# 'Beliefs' in martial arts.



## fangjian (Feb 24, 2011)

Hi everyone,  I was attempting to start a blog today.  The original intent of my blog is going to be  about my disbelief in gods and other religious ideas. But my first post is about beliefs in martial arts. I as hoping some of you would check it out and let me know what you think if you have a minute.  All criticism is welcome. It's my first time trying it and would welcome advice.  Here's the link below.

http://ath3istbydefault.blogspot.com/2011/02/beliefs-in-martial-arts.html


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 24, 2011)

I think it is important for the sake of argument to be able to differentiate between blind faith and informed or reasonable faith when discussing certain subjects whether it be martial arts or religion or science.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 24, 2011)

Its funny, I was reading your post and thinking "peer review", then half way through you mention it!

Not all MA require you to go toe to toe with someone to prove your worth, or the validity of your art. 

No matter what industry/profession you are in, you will always have those on the peripheral who will always try to make a buck or elevate themselves to a position of authority in their little world. Generally they have half assed qualifications, but try to pass themselves off as more then they are. 

Who decides who is qualified? Groups of like minded people get together and start judging others, who are they to judge?

My MA is iaido and jodo, I can tell, just from 12 years of experience who has a clue just by watching someone for 30 seconds, it doesnt matter if I know that school or not, I will know. 

Sorry.all over the place.


----------



## Balrog (Feb 24, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think it is important for the sake of argument to be able to differentiate between blind faith and informed or reasonable faith when discussing certain subjects whether it be martial arts or religion or science.



You can't differentiate.  Faith, by definition, is blind.  This is why religions exist.

*faith * (fe&#618;&#952 

    *n *  1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence  2. a specific system of religious beliefs: _the Jewish faith _  3. _Christianity _ trust in God and in his actions and promises  4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason


----------



## fangjian (Feb 25, 2011)

Balrog said:


> You can't differentiate.  Faith, by definition, is blind.  This is why religions exist.



This is correct.  

You either believe something with evidence ( evolution, Newtonian mechanics, some m.a. styles ARE better than others ) or you believe something with no evidence (homeopathy, gods, no touch knockouts)


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 25, 2011)

It raised questions for me, such as, what are some examples of those claims that you are satisfied have been put through peer review, and also some examples of those which have not.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 25, 2011)

girlbug2 said:


> It raised questions for me, such as, what are some examples of those claims that you are satisfied have been put through peer review, and also some examples of those which have not.



GREAT QUESTION!  
I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.

*Peer reviewed:  *Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt


*NOT peer reviewed:*  no touch knockouts, supernatural protection from harm(anting anting), dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 25, 2011)

fangjian said:


> This is correct.
> 
> You either believe something with evidence (evolution, Newtonian mechanics, some m.a. styles ARE better than others ) or you believe something with no evidence (homeopathy, gods, no touch knockouts)


Actually, faith is essentially trust. You have faith in a person for various reasons. Or more specifically, faith in their actions, abilities, or decisions. Usually, it is based upon past experience with the person or the related past experience of another trusted individual with that person.

Everytime you start your car, you have faith that it will, in fact, start. The less you know about automobiles, the more blind your faith in this simple act is. 

For most everything that we believe, we rely upon the research and conclusions of others, which is also faith. The further removed you are from the field that your belief is tied to, the more blind your faith is.

Kenshin made reference to informed reasonable faith, which does exist. The dictionary definition posted by Balrog as supportfor his statement that all faith is blind does not actually read as such. It does say: _1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, *esp* without proof or evidence. _

Generally, the term faith is used to describe belief in somethng that lacks some kind of evidence or support, though the term is not exclusive to such beliefs.

Then you get into what comprises evidence in the mind of the person who holds the belief, whatever it may be.

People who believe in no touch KO's, for example, may believe in the idea because they 'saw' it happen in their dojo. They may not have really seen one; it may have been a case of a sensei who's students will automatically drop for whatever technique he dishes out. The believer is then shocked when the sensei cannot duplicate the result on a non member. 

Like starting the car, the believer in this scenario has no reason for his faith to be shaken until his proverbial car won't start. He has "seen it with his own eyes" after all.

So is his faith really blind? Or just visually impaired? Or tricked by an optical illusion?

Another issue with discussions of non physical things in martial arts, such as ki, people often have different definitions for the same term. Look up ki, chi, or qi on MT and look through the threads and you'll see as many different descriptions of ki as there are posters on MT. 

Do I "have faith" in the existence the ability to harness one's Ki? Sure, but I define it as breath. The ability to control your breathing is fairly essential to any physical endeavor, so by my definition, ki not only exists, but its application is provable and replicable. So my faith in the idea of harnessing ki is grounded in something tangible.

On the other hand a person who believes that ki is like the force will have a hard time furnishing what would be considered acceptable proof by most, though he or she may believe in it due to a personal experience. 

Frankly, most people who believe in something without evidence, regardless of what it is, and refuse to question it, responding with "I have faith," simply want to believe what they believe and are unwilling to look beyond just having faith either out of apathy or out of fear that looking will reveal their belief to be with out base.

Regarding your blog, I didn't find any fault with it.  It would be nice to have an actual peer review publication with no investment in any specific art or arts to exhaustively test and conclude.  

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Feb 25, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It would be nice to have an actual peer review publication with no investment in any specific art or arts to exhaustively test and conclude.
> 
> Daniel



In regards to the above, we do have this peer review. It's called sparring. We all know what styles and techniques work for whatever circumstances. We also know the ones that are b.s.

In regards to the word 'faith'. I always use it to denote a belief in something without evidence.  For example I don't have 'faith' that when you throw a ball up, it will come back down. All of the evidence suggests it WILL come back down, and we can also pinpoint exactly where and how fast. Same thing with my techniques (although not with as much certainty, of course). They are testable, observable etc. 
I agree with most of the things you said but, I am assuming most people use the word 'faith' the way I am, no?

I'd hate for this to be a matter of semantics though.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 27, 2011)

It seems relevant that the relationship between most people and science is the same as that of many people and religion.  I "believe" in quantum physics, but I've never run the math. I couldn't if I wanted to. I accept what the priests of science tell me is so, as do most of us.

The difference between my going to the doctor and a 10th century peasant going to a witch is cosmetic at best. 

Also true in martial arts. Each dojo has a priest (often in funny robes) who others believe in. Though you can expose your faith to some peer review in sparring, you're sparring against members of your own faith.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> In regards to the above, we do have this peer review. It's called sparring.


 
I have to disagree with this statement. Sparring is a component in peer review, but is not itself peer review. Sparring is more like lab work. For example, one might wish to reveiw taekwondo and compare it to other styles by having the taekwondoist spar people of different specific styles (karate vs. taekwondo, boxing vs. taekwondo, BJJ vs. taekwondo, etc.) followed by taekwondo vs. an competitive MMA fighter. 

Then you have the question of the context of the art. Boxing is a sport that focuses on hand techniques. WTF sport TKD is a sport that focuses on foot techniques. Wrestling is a sport that focuses on grappling. Sport/competition has value in and of itself. Football is not a martial art, but a sport. Nobody cares how effective it is against baseball or against MMA; it has value to fans and players that is independent of its practical usage off of the field.  Likewise, a taekwondoist going for the gold at the olympics is unlikely to be concerned about whether or not he can beat the current UFC champ in the same weight class. Then you have the crossing over from fighting system to martial gymnastics and physical art. Would you use XMA in self defense? Probably not, but it's darned cool to look at. I can't do it, nor would I want to, but its cool to watch.  Many martial arts have sportive and artistic elements in addition to their martial element.  So these arts will have a different value placed on these different aspects by different people.

Also, you have peers who will argue that 'sparring is not fighting/self defense/whatever,' and not always in defense of arts that fare poorly in UFC matches.

Then you have arts that have no sparring component at all. How would you peer reveiw a new style of iaido with sparring? Most kenjutsu ryu do not have actual sparring either. A more common add on to KMA dojangs is Haidong Gumdo. No sparring there either to my knowledge. In Koryu arts, lineage and tradition are major components, which have nothing to do with sparring. People seeking out such arts are generally interested in getting the most authentic feudal Japanese experience and can be more concerned with pedigree.

A peer review would require that the art be evaluated as to how well it functions within its context. Sparring may or may not be a component of that depending upon the art. 



fangjian said:


> We all know what styles and techniques work for whatever circumstances. We also know the ones that are b.s.


Do we *all*? Obviously, we don't _all_ know, otherwise those styles would not have any adherents. 

Not to mention that I see 'styles' mentioned frequently that I have never heard of. Most of the time, a bit of research reveals that they are spin offs from another style, usually one with wider recognition, which may or may not itself be a spin off from something else.

I for one would love as periodical that would do concise and informed peer reviews. Partly because as an instructor, it would make a valuable trade publication. Secondly, as an MA geek, it would be another cool thing to read.



fangjian said:


> In regards to the word 'faith'. *I always use it to denote a belief in something without evidence.* For example I don't have 'faith' that when you throw a ball up, it will come back down. All of the evidence suggests it WILL come back down, and we can also pinpoint exactly where and how fast. Same thing with my techniques (although not with as much certainty, of course). They are testable, observable etc.
> I agree with most of the things you said but, I am assuming most people use the word 'faith' the way I am, no?
> 
> I'd hate for this to be a matter of semantics though.


That is how you and more than a few others use the word, but that is not the limit of the word's usage, nor is that usage universal. Though for the context of this thread, I'm fine with your usage.

For the most part, 'faith' in the context that you use it, in the martial arts is usually had in either esoteric aspects of some arts (throwing chi balls, no touch KO's, channeling chi, and usage of chi in areas beyond simple breath control) or in arts with either dubious backgrounds or which are much more focused on self improvement and lifestyle than they are on practical application, or arts of dubious background making outlandish claims of being all encompassing and superior, yet having no mechanism to test techniques, or to test them outside of their own studio.

However, in schools that teach a legitimate art that may include things like knife defenses, students have 'faith' that these techniques will work if they are ever attacked by a knife wielding assailant. Their faith is reasonable faith: their instuctor has just demonstrated the techniques with a knife wielding black belt student and they work every time. If the student is knowledgeable in some way with regards to how a knife wielding opponent is most likely to attack you (perhaps he or she has a background in law enforcement or was the victim of a knife attack), then they may also have 'informed and reasonble faith' in what the instructor is teaching. Or they may consider it worthless. 

Daniel


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 28, 2011)

Daniel pretty much summed up everything I would have said, except he said it much better than I could have done.

But just to add to it, blind faith is what you get when you never question what you are taught and simply assume you know the truth. I do not live my life this way. The intelligent religious people I know do not view faith this way, but I'm not going to discuss religion at this time, because frankly I don't think that was the purpose of the OP.

Back to MA, Daniel makes a point using the knife fighting scenario. If you think your teacher has demonstrated he has enough skill and knowledge to share with you a proper knife defense, you will _believe_ him when he tells you that his particular method would work. You train in it _believing_ that if you had to use this skill it could save your life. You don't know it for sure. The only way a person can test themselves to know for sure if what they do works is to do it for real which would either make that person a violent sociopath or an utter idiot.

With sapring and randori, even if you go as realistic as possible, deep inside no one wants to injure or kill their training partners so it never gets that far. All we have in the end is faith in our system,faith in ourselves, and faith in our teacher.

edit: Oh and before I forget, a lot of people do use the idea of faith being "belief without evidence", but spiritual people will sate to you they have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision. Faith is reasonable when you can argue it logically and provide reasonable evidence. You say the evidence does not exist, I say it does. You and I are not disagreeing on science, we are disagreeing on philosophy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Daniel pretty much summed up everything I would have said, except he said it much better than I could have done.


Actually, I think I'm frequently overly wordy in my responses.



Himura Kenshin said:


> With sparring and randori, even if you go as realistic as possible, *deep inside no one wants to injure or kill their training partners so it never gets that far.*


No, they don't, which is where people will say "sparring isn't fighting."  I think that the point of the OP with regards to sparring is that sparring will enable you test the *viability* of techniques with a resisting opponent.  While I agree wholeheartedly, I do not consider sparring to be the equivalent of a peer review.  

Daniel


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 28, 2011)

What you're really talking about is not faith, it is not belief, it is the exposition of perceived fraud.  If that's your goal, have fun.

There are problems with exposing fraud in martial arts - one of them is the simple fact that there are many people out there who have never trained in any fighting art who have successfully defended themselves, even against armed attacks.  So to say Mom 'n' Pop's Stopthedrop Shop Self-Defense Club are frauds because either they don't have lineage, made up their fighting style or can't win you sparring but they can successfully fight off an armed robber in the middle of the night with a broomstick ... well, that just becomes a bit of a problem.

It would be nice if self-defense and good fighting arts were separated by obvious skill, but it's just not that easy, or to say if you can't successfully spar that you can't successfully defend yourself.  It's just not necessarily true.

Peer review is not necessarily bad, but it is also not necessarily a true test of ability and really, everyone comes to martial arts with their own goals.  There's not really anything wrong with that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Peer review is not necessarily bad, but it is also not necessarily a true test of ability and really, everyone comes to martial arts with their own goals. There's not really anything wrong with that.


Ideally, a peer review should review the art in its intended context and give a well researched and cogent comentary about how the art compares to similar arts, dissiliar arts, and how well it fares in its context, in self defense, and if applicable, in scenarios where multiple styles are allowed in competition, such as MMA (not really a possiblity for weapon arts).

Even in unarmed arts with no sparring component, the techniques are not magic or unique, and some means of testing them is always avaialble.  

I would not view a peer review as a test of a martial art, but as exactly what it is: a review.  The whole point of a review is to inform.  In the case of a peer review, it should inform the reader as to what peers think about a specific art.  It is up to the reader to decide from there, based upon the information, what they themselves think.

Daniel


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> GREAT QUESTION!
> I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.
> 
> *Peer reviewed:  *Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt



Basics. Ok good... 



fangjian said:


> *NOT peer reviewed:* <<snipped>> dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum



Really curious about this statement. What style, exactly, are you alluding to? If you have something to say about something, say it. With the certainty you speak with, you should have no problem sharing .


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> GREAT QUESTION!
> I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.
> 
> *Peer reviewed: *Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt


I would add to this elbow strikes, knee strikes, shin kicks, side kicks, arm bars, and an assorment of locks and twists for which I don't have a formal name but see used in both various grappling arts and by fighters on the occasion that I watch a UFC bout.



fangjian said:


> *NOT peer reviewed:* no touch knockouts, supernatural protection from harm(anting anting), dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum


I agree with you with the qualification that low percentage high risk can be relative.  Also, I am assuming that when you say "a style's curriculum" that you mean style in the general sense and not a specific style (if you are refering to a specific style, please identify it). 

Another factor is that most modern martial arts are taught with a bent towards self improvement and personal development through martial training rather than as self defense arts. So mastering a technically challenging technique that one may never use in either sparring, tournament, or against a violent assailant may have a non-martial value.

Also, some "high risk/low percentage" techniques that I have seen are not intended for use in sparring, but are meant to help the student to understand some principle of how the human body moves or bends. So it sometimes is a matter of teaching pedagogy.

This is often an area that martial arts are criticized for. The teaching pedagogy of most traditional martial arts does not tend to produce rapid results, and exercises meant to build flexibility and develop ballance are often mistaken for something with martial appliction, when in fact, it is just an exercise to build flexibility and develop ballance. 

The trap that many students of traditional arts fall into is thinking that black belt makes them expert, when in reality, they have just reached a point where they are able to start taking the principles out of the technique sets and begin applying them.

The trap that many school of traditional martial arts fall into is teaching the basic curriculum and never adequately communicating to the student that after two to four years of study, he or she has just learned basics and now is ready to start applying principles.

Different arts are more susceptible to this than others due to their nature. I feel that striking arts tend to avoid this trap more easily because striking is easier for students to get, though they still fall into it, usually with regards to students defending against non realistic attacks (i.e. every attack for them to counter is a reverse punch sort of thing or never preparing students for the possiblity of their kick being grabbed).

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

I want to go ahead thank all of you for responding to my post. I appreciate all of your insights.

When I said 'sparring' is our 'peer review'. Yes that is not entirely accurate. 
Maybe instead of the word 'sparring' maybe better to use words like " experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........."  

I teach martial arts for credit at a nearby university and was going over this with my Taijiquan students. To keep it simple I will go over "Mirror grab of the wrist" or sometimes called "same side grab". 

So the guy brags my wrist. I think the first escape I learned from here would have to be where you just bring your elbow upward like you are 'running you fingers through your hair' and escape through the grip between their thumb and index finger. Now let's say I do this techniques a few hundred times and it works every time.  Then I have some one twice my size grab my wrist. All of a sudden it doesn't work for me anymore, because his strength is overwhelming. Basically it's an anomaly. My technique always worked before but now we have a small discrepancy. So now what I do is place both hands together in a 'gable grip' and, do the same technique and it works again. My new one didn't necessarily 'prove the other one invalid. There were just discrepancies that needed to be resolved. Ok so now I know how to deal with the 'big guy'. So I do these techniques a thousand times, they always work. All of a sudden, both of them don't work because my 'grabber' knows those escapes so he easily counters. Another anomaly. So now I add a quick strike to his face with the free hand first, and now use the free hand to push his grabbing hand down while my 'grabbed hand' jerks upward ( in a scissoring motion) to escape. There. I just cleaned up another 'anomaly' and used a new technique also. 

This exactly how science works( sorry I'm kind of a science nerd, so I use it for analogy). Just like Isaac Newton's discoveries described how many things worked. Of course, there were some anomalies, like the orbit of Mercury, etc.  So Einstein came along and cleaned up many of Newton's discrepancies. He didn't prove Newton WRONG everywhere. Just cleaned up a few things. Just like with the adding of more techniques we are just cleaning up discrepancies. 


And when I say 'sparring', I guess I mean all types of pressure testing. Rolling, chi sao, tuishou, sanshou, randori............


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......'   recently. Everyone wants me to name names.  I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about. 

Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing.  And Thai Boxing. 

I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing. 

Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time. 

In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY. 

About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it. 

I look forward to your responses.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I want to go ahead thank all of you for responding to my post. I appreciate all of your insights.
> 
> When I said 'sparring' is our 'peer review'. Yes that is not entirely accurate.
> Maybe instead of the word 'sparring' maybe better to use words like " experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........."


So a peer review would be "experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........." by multiple peers who then compare what their results.  

Experiments and testing would need to be be in a variety of formats to account for the art's strengths in various circumstances.  Specifically, the art's primary focus should be tested and its evaluation should be in light of that focus.  For example, a grappling art should not be deemed inferior to a striking art 'because there's no punches to the head' in the sparring, but it should instead be compared to other grappling arts (BJJ to judo, judo to wrestling, etc.).

Arts that have multiple elements (sportive, SD, performance) should be evaluated in a complete manner and not as one element compared to another complete art.  For example, when evaluating taekwondo, more than just the olympic sport should be taken into consideration.

If the art is a lifestyle/self improvement art, it should likewise, be evaluated in that light.  Though instructors of lifestyle/self improvement arts need to make that clear to students.

Daniel


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.


 
The thing is, the people practicing those style, the ones with overwhelming amounts of unrealistic movements, don't see it that way.  They feel their curriculum is realistic.  It's just your viewpoint that tells you it is not.  

Objectively, you may be correct, or they may be correct and you simply don't understand what they are doing.  But how you see it is really all that matters to you, so you make your own decisions on that. It's an argument that doesn't have a truly objective answer.

I have essentially discontinued ("abandoned" would be a reasonable term) a system that I had been connected to for quite a number of years.  I recognized that for me personally, the curriculum and methodology simply was not a good match and does not work well.  But there are a whole lot of people out there who practice this system and feel that it works great.  If that's true for them, who am I to tell them otherwise? All I can do is decide for myself and spend my time in a way that makes sense to me.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......'   recently. Everyone wants me to name names.  I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.



Well, yes it would.



fangjian said:


> Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing.  And Thai Boxing.



If they get you home, then they are all effective in giving you a base foundation to protect yourself. Competitiveness aside since that does fall to the individual with a tool kit, if you get in a situation & you are able to remove yourself from it & get home, then it helped you to be effective in solving the problem.



fangjian said:


> I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.



In the ring? Maybe... In the real world, prove it.



fangjian said:


> Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.



How do you figure that?



fangjian said:


> In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?



Depends... are we talking about an ambush or flat out charge & attack by attrition?



fangjian said:


> And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.



Actually, from what I can tell... you're not. You have your mind made up or semi-made up & are unwilling to support your position by direct example. I'm also very critical & will call out what I consider BS and support it by statement and/or demonstration. In that case either I prove it or am disproved. You keep hinting at things & trying compare apples & oranges. Using your examples of boxing & Muay Thai, that's a poor comparison. Boxers don't train to deal with tools that Muay Thai has in the same arena. However, that boils down to not much when you take the human actor into consideration. Of course Muay Thai would seem to have the advantage by not letting the boxer inside their kicking range. Then there are knees and elbows to consider from the Muay Thai boxer. But the Western Boxer is bringing a power punch with almost every strike. From both of them, the statement "It only takes one shot from the biggest heart and strongest chin" weighs in to the fray.

Not a good working comparison. 



fangjian said:


> About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.



There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.



fangjian said:


> I look forward to your responses.



The horse is dead... truly unless you take your puff and soapbox and point to specific examples and not by ill matched comparison.

:deadhorse


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Well, yes it would.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're saying 'in the ring' some styles can have an advantage over others, but outside 'the ring', it "just doesn't matter anymore"?  That doesn't sound right. 





> Actually, from what I can tell... you're not. You have your mind made up or semi-made up & are unwilling to support your position by direct example. I'm also very critical & will call out what I consider BS and support it by statement and/or demonstration. In that case either I prove it or am disproved. You keep hinting at things & trying compare apples & oranges. Using your examples of boxing & Muay Thai, that's a poor comparison. Boxers don't train to deal with tools that Muay Thai has in the same arena. However, that boils down to not much when you take the human actor into consideration. Of course Muay Thai would seem to have the advantage by not letting the boxer inside their kicking range. Then there are knees and elbows to consider from the Muay Thai boxer. But the Western Boxer is bringing a power punch with almost every strike. From both of them, the statement "It only takes one shot from the biggest heart and strongest chin" weighs in to the fray.



hehehee. That's funny 'cause I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm just having trouble excepting the assumption that they are 'just all equal'. The style of marching as a unit toward a firefight is 'just equal' to actual evidence based "evolved" techniques. Astrology is 'just equal' to astronomy. Boxing is 'just equal' to boxing w/ the added benefit of kicks. It just 'depends on the circumstance'. I would just imagine that some circumstances happen more frequently than others. 

