Combat between Kiai master and MMA fighter

[Xue Sheng]

I don't much care about qi balls but Beijing University of Traditional Chinese medicine did study Qi and from that they feel external qi (the stuff you see with you hit a Shaolin Monk with a club and the club breaks is easy to prove. The other stuff, qi projection, "Qi balls", no touch knockouts...since they can find no scientific way to measure it...they call it fake.

 

[Xue Sheng]

View attachment 19226

Either that is me or I have paid a homeless guy to hold a sign

So...who is the homeless guy

 

[drop bear]

I don't much care about qi balls but Beijing University of Traditional Chinese medicine did study Qi and from that they feel external qi (the stuff you see with you hit a Shaolin Monk with a club and the club breaks is easy to prove. The other stuff, qi projection, "Qi balls", no touch knockouts...since they can find no scientific way to measure it...they call it fake.

That is also my physics argument. The may take the stance that there is no evidence to support. But not that there is no such Thing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well they did say "Fake" so interpret it any way you like

 

[Steve]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. Evidence isn't the same thing as proof. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete.

There is nothing at all wrong with accepting that the opinions of some are given more weight because they have established that they are credible. For example, there is not a doubt in my mind that K-man is a credible source for Aikido, Krav Maga and Okinawan Karate.

So, if K-man says, "we do this," or, "i've seen this and it is true," that's enough for me. Is it "proof?" No. But it's reliable evidence.

The hazard here is just to remember that expertise in one area should not necessarily imply expertise in other superficially related areas.

As for chi balls and such, it's like the problem of sunrise. You can't deduce that the Sun will rise tomorrow, because it has always done so. Without using inductive reasoning, we would be stuck. End of conversation... but we can be pretty darned sure that the Sun will rise.

Point is, we aren't in Logic class, and we aren't (or shouldn't) be holding each other to strict logical standards. Inductive reasoning is how we know a lot of things, and even Spock would was guilty of it. We can have a conversation with each other only if we presume we're speaking to people who know what they're talking about, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, absent evidence to the contrary. And evidence is not the same thing as proof.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Evidence, proof, point and match

 

[drop bear]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. Evidence isn't the same thing as proof. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete.

There is nothing at all wrong with accepting that the opinions of some are given more weight because they have established that they are credible. For example, there is not a doubt in my mind that K-man is a credible source for Aikido, Krav Maga and Okinawan Karate.

So, if K-man says, "we do this," or, "i've seen this and it is true," that's enough for me. Is it "proof?" No. But it's reliable evidence.

The hazard here is just to remember that expertise in one area should not necessarily imply expertise in other superficially related areas.

As for chi balls and such, it's like the problem of sunrise. You can't deduce that the Sun will rise tomorrow, because it has always done so. Without using inductive reasoning, we would be stuck. End of conversation... but we can be pretty darned sure that the Sun will rise.

Point is, we aren't in Logic class, and we aren't (or shouldn't) be holding each other to strict logical standards. Inductive reasoning is how we know a lot of things, and even Spock would was guilty of it. We can have a conversation with each other only if we presume we're speaking to people who know what they're talking about, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, absent evidence to the contrary. And evidence is not the same thing as proof.

Does this force us to accept chi balls work though?

I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.

So that even as an informal conversation you can notice these similarities and red flag them when they appear.

It strikes me every time the dogma comes out when we have these discussions.

"you cant go to the ground in the street because someone will jump in and kick you in the head"

"you cant punch in the street because your hands will shatter like glass"

"you will be so stressed that you will be unable to function rationally and will become enslaved to your training"

It creates an unreal set of training circumstances. Which can be used but also needs to be suspect. And for me the proof was in the pudding here, because I have trained under those conditions and I found it became easier to be submitted and harder to submit someone who had not received the training.

I was actually becoming one of those guys in that chi balls video.

 

[K-man]

Does this force us to accept chi balls work though?

I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.

So that even as an informal conversation you can notice these similarities and red flag them when they appear.

It strikes me every time the dogma comes out when we have these discussions.

"you cant go to the ground in the street because someone will jump in and kick you in the head"

"you cant punch in the street because your hands will shatter like glass"

"you will be so stressed that you will be unable to function rationally and will become enslaved to your training"

It creates an unreal set of training circumstances. Which can be used but also needs to be suspect. And for me the proof was in the pudding here, because I have trained under those conditions and I found it became easier to be submitted and harder to submit someone who had not received the training.

