'Beliefs' in martial arts.

[Xue Sheng]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 '

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

 

[fangjian]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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 '

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]

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]

"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]

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!!!!

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

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.

What can’t Wu/Hao Taijiquan teach me?

Wu/Hao doesn't teach ground fighting (that I am aware )


Never training 'ground fighting' would be that style's weakness. However Taijiquan is known for its explosiveness in strikes and when employing qin na. So a ground fighter that tries to use his submission grappling expertise should be aware that while being on the ground with a taijiquan fighter, he should keep in mind the explosive attacks that will occur from the taijiquan fighter. Also the wu style is known for its very subtle and small movements. Different flavor of taijiquan. It makes me think of 'southeast asian kickboxing'. All different flavors with the same core concepts, principles etc.


What I want to know is:

Was this FALSE?
or just not detailed enough?