I would also just assume that someone who does MMA has an edge over a boxer in most scenarios. 



> There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.


If you have time could u post a link or two. I had been searching but can't find much. 




> The horse is dead... truly unless you take your puff and soapbox and point to specific examples and not by ill matched comparison.
> :deadhorse



Why are the comparisons so 'ill matched'?  Just because they train for different scenarios? If you have a competition that the rules are,  All you can do is: You can only use your left hand to strike ( I know it sounds silly).   The styles that train for this event will evolve a style that is inferior to the other styles that allow more flexibility in there rules.  The other styles will have an edge on the 'left handed ONLY' systems, when there are no rules.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 28, 2011)

clfsean said:


> There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.


 
:bs:Link to the studies if you please. Unbiased sources I hope. Thanks!


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> :bs:Link to the studies if you please. Unbiased sources I hope. Thanks!


 
I can't say if they're biased or not. I've just seen documentary styled footage. 

Check youtube. They're there. If you can't find them, let me know & I'll see if I can locate them again.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

*sigh* Last comments on this... 



fangjian said:


> So you're saying 'in the ring' some styles can have an advantage over others, but outside 'the ring', it "just doesn't matter anymore"? That doesn't sound right.


 
In a competative arena, bound by rules, yes using your example of Western Boxing vs Muay Thai or "kickboxing", there's a possibility of inherent advantage to those that can use & have trained their legs against those against those who have not. Posibility. Not a foregone conclusion of fact.

Outside, no it doesn't matter. If it gets you home safely & removed from a dangerous situation, it doesn't matter the name or background. If... not a foregone conclusion again.



fangjian said:


> hehehee. That's funny 'cause I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm just having trouble excepting the assumption that they are 'just all equal'. The style of marching as a unit toward a firefight is 'just equal' to actual evidence based "evolved" techniques. Astrology is 'just equal' to astronomy. Boxing is 'just equal' to boxing w/ the added benefit of kicks. It just 'depends on the circumstance'. I would just imagine that some circumstances happen more frequently than others.


 
*sigh* Apples & oranges again. One helpful piece of advice... don't assume. Examine the word.

Astrology is NOT astronomy. We all know this. The common denominator is the starfield seen in the night sky.

Marching a unit into combat ... I don't get where you're coming from or hoping for.

Boxing is just as equal to kickboxing but they don't compete in the same arena. They could. Lots of "what ifs" in the match. That's why its an ill matched comparison. Make it more appropriate. Put a kickboxer in against a Kyokushin fighter. Better comparison. 



fangjian said:


> I would also just assume that someone who does MMA has an edge over a boxer in most scenarios.


 
Watch out for assume. Again... an ill matched comparison for your standpoint. Not the same tool kit. 



fangjian said:


> If you have time could u post a link or two. I had been searching but can't find much.


 
Documentary footage on youtube. 



fangjian said:


> Why are the comparisons so 'ill matched'? Just because they train for different scenarios?


 
Seriously? I've already answered that above.



fangjian said:


> If you have a competition that the rules are, All you can do is: You can only use your left hand to strike ( I know it sounds silly). The styles that train for this event will evolve a style that is inferior to the other styles that allow more flexibility in there rules.


 
No... what happens is turn out a breed of fighters that are geared to being excessively talented with their left hand. In that competition arena. In the world, you turn out a person that is geared to use their left hand in a very effective manner. It would bugger people up badly since 85 to 90 percent of the population of the world is right handed. Hung Fut has a set designed specifically to use the left hand only because of that.

Pertaining to a "rules based" event where it's ambedextrious vs lefty only... yeah, the left handed person is at a 50% disadvantage to the number of trained weapons available, but is at a 100% functional capacity with that one hand. Again... it goes to "what ifs".



fangjian said:


> The other styles will have an edge on the 'left handed ONLY' systems, when there are no rules.


 
When there are no rules? The only place there are rules is a competative or training environment. If you have a person that's thrown 1000 punches & has practiced defense with one hand and one side of the body against a person that has thrown the same number of punches, but divided over two hands, who truly has the disadvantage?


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Astrology is NOT astronomy. We all know this. The common denominator is the starfield seen in the night sky.



Yes. You are correct. That is the common denominator isn't it?
 However, one of those disciplines has the techniques, methodology, etc. that will allow you to gain knowledge of the universe. The other will not. Oh no, but wait. You will get SOME knowledge, I suppose.  Maybe they're 'just equal' and depends on the 'circumstance' and the 'heart' of the person.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 28, 2011)

Heres the problem with your arguement:



> I think that the style of *Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.
> 
> *


 


> *of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent*


 

I see this as contradictions. You say Western boxing is inferior to Thai boxing than you back track saying well a boxer could beat a Thai boxer.




> For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better


Logic fallacy. More does not mean better. More just means more. Some may say more is worse because your body and mind get confused with what technique to use. KISS keep it simple stupid is the term here. It is also nonsense to think a boxer could not use his elbows or knees or headbutt in a real street fight. Just like it is nonsense to think a person who does Karate cannot sprawl.



> A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer


Throw a kick boxer in the ring under boxing rules there is no edge in fact he is at a weakness because kick boxers rely alot on their legs more than their hands.
Throw a boxer into a K-1 fight then yes he will loose because most of the kicks are to his legs. Put a boxer and a kick boxer into a street fight who knows who would win maybe during the clinch boxer pulls out a knife stabs kickboxer.





> I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.


 A computer program is not a good measurement of fighting. That show on Spike TV tried to do it and was terrible at being accurate. And really there are so many different scenarios and people thinking methods that it would be impossible to provide an accurate presentation. You would have to include one is hurt or sick already, weapons, more than one person, different levels of experience quite a project if it could be done.




> And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.


 Which is hypocritical because you teach Taijiquan!!!



> About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.


 
 You would have to define what spirit and Qi is. 
But if you are going define a Chinese word please be able to read Chinese. 
*&#27668;*


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 28, 2011)

Fangjian, you are looking at martial arts and examining them based of their techniques and tools used in those techniques (i.e. using the hands, feet, elbows, what have you). But techniques are not what win fights, strategy is what wins a fight. With better strategy a boxer could beat the MMA fighter or vice versa. The techniques are the means for victory but not the source. 

Techniques can not be applied unless they are properly set up, and things can not be set up without tactics. This is why it depends on the artist and not the art. Different arts have different kinds of strategy and if a strategy is not adapted to the appropriate circumstance then that person will lose.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Heres the problem with your arguement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  No contradiction. A boxer CAN beat a Thai boxer, yes. But he/she is at a disadvantage. The Thai will win more than 50% of the time, if all other things are equal. 




> Logic fallacy. More does not mean better. More just means more. Some may say more is worse because your body and mind get confused with what technique to use. KISS keep it simple stupid is the term here. It is also nonsense to think a boxer could not use his elbows or knees or headbutt in a real street fight. Just like it is nonsense to think a person who does Karate cannot sprawl.


 I don't think a boxer will use these techniques the way some who trains them regularly would. ....................Hehehe. to be honest, I'm not sure how to address your comment 'more is worse'.  I understand this. The basics will always come out the most, right?  However I have 'edged' a few sparring sessions with a gogoplata, and a few other techniques that my opponent was not aware of. 


> Throw a kick boxer in the ring under boxing rules there is no edge in fact he is at a weakness because kick boxers rely alot on their legs more than their hands.
> Throw a boxer into a K-1 fight then yes he will loose because most of the kicks are to his legs. Put a boxer and a kick boxer into a street fight who knows who would win maybe during the clinch boxer pulls out a knife stabs kickboxer.


I'm not talking about a certain match with rules. I mean ALL scenarios. 




> A computer program is not a good measurement of fighting. That show on Spike TV tried to do it and was terrible at being accurate. And really there are so many different scenarios and people thinking methods that it would be impossible to provide an accurate presentation. You would have to include one is hurt or sick already, weapons, more than one person, different levels of experience quite a project if it could be done.


hehe I know it can't be done. But the more of an 'edge' you have the better. 



> Which is hypocritical because you teach Taijiquan!!!


 Yes. I do not focus on the tuishou because I'm not very good at it. My fighting techniques mostly come from Sanshou, Muay Thai, Bjj, Freestyle wrestling, Balintawak.  

I always make it a point to not misrepresent myself. I am NOT Chen XiaoWang


> You would have to define what spirit and Qi is.
> But if you are going define a Chinese word please be able to read Chinese.
> *&#27668;*


Yes I can read that chinese word. I studied Chinese seriously for some years, but had stopped a couple years ago. What does me reading Chinese have to do with anything? As for a definition I know it means breath, gas, air energy.........But the way martial artists commonly use it, it's more like an energy that can be manipulated and manipulated in others( in a way that might not agree with scientific testing.)


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Feb 28, 2011)

In the end your arguing YOUR believe and stating it as fact. Doesn't work that way. Use "I think" and "I believe" but it's not my fact. So I'm glad to hear what you think, but please don't speak for me. I don't appreciate it


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Hollywood1340 said:


> In the end your arguing YOUR believe and stating it as fact. Doesn't work that way. Use "I think" and "I believe" but it's not my fact. So I'm glad to hear what you think, but please don't speak for me. I don't appreciate it



Hehehe. Good point, my friend.  But I know some things in the universe are not up for debate. I can hardly say I 'believe' in electromagnetism or gravitation.  They simply ARE, and 'beliefs' are irrelevant. I'm not so sure that martial arts is off the hook.  Bodies of techniques, methods, strategy can be measured, tested, observed.............


----------



## oaktree (Feb 28, 2011)

> No contradiction. A boxer CAN beat a Thai boxer, yes. But he/she is at a disadvantage. The Thai will win more than 50% of the time, if all other things are equal.


 Nothing is ever equal in a fight. To think things are equal in a fight is to either 1.never been in a fight 2.been under a fight that is controled situation 3.delusional.



> don't think a boxer will use these techniques the way some who trains them regularly would. ....................Hehehe. to be honest, I'm not sure how to address your comment 'more is worse'. I understand this. The basics will always come out the most, right? However I have 'edged' a few sparring sessions with a gogoplata, and a few other techniques that my opponent was not aware of.


 Interesting because I studied boxing for a number of years and I can tell you I will throw elbows knees as well as fist and kicks. There is nothing preventing a Boxer from clinching and then throwing see it all the time in street fights.

So because of one persons ignorance of BJJ thus makes his art ineffective?
  No it means you are a better fighter than him at that moment and were able to overcome him. One day it is possible he may overcome you.If anything you made him more effective because he should learn that this technique exist he now can work to counter it. See how its not the art its the person performing it?



> I'm not talking about a certain match with rules. I mean ALL scenarios.


 You can not measure it to many variables thus making your arguement illogical.



> hehe I know it can't be done. But the more of an 'edge' you have the better.


So your arguement can not be done thus invalid.



> Yes. I do not focus on the tuishou because I'm not very good at it. My fighting techniques mostly come from Sanshou, Muay Thai, Bjj, Freestyle wrestling, Balintawak.
> 
> I always make it a point to not misrepresent myself. I am NOT Chen XiaoWang


See the arguement was you said Taijiquan was not effective you backtrack to say some of it is and some of it is not you then back track after I found out you teach Taijiquan and you are a hypocrite to say what is effective Taijiquan when you yourself do not teach it as it is to be taught. 

If you know Chinese you know what the word Qi means in the context. means the whole arguement of Aikido/Taijiquan or any internal art as  being supernatural shows you are confusing a religious context with the word Qi and the other usages of the word Qi.



> How is this relevant? I studied Chinese seriously for some years, but had stopped a couple years ago. What does me reading Chinese have to do with anything?


 

Many people think they know what the word Qi is. You feel that Qi does not exist or want proof of it. This to me shows you do not know what the word Qi means.

If you can read Hanzi and know how the word Qi is used in daily usage than you would not ask such a silly question. I suggest you look at suffixs and combined words with Qi to get a better understanding of the word. Also in this word meaning I am not using any religious context at all just daily expressions and meaning.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Nothing is ever equal in a fight. To think things are equal in a fight is to either 1.never been in a fight 2.been under a fight that is controled situation 3.delusional.
> 
> Interesting because I studied boxing for a number of years and I can tell you I will throw elbows knees as well as fist and kicks. There is nothing preventing a Boxer from clinching and then throwing see it all the time in street fights.


 I was not aware that their are western boxing schools that also teach elbows knees, kicks etc. Yes there is nothing preventing the boxer from doing these things but there is less of a chance he will. 



> You can not measure it to many variables thus making your arguement illogical.
> 
> 
> So your arguement can not be done thus invalid.


 But we can measure it to a lot of variables and come up with reasonable conclusions. 


> See the arguement was you said Taijiquan was not effective you backtrack to say some of it is and some of it is not you then back track after I found out you teach Taijiquan and you are a hypocrite to say what is effective Taijiquan when you yourself do not teach it as it is to be taught.


 Yes I think I may have 'implied' through the text  that Taijiquan is useless. This was poor on my part. Sorry. What I truly am meaning is that some other styles I think are better. And I KNOW a lot of Taiji guys are good at the clinch game, but I think that's their best area. Taji players are good at clinch wresting, maybe striking, what else?


> If you know Chinese you know what the word Qi means in the context. means the whole arguement of Aikido/Taijiquan or any internal art as  being supernatural shows you are confusing a religious context with the word Qi and the other usages of the word Qi.
> 
> Many people think they know what the word Qi is. You feel that Qi does not exist or want proof of it. This to me shows you do not know what the word Qi means.
> 
> If you can read Hanzi and know how the word Qi is used in daily usage than you would not ask such a silly question. I suggest you look at suffixs and combined words with Qi to get a better understanding of the word. Also in this word meaning I am not using any religious context at all just daily expressions and meaning.


If you are using the word qi in daily expression and for combined words, the word 'qi' has no meaning here. Yes I know the word qi is used in the words for weather, steam, etc.....  But how is that relevant for martial arts?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 28, 2011)

Who cares if you believe in Qi or Ki or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Mother Earth ... or not?

Why do you care so much about what other people believe except where it comes into play with the NTKO?


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Who cares if you believe in Qi or Ki or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Mother Earth ... or not?
> 
> Why do you care so much about what other people believe except where it comes into play with the NTKO?



Truly sorry. I honestly searched for this acronym NTKO and couldn't find a definition. However, your implication is obvious. 

I DO care what other people believe in general. It's relevant for our survival as a species. But, if you're referring to just martial arts: Yes I do care what other people think.  I'd like to either grow as a martial artist or help others grow (or likely both) through dialog with others. It's the ONLY reason language exists.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 1, 2011)

NTKO.
Non touch knock out, Im assuming

Seriously dont think about what other people think, itll only drive you mad. It is completely and totally irrelevant to our survival as a species. Its like arguing with someone on the internet, entertaining, enlightening and frustrating all at the same time. We all have our own histories and experiences, so we will all think different things about different subjects. 

If someone doesnt like you, so what? If someone believes or doesnt believe in a god or gods, so what? Act like a respectable human being, treat people well and the world is fine. Become concerned about what other people think.then the world goes all to hell.

As for the NTKO issue, I have watched the videos in the past, and still think they are BS.

James Randi has offered $1000000 to anyone who can prove, under scientific testing any existence of supernatural forces. The folks who believe in such nonsense should give it a go, easy money for them.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 1, 2011)

Why does it seem that the majority of atheists think they are better than people who believe a religion? Smug arrogance just sets my teeth on edge.


----------



## oaktree (Mar 1, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> NTKO.
> Non touch knock out, I&#8217;m assuming
> 
> Seriously don&#8217;t think about what other people think, it&#8217;ll only drive you mad. It is completely and totally irrelevant to our survival as a species. It&#8217;s like arguing with someone on the internet, entertaining, enlightening and frustrating all at the same time. We all have our own histories and experiences, so we will all think different things about different subjects.
> ...


 
Hi Ken 
What Supernatural forces are you refering to.Are you refering in a religious context?
  Religious beliefs vs Science is really beating a dead horse and debating it is moot I think.



As for Randi Challange this sums it up. 

You can read the about the Randi challange here:
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge



> The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.
> The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in *favor of*, and *multiple "outs*" *for Randi* and the JREF that discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like).​


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Why does it seem that the majority of atheists think they are better than people who believe a religion? Smug arrogance just sets my teeth on edge.



If someone 'believes' that you can knock someone out with a fireball of 'qi' from 10 feet away, I don't think I'm smarter than them. It has nothing to do with being 'better'. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence'. Sometimes, it has to do with 'education'. So, if that person is then educated about all of the evidence and STILL believes by just denying the evidence, than that person is just being 'irrational'.

So, I have a more 'rational' mind than this person. Not smug arrogance. Just physical evidence and reasoned logic. Some people ARE rude, however many times it is just gullible people getting their 'feelings hurt' by someone offering them the evidence.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 1, 2011)

clfsean said:


> I can't say if they're biased or not. I've just seen documentary styled footage.
> 
> Check youtube. They're there. If you can't find them, let me know & I'll see if I can locate them again.



'Loose change' is up on youtube.
George Dillman is on youtube.
Ashida Kim is on youtube.
...

There are tons of documentary style footage on yt that are just drivel.
For the purpose of actually making an argument, peer reviewed experiments would be an asset.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 1, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> 'Loose change' is up on youtube.
> George Dillman is on youtube.
> Ashida Kim is on youtube.
> ...
> ...



Of course there is. I never said it was peer reviewed, defended & published. I just said they were there. You can also find Michael Jackson catching fire, planes breaking the sound barrier, a yellow lobster & people being shot in the streets around the world.

I'm not making an argument, I was making a statement that I have no dog in that hunt on, except mentioning it. 

For the record... my view is qi/hei is like religion. You believe in it or you don't. I've found more use of proper body mechanics and power generation by rooting and using my core than limbs alone rather than "projecting qi".


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......' recently. Everyone wants me to name names. I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.
> 
> Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing. And Thai Boxing.
> 
> ...


 
The only issue that I have in what you are saying is that western boxing is a sport and not a 'fighting system.' Like I said in a previous post, nobody cares if football can beat boxing. Nobody cares if boxing can beat judo. The boxer surely doesn't care; he's paid based on beating other boxers and not on whether or not he can beat some guy who trains in a different fighting sport.

As for whether or not a boxer can beat a Muy Thai fighter, it depends on the boxer. It isn't a question of the MT guy having more tools to use or the boxer having less, but how well one can manage a fight and use what he or she does have to the best advantage while keeping their opponent from doing the same.

So, does a kickboxer have an edge over a boxer? Maybe. Depends on the kickboxer. If the boxer is a good infighter, those kicks are far less of a factor. Ring management is a skill that, like awareness and common sense in SD, is separate from the physical tools of the trade.

Then there's the question of style familiarity. If the boxer is familiar with kickboxing or Thai boxing but the kickboxer or Thai boxer is not familiar with Western boxing, then the boxer now has an edge.

To make a long story short, when I watch boxing, I watch boxing and I really don't sit and evaluate whether or not boxing beats other fighting sports or martial arts because ... its boxing. LIke I said, nobody cares if NFL football beats Association football; they're different sports that share a name.

If I want to see a sport breadth of techniques from different styles, I'll watch the UFC. Only then, I evaluate the athletes, not the styles. I don't really care what the athlete has trained in. I care how he or she is able to apply what they've been trained in within the rule set.

But again, we're talkin' sports.

As far as fighting systems for ALL circumstances and probabilities, I don't really think that such a thing exists with any effectiveness (my opinion). There are fighting systems that encompass multiple fighting ranges, but none that will prepare you for ALL circumstances and probabilities. If you search for that, then you are searching for the alchemical means of turning base metals into precious metals.



fangjian said:


> In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?


Depends on what the platoon is doing. Not being a military strategist, I'll leave this one for someone else.



fangjian said:


> And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.
> 
> About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.


Not familiar with systema or combat ki. Pressure points do exist. Not in some kind of mystical 'interrupt the flow of ki' sort of way, but in terms of points on the body that pressure can be applied to in order to effect pain or incapacitation. Pressure points are not a panacea, however, as those techniques will not work equally on all people. Kind of like the magic groin shot; some guys will be left lying on the floor. Others will just be more annoyed with you than they were before you took the shot.

Aikido techniques are not unique to aikido. Technique wise, you'll find the same techniques that are in aikido in quite a few other arts.  You're talking joint locks, throws, sweeps, and takedowns. I think that the major criticisms of aikido center around the level of realism in the training. On the other hand, a lot of aikidoka are in aikido for personal development, self improvement and quality of life with little interest in whether or not they can beat up boxers.  So, they benefit from taking aikido.  They enjoy aikido.  Their quality of life is improved because of aikido.  They probably have as good a chance of using what they learned in class against an attacker who is not a trained fighter (the majority of attackers) as most martial arts students of other arts do.  

The fact that they may have no competitive attitude may actually aid them in avoiding being placed in a circumstance where they'll be fighting.  And they'll get all kind of cool Japanese vocabulary and traditions along with a flowing hakama to boot.  If that is what the student is after, then I find no fault.  

Keep in mind that for many, going to work the day after class covered in bruises is not an option.

Daniel


----------



## oaktree (Mar 1, 2011)

Hi Fangjian.



> I was not aware that their are western boxing schools that also teach elbows knees, kicks etc. Yes there is nothing preventing the boxer from doing these things but there is less of a chance he will.


 What I meant in a street encounter a boxer can use elbows knees and throws and kicks. If you ever seen or been in a street fight seldom is it ever just two guys squaring off and boxing rather it is boxing,clinch maybe goes to the ground maybe kicks. Boxing schools do not normally teach a boxer how to use a knife but a boxer can use a knife. Thinking a boxer will use only boxing in a street fight is a really ignorant thinking it may even get you killed when he pulls out a knife when you are in the clinch.



> But we can measure it to a lot of variables and come up with reasonable conclusions.


And other varibles would dismiss the variables you are using making you come up with mixed conclusion or conflicting data.



> Yes I think I may have 'implied' through the text that Taijiquan is useless. This was poor on my part. Sorry. What I truly am meaning is that some other styles I think are better. And I KNOW a lot of Taiji guys are good at the clinch game, but I think that's their best area. Taji players are good at clinch wresting, maybe striking, what else?


 No worries everyone makes mistakes that is part of learing in fact I am happier making mistakes then I am getting things right. I do not know what you mean by better, better for health better at fighting better at.....? I did post a clip of Chen Bing going against MMA fighters using Fajing,Sanshou from Chen Taijiquan and Tuishou so can it be applied in a realistic manner well Chen Bing does it so its possible.