Chi Balls are as much BS as the Kiai Master. Let's accept that there are practitioners who are not typical of the rest of us, who can bring anything into disrepute, and move on. Kyusho, Dim Mak, Kiko etc are all legitimate areas of practice. If they have no part of your training, fine, just spare us the constant barrage of poor videos that prove your point.

I was actually becoming one of those guys in that chi balls video.

And as a result you have now become worse that them. You are now a zealot, determined to prove to everyone that anything within a bulls roar of chi is nonsense. That is totally disrespectful of all who practise internal arts.

 

[drop bear]

"And as a result you have now become worse that them. You are now a zealot, determined to prove to everyone that anything within a bulls roar of chi is nonsense. That is totally disrespectful of all who practise internal arts."

Well I was talking about krav. But anyway.

If an internal art has an effect. I assume it would be measurable. You don't need to see it on a machine you could just use cause and effect.

 

[drop bear]

" Chi Balls are as much BS as the Kiai Master. Let's accept that there are practitioners who are not typical of the rest of us, who can bring anything into disrepute, and move on. Kyusho, Dim Mak, Kiko etc are all legitimate areas of practice. If they have no part of your training, fine, just spare us the constant barrage of poor videos that prove your point"

You seem to have a very them and us mentality towards martial arts. I am suggesting common elements some good some bad. It is not necessarily styles bringing other styles into disrepute.

 

[K-man]

Well I was talking about krav. But anyway.

If an internal art has an effect. I assume it would be measurable. You don't need to see it on a machine you could just use cause and effect.

I've yet to see anyone try to throw a chi ball in my Krav class. Anyway it would have to be a 'ruach' ball to fit in with Krav.

The measure of Chi or Ki is in the effectiveness of the technique.

 

[K-man]

You seem to have a very them and us mentality towards martial arts. I am suggesting common elements some good some bad. It is not necessarily styles bringing other styles into disrepute.

Not at all. In another thread I was backing your position by saying that if people promote BS as being typical it is no wonder guys like you jump on it and call it for what it is. Unfortunately it normally isn't representative of the style and it is generally people from competition based training that are pushing the barrow. So it's not really them and us. You are 100% right in talking of some of the common elements that are bad. Even then I would suggest that a lot of the common elements that are bad are bad because of poor teaching. Most of us would decry crap training and crap training methodology, but we don't go out of our way to put down the entire style.

 

[drop bear]

Not at all. In another thread I was backing your position by saying that if people promote BS as being typical it is no wonder guys like you jump on it and call it for what it is. Unfortunately it normally isn't representative of the style and it is generally people from competition based training that are pushing the barrow. So it's not really them and us. You are 100% right in talking of some of the common elements that are bad. Even then I would suggest that a lot of the common elements that are bad are bad because of poor teaching. Most of us would decry crap training and crap training methodology, but we don't go out of our way to put down the entire style.

Are you confusing what I am saying with what others are saying though?

I feel sparring is necessary. And can go into that with the chi balls idea.

But TMA,s spar. So I don't hate them as a concept.

I point out krav as these glaring faults in MA. But it was originated by a quality sports fighting and strength training guy.

It is not the art but these common methodologies I don't like.

Bjj shares some of them. I had to go to a fight gym that produces champions to realise I had them. Because a lot of the concepts are not intuitive in a martial arts sense.

Now a fight gym has conformation bias in its own right as well. That is also pretty common.

Good concepts bad concepts and commonalities.

And all of this has to be filter through a sea of mis information and conformation bias.

 

[drop bear]

I've yet to see anyone try to throw a chi ball in my Krav class. Anyway it would have to be a 'ruach' ball to fit in with Krav.

The measure of Chi or Ki is in the effectiveness of the technique.

Flinch training. At its extreme is collapsing when the instructor cries hardoken. But its elements start when you let go because someone cries out eyegouge.

 

[drop bear]

At a level of demonstration this is about as realistic as chi balls. The guy on top has to comply for it to work.

Now lets support this with the celestial teacup. And say in the street his eyes will pop out of his head and his face will explode from the kicks.

And we have a self defence method we can never test.

But also we are training to let go if we have top control and get eyegouges.

