain a really pointless skill like juggling three balls, can do so because they have commitment, some less charitable than i may say obsession, that to is strongly influenced by genetics.

so to juggle five things you need genetics for the task and the genetics to stick at learning the task.

clearly the more talented you are at hand eye, the less talented you need be at determination,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> you always make conversations about you, one way or another, which gives you an unfair advantage, as you can change the data we are considering at your whim
> 
> so no let's take about juggling in general.
> 
> ...


So, using myself as an example is "making it about me"?? So, it's necessary to find another example, simply because I shouldn't use the easiest one for me to discuss? And I'm not sure how that gives me an unfair advantage. If you can provide some non-anecdotal evidence to back your claims, my anecdotal evidence would be unconvincing.

Again, where is your evidence that determination and commitment are strongly genetic?


----------



## jobo (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> So, using myself as an example is "making it about me"?? So, it's necessary to find another example, simply because I shouldn't use the easiest one for me to discuss? And I'm not sure how that gives me an unfair advantage. If you can provide some non-anecdotal evidence to back your claims, my anecdotal evidence would be unconvincing.
> 
> Again, where is your evidence that determination and commitment are strongly genetic?


and again, why are you asking for scientific evidence, when you insist our discussions are not scientific,


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> and again, why are you asking for scientific evidence, when you insist our discussions are not scientific,


Pretty comical statement.  You’re saying this stuff is all genetic.  He’s saying it’s learned.  He’s asking you to prove the claim you’ve adamantly been going on about for several pages now.

You’re stating something as scientific fact, yet you refuse to give scientific proof.  And you don’t see the irony there?


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> its funny that when it suits you you claim that our chats are not in anyway scientific and you can us terms in any way you want, but then apply a different standard and insist on scientific evidence.and scientific defintions
> 
> there is a large body of evidence that personality traits in general are heavily influenced genetics, that you seem to accept? But you are not accepting that this personality trait is.
> 
> why would you conclusion. That this trait is substantial different to ALL others?


Which personality traits are due to genetics?  I’d really like to see the scientific evidence.  It would definitely help me when I teach genetics.


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Pretty comical statement.  You’re saying this stuff is all genetic.  He’s saying it’s learned.  He’s asking you to prove the claim you’ve adamantly been going on about for several pages now.
> 
> You’re stating something as scientific fact, yet you refuse to give scientific proof.  And you don’t see the irony there?


you've missed the back story, which was were he insisted that a chat about anthropology, wasn't on anyway scientific and thus he,could us any terms he wanted to describe its elements and prove his point, 

it rather like me saying its genetic , but then making up my own defintion of genetics


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Which personality traits are due to genetics?  I’d really like to see the scientific evidence.  It would definitely help me when I teach genetics.


all of them according to this paper, the question isnt" which" as much as "to what amount
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> all of them according to this paper, the question isnt" which" as much as "to what amount
> http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf


Thanks for that.  I’ll give it a read when I’ve got some time.  I’m pretty deep into genetics with my 7th grade class, and my 9th grade biology class’s next unit is genetics.  Maybe I’ll be able to pull a lab activity out of it somehow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> all of them according to this paper, the question isnt" which" as much as "to what amount
> http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf


And that was where we were many posts ago. There's a genetic component and that has been known for some time, but your choice of wording implies certain characteristics (determination was one you mentioned) are largely genetic.


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And that was where we were many posts ago. There's a genetic component and that has been known for some time, but your choice of wording implies certain characteristics (determination was one you mentioned) are largely genetic.


no all characteristics are largely genetic, determination is only one of many, you were,denying they were genetic at all,


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> not sure if that's true, wars have given rise to significant progress in technology, even cold wars where no one get shot have driven society forwards at an increased rate . Certainly co operation on the national scale is required, but this is easier to find if the nation has a common enemy


At the same time, civilizations have been known to have golden ages with plenty of cultural progress (I'm thinking renaissance in particular). I think both ways can cause progress.


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> At the same time, civilizations have been known to have golden ages with plenty of cultural progress (I'm thinking renaissance in particular). I think both ways can cause progress.


yes, but different progress, peaceful times with lots of food give,rise to art, war gives rise to technology, disease gives,rise to medical advances, etc, famine gives rise to changes in agriculture etc.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Feb 8, 2018)

welcom to MA


----------



## jobo (Feb 9, 2018)

i find there is a reluctance to accept the influence of genetics in the wider population, as, at its most basic level if removes much of our power to influence our lives. What people take pride in, their appearance, their physical attributes, their cognitive abilities and their (positive) personality traits, hard work, determination,  loyalty etc, are to a significant amount influenced by genetics. with in those boundaries your ability to achieve at anything, in fact the whole course of your life, is largely out of your control.

there is a nature/ nurture argument about environment, that certainly has influence, but you can't nurture what isn't there in the first place.for instance I've,seen papers that suggest a positive upbringing can add 5 to 10 points to your IQ score , but it cant make you clever if you are stupid. Similarly if you have a natural tendency to be lazy,then that cleverness may not be reward by society, as even a disciplined upbringing won't make you hard working, it will only make you slightly less lazy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 9, 2018)

jobo said:


> no all characteristics are largely genetic, determination is only one of many, you were,denying they were genetic at all,


Show me where I ever said there was no genetic component. Go ahead.


----------



## jobo (Feb 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I ever said there was no genetic component. Go ahead.


show me were you stated or accepted there was,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 9, 2018)

jobo said:


> show me were you stated or accepted there was,


Nope. You made a claim - it's your job to support your claim. My lack of saying "there's a genetic component to determination" is not even close the same as me saying "there's no genetic component to determination".

But, what the heck, here's one where I spoke to the genetic component of personality:


gpseymour said:


> Research shows there's a genetic component to personality


----------



## jobo (Feb 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nope. You made a claim - it's your job to support your claim. My lack of saying "there's a genetic component to determination" is not even close the same as me saying "there's no genetic component to determination".
> 
> But, what the heck, here's one where I spoke to the genetic component of personality:



I'm not wading through posts to find what you have selectively quoted, even at face value, that only you admiting that research exists not that you accept that research, clearly you didnt as many other of your posts showed.

not forgetting of course. That following your example i can use any defintion of research or genetics that i wish


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 9, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm not wading through posts to find what you have selectively quoted, even at face value, that only you admiting that research exists not that you accept that research, clearly you didnt as many other of your posts showed.
> 
> not forgetting of course. That following your example i can use any defintion of research or genetics that i wish


Ah, so now we get to the root of the problem: you've decided what I think has nothing to do with what I think - it has to do with what you think I think.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so now we get to the root of the problem: you've decided what I think has nothing to do with what I think - it has to do with what you think I think.



No, not at all! It's abut what he thinks you think about what he thinks you think about what he thinks. I think.


----------