> If you are using the word qi in daily expression and for combined words, the word 'qi' has no meaning here. Yes I know the word qi is used in the words for weather, steam, etc..... But how is that relevant for martial arts?


My point was if you are trying to use the word Qi in a supernatural context and you find no way to measure it the reason is the fault of the defination of the word to fit the context you gave it. The reason I brought this up was because you dismiss martial arts that discuss Qi and spirit. Arguements over Qi spirit and all that really become moot both sides agree to disagree and discussions on the subject are not contructive in anyway.

This post will be the last discussion I will have on this thread regarding Qi,spirit and all of that. My apologies if I do not respond to it again in your rebuttal. For you may have the final word on the topic. 



> If someone 'believes' that you can knock someone out with a fireball of 'qi' from 10 feet away, I don't think I'm smarter than them. It has nothing to do with being 'better'. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence'. Sometimes, it has to do with 'education'. So, if that person is then educated about all of the evidence and STILL believes by just denying the evidence, than that person is just being 'irrational'.
> 
> So, I have a more 'rational' mind than this person. Not smug arrogance. Just physical evidence and reasoned logic. Some people ARE rude, however many times it is just gullible people getting their 'feelings hurt' by someone offering them the evidence.


 
According to your Blog:


> *Browse Profiles*
> 
> Bloggers with an interest in *pwning those with irrational beliefs*.


 and:



> *Browse Profiles*
> 
> Bloggers with an occupation of *Teaching people how to whoop other people's @sses*.


- http://www.blogger.com/profile/07298174238605830704
It does come off as Smug Arrogance. 


> *smug*
> 
> (sm
> 
> ...





> *Definition of ARROGANCE*
> 
> *:* an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions


So yes you do fit these which is ok because that's you.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

oaktree said:


> According to your Blog:
> and:
> 
> - http://www.blogger.com/profile/07298174238605830704
> ...



Hahahaha. Caught out!!!    -Kudos-

Thanks 4 letting me see that. It is mean, isn't it?  ALL beliefs ( religious, political, martial art ) are open to public scrutiny though. 

Ok, the last word 

In the 'pwning of irrational beliefs' . I am not an unreasonable person. Humans are gullible creatures. Including myself, obviously. I use to believe that goldfish only could hold memories for a few seconds and that if you dropped a penny off a skyscraper, and it hit someone in the head, it could easily kill them. Well guess what?  Both of my 'beliefs' are falsifiable through evidence. There's nothing for me to be embarrassed about. It is easy to fall trap to 'beliefs'. 

It is when someone/people believe certain things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and it effects others. Supernatural black magic martial arts, al Qaeda, Westboro baptist church etc. 

No matter how much you SINCERELY try to educate these people with evidence, they just stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOUUU la la  la"

Then my approach is just 'ridicule'. Then I go back to 'education' again. Then back to 'ridicule'. It's like vicious and frustrating cycle for us.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The only issue that I have in what you are saying is that western boxing is a sport and not a 'fighting system.'


  Why aren't you considering it a 'fighting system'?   All martial arts competitions have rules. 





> As far as fighting systems for ALL circumstances and probabilities, I don't really think that such a thing exists with any effectiveness (my opinion). There are fighting systems that encompass multiple fighting ranges, but none that will prepare you for ALL circumstances and probabilities.


Yes you can't be totally prepared for everything, of course. But if you do a style that only deals with 1 on 1  kicking and dismisses everything else, it is not reasonably preparing you as well as, a style that's curriculum is broader.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Why aren't you considering it a 'fighting system'? All martial arts competitions have rules.


Boxing is not taught outside of a sporting context. Just as football SD is not taught, neither is boxing SD. Boxing is fist fencing. You win either by KO, TKO, or points, with judges weighing in in some fashion.

To call boxing a fighting system is like calling kendo sword fighting. It isn't. The basic techniques taught in kendo are applicable in sword fighting, but there are differences in their execution based on the fact that you are scorring points with a blunt, straight bamboo stick instead of cutting with a sharp curved sword. Great pains are taken in kendo to relate each strike to what is done with a sword, but at the end of the day, you're essentially cane fencing and scoring points by striking a limited set of targets. 

Kendo is not a fighting system. The fact that I can take a cane and beat you to death with it using kendo techniques does not make kendo a fighting system. Any more than you being able to cave my head in with baseball bat swung as if you were hitting a home run makes baseball a fighting system.

Likewise, boxing techniques can be incorporated into a fighting system (I believe Jhoon Rhee incorporated boxing hand techniques into his taekwondo system), but it is not a fighting system itself (though its techniques have practical application). 

The fact that I can kill someone by repeatedly punching them in the head using 'boxing' does not make boxing a fighting system. More accurately, boxing is a punching system.



fangjian said:


> Yes you can't be totally prepared for everything, of course. But if you do a style that only deals with 1 on 1 kicking and dismisses everything else, it is not reasonably preparing you as well as, a style that's curriculum is broader.


I don't know of any styles that teach kicking and nothing else (I'm sure that they exist, but I am unfamiliar with them; Capoeira maybe??), but such styles are not fighting styles. They are usually folk games or sports. Anyway, such an art would be a kicking system, not a fighting system.

Sports, be they martial or otherwise, are focused on winning through either points or achieving some predetermined outcome. WTF sport taekwondo has techniques culled from Kukki Taekwondo, but is itself a sport with its own gamesmanship strategies and peculiarities due to the rule set mandating that high kicks score more points than mid level kicks or body punches, and head punches and low kicks are entirely disallowed. Kicks are executed without any fear of being grabed or trapped by your opponent because doing so is illegal within the confines of the sport.

Its a sport. Like boxing is a sport. The only difference is that WTF sport taekwondo is taught alongside Kukki Taekwondo, which *is* a fighing system, while boxing is just taught as sport boxing.

Like I said, we're talkin' sports.

This all comes down to evaluating an art/fighting style/whatever you want to call it within its given context.  The context of western boxing is to win boxing matches, not to be a complete fighting system.  The intended purpose of kickboxing is to win kickboxing matches, not to be a complete fighting system.  Which is better?  Depends on your perspective.  If you find fights with kicks and punches to be more exciting, then kickboxing.  If you enjoy straight punching more, then regular boxing.  If you want to see grapples, then wrestling is better than both.  If you want to striking and grappling, then MMA is probably more your speed.  None are better and none are worse.  Each has its intended purpose.  A guy who trains for kickboxing will probably get his backside handed to him in the boxing ring.  A guy who trains specifically for boxing will get his backside handed to him in a wrestling match.  Any of the above three will not fare well in an MMA match.

Pick the right tool for the job and then do the job for which it was intended.  

Daniel


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 1, 2011)

NTKO = No Touch Knock Out

And it's ********.

If spirituality isn't for you, then leave it alone.  Save your rantings and arguments of "reason" for those who use their faith (whichever faith that may be) in destructive manners like terrorism or power-over or racism or hatred.  

Sounds like, from your posts, you're just out to fraudbust against any fighting system you don't agree with simply based on stylism rather than giving credit for individual schools, individual teachers and individual goals. That means little more to people like me than you have a lot to learn.

IMNSHO, "rationalists" who insist on injecting "reason" into society are little better than those who want to include Christianity into the US government because it's supposedly a Christian nation.  

Here, you are free to believe what you want and so am I.  Your beliefs don't appear to be doing you any harm other than the fact that you seem to be interested in bullying others to buy your specific opinion and accept it as truth ... which sounds an awful lot like a priest to me.  My beliefs aren't doing me any harm, so ... I would recommend you go hit the bag some more or ... something.

I wish you well.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> NTKO = No Touch Knock Out
> 
> And it's ********.
> 
> If spirituality isn't for you, then leave it alone.  Save your rantings and arguments of "reason" for those who use their faith (whichever faith that may be) in destructive manners like terrorism or power-over or racism or hatred.


 ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth. 





> Sounds like, from your posts, you're just out to fraudbust against any fighting system you don't agree with simply based on stylism rather than giving credit for individual schools, individual teachers and individual goals. That means little more to people like me than you have a lot to learn.


If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'. 


> IMNSHO, "rationalists" who insist on injecting "reason" into society are little better than those who want to include Christianity into the US government because it's supposedly a Christian nation.


 You think that people trying to promote reason into society are the same as religious people trying to push there religion into our government?!?!?!?!





> Here, you are free to believe what you want and so am I.  Your beliefs don't appear to be doing you any harm other than the fact that you seem to be interested in bullying others to buy your specific opinion and accept it as truth ... which sounds an awful lot like a priest to me.


I want my own 'beliefs' to be as close to reality as possible. I truly not interested in 'bullying others'. I'm more about education and also challenging my own worldview all the time. It's why I am continuing to post here. But, yeah, if someone constantly insists to me that they can manipulate my qi and cause me paralysis from 10 feet away, at first I'd do my best to reason with them, but after a while, yes, I may just start laughing at them. 

-and in regards to my 'specific opinion'.  It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology. It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)


----------



## Steve (Mar 1, 2011)

I can do no touch knock outs.  But then again, my sweat smells remarkably like chloroform.  It's uncanny.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth. If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'.



You might want to rethink your statement here after this comment::




fangjian said:


> I understand SOME of what I have. I know it makes me sound arrogant to  say 'some styles are superior/inferior'.  I  KNOW.  But it just seems  like an observation of reality to me.





in this thread


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1370835&postcount=76



fangjian said:


> A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)



Why do you keep presuming that unless somebody dabbles in lots of different things they're one dimensional & can't possibly defend themselves? There are more TMA's that cover multiple ranges than not.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> ALL non-evidence based faith is destructive at different levels. People who make money off of others with B.S. martial claims ARE doing harm. Attempting to gain knowledge through bogus techniques and methods can be dangerous. Some of these teachers do it on purpose and some honestly just don't know the truth. If said, style's, curriculum is composed of 'garbage' techniques and the teacher is swindling money from their students' gullibility, than 'yeah' I guess I don't mind 'fraud-busting'.
> You think that people trying to promote reason into society are the same as religious people trying to push there religion into our government?!?!?!?!I want my own 'beliefs' to be as close to reality as possible. I truly not interested in 'bullying others'. I'm more about education and also challenging my own worldview all the time. It's why I am continuing to post here. But, yeah, if someone constantly insists to me that they can manipulate my qi and cause me paralysis from 10 feet away, at first I'd do my best to reason with them, but after a while, yes, I may just start laughing at them.
> 
> -and in regards to my 'specific opinion'.  It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology. It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)



Not everyone wants to be an MMA fighter. And saying MMA is a panacea is like saying a gun is a panacea.  You stand a better chance than others, but it is not foolproof and it is not the be-all-end-all fighting system.

You may have missed the part where I said the NTKO is ********.  

The reason an MMA fighter has an advantage over a boxer is obvious - they fight differently and the boxer isn't trained to right on the floor. 

And guess what?   *That's why they BOX.* 

You can go on believing your fighting system is da bomb but it doesn't really make you any better than any other mook who has swallowed some line of ******** - the truth is that it is right FOR YOU and for WHAT YOU WANT TO TRAIN FOR.  I'm sincerely happy you have found the style that is right for you - some people never do.

I'm not defending people who have never earned a rank and who make up their own system or who lie about military accomplishments nor arts who rank 6 year olds with black belts because those people are irresponsible (or, in the case of olympic TKD, can't come up with a better way to classify fighters than with the color on their hips) as are people who claim they can knock you out from 10 feet away.

But you ... Mr. Reason ... need to be ... well, more reasonable.

Again - many people come to martial arts and for many, many reasons.  What works well for some doesn't work well for others.  Then there is individual learning curve to consider.l

And then there's granny with the broomstick who fended off a young punk with a knife.  Yeah, I'm sure you could take her and all, but ... you seriously need to lighten up just a little.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 1, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I can do no touch knock outs.  But then again, my sweat smells remarkably like chloroform.  It's uncanny.


I bet I could do them, if someone gave me one of those police beanbag guns...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> -and in regards to my 'specific opinion'. It is not my 'opinion' that the Earth is a spheroid and not 'flat'. It's not my 'opinion' that 'Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology' is a better method of learning than Astrology.


Not not if you want to know your horoscope.  Astrology is primarilly an entertainment media.  Astronomy is a science.  As a science, it is superior.  As an entertainment media?  Depends upon your tastes.  Personally, I find astronomy more interesting than astrology and limit my reading of predictions to what is inside of fortune cookies.



fangjian said:


> -It's not my 'opinion' that an MMA fighter has a distinct advantage over a boxer...........................A person who know how to box, kickbox, wrestle, submission grapple etc. has more ways to win a fight then some one just trained in Capoeira or something( or any 1 dimensional fighting method)


Again, you are comparing sports and games.  Boxing is a sport.  Capoeira is a folk game.  Kickboxing is a sport.  Wrestling is a sport.  MMA is a sport.  They don't compare.  Either to each other or to actual combat.  People do them for enjoyment.  Pick the one you like.  

Let me ask you this: why are you concerned about establishing a martial sport pecking order?  Initially, I thought that your premise was about BS techniques.  Now you're comparing sports.

While I agree with your premise that the technical content of a fighting system should be grounded in fact and should be trained in a realistic manner, the comparison between sports is really a matter of taste and has no place in a discussion about technical BS, faith based MA, or fraudulent instructors.

I practice kumdo because I enjoy it.  I practiced taekwondo for years because I enjoyed it and I still practice forms for the wellness benefits that their practice impart.  I practice hapkido for a good mix of SD applicable tools.... and because I enjoy it.

No offense, but you're kind of all over the map.  

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

clfsean said:


> You might want to rethink your statement here after this comment::
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tell me if I a wrong, but I assume you are meaning that since I said, 'I understand SOME of what I have...." , that means that I am not qualified to say if a certain technique or style or method is better than another, right?

If I said I was an 'expert' would you believe me?  The top scientist in their field might be modest and say they understand SOME of what they have too. I just didn't wanna sound like I am claiming to be a 'red belt' in Bjj. But you know what? I'm not a black belt in Bjj either. I'm not even a brown belt!  Does that mean I have NOTHING to say about Bjj? I've also never done XMA, Muay Lao, Lethwei, Pekiti Tersia etc. However, I can make observations. Look at their movements. Check out their curriculum. How do they spar in that system?  I can make informed decisions on where their strengths are, their weaknesses. What other techniques they can be susceptible to. In the 'real world' what threats are probable?  What threats are not probable?



> Why do you keep presuming that unless somebody dabbles in lots of different things they're one dimensional & can't possibly defend themselves? There are more TMA's that cover multiple ranges than not.


They can defend themselves.    But it would be more handy if they also knew how to , grapple, kick, knife fight whatever.  And before you say 'hey wait a sec, in a no rules fight a boxer can knee and kick and do all of that too'.   Yes he COULD. But it is less likely he will do it as efficiently if he was trained to do so. Not part of his regular training. 

It's simple I think. Bear with me. 
Let's start here:  A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in..................   Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area. 
-You still with me? 

How is Jon Kwon Do not a superior self defense system to Bjj?  

(Also is it my usage of the words 'style', 'superior', 'fighting system' that are misrepresenting something etc ? )


----------



## clfsean (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Tell me if I a wrong, but I assume you are meaning that since I said, 'I understand SOME of what I have...." , that means that I am not qualified to say if a certain technique or style or method is better than another, right?



Yep.



fangjian said:


> If I said I was an 'expert' would you believe me?



At this point, nope.



fangjian said:


> The top scientist in their field might be modest and say they understand SOME of what they have too. I just didn't wanna sound like I am claiming to be a 'red belt' in Bjj. But you know what? I'm not a black belt in Bjj either. I'm not even a brown belt!  Does that mean I have NOTHING to say about Bjj?



Unless you're certified to teach something (which means time in & on the subject to a degree of being able to dissect a technique, teach it & pull it off pretty much when you want), nope. Are you certified to teach BJJ? 



fangjian said:


> I've also never done XMA, Muay Lao, Lethwei, Pekiti Tersia etc. However, I can make observations. Look at their movements. Check out their curriculum. How do they spar in that system?  I can make informed decisions on where their strengths are, their weaknesses. What other techniques they can be susceptible to. In the 'real world' what threats are probable?  What threats are not probable?



What's your background in those? Nothing. So how can you comment on technique, theory, application, etc...  without having spent time sweating & bleeding with it to understand it. 

XMA I'll grant you. I have my own issues with that & they aren't unknown.



fangjian said:


> They can defend themselves.    But it would be more handy if they also knew how to , grapple, kick, knife fight whatever.  And before you say 'hey wait a sec, in a no rules fight a boxer can knee and kick and do all of that too'.   Yes he COULD. But it is less likely he will do it as efficiently if he was trained to do so. Not part of his regular training.



Who says they don't? 



fangjian said:


> It's simple I think. Bear with me.
> Let's start here:  A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in..................   Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area.
> -You still with me?



Hanging on every word... :flame:



fangjian said:


> How is Jon Kwon Do not a superior self defense system to Bjj?



It's not. That's all fine, well & good for a fantasy based MA. But that's jack of all, master of none in that burrito you wrapped up.



fangjian said:


> (Also is it my usage of the words 'style', 'superior', 'fighting system' that are misrepresenting something etc ? )



Yep.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not not if you want to know your horoscope.  Astrology is primarilly an entertainment media.  Astronomy is a science.  As a science, it is superior.  As an entertainment media?  Depends upon your tastes.  Personally, I find astronomy more interesting than astrology and limit my reading of predictions to what is inside of fortune cookies.


The common denominator for both of these that someone mentioned before is 'to gain knowledge of the universe'. The common denominator for martial arts is GENERALLY 'self defense'. 
 I'm not talking about their entertainment value. 


> Again, you are comparing sports and games.  Boxing is a sport.  Capoeira is a folk game.  Kickboxing is a sport.  Wrestling is a sport.  MMA is a sport.  They don't compare.  Either to each other or to actual combat.  People do them for enjoyment.  Pick the one you like.
> 
> Let me ask you this: why are you concerned about establishing a martial sport pecking order?  Initially, I thought that your premise was about BS techniques.  Now you're comparing sports.
> 
> ...


All of the things I mentioned you say are 'sports' or 'folk game'. Which, if any, do you consider fighting systems, or martial arts or whatever?  
Yes my original premise WAS  mostly about supernatural stuff in martial arts. I think what happened was the argument from the other thread leaked into this one   Sorry, I shouldn't have let that happen. Thnx, I didn't notice. 

Since that was the topic. I am well aware of supernatural claims in Japanese, Chinese and Southeast Asian martial arts. Does anyone have any interesting examples of this phenomena elsewhere?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It's simple I think. Bear with me.
> Let's start here: A boxer is dangerous. If he also knows Yaw Yan, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows 'high-school' wrestling, he's even more dangerous. If he also knows Bjj, more dangerous. If he also learned how to knife fight, even better. Let's take all of this and also add knowledge of basic firearms. Let's say he calls this fighting system Jon Kwon Do. Let's say his final exam is equal to being a black belt in Bjj, collegiate level wrestling, golden gloves in.................. Also for a written final exam, you have to demonstrate knowledge of statistics and probabilities when it comes to crime, violence etc. in your area.
> -You still with me?
> 
> ...


 
Jon Kwon Do would not be superior because in this context Jon Kwon Do is not a style of any kind. It is a mishmash of styles. A style is an art that has unifying principles that are expressed through techniques. Aikido has the principle of entering for example. It is a principle taught in the first technique learned and then used in every technique that comes after. Jon Kwon Do has no principles to unify these other styles that supposedly make it.
Your Jon Kwon Do is basically a samplying of several different training methods that may all have principles that may be contradictory to each other. Without a way to unify them there is no new style created.
Let me tell you about my style for a minute:

Aiki ninjutsu was created by combining seemingly opposing principles from ninjutsu and aikijujutsu. My teachers found ways to make the principles work together. If we just taught ninjutsu alongside aikido we would not have a new art. We would have a school that teaches two seperate things. The philosphy of a school develops its strategy, the strategy develops the tactics, the tactics develope the principles, and the principles are expressed through techniques.

If there is no unifying strategy, tactics, and principles then a person will not be able to take what he has learned and apply it in a new setting. You can teach a bunch of random things all you want in hopes that it gives people an edge, but unless they know how it should all fit together they will never recall it under the pressure of an actual confrontation.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 1, 2011)

Sweeping generalizations just don't work either, as much as ALL of us wish they just _would_.

There are TKD schools that teach grappling and joint locks. Not that I know exactly what the Kukkiwon syllabus entails, but I'm *pretty sure* that it doesn't include those.

There are styles not specific to sword work only that teach it and it's not part of the required curriculum.

You see ... there really are *smart* traditional stylists out there.

But you digressed and said your intention for the thread was the topic of the teaching of supernatural stuff as part of teaching a martial art (assuming you are using the premise of traditional arts).  

I'd say most people who teach that stuff are charlatans and little more.  I do wonder, open-mindedly, about serious acts of mega-strength or super abilities under pressure and the things that science can't seem to explain with anything but "freak of nature."

Nevertheless, the will behind a strike DOES count, no matter what you call it - Ki power, mental power, MMA power,  ... etcetera.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Capoeira is a folk game.


 
ooops, gotta jump in here on this one, as i spent more than just a couple years training capoeira pretty heavily a while back.  I had earned the rank of "graduated student" in the San Francisco ABADA Capoeira school, a ranking that could be viewed as roughly equivalent to a shodan in an Asian, belt-oriented system.

I can understand why one would say that capoeira is a folk game, but it is much more than that, and it is definitely a fighting method.  How it is trained largely determines how well one is able to fight with it, and it is my personal opinion that most people today, at least in the US, train primarily for the game aspect and not so much for the fight.  But I've met some scary capoeira people who are very good at fighting with it, people you most definitely would not want to tangle with.  It's origins are definitely as a fighting method as well, tho it kept certain cultural trappings that are not typically found in the Asian fighting arts and more mainstream stuff.

In this regard, one could call most of the Asian methods a "folk game" as well, given that most people are simply practicing for fun and entertainment and exercise.  Just because most people are not particularly adept at applying what they train to a real fight, does not mean that the method they practice is not a fighting method.

Then again, the deceptive nature of capoeira and the culture and social environment in which it developed mandated a certain secrecy and deliberate deception of the true nature of the art.  I'd say the old capoeiristas would be happy to let you go on believing that capoeira is simply a folk game.  Sorry I blew their cover.  I'll have to make it up to them in the next life and apologize for my error.  We'll share a beer.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> !I want my own 'beliefs' to be as close to reality as possible. I truly not interested in 'bullying others'. I'm more about education and also challenging my own worldview all the time.



What are you basing your assessment of "reality" on?

I mentioned elsewhere that my experience, and that of others with direct personal experience of violence, has led to paring the techniques down to the minimum that will do the most.  You seem obsessed with piling up huge stacks of techniques...

Are you familiar with the OODA Loop?  It's a practical model of how we process situations.  The four elements are Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act.  After a certain point, too many choices lead to paralysis in the Decision phase -- and by the time you decide what you want to do -- you're hit in the face.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Boxing is not taught outside of a sporting context.


 
I don't believe I can agree with you here.  I've seen references to some of the oldsters in the martial arts mention how they first learned boxing from their father or uncle or something.  Boxing tends to orbit around a sporting and competition venue, but there is no reason why it MUST be contained therein.  I believe boxing was widely taught by father to son in certain households, with no sporting connection, and as such it represents a viable and effective fighting and self defense method.



> Likewise, boxing techniques can be incorporated into a fighting system (I believe Jhoon Rhee incorporated boxing hand techniques into his taekwondo system), but it is not a fighting system itself (though its techniques have practical application).


 
I honestly do not understand why someone would incorporate the punching techniques of boxing into their martial art, especially if the end result is that they replace their method's original punching techniques with the boxing techniques.  If that is what they want to do, then they should just go and train boxing.

The only reason I can think of to do this would be if you simply do not trust the punching techniques native to the art you practice.  Or you are simply no good at them, or you do not understand them.  Maybe you had a poor instructor or something, I dunno.  

I practice a very specific method of punching in the system that I study.  To replace that method with boxing techniques would be a step backward, as they are simply fundamentally different and the boxing techniques would not work well within the overall context of how my system is structured.

People want to believe that boxing techniques are the ultimate fix for poor punching skills, or that boxing techniques are somehow inherently superior to the punching techniques found in other martial arts.  From my own experiences, I absolutely disagree.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The common denominator for both of these that someone mentioned before is 'to gain knowledge of the universe'. The common denominator for martial arts is GENERALLY 'self defense'.


The common denominator for martial arts is actually techniques that can be applied in a 'fight' of some kind, which would include 'fighting' in self defense.

What differentiates a martial art from a sport I will go into below.



fangjian said:


> I'm not talking about their entertainment value.


Astrology only has two intended purposes: guiding one's personal life and entertainment. Most of what astrologers do in the first instance is to give self help advise and throw in some astrological flourishes in order to maintain their mystique. 

Most people who are consumers of astrology are either wanting someone to help them map out their life or are simply having fun. Regardless, aside from some basics (names of planetary bodies, constelations, etc.) astrology has no application in learning about celestial bodies. Astronomy does. 

My point was that the *intended purpose* of each is different. Be it science vs. entertainment or self defense vs. fitness is irrelevant; if I'm an astrophysicist, I am unlikely to consult an astrologer in matters relating to my trade.

Thus the comparison between the two is an apples/oranges comparison.

Kind of like the difference between a fighting system and anime fighting. If I want to learn techniques applicable in a fight, I'll train in a martial art or a gym dedicated to some kind of fight sport (MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc.) or an appropriate weapon art instead of watching Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple or Rurouni Kenshin.

If I want to be entertained by a fun martial arts tale in an animated medium, then Kenichi and Kenshin are viable choices. 



fangjian said:


> All of the things I mentioned you say are 'sports' or 'folk game'. Which, if any, do you consider fighting systems, or martial arts or whatever?
> Yes my original premise WAS mostly about supernatural stuff in martial arts. I think what happened was the argument from the other thread leaked into this one  Sorry, I shouldn't have let that happen. Thnx, I didn't notice.


By my own fairly rigid definitions, most of what are called martial arts, I would call fighting systems or fight sport, as most of them have little to no martial (meaning military) application. Though I don't trot out my opinion too often because there comes a point where in order to converse, I need to use accepted vernacular.

Most of what we call martial arts would be more accurately categorized as archaic military art, archaic civilian dueling, civilian combat or fight sport. Folk games, such as taekkyeon and capoeria fall into the latter category. Some arts fall into more than one category. My lists are hardly exhaustive.

*Archaic military arts:*
Kenjutsu
Archery
Historical western swordsmanship
Singlestick
Haidong Gumdo (with note that the basis of its historicity is fairly flimsey)
Jujutsu (some ryu and under different names, as the term Jujutsu was not coined until the 1700s and then retroactively applied if memory serves).
Ninjutsu (a case could certainly be made, though I will leave that to a ninjutsu/ninpo practitioner)

*Archaic civilian dueling:*
Iaido
kendo
historical fencing
Sport fencing

*Civilian combat:*
Karate (insert ryu)
Taekwondo
Hapkido
Aikido
Judo/yudo
Keysi
BJJ
Jeet Kune Do
Wing Chun
Ninjutsu/ninpo (the majority of teachers and students of this art are civilians or are learning in a civilian setting)
Shaolin Kung Fu (yes, those monks were civilians, as are most of those practicing it today)
Daito Ryu Aiki Jujutsu
Tai Chi
All of the various civilian self defense systems derived from various martial arts and from law enforcement that focus exclusively on surviving a violent encounter and how to handle yourself so that you don't get attacked (too many to even begin naming them). 

*Fight sport/folk game/martial entertainment/lifestyle-fitness:*
Boxing 
Wrestling
WWE Wrestling (martial entertainment)
Kickboxing
Tai Chi (lifestyle-wellness)
Judo/yudo
BJJ
Kendo/kumdo
WTF Taekwondo
Sport Karate
Fencing
MMA
Aikido (lifestyle-wellness)

My lists are hardly exhaustive and how I categorize them is how *I* categorize them; not how they are universally categorized.  I won't even go so far as to say that my categorizations are even the best way of categorizing fighting arts.  And, I'm sure that others here will disagree with my assessment.  That is fine.  I wanted you to have an idea of where I am coming from and how I view the topic.



fangjian said:


> Since that was the topic. I am well aware of supernatural claims in Japanese, Chinese and Southeast Asian martial arts. Does anyone have any interesting examples of this phenomena elsewhere?


I think that mystical elements of fighting were long ago expunged from western fight science and I am not familiar enough with non Asian and non western systems to point any out that still do have mystical elements.

Daniel


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Folk games, such as taekkyeon and capoeria...
> Daniel


 
Hi Daniel,

please see my post, #60 in this thread...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't believe I can agree with you here. I've seen references to some of the oldsters in the martial arts mention how they first learned boxing from their father or uncle or something.


If you say 'fencing' it means sport.  If you want to talk about rapier fighting and authetic dueling methods, you're into historical or classical fencing.  But unless otherwise specified, fencing means foil, saber, and epee on the piste under modern rules as seen in the olympics.

If you say 'boxing,' it means two guys in flashy trunks with gloves on their hands striking above the waist in a square ring partitioned off by ropes.  If you go to a boxing gym, I would almost guarantee that you will not be taught boxing outside of that context.  If it was different fifty years ago... well thats nice, but it really doesn't apply to how it is now.  Taekwondo was different fifty years ago too, but you can't define it by how it was back in the day. 



Flying Crane said:


> Boxing tends to orbit around a sporting and competition venue, but there is no reason why it MUST be contained therein.


Which is why it is a sport.  That which is not contained in the sporting context is the exception and not the rule.  



Flying Crane said:


> I believe boxing was widely taught by father to son in certain households, with no sporting connection, and as such it represents a viable and effective fighting and self defense method.


I agree to an extent, but that goes back to what I said to the OP: just because I can beat someone to death with repeated blows to the head does not make boxing any less of a sport.  I have repeatedly stated that boxing skill can be used outside of a sporting context.  

That, and I suspect that father/son boxing lessons are no longer common.

And calling it a sport is *not* intended as a a criticism of it nor to imply that boxing is somehow 'lesser' than a martial art.  In this thread however, the OP was very clearly talking about boxing as seen in its sporting context.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Daniel,
> 
> please see my post, #60 in this thread...


Again, saying that it is a folk game was *not* criticism or an implication that one cannot fight with it. I have no doubt that those kicks could knock out an opponent.  

But it developed along the lines that it did due to considerations that would not be a factor today. Had those factors not been present at the time, Capoeira might likely include a greater breadth of techniques.

People who practice it are practicing it to a certain extent to preserve it, in addition to any practical application that it may have.

The reason that I pointed out that it is a folk game is not to imply that it is in any way lesser, but that it is not comparable to MMA or karate, which were developed for and under a different set of circumstances.

My point was that there is no hierarchy of systems. Each has its merits and was developed under specific conditions for use in specific contexts. Is Judo superior to a lifestyle/fitness oriented tai chi 24 class? Not if you're a senior citizen and have no MA background and are looking to do something to improve your quality of life. And senior citizens are one of the prime targets for fitness oriented tai chi instuctors.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Last thing before we let that part of the thread go. ClfSean, you seem to think that XMA is inferior as a fightingsystem/martialart/s.d.    Wouldn't you come to this conclusion through observations etc. ? How is that different from what I am saying? I'm having trouble distinguishing the difference.

Also, I remember earlier saying I want my perception of reality to be s close to reality as possible, and someone questioned how I define 'reality'. It's kind of like when I brought up the 'goldfish memory' and 'penny thrown from the skyscraper' stories. After learning that both of those beliefs had no evidence to confirm them, my worldview got just that much closer to reality. Does that make sense?

Now, regarding 'beliefs in martial arts':  I was trying to research a bit more into supernatural phenomena in ma. I ended up coming across Kiai Jitsu. In checking out some websites, I've seen some claims that this method of shouting has an actual physical effect on who it's being done to. I would conclude that all of these effects can be explained psychologically, as of course 'loud sounds' can sometimes still make me a tad uncomfortable and tense since I came home from a combat zone. But it seems like practitioners of these types of systems claim something more magical is happening. Anybody else know of this kind of stuff?  

Everyone's seen this before, but I think it illustrates well, when beliefs get in the way of reality.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you say 'boxing,' it means two guys in flashy trunks with gloves on their hands striking above the waist in a square ring partitioned off by ropes. If you go to a boxing gym, I would almost guarantee that you will not be taught boxing outside of that context. If it was different fifty years ago... well thats nice, but it really doesn't apply to how it is now.


 
"Almost guarantee," is fair, but there's more and more boxing for self-defense than there was 30 years ago, in part because of MMA.....



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Taekwondo was different fifty years ago too, but you can't define it by how it was back in the day.


 
And you can probably still find some old time "Korean karate" guys, here and there......there's one up in Farmington, NM......


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I honestly do not understand why someone would incorporate the punching techniques of boxing into their martial art, especially if the end result is that they replace their method's original punching techniques with the boxing techniques. If that is what they want to do, then they should just go and train boxing.
> 
> The only reason I can think of to do this would be if you simply do not trust the punching techniques native to the art you practice. Or you are simply no good at them, or you do not understand them. Maybe you had a poor instructor or something, I dunno.
> 
> ...


Incorporation does not mean replacement.  One practical reason would be to address a punchng style that is not prevalant in the land where an art was developed but is common in the land where you are instructing.

One other reason could be that boxing style punches appeal to a western student and thus might make an art more appealing?

Daniel


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Also, I remember earlier saying I want my perception of reality to be s close to reality as possible, and someone questioned how I define 'reality'. It's kind of like when I brought up the 'goldfish memory' and 'penny thrown from the skyscraper' stories. After learning that both of those beliefs had no evidence to confirm them, my worldview got just that much closer to reality. Does that make sense?


No.  How are you deciding what is "real" about violence?

Mine is based on taking people into custody who don't want to go, taking reports of robberies and assaults and even attempted murders, and actually seeing the results and effects of real violence.  It's further informed by others with similar (and often, more extensive) direct experience.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> One other reason could be that boxing style punches appeal to a western student and thus might make an art more appealing?
> 
> Daniel


 

"Boxing style *punches"* are also in a variety of Asian martial arts......you might be better off saying "_boxing style *punching*_."


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Now, regarding 'beliefs in martial arts': I was trying to research a bit more into supernatural phenomena in ma. I ended up coming across Kiai Jitsu. In checking out some websites, I've seen some claims that this method of shouting has an actual physical effect on who it's being done to. I would conclude that all of these effects can be explained psychologically, as of course 'loud sounds' can sometimes still make me a tad uncomfortable and tense since I came home from a combat zone.


I would largely agree with you.  

Kihaps or kiais are used in a practical way to lend power to techniques (breath control; nothing magical) or in breakfalls to insure that when you fall, you don't have the wind knocked out of you.  They're also used in execution of techniques to keep you from holding your breath.

Then you have, as you mentioned, the psychological effects associated with some guy yelling at you while attacking.



fangjian said:


> But it seems like practitioners of these types of systems claim something more magical is happening. Anybody else know of this kind of stuff?
> 
> Everyone's seen this before, but I think it illustrates well, when beliefs get in the way of reality.


I'd call that larping.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> No.  How are you deciding what is "real" about violence?
> 
> Mine is based on taking people into custody who don't want to go, taking reports of robberies and assaults and even attempted murders, and actually seeing the results and effects of real violence.  It's further informed by others with similar (and often, more extensive) direct experience.



Ahhhh. Ok that makes sense. 

I see what you mean. Other people have different 'realities' of violence. My 'world' is slightly different from my best friend's (who's a cop) 'world' which was different than both of our 'worlds' when we were in the same squad in Iraq. Is this what you are meaning?

As an example, 

We had to do raids and cordon & searches on weekly basis. We pretty much had a body of techniques/methods that were used so we could do the missions efficiently, safely, etc. 

(for the sake of argument) Like if our 'style' for doing these missions contained techniques that involved 'flagging(accidentally pointing your weapon at) fellow soldiers, not 'cutting the pie' with your rifle when entering new rooms, not using verbal/oral communication during the mission etc. , then I would consider this method to be inferior. 

We frequently had to run missions with Special Forces and they would teach us new techniques, methods ( and sometimes show us how some techniques we had that needed to be dropped) that we could add to our 'style' that improved it.  

So yeah, while there are many different 'realities', it just seems that certain 'bodies of knowledge (styles) could be GENERALLY more efficient than others in certain environments. Like our style for doing these raids and such was superior to the way we were doing them in our first month there. And the environment and threat was the same. Same environment, different styles. But one was better.

I won't address this issue anymore so we can stay on topic. But would like to hear your response to this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If
> 
> If you say 'boxing,' it means two guys in flashy trunks with gloves on their hands striking above the waist in a square ring partitioned off by ropes.



again, it doesn't have to.  If this discussion is only looking at boxing in the sporting context, that's fine.  But if the intent is to state that it is a sport and that is the end of the story, no I disagree.



> That, and I suspect that father/son boxing lessons are no longer common.



you may or may not be right, but I'd say you really have no idea one way or the other.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Again, saying that it is a folk game was *not* criticism or an implication that one cannot fight with it. I have no doubt that those kicks could knock out an opponent.
> 
> But it developed along the lines that it did due to considerations that would not be a factor today. Had those factors not been present at the time, Capoeira might likely include a greater breadth of techniques.
> 
> People who practice it are practicing it to a certain extent to preserve it, in addition to any practical application that it may have.



how is this any different from any other martial art?  Every single one developed in a certain era and under social conditions that influenced what it became.  I guess karate and hapkido are really folk games as well.  are not those methods being practiced, to a certain extent, to preserve them, in addition to any practical application that they may have?



> The reason that I pointed out that it is a folk game is not to imply that it is in any way lesser, but that it is not comparable to MMA or karate, which were developed for and under a different set of circumstances.



not comparable?  in an absolute and objective sort of way?  really?  That sounds a lot like passing judgement over it, and I will need to ask: what is your experience with capoeira, to pass such judgement?  Oh never mind, I hear the ghost of an old capoeira mestre, shusshing in my ear and telling me to just let it go, let them think what they want, preserve the cover... 



> My point was that there is no hierarchy of systems.



now this is something with which I can agree.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 1, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Incorporation does not mean replacement.  One practical reason would be to address a punchng style that is not prevalant in the land where an art was developed but is common in the land where you are instructing.



ok, fair enough.  In my own experience, in what I specifically train, boxing style punches and punching do not really fit and do not work in the context of what we do.  That's not to say it would be the same for others.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

@ Flying Crane

You obviously possess some knowledge of Capoeira. This is a great example of something that I would consider 1-2 dimensional along with many other styles(boxing, bjj, sikaran). Since I am ignorant to the combat apps of Capoeira. Could you enlighten me? Capoeira, frequently is viewed in this light I think. So I think this would be a great opportunity to shed a little light on it. 

When I think of Capoeira, I see many fascinating kicks, movements and such, some that I can see higher % moves, and some that are not. Do they normally train 'capoeirista v capoeirista, like a duel( not for play, but counter for counter spar)? Or are there really some schools that teach how to use Capoeira to counter other styles(wrestler, boxer etc. ) ?
I'm intrigued. 

ps. I saw some guy (mma fighter I think) on youtube a few months ago. He was doing some badass moves from capoeira on a hanging heavy bag, and ground n pounding it using capoeira etc.  It was fascinating!  Wish I could find a link 4 u, but I can't


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 1, 2011)

On the concept of ki, I will share my personal thoughts based on my experience in martial arts.

I do not believe of ki as an energy source similar to the force in Star Wars. Therefore NTKO are nonsense.

I am under the impression that ki is the focusing of intention through unifying body and mind. Basically it is acting on your intention.
People can feel the intention of other people, and therefore IMO can sense the ki of another person. This is how the sakki tests with swords are done and without sensing ki higher level concepts like go no sen and sen, sen no sen are not possible.
I believe the feeling of ki is somehow phisological and not some sort of magic. It may be a combination of all the other senses working together, but I have witnessed people react to my ki and I have reacted to the ki of others. Whatever it may really be.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> On the concept of ki, I will share my personal thoughts based on my experience in martial arts.
> 
> I do not believe of ki as an energy source similar to the force in Star Wars. Therefore NTKO are nonsense.
> 
> ...



WHen you say ' they react to my ki' would you explain your experience?   You said, 'peoples' intention', like when you spar for a long time and you can sense the timing of someone else?  Their intent?  Do think these are the same?
Yes. to me it seems like almost a 'perfection' of movement. Like when 'fa jing' is demonstrated in 'Internal' styles. I have trained with expert taiji players, wrestlers, aikidoka etc. , and in my experience, being 'thrown' or what have you, seems like 'magic'. Sometimes when I'm sharing my Balintawak, my students will think its some sort of magic, but to me its more like a 'perfect' timing, speed, elegance, etc. To them, it's like I am 'everywhere' at once. But they just don't understand yet. 
In regards to things like 'fa jing'; found in Taiji, xingyi, aiki, etc., I'm not so sure anything 'that can't be scientifically explained' is happening. Seems more like from your toes all the way to your fist, you can learn to generate more power by adding 'other' muscles, bones, etc. that you were not using before.  ie. Like when a beginner starts learning how to strike, sometimes they JUST use their arm, and you must teach them to use their shoulder, hip, leg, foot, etc. Fa jing seems like even 'more of a whip'.  And in regards to the video posted to me of Chen Bing using tuishou, 





This seems like a 'demonstration' to enlighten others about the applications of taijiquan, no? I would be interested to see actual sparring /testing of this against other 'clinch' systems(greco, judo, ) for fun. 

And just 'cause I was looking around :






1:30   OUCH!!!!!!!!  Looks like he landed on his tailbone!!


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> NTKO.
> Non touch knock out, I&#8217;m assuming
> 
> Seriously don&#8217;t think about what other people think, it&#8217;ll only drive you mad. It is completely and totally irrelevant to our survival as a species. It&#8217;s like arguing with someone on the internet, entertaining, enlightening and frustrating all at the same time. We all have our own histories and experiences, so we will all think different things about different subjects.
> ...


Beliefs are intimately intertwined with behavior. ie

Islamic fundamentalism/WTC
Pedophilia/Child Molesting
Newtonian Mechanics/wearing seat belts
NTKO/people getting hurt when they shoulda' just 'gave him their wallet'

It IS also relevant to humanity. With the guidance of some evangelical churches there is now widespread manhunts for gay people and their executions. It's like witch hunts going on in Uganda. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

The pope also informed Africa that condoms are NOT effective

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

I don't care if others find fun in believing in Aphrodite or Zeus. It just always finds ways to effect EVERYONE
I'm just not seeing how superstition aids human progress. Politics, science, even in martial arts. It seems like claims that don't require evidence lead us nowhere. Like when I was in Iraq years ago, what if I took out the iron plates out of my flack vest and just trusted my 'iron shirt',  and if I said an 'oracion' before going out on patrol, my beliefs would protect me? lolz

...HEY speaking of 'iron shirt', anyone do that here? I use to do iron palm/forearm years ago. Had a good experience with it, but just couldn't make time for it anymore. The constant striking of a limb and it's result of hardening and desensitizing really doesn't magically impress me much. But I remember watching some Iron Crotch videos and just being perplexed. What exactly is goin on here?  Does it also have to do with turning off pain receptors in the brain?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> how is this any different from any other martial art? Every single one developed in a certain era and under social conditions that influenced what it became. I guess karate and hapkido are really folk games as well. are not those methods being practiced, to a certain extent, to preserve them, in addition to any practical application that they may have?


Folk games were developed as folk games or sports (not much difference really; given that 'sports' are essentially games for the folks as well). 

The difference is that one is designed as a game and a martial art is generally derived from either archaic military arts or civilian fighting techniques and have a primary purpose of fighting outside of a sporting context.

Taekwondo _as seen in the olympics_ is, in my opinion, a game. A game with players whose sole aim is to score more points than their opponent within a finite time period. There are quite a few other well established martial arts that I would place into the same category. I won't name them, mainly because the primary focus of this thread is about the veracity of supernatural or dubious techniques in martial arts. That, and I see nothing wrong with them in any way, but nobody wants to hear that their MA is a game/sport and I see no reason to stir that particular pot.

As far as I'm concerned, MMA is a sport. I view that in the same way that I view fencing, boxing and wrestling as sports. All three have real world applicability and I have never implied in any way that they do not. Sport is not a dirty word in my opinion, and often, athletes train with greater dilligence than many "martial artists" and as a result, are more likely to achieve practical real world results from the application of their techniques outside of a sporting context. 



Flying Crane said:


> not comparable? in an absolute and objective sort of way? really? That sounds a lot like passing judgement over it, and I will need to ask: what is your experience with capoeira, to pass such judgement? Oh never mind, I hear the ghost of an old capoeira mestre, shusshing in my ear and telling me to just let it go, let them think what they want, preserve the cover...


Passing judgement? How am I passing judgement over it? At what point have I *judged *capoeira? Have I stated that it is deficient in some way? Or inferior in some way? Have I made any comments to the effect that capoeira practitioners cannot defend themselves? Have I disparged it in any way? If you can find where I have done so, I will happily quote it and take it back.  Seriously and with no sarcasm intended. 

If you simply feel that my choice of classification is disparging or insulting in some way, then my apologies, as that is not my intent.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem rather defensive on this matter. And if I am picking up a vibe that is not there, then again, my apologies.

Regarding not comparable, I was pretty clear that the two are not comparable in the sense of comparing as one being greater than or less than the other. The two are different and one is not intended to be *better* than the other. Each has its own merits, some of which happen to overlap. But people who pursue MMA are generally doing so for different reasons than people who pursue capoeira. Or a Koryu art for that matter.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> again, it doesn't have to.


But it usually does.



Flying Crane said:


> If this discussion is only looking at boxing in the sporting context, that's fine.


As you stated earlier, boxing orbits around the sport. I am talkng about boxing in the context that most people, including boxers and MA-ist think of boxing _most_ of the time.



Flying Crane said:


> But if the intent is to state that it is a sport and that is the end of the story, no I disagree.


That is not what I am saying. I do agree that boxing exists outside of a sporting context and has application outside of a sporting context. 



Flying Crane said:


> you may or may not be right, but I'd say you really have no idea one way or the other.


Unless you can produce some compelling data to the contrary, I'll stand by my admittedly seat of the pants assessment. 

It is based on knowing enough about a lot of people whom I have met over the years of a wide variety of ages who have no boxing experience whatsoever and never practiced it in any meaningful way with any family member. 

So yes, I have an _idea_. It may be an _incorrect_ idea, and as my assessment is based entirely on personal interractions and anecdotal 'data', I certainly could be. I would be quite happy to *be* proven wrong in this regard actually.

Daniel


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> WHen you say ' they react to my ki' would you explain your experience? You said, 'peoples' intention', like when you spar for a long time and you can sense the timing of someone else? Their intent? Do think these are the same?


 
Sometimes we practice intention sensing by blindolding each other and throwing rubber shuriken. The blindfolded person's job is to evade and only evade when they feel the shuriken has been thrown. We go to great lengths to ensure that the blindfolded student cannot hear or see us, and that we are not establishing a repetitive timing that the student can pick up on.

Sensing a person's intention comes easier if you have a personal history with that person. I can sense my training partner's intention stronger than a new person, but if that new person has a strong will during training it becomes apparent.

Timing is involved but not in the way you might be thinking. Its not that I pick up on a pattern that an opponent or partner is displaying. We litterally feel a change in the air when a person goes from being neutral to thinking about causing harm.

My personal belief about that matter is that since everything in the universe is made of waves and we react to sound waves and light waves, then why not the brainwaves another person. It's not mind reading in the sense of having the psychic power to know detailed thoughts. It's the ability to walk into a room and sense that something is not right. Body language helps make what a person is thinking easier to read, but it is not always necessary.

I think sensing intention (or ki) is common to all animals and born from a survival of the fittest evolutionary standpoint. 

I believe certain military groups in the US are told that if they must remove a sentry silently they are not to look at him as they approach. The idea behind this is if you concentrate on someone with a focused intent, they tend to feel something is up even if they cannot see your physical features.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Beliefs are intimately intertwined with behavior. ie
> 
> Islamic fundamentalism/WTC
> Pedophilia/Child Molesting
> ...


Beliefs are intertwined with everything. There comes a point where you can't be the belief police. People with beliefs that you find irrational may consider them entirely rational. And most beliefs do not have the catastrophic consequences of the things that you mentioned. If a person wants to believe that the earth is flat, he hurts nobody. The airlines, cruselines, and every industry that fucntions on the basis that the earth is spheroid will continue to do so an allow flat-earthers to larp to their heart's content. If that same flat earther boards a plane for an international flight, regardless of his belief in the shape of the earth, the pilot will get him to his destination. He can believe that the earth is rectangular for all I care. 

I would suspect that pedophiles and child molesters suffer more from a mental illness than from irrational beliefs.

As for seatbelts, most who refuse to wear them do so as some idiotic act of defiance of state laws and/or place comfort over safety. I doubt that they have an issue with beliefs.



fangjian said:


> With the guidance of some evangelical churches there is now widespread manhunts for gay people and their executions. It's like witch hunts going on in Uganda.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill


Though I am religious, I am personally against legislation of sexual preferences outside of those which affect minors or those incapable of informed consent, regardless of the context. If a secular government wants to marry two men, I really don't care. 

I am of the opinion that churches (including my own) should not directly guide public policy. Same goes for corporations or large entities. No surprise that I am also against political parties as well, which I find more damaging to public policy than any religion can be (at least in the US).



fangjian said:


> The pope also informed Africa that condoms are NOT effective
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids


I won't get into my thoughts about condom effectiveness (to which I give scant thought at best), however, the Catholic church's approved method of preventing the spread of STDs is to abstain from sex outside of the context of marriage. Putting aside religious beliefs, abstainance is more effective than a condom in prevention of unwanted pregnancy and spread of STDs. Not as much fun, but more effective.

The pope has informed the entire world of this, by the way; not just Africa. Probably the last pope too. Oddly, though he apparently said that it is okay for male prostitutes to use them for prevention of spreading STDs. 

Those who are swayed enough by the pope's thoughts on condoms to choose not to use them should make sure to also practice the pope's recommended method of controlling STD's. You can't not use a condom and blame it on the pope while having promiscuous sex.

If you are married and your spouse has aids, well, as a Catholic, if I were bound and determined to have sex with my HIV positive wife (frankly, we'd just have to go without if it were me), I'd still use the darned thing regardless of what the pope says.



fangjian said:


> I don't care if others find fun in believing in Aphrodite or Zeus. It just always finds ways to effect EVERYONE
> I'm just not seeing how superstition aids human progress. Politics, science, even in martial arts. It seems like claims that don't require evidence lead us nowhere. Like when I was in Iraq years ago, *what if I took out the iron plates out of my flack vest and just trusted my 'iron shirt', and if I said an 'oracion' before going out on patrol, my beliefs would protect me?* lolz


I'd say to you, 'may fortune favor the foolish.'



fangjian said:


> ...HEY speaking of 'iron shirt', anyone do that here? I use to do iron palm/forearm years ago. Had a good experience with it, but just couldn't make time for it anymore. The constant striking of a limb and it's result of hardening and desensitizing really doesn't magically impress me much. But I remember watching some Iron Crotch videos and just being perplexed. What exactly is goin on here? Does it also have to do with turning off pain receptors in the brain?


What does magic have to do with hardening of limbs through repeated striking? 

The only Iron crotch technique that I have ever practiced is called a cup, so I suspect that what you are talking about is outside of my realm of experience. 

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Unless you can produce some compelling data to the contrary, I'll stand by my admittedly seat of the pants assessment.
> 
> It is based on knowing enough about a lot of people whom I have met over the years of a wide variety of ages who have no boxing experience whatsoever and never practiced it in any meaningful way with any family member.
> 
> ...


This is also what I was talking about in a way. I think it was clfsean who accused me of, I think, ',not really knowing what I am talking about 'cause I didn't train that art and sweat and bleed in their training hall'  While there is smidgen of truth to this, I can most certainly come to sound conclusions based on observation. I have never trained in Kosen Judo or Regional Capoeira, but I know what they do. I don't have to have trained in EVERYTHING to have a good understanding of them.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> This is also what I was talking about in a way. I think it was clfsean who accused me of, I think, ',not really knowing what I am talking about 'cause I didn't train that art and sweat and bleed in their training hall' While there is smidgen of truth to this, I can most certainly come to sound conclusions based on observation. I have never trained in Kosen Judo or Regional Capoeira, but I know what they do. I don't have to have trained in EVERYTHING to have a good understanding of them.


 

Actually I didn't accuse you of anything. I made a statement based on what I perceive as ignorance of concerning training methods, applications, structure, format, etc... about martial arts without having spent the time on the floor/mat with them. This is based on your statement saying you don't understand everything you have.

So... since that's come up again. So you're able to "pickup" the training methods, foundations, applications, basics, etc... of a style, just by watching, please... go youtube Choy Lee Fut or Xingyi or White Crane. Then come back & tell us what you absorbed via "watching" and how you "understand" the whole of the style.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

clfsean said:


> So... since that's come up again. So you're able to "pickup" the training methods, foundations, applications, basics, etc... of a style, just by watching, please... go youtube Choy Lee Fut or Xingyi or White Crane. Then come back & tell us what you absorbed via "watching" and how you "understand" the whole of the style.


I'll leave the rest to the two of you, but I don't think that the above is what was meant by what he said.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Actually I didn't accuse you of anything. I made a statement based on what I perceive as ignorance of concerning training methods, applications, structure, format, etc... about martial arts without having spent the time on the floor/mat with them. This is based on your statement saying you don't understand everything you have.
> 
> So... since that's come up again. So you're able to "pickup" the training methods, foundations, applications, basics, etc... of a style, just by watching, please... go youtube Choy Lee Fut or Xingyi or White Crane. Then come back & tell us what you absorbed via "watching" and how you "understand" the whole of the style.



I also asked you about how you come to your conclusions about XMA?

Regarding your proposal, it sounds kinda' fun so I took it up. I use to study a bit of Choy Li Fut and Wah Lum some years ago so I have some knowledge of CLF. ( as a cool segui, when I was in Baghdad. We were patrolling one day and I noticed a mural on a bombed out wall of picture of a figure that looked like Bruce Lee or something. Above the figure it said "Choy Lee Fut" .  I asked some of the locals in the neighborhood what it was all about, and they told me there use to be a group of kids who would practice, but there not there anymore. When I first saw it I was like "Oh Man!!! I wonder if I still remember my 'spinning spear' form. I would totally do a demo for some PR or something. Isn't that funny?  You may have some kung fu brothers/sisters in Baghdad?!  ) So I'd rather pick something else. 

How about boxing?  I've never gone to a boxing school before. 

forms: to teach how to efficiently move your own body for success in combat in regards to attacking, evading, footwork, alignment, etc.  ( I think most styles do this. In boxing their 'forms' are things like 1, 2.  1, 2, weave....)

Drills: for using those forms while under 'moderate pressure'. You know. Your coach will have pads and use them to 'install' proper responses to common threats you may run into. 

Conditioning: Use of other things to build up your stamina, timing, speed......  Commonly I see use of Heavy Bags so practitioners can learn to generate power, speed bags, double end bags, jump rope, push ups etc.  All of these things will give the practitioner desirable attributes that will give them an edge in combat. 

Sparring: A free session where practitioners can have a chance to pressure test what they have learned (forms and drills) counter for counter. Use of protection, rules, etc. 

*the next two categories are not always done by practitioners

Fighting: Could be just considered in the 'sparring' section, but usually there is less protection and less 'rules'. 

Self Defense: Theoretical thought on the applications of boxing and how they can be used for other circumstances (MMA, Muay Thai, Knife attack, multiple attackers, ......)  Boxing is strong in the area of striking, and striking defense. Weak in other areas. 

-Now obviously many other styles have this same format. I don't know everything about Boxing. But is the above a somewhat fair representation of the style of Boxing?


----------



## clfsean (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I also asked you about how you come to your conclusions about XMA?


 
XMA = martial gymnastics with no viable usage. 

How did I come to that conclusion??

3rd Dan Taekwondo (MooDukKwon from what I can tell)
1st Dan Shotokan
I've taught CMA's since the late 90's and had the title of Sifu awarded to me by my teacher. He was awarded the title from his CLF teachers & missed the Sifu test in Wah Lum by two weeks in the mid 90's. I've also studied Chen Taiji & Xingyi for my own edification. I've dabbled with Wah Lum courtesy of my teacher in the past & I've lion danced since 2004. I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to multiple CMA styles by publically famous & unknown teacher to everywhere except the CMA world.

I've dabbled in JMA's that included kobudo & ken work. 

I've been around the block once or twice on the floor, bleeding & sweating. 

I think with fair certainty when I see a "katana" flipped 30 feet in the air by a kid wearing a tie dyed hakama screaming like he just lost his leg, I can call BS and be authoritative in my position.

When I see a kid doing a gymnastics run in the middle of a kata & coming down in a pose that expresses "I just killed 50 people... DOOD!!!!!", I can call BS and be authoritative in my position.

Satisfactory?



fangjian said:


> Regarding your proposal, it sounds kinda' fun so I took it up. I use to study a bit of Choy Li Fut and Wah Lum some years ago so I have some knowledge of CLF. ( as a cool segui, when I was in Baghdad. We were patrolling one day and I noticed a mural on a bombed out wall of picture of a figure that looked like Bruce Lee or something. Above the figure it said "Choy Lee Fut" . I asked some of the locals in the neighborhood what it was all about, and they told me there use to be a group of kids who would practice, but there not there anymore. When I first saw it I was like "Oh Man!!! I wonder if I still remember my 'spinning spear' form. I would totally do a demo for some PR or something. Isn't that funny? You may have some kung fu brothers/sisters in Baghdad?! ) So I'd rather pick something else.


 
Good on you for doing time in Iraq & hat's off to you with a big thanks, but still... 

Try CLF. Go on... give it a shot. 



fangjian said:


> How about boxing? I've never gone to a boxing school before.
> 
> forms: to teach how to efficiently move your own body for success in combat in regards to attacking, evading, footwork, alignment, etc. ( I think most styles do this. In boxing their 'forms' are things like 1, 2. 1, 2, weave....)
> 
> ...


 
I have no clue. I've not been trained in Western Boxing so I can't comment on that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Self Defense: Theoretical thought on the applications of boxing and how they can be used for other circumstances (MMA, Muay Thai, Knife attack, multiple attackers, ......) Boxing is strong in the area of striking, and striking defense. Weak in other areas.
> 
> -Now obviously many other styles have this same format. I don't know everything about Boxing. But is the above a somewhat fair representation of the style of Boxing?


As a general rule, boxing addresses fighting with the hands used as the primary weapon and was developed in a culture where the hands were the primary weapon in unarmed fighting.  Pre-Queensbury boxing incorporated techniques outside of punches, though for the most part, those no longer are taught as part of boxing.  

Boxing in self defense involves blocking, parrying or evading an opponent's strikes, regardless of the striking limb being used.  So a boxer does not need to be able to kick in order to defend against a fighter who kicks.  A boxer who can manage distance can overcome an opponent's kicks, either by evading them or closing in and rendering the kicks ineffective.  Using the knees and elbows to strike requires no special training and a boxer would certainly have those options in a self defense context.  

Likewise, modern boxing has no grappling, but one need not be a grappler to be able to frustrate an opponent who tries to grapple.  Effective use of distance and judicious use of strikes can shut down an opponent who is trying to grab you.

A boxer who trains exclusively in boxing will have a good sense of distance, timing, and will have a strong technical command of the strikes, blocks, and parries associated with the art.  Thus, he is the man who has practiced a small number of techniques ten thousand times rather than the man who has practiced a wide variety of techniques but has less technical command of them.

I would contend that it would be more beneficial for the boxer to do friendly sparring with kickers and grapplers on occasion so as to know what they can do and to become familiar with how they respond as opponents than it is for the boxer to expand his repitoir to include their techniques. 

Daniel


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> @ Flying Crane
> 
> You obviously possess some knowledge of Capoeira. This is a great example of something that I would consider 1-2 dimensional along with many other styles(boxing, bjj, sikaran). Since I am ignorant to the combat apps of Capoeira. Could you enlighten me? Capoeira, frequently is viewed in this light I think. So I think this would be a great opportunity to shed a little light on it.
> 
> ...



OK, we may be drifting farther from the thread here but that seems to be happening and if everyone is happy to take the discussion where ever it goes, I'm game.

Capoeira as we know it today was first developed in Brazil during the slavery era.  Africans from different tribal groups and different parts of Africa were deliberately mixed in Brazil, by the slave holders.  This was done to undermine the ability of the slaves to stage an uprising, as different tribal groups often had different cultures, different languages, etc., and it made it more difficult for the slaves to communicate and organize, and feel a sense of unity in such a culturally mixed environment.  

Of course over time, the slaves learned the language of the owners, and perhaps learned the African languages of those held with them, and the were able to communicate.  But at lest initially the mixing of groups helped to prevent unity and uprisings.

Within this melting pot of cultures, ideas were shared.  Keep in mind that many of the slaves brought from Africa were warriors, and they brought their knowledge and techniques of fighting with them.  This knowledge was shared amongst their slave groups, and a method of fighting was born.  It is highly probable that the fighting method was also influenced by native Brazilian and Euro-Brazilians as well, as the interaction between these groups would have provided for it.  It is impossible today to say specifically, which techniques or which cultural influences and elements came from which group.

This is the beginnings of what became capoeira.

African cultures tend to differ from European cultures in a couple of striking points that heavily influenced the development of capoeira.  The big one is the music and rhythm.  African cultures tend to express themselves musically, thru instruments and singing, and this is prevalent thru many aspects of the culture.  Music brings the people together, gives them something to focus on to take their minds off tedious work, helps them remember their cultural past as they sing about their ancestors, etc.  This would be an important tool in the reality of slavery, as it helped an oppressed people survive and cope with their grief and suffering and loss.

This element is prevalent in capoeira as well.  Just as music is present in the other aspects of the slaves' daily lives, working in the fields, taking produce to the markets, etc., it was present during their limited time for recreation and when they would practice fighting techniques.

Capoeira has always been a fighting method.  It was heavily oppressed in Brazil because it was recognized that as a powerful fighting method it gave the slaves and the recently freed Blacks a tool to oppose local law enforcement and disrupt the status quo.  In the post-slavery era the police would crack down on capoeiristas, and the laws on the books specifically outlawed the practice.  Known capoeira "troublemakers" would be hunted down by law enforcement and brought to justice, and their capoeira skills were justifiably feared.

This is where capoeira comes from.  It was always a fighting method from the beginning, tho it holds other cultural elements that are not common to other martial arts.  This gives it a unique flavor and can sometimes obscure the original intent of the method, but it was a fighting method, a martial art, before anything else.  Coming out of the unique cultural mixing pot that was its genesis, it takes on aspects that outsiders may have trouble with reconciling as a martial art.  But martial art is what it is.

Today things have changed and capoeira skills are no longer necessary on a frequent basis to save one's life from the oppressors.  The art has changed from its original form, and probably what is most noticeable is its game-like, playful attributes.  I do not deny this and I understand why people tend to believe that it is not a true martial art.  But that is why I tend to speak up about it, to set the record straight and help educate those who may know just enough about it to misunderstand what it is.

There is a difference between playing capoeira, and fighting with capoeira.  The capoeira game is played in the roda, between two antagonists, surrounded by the group who plays the music and sings the songs (the songs are often about old and dead capoeiristas, the heros and founders from the past, the ancestors), and give the game its rhythm and intensity.  The players create a physical dialogue, spontaneously attacking and defending and moving and positioning.  The intensity of the game can range from mild and gentle and jovial, to harsh and fast and brutal and nasty.  A lot of it depends on who the players are and whether or not they have some perceived grudge to avenge.  I've seen games between rival groups that have gotten bloody, people getting tossed out of the circle, kicked and smacked around.  I remember one player's face was busted open by a kick because she didn't evade in time.  I've had it done to myself, kicked in the ribs hard enough to throw me out of the circle, swept and taken down, rolled across the floor and pummeled by the other guy who was on top of me, tho I've managed to avoid being truly injured.  I've done it to others as well, swept them down, knocked one player out with a kick to the face tho it was an accident and I didn't intend it.  The energy of the game can take you away and it becomes intense.  But this is the game of capoeira, what is done inside the circle, in the group.  This is how capoeira is practiced, it is capoeira's method of sparring.

Fighting with capoeira is different.  I believe that most schools in the US at least, practice and play the game of capoeira and don't really train to fight with capoeira.  To do so, one must train differently.

While capoeira has a number of techniques that are unique, it also has a lot of standard fare that you would find in other systems: front kicks, side kicks, roundhouse kicks, spinning kicks, crescent and reverse-crescent kicks, knees, tripping, sweeping, take-downs, elbows, palm strikes, evasive bobbing and weaving methods, etc.  These tools all exist in capoeira, as well as some unique kicks and acrobatics and methods of moving and repositioning.  When one fights with capoeira, the fancy things are taken out.  The playful elements, the acrobatics, the dance-like and game-like aspects would be eliminated.  These things add spice to the game, make it fun and exciting.  But in a fight, those things are not appropriate.  It is no longer a game, and the capoeirista will attend to business.  I think that to fight with capoeira will look a whole lot like fighting with any other style: ugly, brutal, brief, decisive.  A capoeirista in a real fight isn't going to do a bunch of cartwheels and acrobatics and stuff.  That's showing off and the enemy will obviously take advantage of that to strike.  Instead, the capoeirista will use his techniques to get in and strike hard and finish the issue.  That is fighting with capoeira, and I realize that is not the image that is usually shown to the public.  

Many people like to use capoeira as a performance art because in the context of the game it lends itself well to performance.  The music and rhythm, the singing, the acrobatics and playful attitude can be a real crowd-pleaser.  So I get it when people call it a "folk game" or think that it's a form of dance.  I really do get it.  But they are wrong, that is not what it really is. That is just one aspect that is on display.

Regardless of how it is done today, regardless of the fact that most people today train for the game and not for the fight, that doesn't negate the fact that it developed as a fight, and it is still a viable fight to those who train appropriately.  This is what makes it a martial art, like any other.  As a martial art, it can stand next to karate, kungfu, and all the rest.

In the last decade or so there have been a number of well researched books written in English on the topic.  There are some good stories in those books.  One of my favorite capoeira stories that I read goes like this:  Shortly after the abolishment of slavery when capoeira was heavily repressed, there was a somewhat famous capoeirista who was known for causing trouble for the local law enforcement.  He was feared by the police, and they decided they needed to bring him to justice.  An officer tracked him down and cornered him, with no way to escape.  The capoeirista collapsed in a blubbering heap, crying and pleading for his life.  The officer was shocked at this display of weakness and could not believe this was the same man who was so feared.  In the officer's hesitation, the capoeirista jumped up with a straight razor in his hand and cut the officer's throat and escaped.  This is capoeira.  Capoeira is deception.

that is why I say that the old masters would be happy to let everyone believe capoeira is a folk game.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> As a general rule, boxing addresses fighting with the hands used as the primary weapon and was developed in a culture where the hands were the primary weapon in unarmed fighting.  Pre-Queensbury boxing incorporated techniques outside of punches, though for the most part, those no longer are taught as part of boxing.
> 
> Boxing in self defense involves blocking, parrying or evading an opponent's strikes, regardless of the striking limb being used.  So a boxer does not need to be able to kick in order to defend against a fighter who kicks.  A boxer who can manage distance can overcome an opponent's kicks, either by evading them or closing in and rendering the kicks ineffective.  Using the knees and elbows to strike requires no special training and a boxer would certainly have those options in a self defense context.


 
Yes a boxer CAN use elbows, knees, head-butts, but it is not as likely that he will use those tools he they aren't regularly part of his training. I was helping a friend one time train for a Muay Thai fight. He practiced using his knees in a ineffective manor while training. That's the same way he did it in the actual fight. And that's someone who actually trains using knees. One time when I was in highschool, I got in a street fight, had a kid in a double collar tie  attempted to throw some knees and missed every single one, because at the time it wasn't part of my training. 


> I would contend that it would be more beneficial for the boxer to do friendly sparring with kickers and grapplers on occasion so as to know what they can do and to become familiar with how they respond as opponents than it is for the boxer to expand his repitoir to include their techniques.
> 
> Daniel


"A technique that you have never seen, will hit you." Boxers normally just train to fight other boxers. High school wrestlers just train to wrestle other wrestlers. The more variables you introduce into your style, the better(for self defense anyway). 


> XMA = martial gymnastics with no viable usage.
> 
> How did I come to that conclusion??
> 
> ...


No. I am not satisfied. How come you can claim to come to informed conclusions about other styles, and I can't?


> Good on you for doing time in Iraq & hat's off to you with a big thanks, but still...
> 
> Try CLF. Go on... give it a shot.


My Iraq story has nothing to do with anything of course. I just thought you would enjoy the story. I think it said you do CLF in your profile. 

Why was my 'boxing' 'write up' not good enough?
If I have time later, it sounds fun to come up with one for White Crane/Xingyi/CLF. But I'm afraid it won't matter what I write.  You are likely more knowledgable than me in let's say CLF, and just 'one up' me every line, just because I forgot to mention something about their kind of wooden dummy training. Or I didn't mention their training of 'horse bench'.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Folk games were developed as folk games or sports (not much difference really; given that 'sports' are essentially games for the folks as well).
> 
> The difference is that one is designed as a game and a martial art is generally derived from either archaic military arts or civilian fighting techniques and have a primary purpose of fighting outside of a sporting context.



I just made a lengthy post about capoeira and the difference between the game and the fight, and how capoeira developed as a fighting art.  Hopefully that will help clear up the misconception.



> Taekwondo _as seen in the olympics_ is, in my opinion, a game. A game with players whose sole aim is to score more points than their opponent within a finite time period.



I would agree, but I would not say that TKD as a whole is a sport, end-of-story.  It has a sporting component to it, and that is what we see in the Olympics.  But it began as a fighting art, a martial art, and for those who practice appropriately, it still is. 



> Passing judgement? How am I passing judgement over it? At what point have I *judged *capoeira? Have I stated that it is deficient in some way? Or inferior in some way? Have I made any comments to the effect that capoeira practitioners cannot defend themselves? Have I disparged it in any way? If you can find where I have done so, I will happily quote it and take it back.  Seriously and with no sarcasm intended.



maybe I am also misreading you and if so I apologize as well.   But by calling Capoeira a folk game and negating it as a martial art, I feel you are simply uninformed on the topic.  As I mentioned earlier, I have trained capoeira for a number of years and developed some reasonable skill with it.  I know the art, and I know that it is a martial art.  Hopefully my other post will clear this up.



> If you simply feel that my choice of classification is disparging or insulting in some way, then my apologies, as that is not my intent.
> 
> Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem rather defensive on this matter. And if I am picking up a vibe that is not there, then again, my apologies.



apology accepted, thanks and no worries, I know it's not personal.

I do get a bit defensive about this because I believe people are uninformed about what capoeira really is, and it irritates me to see people calling it this or that, when they have no real experience with it.  My wife and I were at a party at a friends house.  She and I met in the capoeira school, we were both students there.  Our friend also comes out of that school, and some other friends from the capoeira world were also at the party.  Some other guy, friend of our friend, but not from capoeira, starts talking to my wife about capoeira, and wants to tell her how its not really a fighting art, it's a cultural dance, etc.  My wife was like, "what the hell do you know?  You know nothing about it, you've not studied it, you have nothing to say".  It is something that irritates me and I find myself bouncing between thinking I should take the opportunity to educate people, or I should listen to the old dead masters and let the public remain ignorant.  Sometimes I choose the former, sometimes the latter.  This time I spoke up.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Ahhhh. Ok that makes sense.
> 
> I see what you mean. Other people have different 'realities' of violence. My 'world' is slightly different from my best friend's (who's a cop) 'world' which was different than both of our 'worlds' when we were in the same squad in Iraq. Is this what you are meaning?
> 
> ...



OK; you've got personal knowledge of a particular scope of violence -- and I give you absolute credit for that, and I thank you for your service.

But -- I suspect you don't have a lot of personal experience about one-on-one, personal violence.  Even doing house clearing and the like, your tactics were all about overwhelming force.  Bluntly, and appropriately, you were the aggressors.  Personal violence is a different thing entirely, just like clearing a house as a cop is different.

Your experience is shaping your beliefs -- but your beliefs are also shaping your interpretation and expectations.  Rory Miller, in *Meditations on Violence*, notes that one possible source of the mythological unicorn was the rhino -- and we "know" an awful lot about unicorns, but most of us know very little about rhinos.  The only catch is the unicorn ain't real... and if we prepare to handle a rhino based on the myths about the unicorn, the results aren't likely to be pretty.  I just don't think a virgin walking up to an angry rhino is likely to gentle the beast, y'know?  

Personal violence and real fights are ugly -- lots uglier than most of us expect, especially based on TV and movies.  Think about your training in house clearing.  After a while, you all probably were almost pretty to watch clearing houses in training, right?  Everybody moving together, communicating...  A well trained team doing entry training is a thing of beauty.  But -- take the best trained team, and put 'em in a real situation, and it's just never as pretty or smooth, is it?  (And if it is... STOP!  Something is wrong!  In the cop world... you're probably hitting the wrong house...)

Rory summed up real personal violence in the 4 truths in my signature:  Violence happens closer, faster, more suddenly, and with more power than most people believe.  And your training needs to take those truths into account IF your training is about preparing for real violence.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No. I am not satisfied. How come you can claim to come to informed conclusions about other styles, and I can't?


 
Because I do understand what I teach and understand what I know. 
Because I do take the take the time to look into (ie... mat/sweat time) other arts if there are questions I might have. 
Because I don't make blanket statements without the facts to back them up and be ready & able to physically prove my point or have it disproven.

XMA, based on 30 years experience, understanding of the "base arts" they ripped off and understanding body mechanics leads me to make my statement. Now they are magnificent atheletes & gymnists. They do things I can't do now & when I could, weren't done. So they have my respect for that. Then again, my youngest ex-stepdaughter is a competative gymnist & does the same kind of things. Doesn't mean she could pull any of that stuff off in a self defense situation to come out ok. But she also studies CLF with me & THAT, she can pull off as I taught it to her & will get her out of a scrape.



fangjian said:


> My Iraq story has nothing to do with anything of course. I just thought you would enjoy the story. I think it said you do CLF in your profile.


 
I did & like I said, whole hearted thanks for the time you put in there. 



fangjian said:


> Why was my 'boxing' 'write up' not good enough?


 
No it was fine, but I don't train Western boxing, so I can't comment on their training methods. 



fangjian said:


> If I have time later, it sounds fun to come up with one for White Crane/Xingyi/CLF. But I'm afraid it won't matter what I write. You are likely more knowledgable than me in let's say CLF, and just 'one up' me every line, just because I forgot to mention something about their kind of wooden dummy training. Or I didn't mention their training of 'horse bench'.


 
It's not a matter of one upping. It's a matter of first hand knowledge & experience. That makes the difference. I wouldn't supposed to tell you how to field strip a M4 or M9 (I don't like'em anyway. I carry a 1911.  ). Not my training arena or field of expertise. 

Besides, I don't practice with the bench. It's not found in every line.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Because I do understand what I teach and understand what I know.
> Because I do take the take the time to look into (ie... mat/sweat time) other arts if there are questions I might have.
> Because I don't make blanket statements without the facts to back them up and be ready & able to physically prove my point or have it disproven.
> 
> XMA, based on 30 years experience, understanding of the "base arts" they ripped off and understanding body mechanics leads me to make my statement. Now they are magnificent atheletes & gymnists. They do things I can't do now & when I could, weren't done. So they have my respect for that. Then again, my youngest ex-stepdaughter is a competative gymnist & does the same kind of things. Doesn't mean she could pull any of that stuff off in a self defense situation to come out ok. But she also studies CLF with me & THAT, she can pull off as I taught it to her & will get her out of a scrape.


 I don't know, man. Seems to me like you're making a sweeping generalization of XMA. How many years did you train XMA for? It's not the style it's the practitioner right? Just because you can't perform a '540 kick' on someone's face, doesn't mean someone else can't. Who are you to judge? 


> It's not a matter of one upping. It's a matter of first hand knowledge & experience. That makes the difference. I wouldn't supposed to tell you how to field strip a M4 or M9 (I don't like'em anyway. I carry a 1911.  ). Not my training arena or field of expertise.
> 
> Besides, I don't practice with the bench. It's not found in every line.


In regards to 'gaining knowledge'. I've never truly studied Wu/Hao Taijiquan, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........  But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you......
1911 is the KING of pistols. Am I right or am I right?!


----------



## clfsean (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I don't know, man. Seems to me like you're making a sweeping generalization of XMA. How many years did you train XMA for? It's not the style it's the practitioner right? Just because you can't perform a '540 kick' on someone's face, doesn't mean someone else can't. Who are you to judge?


 
I'm going out on a limb & guessing you had your sarcasm hat on here.



fangjian said:


> In regards to 'gaining knowledge'. I've never truly studied Wu/Hao Taijiquan, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........ But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you......


 
But how can you tell me what they can & can't give to me if you haven't truly studied them? Especially something that requires physical instruction (such as taiji or epee). Academic discussion is one thing. Amybody can read about anything & talk about it. But to truly be able to discuss it, you must have experience with it.



fangjian said:


> 1911 is the KING of pistols. Am I right or am I right?!


 
NO arguments here. I _prefer_ my XdM (lighter/high capacity) for daily wear & tear, but the 1911 is the go to, nail driver. NO DOUBTS!


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> But -- I suspect you don't have a lot of personal experience about one-on-one, personal violence.  Even doing house clearing and the like, your tactics were all about overwhelming force.  Bluntly, and appropriately, you were the aggressors.  Personal violence is a different thing entirely, just like clearing a house as a cop is different.


 I was just using it as an example of an environment where a particular style of combat was inferior to another. Most people don't have much experience with 1 on 1 combat.  I've only been in a few fights, myself.  I have a friend that never trained martial arts, but has been in probably about 30 street fights. That experience is valuable, but some place greater value on that experience (and of course, some place too much value on their training as well) than they should. My friends style of fighting would be a little bit of a boxing/brawling no technique but a lot of heart kind of approach. I think this would be most peoples approach to a 1 on 1 barehanded fight. At least from what I have observed. Just because my friend has more experience in real fights on the ground(too) doesn't mean we are equal in ground fighting skill. 


> Personal violence and real fights are ugly -- lots uglier than most of us expect, especially based on TV and movies.  Think about your training in house clearing.  After a while, you all probably were almost pretty to watch clearing houses in training, right?  Everybody moving together, communicating...  A well trained team doing entry training is a thing of beauty.  But -- take the best trained team, and put 'em in a real situation, and it's just never as pretty or smooth, is it?  (And if it is... STOP!  Something is wrong!  In the cop world... you're probably hitting the wrong house...)


It's never pretty at first. Just like the black belt in Bjj. Headbutt him on the bridge of his nose and he's a 'blue belt' now. After more experience though through the 'truths' you mention below, he'll perform like a black belt again. 
In regards to raiding the wrong location, I have more stories of us going to the wrong place (through ****** intel) than going to the right place 


> Rory summed up real personal violence in the 4 truths in my signature:  Violence happens closer, faster, more suddenly, and with more power than most people believe.  And your training needs to take those truths into account IF your training is about preparing for real violence.


In regards to the 'truths' you mention. Wouldn't the more truths a style takes into account the better?

PS.      I'm gonna do some research on more supernatural stuff in ma so we can get this back on track


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes a boxer CAN use elbows, knees, head-butts, but it is not as likely that he will use those tools he they aren't regularly part of his training. I was helping a friend one time train for a Muay Thai fight. He practiced using his knees in a ineffective manor while training. That's the same way he did it in the actual fight. And that's someone who actually trains using knees. One time when I was in highschool, I got in a street fight, had a kid in a double collar tie attempted to throw some knees and missed every single one, because at the time it wasn't part of my training.


Never had any trouble using knees or elbows and I've never trained specifically in them in a sparring scenario.  They are touched on very lightly in taekwondo and hapkido, but if fights that I was in in grade school and high school, I found knees and elbows very effective.  Not rocket science.  More than likely, the kid in question was just like most high school kids: not a particularly adept fighter.

As for the MT guy, who knows?  Maybe he just is lousy with knees and elbows.  There are TKD kicks that I trained in regularly for years that I was never what I would consider very strong in.  Others, I am excellent with.  

I'm not sure if this thought has crossed your mind, but there are people who are excellent fighters who have little to no formal training.  A lot of those types of fighters ended up boxing because they were already good at fighting.



fangjian said:


> "A technique that you have never seen, will hit you." Boxers normally just train to fight other boxers. High school wrestlers just train to wrestle other wrestlers. The more variables you introduce into your style, the better(for self defense anyway).


Hence my comment about the benefits of a practitioner of one art (boxing in this case, but it applies to any) training with people who practice differing skill sets.

Again, however, most striking 'techniques' are not techniques that a boxer, or anyone else for that matter, hasn't 'seen.'  I saw many kicks outside of martial arts.  I learned to avoid low kicks before I ever took TKD because a girl in class used to try to kick people in the shins on a regular basis.  We got along, but it was something of an odious personal habit on her part.  'Look over there' kick!  She thought it was funny.  I suppose that when you're six and seven, a lot of things are funny.  But I got very used to getting out of the way of her kicks.  I used to get into scraps with kids in the neighborhood, and even though none of them ever took karate or TKD, they all seemed to know how to kick, knee, and elbow.  

To a certain extent, it seems that you are operating on the assumption that if you haven't formally trained in it, then you either cannot do it or will not recognize it.  For many things taught in martial arts, that is true, but in its most basic form, unarmed attacks in and of themselves are not all that hard to recognize.  It is timing and setting up of your opponent and/or the element of surprise that makes them susceptible to the attack.

Formal training helps, but as I said, some people can just fight with little to no formal training.  This is one of the reasons that when I watch MMA, I don't evaluate the styles being used, but the fighter who is using them.

As far as using anything in self defense outside of tournament, the majority of encounters will be unscripted and against untrained fighters.  

Untrained fighters _can_ be more problematic than trained ones, particularly if they can fight, because they do not exhibit patterns or behaviors that a trained fighter might expect, not to mention the possibility of concealed weapons.  This is a potential issue for any trained fighter, regardless of style.  And yet another reason why friendly sparring with practitioners of other systems is advisable for stylists of any art.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> More than likely, the kid in question was just like most high school kids: not a particularly adept fighter.



HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was ME!!!!!!     


In regards to the untrained fighter is also a dangerous one. 

Yes, he/she is.  I always ask my friends who aren't 'martial artists' to come in to my place so that I may recognize what the 'untrained' timing, instinct might look like. I train Balintawak which was kind of designed for stick fighter vs. stick fighter. I always want people to come in who don't know this stuff to spar with me cause I bet it would help to know how to deal with that different type of movements. Like in the above posts. the more 'truths' of violence we are aware of,  the better.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I I've never truly studied *Wu/Hao Taijiquan*, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........ *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*


 
Ok tell me what Wu/Hao taijiquan can and cannot teach me and while your at it tell me what it is to since you claim to be able to.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Sometimes we practice intention sensing by blindolding each other and throwing rubber shuriken. The blindfolded person's job is to evade and only evade when they feel the shuriken has been thrown. We go to great lengths to ensure that the blindfolded student cannot hear or see us, and that we are not establishing a repetitive timing that the student can pick up on.
> 
> Sensing a person's intention comes easier if you have a personal history with that person. I can sense my training partner's intention stronger than a new person, but if that new person has a strong will during training it becomes apparent.
> 
> ...


 I know that many people who believe in things like miracles fall pray to 'rare things DO happen'. If someone has lung cancer, statistically you have 1% chance in surviving 5+ years. The one who survived 5+ claims they 'prayed' or what have you, and then claims 'it's a miracle' because of what they did (prayed, lucky rabbit's foot etc.).   He survived but 99 passed away. 
If I don't have evidence for the claim and it hasn't been peer reviewed, the default position of course is to 'not believe' the claim. In regards to your claim, I am of course skeptical but not cynical. I am truly interested. 
Thank you for sharing your experience. How successful are you, or your peers at this phenomena?  Do you seem to avoid the shuriken 20%, 80% of the time? Does it seem like some are better than others at this? If so, what seems to be their '%' ? So you think it may be some form of telepathy?


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Ok tell me what Wu/Hao taijiquan can and cannot teach me and while your at it tell me what it is to since you claim to be able to.



I was actually about to write a long post about all 5 subjects I mentioned to answer your question. But didn't want to waste my time if I don't have to. 

1st.  Do you think I am claiming to be proficient at epee and wu/hao, an alchemist, a stratigrapher and an oceanographer?!      I'm just claiming to be familiar with some of these things. 

2nd. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for? ie. (the short version) 
 Stratigraphy: 
What it can teach you--'about volcanic layering'   'sedimentary layering'
What it *can't* teach you--'about higgs bosons' ' peng lu ji an   '


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If I don't have evidence for the claim and it hasn't been peer reviewed, the default position of course is to 'not believe' the claim.


 
personally I think the default should be to have no opinion on that matter, to decide one way before hand instead of comming to a new situation with an open mind will result in a bias that might be unfair. Basically you could be deciding what you think about it before you actually consider the arguements, much like some fundamentalist thinkers.



fangjian said:


> In regards to your claim, I am of course skeptical but not cynical. I am truly interested.
> Thank you for sharing your experience. How successful are you, or your peers at this phenomena? Do you seem to avoid the shuriken 20%, 80% of the time? Does it seem like some are better than others at this? If so, what seems to be their '%' ? So you think it may be some form of telepathy?


 
When performing the blindfolded shuriken test people tend to get it about 80% of the time. One woman in our dojo has been 100% consistent with it everythime I have witnessed her practice.

Less experienced people tend to get jumpy and try to anticipate when the shuriken (or sword in some cases) is coming at them. The try to dart out of the way by guessing when it will come and occasionally they get luck, but they aren't doing the purpose of the exercise.

If I am administering the test I know when a person has done it correctly. If they move without me having made the decision to hit them, they fail. If I hit them and they don't move, they fail. When I send my intention out and they move out of the way a split second before I actually throw the shuriken or swing the sword, they pass.

I do not think it is telepathy. Telepathy to me means I know the details of your thoughts. This is more like "I feel like something is wrong". In the real world it is probably likely a person wouldn't be able to tell the direction it was comingfrom, but they would instinctly feel something is wrong.

A few years ago, I was wandering through the hallways of a school building and was about to leave, through the same doors I always do. That particular day I had a gut feeling to stay inside the building. I waited for about 10 minutes before shruggin it off. When I went outside, have a dozen college kids at NIU had been shot to death in the next building over. Had I ignored my gut feeling I would have taken my usual route to my car at the usual time and walked into the firing zone.

If you want to practice it to see how it works you have to go whole heartedly into it. The change in the air you feel is so subtle most people don't recognize it. But here's how you can give it a try. 

1. Find something to throw or hit someone with. Something heavy enough to feel impact, but not so heavy it will cause injury. Foam swords, rubber shuriken, bean bags, something you can toss or smack someone with that will let them know they got hit if they don't move.

2. Turn on music loud enough that a person can't hear clothes rustling or the sound of things soaring through the air.

3. Have the person attempting the practice turn around or wear a blindfold and make sure they can't see you.

4. Repeatedly strike at them or throw things at them making sure you do not establish a predictable pattern or timing. Each time you decide to move you should have a thought of causing serious harm to the person. The intention to cause significant harm must be present because simply going through the motions does not generate any ki because your mind is not involved.

5. The person trying to sense the other's killing intent should first focus on what the air around his body feels like. He should imagine creating a bubble around himself and pushing it outword until it takes up the space of the whole room. Give him a moment to feel what the air is like before you decide to attack. He should obey any instinct he has to move no matter how ridiculous he feels it is.

Most people new to this will ignore the instinct to move, but if you watch carefully they often flinch when they should move because they don't trust what their body is telling them. Women tend to be better at this for some reason, but anyone who practices being aware of their surroundings tends to be able to do it at least half the time. 

It's important for beginners that anyone on the training floor not participating in the exercise at that moment should think mundane thoughts so as not to interfere and throw off the practitioner with other emotions they may be having. Have those observing count to 10 over and over again while they watch.

If you try this you must really put an effort to make it work. If you go into it with a thought in the back of your head that it's nonsense you will ignore your instinct to move and be preoccupied with your own thoughts.


----------



## oaktree (Mar 2, 2011)

> _I I've never truly studied *Wu/Hao Taijiquan*, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........ *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*_





> I was actually about to write a long post about all 5 subjects I mentioned to answer your question. But didn't want to waste my time if I don't have to.
> 
> 1st. Do you think I am claiming to be proficient at epee and wu/hao, an alchemist, a stratigrapher and an oceanographer?!  I'm just claiming to be familiar with some of these things.
> 
> ...


 
You said you can tell what they can teach you and what they can not. Your answer is avoiding the question that Xue Sheng asked. No one is assuming you are proficient at these things however, someone who knows what these things can and can not teach you in most cases, has trained in them to some level of degree at least a novice level.

If you are making your judgement and comment without having trained in these things your understanding of them is superfical at best compared to those who have done this and who are more qualified to say what it can and can not teach.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

oaktree said:


> You said you can tell what they can teach you and what they can not. Your answer is avoiding the question that Xue Sheng asked. No one is assuming you are proficient at these things however, someone who knows what these things can and can not teach you in most cases, has trained in them to some level of degree at least a novice level.
> If you are making your judgement and comment without having trained in these things your understanding of them is superfical at best compared to those who have done this and who are more qualified to say what it can and can not teach.


Sorry I'm not 'getting it'.  If I am in a science forum, and mention that I am familiar with what Oceanography teaches and what it does not, I am not understanding why an 'oceanographer' in the room would insist I tell everyone my knowledge of it. If someone with NO knowledge of oceanography asks me what it is, I won't say "ummm, well I'm not an oceanographer, so I won't say anything." 
btw, I will not avoid the question but not sure why you're asking. I was gonna write up something, I have some free-time but I also have to write a research paper. 
My understanding of many subjects is superficial. Quantum Mechanics, Savate, US history, etc. But that doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING about them or what they do. 


> personally I think the default should be to have no opinion on that matter, to decide one way before hand instead of coming to a new situation with an open mind will result in a bias that might be unfair. Basically you could be deciding what you think about it before you actually consider the arguements, much like some fundamentalist thinkers.



I guess it depends on the claim being made. If someone tells you they were abducted by aliens would you believe them, not believe them, or just say you don't know either way?
If I told you I was from CT would you believe me, not believe me, or................?

Me telling you I'm from CT doesn't really mess with your view of reality too much so you really don't have any reason to care. 

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. 

PS THAT DOESN'T IMPLY I THINK YOU ARE LYING EITHER. 
I actually plan on trying your suggestions. Thank you 4 sharing, Himura san.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 2, 2011)

clfsean said:


> But how can you tell me what they can & can't give to me if you haven't truly studied them? Especially something that requires physical instruction (such as taiji or epee). Academic discussion is one thing. Amybody can read about anything & talk about it. But to truly be able to discuss it, you must have experience with it.



Very confused about XueSheng's post so I went back to see how all of this got started. 

I have never trained Catch as catch can.  Through observations of videos, discussions with other martial artists etc. I have come to reasonable conclusions about what they do. If I was gonna have a sparring match with a catch wrestler. Let's say MMA rules, medium contact.
 I would try to use my kickboxing so I can keep him at bay. I don't wanna go to the ground (cause I know his experience in submission grappling is higher than mine, let's say). 
If we clinch I'll try to use my wrestling skill to thwart the takedown. 
If he get's the takedown, I'll do my best to use my Bjj to try to get back to my feet or sub him. 

Why are my observations about Catch as catch can, of no relevance? Is this not a reasonable scenario?
Was my conclusion about 'catch', in that they are best at 'submission grappling' false?


----------



## oaktree (Mar 2, 2011)

> Sorry I'm not 'getting it'.  If I am in a science forum, and mention that I am familiar with what Oceanography teaches and what it does not, I am not understanding why an 'oceanographer' in the room would insist I tell everyone my knowledge of it. If someone with NO knowledge of oceanography asks me what it is, I won't say "ummm, well I'm not an oceanographer, so I won't say anything."
> btw, I will not avoid the question but not sure why you're asking. I was gonna write up something, I have some free-time but I also have to write a research paper.
> My understanding of many subjects is superficial. Quantum Mechanics, Savate, US history, etc. But that doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING about them or what they do.


You made the claim:


> _... *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*_


Now for your example about Oceanographer I myself can say what it is as well to a degree *but *my understanding would be superficial and vague I would not have the Gall to say I can tell you what it has and does not have unless I studied in depth.

I never studied Wu/Hao Taijiquan I could tell a very vague superfical presentation of it which would not be anymore than what could be found on Wikipedia or books. But to think I can present it as "What it can teach you and can not teach you." as a misrepresenting/misleading statement as that does not seem to be well taken by those who may have studied it in depth.



> I have never trained Catch as catch can. Through observations of videos, discussions with other martial artists etc. I have come to reasonable conclusions about what they do. If I was gonna have a sparring match with a catch wrestler. Let's say MMA rules, medium contact.
> I would try to use my kickboxing so I can keep him at bay. I don't wanna go to the ground (cause I know his experience in submission grappling is higher than mine, let's say).
> If we clinch I'll try to use my wrestling skill to thwart the takedown.
> If he get's the takedown, I'll do my best to use my Bjj to try to get back to my feet or sub him.


A superficial view that may be erroneous due to no hands on experience in it. I do not mean superfical is a bad thing we all have superfical views on things even I.
However I accept my view on superfical viewpoint as superfical until I have the experience on hand to make a more solid statement. 

Baguazhang looks silly. You spend most of the time walking around in a circle, you don't punch, rarely kick seems a very uneffective art. *A superficial view of the art.*

Until you actually train it see why you do much circle walking,why no punches are thrown,why kicking is rarely used it becomes clearer a *beginner view of the art.* 

 When you train in it in more depth you begin to see how it is effective. *A novice view of the art.*
When you train in it longer you then can say what it has and what it does not have. *A senior in the art.*

When you and the art have no distinction between you practicing the art and you not practicing the art.* A master view of the art.*

It is after all, just my opinion.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

oaktree said:


> You made the claim:
> 
> Now for your example about Oceanographer I myself can say what it is as well to a degree *but *my understanding would be superficial and vague I would not have the Gall to say I can tell you what it has and does not have unless I studied in depth.
> But to think I can present it as "What it can teach you and can not teach you." as a misrepresenting/misleading statement as that does not seem to be well taken by those who may have studied it in depth.


(sorry about above post. I messed something up and tried to erase but couldn't figure out how so I just put a 'dot', which makes it look like someone died or something. great   )
 If someone on here said, I know what Balintawak can teach you, and what it can not, I wouldn't get 'offended'. So I'm not understanding. If you claim that Balintawak will not teach you how to do triangle choke set ups from side control, I would likely agree with you. 

Why must I study oceanography 'in depth' to know that you will generally 'not focus' on?
I bet you will not focus on:

big bang cosmology
quantum chromodynamics
natural selection 

Just like if someone was talking about Bjj, and I say you will likely not likely learn about:
fajing
iron crotch
butterfly twists

Why is that 'offensive'?

As a side note, I always consider that I may be wrong and am not afraid to say it. If you are all looking at this post and you think I am wrong, I appreciate that you all take the time to 'chime' in anyway. It shows your sincerity.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> 1. Find something to throw or hit someone with. Something heavy enough to feel impact, but not so heavy it will cause injury. Foam swords, rubber shuriken, bean bags, something you can toss or smack someone with that will let them know they got hit if they don't move.
> 
> 2. Turn on music loud enough that a person can't hear clothes rustling or the sound of things soaring through the air.
> 
> ...



This is very fascinating. Can you provide any links ( youtube, wiki) so I may know what this method is called etc. ? or any possible ways to research on the net?


----------



## oaktree (Mar 3, 2011)

> If someone on here said, I know what Balintawak can teach you, and what it can not, I wouldn't get 'offended'. So I'm not understanding. If you claim that Balintawak will not teach you how to do triangle choke set ups from side control, I would likely agree with you.


 I know nothing of Balintawak except from Youtube and Wikipedia.
I have a superfical understanding of it yes and can make superfical comments on it for instance the art does not use katana in its training. But if I actually trained in it in more depth then my superfical comment could have more weight to support my original conclusion or totally dismiss my previous thought. 

An excellent example would be a person seeing Taijiquan and thinking it is done slow and has no martial value. A superfical understanding. When a person trains in it or learns it in more depth than the weight of the new evidence will support the superfical understanding or replace it.



> Why must I study oceanography 'in depth' to know that you will *generally* 'not focus' on?
> I bet you will not focus on:


 The key word is general. Meaning again, a superfical understanding. You can give only superfical answers concerning it which may be error based on lack of in depth understanding of it. You can say Oceanography does not study Astrophysics because of your superfical level of understanding but maybe on a deeper in depth level there may be some Astrophysics in there.



> Just like if someone was talking about Bjj, and I say you will likely not likely learn about:
> fajing
> iron crotch
> butterfly twists


Again based on a superfical understanding we arrive at this conclusion. Unless we train in depth to have weight to support this claim we can not be sure entirely. 
I don't see why what the Gracie do on their back could not be  Fajing certainly there exist chansijing to a degree. 

Iron crotch most likey they do not teach and BJJ more than likely does not have this in their sets. But I do not know I do not train it so I can not say for certain if they do or not. It would be foolish on my part to say this:


> *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*


This statement comes off as an authoritative figure. Thats the issue. If you make a statement like this then you should have the credentials to support yourself in an authoritative role on the subject.

This is why Xue Sheng asked you about Wu/Hao Taijiquan since you come off as an authoritative representive on this particular art.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I guess it depends on the claim being made. If someone tells you they were abducted by aliens would you believe them, not believe them, or just say you don't know either way?


I'd ask if they meant extraterrestrials or non-citizens.  If they say extraterrestrials, I'd be inclined to ask them for details.  If you are a US citizen and were kidnaped by East German spies during the cold war, then technically, you've been abducted by aliens. 

Very important to make sure that both parties are using the same definitions for the words that they are employing.  Unless you understand the person's definition, you could be arguing against a point that was never made.

Take ki.  If I were to say that I channel my ki into my strikes, you argue that there is no place for magic or mystical technique in martial arts, while all I'm talking about is breath control.  Additionally, a Chinese/Japanese/Korean speaker may tell us that both of our defnitions are incorrect.

Regarding the aliens, chances are that the person is talking about extraterrestrials, though I'd give them the out by asking them to clarify first.  Assuming that I am interested enough to actually dig into their statement, I would believe that they experienced _something_, and as they would likely be bringing it up ('have you been abducted by aliens?' isn't a conversation starter that I generally make use of), I would have questions to ask them to try to figure out why they believe that they were abducted by aliens and not by a human agent.  That and to see if they were just plain full of it.  

Given that I am open to the idea of extraterrestrial life, I'd at least allow them to share their story.  If nothing else, it would break up a boring day.  And who knows?  Maybe they were.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

oaktree said:


> I know nothing of Balintawak except from Youtube and Wikipedia.
> I have a superfical understanding of it yes and can make superfical comments on it for instance the art does not use katana in its training. But if I actually trained in it in more depth then my superfical comment could have more weight to support my original conclusion or totally dismiss my previous thought.


 That is a valid assumption you came to, oaktree. In Balintawak, we do not teach use of the katana. That is of course not to say that a Balintawak player is not completely defenseless with a katana in his hand. Basics will help guide his movements in combat regardless of weapon or lack there of. 


> The key word is general. Meaning again, a superfical understanding. You can give only superfical answers concerning it which may be error based on lack of in depth understanding of it.
> 
> Again based on a superfical understanding we arrive at this conclusion. Unless we train in depth to have weight to support this claim we can not be sure entirely.
> I don't see why what the Gracie do on their back could not be  Fajing certainly there exist chansijing to a degree.
> ...



All of your statements always mention 'knowing with certainty'. We know we can never 'know' ANYTHING with absolute certainty.  We CAN come up with models that are reasonable and can make predictions. This how we got to the moon. We don't 'know' with 'absolute certainty' that the moon even exists. But we can make observations predictions etc. and then make sound decisions based on those. 


> This is why Xue Sheng asked you about Wu/Hao Taijiquan since you come off as an authoritative representive on this particular art.



'come off as an authoritative representative on this art'

There's the problem right there!!!!  

I'm not seeing why me saying that, or:

"Well, I can say that if you wanna go to Berkley to study Chinese Lang. and Lit.  I am aware of what they will teach you and what they wont when *compared to the other 'majors'*   "

----makes me claim to be an authority on Chinese Lang & Lit. 


Oh and in reference to the silk reeling in Bjj, yes there are principle that can be seen in multiple martial arts because of the limited number of ways the human anatomy can move. 

I was surfin youtube and came across this video. Their sword methods look SO similar to Ilustrisimo style of FMA.    

Silat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EtJ7WDAKiU&feature=feedu

Ilustrisimo    ( Rest in peace Topher Ricketts (in the video) who passed away recently )


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I was actually about to write a long post about all 5 subjects I mentioned to answer your question. But didn't want to waste my time if I don't have to.
> 
> 1st. Do you think I am claiming to be proficient at epee and wu/hao, an alchemist, a stratigrapher and an oceanographer?!  I'm just claiming to be familiar with some of these things.
> 
> ...


 
Ahh but that is not what you said, you did not say I am familiar with them, I am familiar with Fluvial Geomorphology, Geology and Plate Tectonics but I cannot really tell you what it can and can't do for you on any level that would suggest enough knowledge to think myself any type of authority. I am also familiar with Capoeira but I would not claim that I can tell you what it teaches and what it does not

You said



> _I I've never truly studied *Wu/Hao Taijiquan*, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........ *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*_




So I asked



> Ok tell me what Wu/Hao taijiquan can and cannot teach me and while your at it tell me what it is to since you claim to be able to




Basically I interpreted your statement to mean that you never truly studied Wu/Hao style Taijiquan but based on your background and experience that you can tell me what it is and you can tell me what Wu/Hao taijiquan can teach you and what Wu/Hao taijiquan cannot teach you.

So I am asking you 

What is Wu/Hao Taijiquan?

What can Wu/Hao Taijiquan teach me?

What cant Wu/Hao Taijiquan teach me?

I dont care what _Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy are or what they can and cannot teach me since they are not martial arts and in your statement _



> _I I've never truly studied *Wu/Hao Taijiquan*, Epee, Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy........ *But I can tell you about what those things are. What they can teach you. What they can't teach you*_




To me you are comparing apples to oranges by including _Stratigraphy, Oceanography, Alchemy. Now if you want to tell me about Epee that is ok to_

Now I await your answer


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'd ask if they meant extraterrestrials or non-citizens.  If they say extraterrestrials, I'd be inclined to ask them for details.  If you are a US citizen and were kidnaped by East German spies during the cold war, then technically, you've been abducted by aliens.


 LOLZ!!!!


> Very important to make sure that both parties are using the same definitions for the words that they are employing.  Unless you understand the person's definition, you could be arguing against a point that was never made.
> 
> Take ki.  If I were to say that I channel my ki into my strikes, you argue that there is no place for magic or mystical technique in martial arts, while all I'm talking about is breath control.  Additionally, a Chinese/Japanese/Korean speaker may tell us that both of our defnitions are incorrect.
> 
> Regarding the aliens, chances are that the person is talking about extraterrestrials, though I'd give them the out by asking them to clarify first.  Assuming that I am interested enough to actually dig into their statement, I would believe that they experienced _something_, and as they would likely be bringing it up ('have you been abducted by aliens?' isn't a conversation starter that I generally make use of), I would have questions to ask them to try to figure out why they believe that they were abducted by aliens and not by a human agent.  That and to see if they were just plain full of it.


Yes. Semantics is a HUGE problem when talking with someone. Especially when contrasting ideas and it's the worst when we have only 'text' to try and communicate. Your definition of 'ki' above is ok, but I would argue that using the word 'ki' has other, I'll say, general meanings and it conveys an image of something you may not want to be conveying. i.e. Sometimes people have told me they believe in a god. But when talking about it further, they simply say "Oh well, when I say 'god' I *mean*, you know, 'the universe'. Everything that exists"   My response is normally " Why didn't you just say 'the universe' then? Using the other word is confusing people when all you had to say is you believe that the universe exists"





> Given that I am open to the idea of extraterrestrial life, I'd at least allow them to share their story.  If nothing else, it would break up a boring day.  And who knows?  Maybe they were.
> 
> Daniel



'and who knows, maybe they were'

Like I said to oaktree, above. We can't 'know' anything with this 'absolute certainty'. I am too open to the possibility of e.t. life.  Evidence continues to side with that possibility. But if someone makes that claim, there's *no* reason to simply say " Welllllll, I don't 'know for sure' soooo,  I don't know if I believe him or not"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> "Well, I can say that if you wanna go to Berkley to study Chinese Lang. and Lit. I am aware of what they will teach you and what they wont when *compared to the other 'majors'* "


 
Here is your problem; you did not originally say you were familiar ro that you were aware you said you *"Can"* tell someone what they will teach and what they will not teach

Aware - having knowledge; conscious; cognizant
Familiar - commonly or generally known or seen
Can - to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to


----------



## oaktree (Mar 3, 2011)

> All of your statements always mention 'knowing with certainty'. We know we can never 'know' ANYTHING with absolute certainty. We CAN come up with models that are reasonable and can make predictions. This how we got to the moon. We don't 'know' with 'absolute certainty' that the moon even exists. But we can make observations predictions etc. and then make sound decisions based on those.


 
Right. But if your observation and prediction is based on a superfical understanding then you need something to support it or not. In order to gain that in a martial context you need to study the art with hands on experience. The more in depth you go the more you have weight to support your statement. 



> 'come off as an authoritative representative on this art'
> 
> There's the problem right there!!!!
> 
> ...


 There was your problem you did not say compared to the other things.
You were only talking about one thing or so it comes across as. This comes off as authoritative.

Saying I know what Wu/Hao Taijiquan teaches and does not teach is very different than saying: I know what Wu/Hao Taijiquan teaches and does not teach *compared to *Aikido.



> Oh and in reference to the silk reeling in Bjj, yes there are principle that can be seen in multiple martial arts because of the limited number of ways the human anatomy can move.


Silk reeling is more of using the body as a whole unit. I see that in BJJ I also see Tuishou too but I may be reading into it much and I am Optimistic on things. You are right many arts have this. Silk reeling according to my teacher is the foundation of developing Fajin.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 3, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I just made a lengthy post about capoeira and the difference between the game and the fight, and how capoeira developed as a fighting art. Hopefully that will help clear up the misconception.


It is much appreciated!



Flying Crane said:


> I would agree, but I would not say that TKD as a whole is a sport, end-of-story. It has a sporting component to it, and that is what we see in the Olympics. But it began as a fighting art, a martial art, and for those who practice appropriately, it still is.


Thus my qualifier of 'as seen in the olympics.' By and large, I consider taekwondo to be a martial _way _rather than a martial art in the original usage of the term. The intent of taekwondo is not to create the ultimate fighter, but to create a healthy and well ballanced person, phyically, mentally, and spiritually. Yes, the 'martial portion' is effective and having mastery of the techniques will certainly enable one to defend themselves.  But the martial portion is only a portion. Same goes for kendo. Kendo shiai is two kenshi in bogu armed with shinai who fight for points. But kendo has kata that use a a bokuto and mind and spirit aspects as well. The stated purpose of kendo is thus:

*To mold the mind and body.*​*To cultivate a vigorous spirit,*​*And through correct and rigid training,*​*To strive for improvement in the art of Kendo.*​*To hold in esteem human courtesy and honor.*​*To associate with others with sincerity.*​*And to forever pursue the cultivation of oneself.*​*Thus will one be able:*​*To love one's country and society;*​*To contribute to the development of culture;*​*And to promote peace and prosperity among all peoples.*​ 
This is very different from, say, MMA or sport fencing where the goal is to win matches. As I said previously, kendo techniques can be used to beat the tar out of someone and kendo develops a strong martial spirit. But it is not comparable to sport fencing because the goals are not the same. Kendo, in this regard, is more comparable to iaido, which also has strong philosophical underpinnings and is designed to improve the practitioner as a whole person and not just as a swordsman.




Flying Crane said:


> maybe I am also misreading you and if so I apologize as well. But by calling Capoeira a folk game and negating it as a martial art, I feel you are simply uninformed on the topic. As I mentioned earlier, I have trained capoeira for a number of years and developed some reasonable skill with it. I know the art, and I know that it is a martial art. Hopefully my other post will clear this up.


Most of my info comes from reading and from conversing with a capoeria student with whom I used to work. My intent in describing it as a folk game was not to discount martial value or application, but to point out to the OP that it is not comparable to MMA in the sense that it encompasses a lot of things that are not directly combat related. 

On a technical level, I suppose that they could be compared, but for the same reason that Car and Driver doesn't run comparison tests between Bentleys and Ferraris, cultural combat oriented arts should be directly compared to a blend of arts designed to conform to western sports conventions. Sure, both have fighting and are darned impressive, but the end goals of one are much broader in scope than the end goals of the other. 

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

Not sure exactly what you're looking for or how much detail you want but:


> What is Wu/Hao Taijiquan?


Wu/Hao is a style of martial arts in the internal family of wushu formed, if my memory serves me,  a couple hundred years ago.  





> > What can Wu/Hao Taijiquan teach me?
> 
> 
> Wu/Hao teaches self defense, fighting concepts and techniques. Like the other styles of Taijiquan, Taijiquan players excel at striking, qin na, and clinch wrestling.
> ...


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

oaktree said:


> There was your problem you did not say compared to the other things.
> You were only talking about one thing or so it comes across as. This comes off as authoritative.
> 
> Saying I know what Wu/Hao Taijiquan teaches and does not teach is very different than saying: I know what Wu/Hao Taijiquan teaches and does not teach *compared to *Aikido.



Oooohhhhh. I think I get it now. Sorry, I thought it was simply *implied* that I do not know Hao style or alchemy. Yes I am not an alchemist, but I know how it differs from chemistry. I am not an authority on western boxing, but I know how it differs from savate. 
I'll have to look back at the posts. 

If anyone can rescue this thread and bring it back to topic, that would be great.  
Actually I'd be interested to know, have any of you had experience in your styles where the system seems to hold a 'belief'. 

Here's one. In Bjj, I generally hear the belief '95% of fights go to the ground'

This one has always fascinated me. This may be true if you grew up watching Rickson Gracie fight ( cause his opponents might not have had a choice   ), but it implies that it is a common occurrence. I think witnessed around 50 street fights. I'd say maybe 5% of them went 'to the ground'. 

Anyone else have any 'beliefs' like this?  Maybe things that may not agree with statistics or anything for that matter?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes. Semantics is a HUGE problem when talking with someone. Especially when contrasting ideas and it's the worst when we have only 'text' to try and communicate. Your definition of 'ki' above is ok, but I would argue that using the word 'ki' has other, I'll say, general meanings and it conveys an image of something you may not want to be conveying. i.e.


And for that very reason, I don't use the term 'ki'.  Another usage of 'ki' is energy or power.  Hap*ki*do, the way of coordinated power.  This, so far as I know after several years of hapkido, is primarilly a referrence to the blending with an attacker's 'power' rather than directly opposing it.  Kenshin mentioned this in an earlier post regarding methods of entering in aikido, who's meaning and kanji are shared by hapkido.  

I don't use the word 'ki' when describing it to English speakers because, for one, I'm speaking English, and for another, I want them to know what I am talking about.  



fangjian said:


> Sometimes people have told me they believe in a god. But when talking about it further, they simply say "Oh well, when I say 'god' I *mean*, you know, 'the universe'. Everything that exists" My response is normally " Why didn't you just say 'the universe' then? Using the other word is confusing people when all you had to say is you believe that the universe exists"


This is one of the problems that occur when Christians talk to people of cultures with different religions; the context of words like god and spirit are not the same.  Words that get translated into 'demon' don't mean demon in the western sense.  And you end up with with a person arguing against viewpoints that another person not only does not hold, but also may not even understand.



fangjian said:


> 'and who knows, maybe they were'
> 
> Like I said to oaktree, above. We can't 'know' anything with this 'absolute certainty'. I am too open to the possibility of e.t. life. Evidence continues to side with that possibility. But if someone makes that claim, there's *no* reason to simply say " Welllllll, I don't 'know for sure' soooo, I don't know if I believe him or not"


In the abducted by aliens case, I simply don't care enough to actively disbelieve.  My level of active skepticism only goes so far.

Like no touch KO's, I just don't care.  I'm not paying to learn how to knock someone out from a distance and for those who do... well, you may see it as a huge issue, but I do not.  There is a saying about a fool and his money.  There will always be fools and there will always be hucksters to bilk them.  Kind of a symbiotic relationship, as fools seem to need to have something foolish to invest in.

The only reason that I ever formed a definitive opinion on the subject was because I couldn't take it seriously after Dillman's explanation as to why it didn't work on the National Geographic reporter who volunteered to be KO'ed by one of Dillman's students.  The explanation had to do with how pinky toe movement could cause the flow of ki to be interrupted and thus render the technique useless.  At that point, I just had to dismiss it as larping.  I view all of those 'healing services' done in churches in the same light.  

I do try to keep an open mind about things.  If someone says that they encountered extraterrestrial life, big foot, the Loch Ness monster, and other creatures of cryptozoology hey, I'm open to the idea that it _could _happen.  My primary obstacle to believing in such things is that people who were open to the idea have gone to great lengths to try to verify the claims made by witnesses and have come up with either nonsense or hoaxes.  The amount of scrutiny that has been given to such phenomenon is such that after decades of 'sightings' of such creatures and subsequent investigations into said sightings, no credible evidence has been established.  The conspiracy theories that are put forth by proponents don't help either.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Here's one. In Bjj, I generally hear the belief '95% of fights go to the ground'
> 
> This one has always fascinated me. This may be true if you grew up watching Rickson Gracie fight ( cause his opponents might not have had a choice  ), but it implies that it is a common occurrence. I think witnessed around 50 street fights. I'd say maybe 5% of them went 'to the ground'.
> 
> Anyone else have any 'beliefs' like this? Maybe things that may not agree with statistics or anything for that matter?


That statistic was taken from arrest statistics compiled by (I believe) the LAPD. Within the context of aprehending suspects, 90% of the fights go to the ground. Primarilly because getting the suspect on the ground is the most efficient way to effect cuffing him. This data was used by the Gracies to market BJJ and was presented as a general axiom outside of its actual context.

Daniel


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Not sure exactly what you're looking for or how much detail you want but:
> 
> Wu/Hao is a style of martial arts in the internal family of wushu formed, if my memory serves me, a couple hundred years ago.
> Wu/Hao teaches self defense, fighting concepts and techniques. Like the other styles of Taijiquan, Taijiquan players excel at striking, qin na, and clinch wrestling.
> ...


 
The response it fine your problem was in your original statement making it sound as if you truly knew something about it beyond passing familiarity and Wiki with Taijiquan

Wu/Hao is a combination of Chen and Yang styles of Taijiquan it stance tends to be higher than Chen and similar to Yang, it tends to be loaded with Qinna and rather good at fighting. 

My flavor of Yang has a fast form that is a combination of Yang and Wu/Hao in it and just about every single posture has a Qinna application.

It has no ground fighting as you would call it and I would not call it a weakness. It does have throws and takedowns and you would be surprised at how hard it is to take a real Taiji person to the ground do to the focus on rooting and relaxation that is part of the training, not impossible, just rather difficult, I unintentionally really messed up an Akijutsu guy at a demo because I relaxed and to be honest I&#8217;m not that good. But regardless standing up or laying down the principles are the same and Qinna works fine on the ground too. You also have to realize trying to take someone to the ground may expose you to other attacks you may or may not want to deal with. There is some pretty hard striking in Wu/Hao that (like may CMA styles) is targeted at various points on the body and there is a rather nasty one on the back of the neck you don&#8217;t what hit. Also touching a skilled Taiji person is not an advantage, it is what they want they can then stick, follow and take their time. Luckily there are not that many skilled Taiji people around these days so I would say for the most part you are probably going to be ok, but I would still be careful. Also it takes a long time to get Taiji to the level of martial arts Taiji is suppose to be, and most taiji people do not go around looknig for fights either 

Also you also need to understand, historically, in China going to the ground generally meant death so they don&#8217;t like to go there, they like to deal with things standing up. Being on the ground while horses and chariots are running around with people who have clubs, spears, axes, swords and various other nasty weapons is not a real good idea in their mind.

As to Wu and subtle and small movements, be careful what Wu you are talking about but most Taiji styles have those&#8230; as well as other movements to

Explosive movements yes but there is a lot of internal training that goes along with that, basically Qigong and in Chen and I believe Wu/Hao you have Chansigong (silk reeling) 

Also in reference to another style I used in another of your threads, Sanda, there is no ground fighting as you would call it in MMA in Sanda either. First Qinna works standing up of laying down but the idea in the Sanda I was taught is the use of Shuaijiao. You are throwing someone as hard as you possibly can on the ground and the ground now becomes a weapon. Throw them hard enough they may not be able to get up. Being on the ground in a battle situation where there are tanks and other vehicles rolling by and people with knives and guns is not a good thing at all. However this does not mean you should not know how to handle it if you get there. It just is not as important as some try to make it these days.

You can say you are familiar with but I do not think I would be saying things like you &#8220;Can&#8221; tell someone what Wu/Hao can and cannot teach.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 3, 2011)

Old CMA addage... 

Hit the opponent with the biggest weapon around (the ground) and finish (with a weapon).


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 3, 2011)

Look up "sakki test" on youtube. Please keep in mind that anyone can post anything on the internet a person not familiar with this test like assumes the person dodging is either anticipating the strike and gets lucky or hears the movement. If the person dodging moves because of these reasons then they did not do the exercise correctly.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Here's one. In Bjj, I generally hear the belief '95% of fights go to the ground'
> 
> This one has always fascinated me. This may be true if you grew up watching Rickson Gracie fight ( cause his opponents might not have had a choice   ), but it implies that it is a common occurrence. I think witnessed around 50 street fights. I'd say maybe 5% of them went 'to the ground'.
> 
> Anyone else have any 'beliefs' like this?  Maybe things that may not agree with statistics or anything for that matter?



The "most fights go to the ground" line came from a study of LAPD encounters.  Police take resisting suspects to the ground for very specific, strategic & tactical reasons.  This has been covered at length several times... but the BJJ use of those numbers is a great example of the misuse of statistics. 

A lot of real fights do end up in some form of wrestling/grappling; it seems to be an instinctive response to close and grab and pummel.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Oh and in reference to the silk reeling in Bjj, yes there are principle that can be seen in multiple martial arts because of the limited number of ways the human anatomy can move.


 
I just saw this, and as oaktree said it has to do with moving the body as a unit. But it also has to do with generating power with little movement and it does that by unity of body and internal training.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 3, 2011)

By the way Fangjian, if you haven't read the thread "ki is a hoax" it might be an interesting read for you where many of us go into some pretty in depth discussion about the belief of ki/chi


----------



## fangjian (Mar 3, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> By the way Fangjian, if you haven't read the thread "ki is a hoax" it might be an interesting read for you where many of us go into some pretty in depth discussion about the belief of ki/chi



Appreciate the suggestion. I sure will. 

Regarding this sakki test:

If I was to do a study to test its validity I would assume that I ( with NO understanding of this training) would dodge the weapon let's say, oh I don't know, 5% - 25% of the time, and then say A HA!!! I have great skills!!!! Like gamblers who win but ignore all of fails. hehee
However I was surprised to see you say your teacher is successful about 100% of the time with highly controlled measures to protect the reliability of the test.  Fascinating.

Btw, XueSheng. All of this talk about Wu Taijiquan reminds me of something funny. I was in China about 10 years ago in a small village south of HangZhou. I was training with this Wu Style guy and we would always do the tuishou. While training tuishou, he would always have a cigarette in his mouth. Being tossed consistently by a dude with a cigarette in his mouth is a humbling experience I must tell you   Our audience would always get a great laugh.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 4, 2011)

My teacher passes the sakki test more like 90% of the time. Every once in a while he makes a mistake or gets caught cuz he was preoccupied. He does make mistakes but not enough for me to think he is fooling himself. It often depends on whether the sender is concentrating enough on sending him intention. The shuriken test specifically is what he has 100% in. I think theshuriken test is most effective because the person can "pull his punch" or stop a sword swing out of fear of hitting the person. The shuriken test requires you to throw a shuriken at someone and they have to move or they get hit.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

Don't know if I'm just _reaching_ to find more things to post about regarding the topic, but it is relevant in my experience with various styles. I love stories that get passed down. They obviously change with the passing of time and get embellished as the years go by. But many teachers and schools pass on myths as if they are *facts*. I have a problem with this (as you may have guessed   )

I'd love to hear some more but here's some off the top of my head:

-the existence of ZhangSanFeng and other mythical figures
-Shaolin is the birthplace of martial arts
-Eskrima is an 'ancient' art of the Filipino people


I understand why these stories are told and they *do* hold great value as part of our history. But I've experienced many people passing these historical claims off as facts. 
I'd appreciate anyone that has any other stories like this they'd like to share.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> -the existence of ZhangSanFeng


 
Zhang Sanfeng


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2011)

Sometimes it's like _Groundhog Day_, isn't it?


----------



## clfsean (Mar 4, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Sometimes it's like _Groundhog Day_, isn't it?



Really? This has *never* happened!!


----------



## oaktree (Mar 4, 2011)

> the existence of ZhangSanFeng and other mythical figures


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90646


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Sometimes it's like _Groundhog Day_, isn't it?



 If you're implying that this topic comes up over and over again, most people that are members of public forums haven't 'been there' from the very beginning. 

This thread is about 'beliefs' in martial arts wether they be supernatural or just not based on evidence. Is there anything in your style,, or any other style for that matter that you'd like to share?

Plus this is the 'general' section of MT, so everything posted here concerns martial arts in a 'general sense'. You don't have to be interested in this topic, but I am.  For example, because of my superficial understanding Greco Roman wrestling's history,  I thought there was an ancient origin ( probably because of its name). That assumption was incorrect. 
 I find it useful to have a specific thread where beliefs in martial arts in a general sense can be brought out to the open. 

However, if a 'general' thread like this already exists, can someone provide a link please?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If you're implying that this topic comes up over and over again, most people that are members of public forums haven't 'been there' from the very beginning.
> 
> This thread is about 'beliefs' in martial arts wether they be supernatural or just not based on evidence. Is there anything in your style,, or any other style for that matter that you'd like to share?
> 
> ...



I've been here for seven years, and yes, this kind of thing has come up before. I do know what section of the board we're in and I understand *perfectly* what the thread is about.

There are too many threads of its kind to link to and we "old-timers" have seen and had this kind of conversation before. Many times.

Not to worry, I think you're going about the discussion in a very respectful and polite manner - refreshing for its underlying meaning, honestly.

Thanks for the invite, but it's just not something I wish to discuss more than I already have at this point.  Enjoy!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Really? This has *never* happened!!


 
Yes, yes it did

over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...then Bill Murray gets the woman he is after and its all over


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, yes it did
> 
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...then Bill Murray gets the woman he is after and its all over



Hehehe. Love that movie. 

There's a user on youtube that posts short videos that go over basic scientific misconceptions that are popular. 
you know stuff like    -The north star is the brightest in the night sky (type stuff)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rLevesJi0Q&feature=channel_video_title

There are a lot of things that are misunderstood and I was hoping to find a specific thread that could go through tons of misconceptions without having to study something in depth. I know this information may exist in more specialized threads, but not everyone has time to go to *each one*.    Couldn't find one so I made one. I only see it as being beneficial to educate the ma community in general just to minimize the silly things that are often believed. 

Much of the martial arts community think things like
-All CMA comes from Shaolin
-Taijiquan/Capoeira/etc. are not martial arts
-99% of fights do to the ground
-MMA is *the* most accurate representation of fighting
blah blah blah


I'm surprised to hear that there's another thread that goes through a bunch of myths in this manner. If you guys can remember what the topic might have been called(so I can search for it), could u respond?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If you're implying that this topic comes up over and over again, most people that are members of public forums haven't 'been there' from the very beginning.
> 
> This thread is about 'beliefs' in martial arts wether they be supernatural or just not based on evidence. Is there anything in your style,, or any other style for that matter that you'd like to share?
> 
> ...


Not sure it it exists as a general thread, but most all, if not all of what is being discussed in this thread has been discussed in more specialized threads.  There are several, for example, about ki, the 2000 year old taekwondo (a new one popped up this week in the TKD section), no touch knock outs, and the ever popular MMA vs. TMA.

But I'm enjoying this thread, so there you are.

Daniel


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Hehehe. Love that movie.
> 
> There's a user on youtube that posts short videos that go over basic scientific misconceptions that are popular.
> you know stuff like -The north star is the brightest in the night sky (type stuff)
> ...


 
Search "Pressure Testing"

Search any of the "Martial Arts A vs Martial Arts B" threads.

Search for specifically what you are looking for.

There have been a few about All CMA coming from Shaolin AND loads of MMA rules all others drool threads.... mostly started by couch MMAists. And there has been the ocassional TMA rules MMA drools thread as well.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If you're implying that this topic comes up over and over again, most people that are members of public forums haven't 'been there' from the very beginning.
> 
> This thread is about 'beliefs' in martial arts wether they be supernatural or just not based on evidence. Is there anything in your style,, or any other style for that matter that you'd like to share?
> 
> ...


The way that I have been taught and the way that I teach have been devoid of anything 'supernataural.'  I have had a few of what I would consider urban legends/old wives' tales come up from time to time (the black belt is a white belt that was worn until it was darkened by dirt and sweat, TKD flying side kicks were made to knock guys off of horses, taekwondo is 2000 years old, etc.) and though not a part of the style of kumdo that I practice, Haidong Gumdo perpetuates the tale of the samurang, a group for which, to my knowledge, has absolutely no historical support.  

I have been fortunate in that I have been taught according to the laws of physics and not according to the laws of folklore.... or anime.

I am open to the possible veracity of things that are outside of the physical and philosophical, but tend to be suspicious of things like no touch KO's and chi balls.

Kenshin's blind fighting skills, for example, I am open to and of a neutral opinion.

In teaching, I again, stick with what I know to be functional and practical.  

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> the black belt is a white belt that was worn until it was darkened by dirt and sweat, TKD flying side kicks were made to knock guys off of horses,



Oh no. I actually believed those two. LOLZZZZZ

When I was an Aikidoka, I actually did that unwashed belt thing. My white belt was dark brown after about 6 years of training. Hahaha, gross.  I didn't know that was not true. Thnx


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Oh no. I actually believed those two. LOLZZZZZ
> 
> When I was an Aikidoka, I actually did that unwashed belt thing. My white belt was dark brown after about 6 years of training. Hahaha, gross. I didn't know that was not true. Thnx


I suspect that the belt was coming apart by that point and it probably never did get to black.  

Not sure if you are aware, but the belt system is a relatively recent invention (less than 150 years old; recent in the grand scheme of martial arts).  Jigoro Kano lifted the kyu/dan system from go and adapted it to his new art of judo.  He introduced the judogi and the thin obi, with colors for ranks.  

As for the flying side kick being developed for knocking guys off of horses, one need only think about that for a moment to see the absurdity.

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> one need only think about that for a moment to see the absurdity.
> 
> Daniel



This is always the case.


----------



## K-man (Mar 4, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have had a few of what I would consider urban legends/old wives' tales come up from time to time (the black belt is a white belt that was worn until it was darkened by dirt and sweat.


 You have just destroyed my faith!  I am sure my Aikido belt will be the colour of the darkest night given time. Not so much dirt but plenty of sweat!


----------



## K-man (Mar 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> But my first post is about *beliefs* in martial arts.





> There are a lot of things that are misunderstood and I was hoping to find a specific thread that could go through tons of *misconceptions* without having to study something in depth.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear that there's another thread that goes through a bunch of *myths* in this manner.


 
I feel you are jumping from one horse to another, then another.

There are beliefs that can be discussed, an example of which could be 'ki' or 'chi' (Was the thread, 'Ki is a Hoax', really 2 years ago?). 
There are misconceptions that can be discussed, example sport martial art is the same as traditional martial art and there are myths such as the martial application of NTKOs or the mythical application of ki in the 'Kiai Master vs MMA' vid. 

Other myths, Yamaguchi fighting a tiger, Ueshiba avoiding bullets .... all good reading but all to be found in the library under 'fiction'.

As has been already said, there are lots of threads covering all of these if you are prepared to take the time to read through them. After 10 pages and 150 posts, just what more are you looking for? A BB in MT perhaps? :asian:


----------



## fangjian (Mar 4, 2011)

K-man said:


> I feel you are jumping from one horse to another, then another.
> There are misconceptions that can be discussed, example sport martial art is the same as traditional martial art and there are myths such as the martial application of NTKOs or the mythical application of ki in the 'Kiai Master vs MMA' vid.


My original intention was about ANY belief ( either what we would call a BS techniques, or supernatural claim) in martial arts. And then a different thread leaked into this one about comparing styles. The bottom line though is that I think that 'some bodies of thought/technique/methodology' work more efficiently on average than others. And that some martial arts base a lot of their curriculum on superstition.  Everyone else either disagrees with me though OR I have not properly articulated my thoughts in interpreting them to text. Which does happen. I'm not a very good writer. Don't bother responding about this though because it'll just turn in to, "you're wrong"   "no I'm not" you're wrong" no I'm not".........
Misconceptions about capoeira got brought up in the middle of the thread and ended up getting blended in with whole thing, I think. Got kinda' interested in that, so started thinking that it would just be nice to see, like a glossary of some sort that puts it all there to see. A big nice list of myths and misconceptions for each style or something. 


> As has been already said, there are lots of threads covering all of these if you are prepared to take the time to read through them.



I think I've read almost every single post in the Balintawak sections of MT and FMATalk. So I got that one down but just that 'one subject' took forever. But there are still tons of *basic* things that I'm still not aware of, and no one's gonna' naturally gravitate toward styles' sections they are not particularly interested in. I'm certain that many still have some misconceptions regarding Ninjutsu. I'm sure this annoys Ninjutsu practitioners when uninformed people make ignorant comments about Ninjustu, so it would be nice if some of those were easily cleared up in one big glossary or something. 

Regarding superstition in martial arts, I was just interested in what else there may be as well. I think my stance on it is clear, of course. I remember watching this video of an eskrimador who believed that his amulet, anting anting, gave him 'protection'. He proved he believed it by taking out a sword and nearly cutting his arm off. It was awful what his irrational belief had done. You could tell he was so embarrassed. 


> Ueshiba avoiding bullets



Hahaha. From doing Aikido quite a bit in the 90's, I met many people that believe this is possible. 



> After 10 pages and 150 posts, just what more are you looking for? A BB in MT perhaps? :asian:


 Hehehe. 

Not looking for anything. Everybody else here has already talked about this before.


----------



## K-man (Mar 4, 2011)

I'm not sure if they were as big a hit overseas as here, but we have just had a craze with 'power bands'. These are rubber bracelets containing holograms that give you much greater energy, strength, endurance and balance. They are a snap at $65 and considering that a number of top sportsmen were either given them or paid to wear them, lots of people were sucked in.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/power-wristbands-might-be-the-biggest-scam-20100619-yo11.html

In Australia they have had to refund money for making unsubstantiated claims.

Personally, I never bothered with one. I just wear my lucky pink jocks under my undies when I need a bit of a lift. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Now that's an irrational belief, a myth, a misconception and a hoax, all rolled into one. :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 7, 2011)

fangjian said:


> My original intention was about ANY belief (either what we would call a BS techniques, or supernatural claim) in martial arts. And then a different thread leaked into this one about comparing styles. The bottom line though is that I think that 'some bodies of thought/technique/methodology' work more efficiently on average than others.


But also more efficiently on average *for* some than others.  Some people do very well with certain arts because those arts compliment their build and their characteristics, whatever they may be.  

Regarding BS techniques. we haven't really gotten into too much of that in this thread outside of supernatural techniques.

One thing that should always be qualified is the purpose of a technique.  I understand that long, deep stances are done in Shotokan and in some other karate ryu kata in order to facilitate the strengthening of the legs, not with the intention of people fighting while *staying* in that stance.  But people constantly make stupid comments, both on the web and in publications regarding the impracticality of such stances, and then go on to recommend a more mobile stance to fight in. The thing is that they are making either an uninformed or a misleading comparison.



fangjian said:


> And that some martial arts base a lot of their curriculum on superstition. Everyone else either disagrees with me though OR I have not properly articulated my thoughts in interpreting them to text. Which does happen. I'm not a very good writer. Don't bother responding about this though because it'll just turn in to, "you're wrong" "no I'm not" you're wrong" no I'm not".........
> Misconceptions about capoeira got brought up in the middle of the thread and ended up getting blended in with whole thing, I think. Got kinda' interested in that, so started thinking that it would just be nice to see, like a glossary of some sort that puts it all there to see. A big nice list of myths and misconceptions for each style or something.


I have not trained in a wide enough variety of martial arts to agree or disagree with you *and* support my opinion factually.  That is probably true of most of us here, so you will tend to get a lot of art specific responses. 



fangjian said:


> I think I've read almost every single post in the Balintawak sections of MT and FMATalk. So I got that one down but just that 'one subject' took forever. But there are still tons of *basic* things that I'm still not aware of, and no one's gonna' naturally gravitate toward styles' sections they are not particularly interested in. I'm certain that many still have some misconceptions regarding Ninjutsu. I'm sure this annoys Ninjutsu practitioners when uninformed people make ignorant comments about Ninjustu, so it would be nice if some of those were easily cleared up in one big glossary or something.


If nothing else, it would be an amusing read.



fangjian said:


> Regarding superstition in martial arts, I was just interested in what else there may be as well. I think my stance on it is clear, of course. I remember watching this video of an eskrimador who believed that his amulet, *anting anting*, gave him 'protection'. He proved he believed it by taking out a sword and nearly cutting his arm off. It was awful what his irrational belief had done. You could tell he was so embarrassed.


What is _anting anting_? 



fangjian said:


> Hahaha. From doing Aikido quite a bit in the 90's, I met many people that believe this is possible.


Of course its possible to avoid bullets.  Don't tick off people with guns or go to places that are in the news reqularly because of shootings.  Be respectful to the police and military (people who are generally either armed or armed at specific times with guns) and stay out of gun shops.  You will very effectively avoid bullets. 

Daniel


----------



## fangjian (Mar 7, 2011)

> What is anting anting?


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agimat


----------