So at some stage you have to break that cycle. Or chi balls will start working.

 

[Steve]

Does this force us to accept chi balls work though?

I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.

So that even as an informal conversation you can notice these similarities and red flag them when they appear.

It strikes me every time the dogma comes out when we have these discussions.

"you cant go to the ground in the street because someone will jump in and kick you in the head"

"you cant punch in the street because your hands will shatter like glass"

"you will be so stressed that you will be unable to function rationally and will become enslaved to your training"

It creates an unreal set of training circumstances. Which can be used but also needs to be suspect. And for me the proof was in the pudding here, because I have trained under those conditions and I found it became easier to be submitted and harder to submit someone who had not received the training.

I was actually becoming one of those guys in that chi balls video.

The difference between the chi ball and other positions isn't the logic. It's credibility. I don't dosagree with a lot of your positions. But to suggest that everything be purely logical is its own kind of faulty reasoning. It ignores the value of inductive reasoning, where we know some things are either true or false even though they cannot be proven so. The sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that true. But I can't logically prove it.

A lot of people are tossing around fallacies at any post they disagree with. Whole logic can help craft an argument, there's a place for respecting experience.

I dint think you're wrong, but you're not all right, either.

 

[drop bear]

The difference between the chi ball and other positions isn't the logic. It's credibility. I don't dosagree with a lot of your positions. But to suggest that everything be purely logical is its own kind of faulty reasoning. It ignores the value of inductive reasoning, where we know some things are either true or false even though they cannot be proven so. The sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that true. But I can't logically prove it.

A lot of people are tossing around fallacies at any post they disagree with. Whole logic can help craft an argument, there's a place for respecting experience.

I dint think you're wrong, but you're not all right, either.

And I am trying to put a cap on it. But "the street" and even "because physics" starts to blow a little over the top.

The chi balls is a good thread though because it is a very real demonstration of what we can be led to believe. Over what can be proven.

 

[K-man]

Are you confusing what I am saying with what others are saying though?

I hope not.

I feel sparring is necessary. And can go into that with the chi balls idea.

Sparring has nothing to do with chi balls. I feel testing is necessary but I disagree that what most people look at as sparring is necessary.

But TMA,s spar. So I don't hate them as a concept.

TMAs don't spar. Modern styles of MAs spar.

I point out krav as these glaring faults in MA. But it was originated by a quality sports fighting and strength training guy.

Not sure what you mean by this.

It is not the art but these common methodologies I don't like.

You mean there are poor methodologies across the board that you dislike.

Bjj shares some of them. I had to go to a fight gym that produces champions to realise I had them. Because a lot of the concepts are not intuitive in a martial arts sense.

And that I would assume, is in the context of sport.

At a level of demonstration this is about as realistic as chi balls. The guy on top has to comply for it to work.

Now lets support this with the celestial teacup. And say in the street his eyes will pop out of his head and his face will explode from the kicks.

And we have a self defence method we can never test.

But also we are training to let go if we have top control and get eyegouges.

So at some stage you have to break that cycle. Or chi balls will start working.

I have no idea how you link this video to a thread on the Kiai Master BS video. However, I am a simple man. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with the technique as shown. In turn I will take it to my guys tonight and try it first hand.

 

[drop bear]

" I have no idea how you link this video to a thread on the Kiai Master BS video. However, I am a simple man. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with the technique as shown. In turn I will take it to my guys tonight and try it first hand."

Ok. Instead of relying on eyegouges and kicks that have to rely on the attacker compliantly letting go. You could use one of a thousand different side control escapes the work regardless of how much that guy on top is trying to hold you down.

From those thousand escapes pick one that is high percentage but still allows you the opportunity to eye gouge and kick if you really want to.

From the top don't let go and then flop on your back and get kicked to death do something about the eye gouge and then take advantage of that straight arm that the guy on the bottom is giving you.
(personally I would like to wrap the Thing and elbow the guys face off)

Then you will find the guy on the bottom. May have to keep his arm bent with the eyegouge and at the same time go for a side control escape.

Basically changing the whole dynamics of that thread.

When you try that out tonight have the guy on top knee on belly. Then when you eyegouge him he can just pop straight up and punch you in the face untill you let him choke you again.

 

[drop bear]

And that I would assume, is in the context of sport.

No in the context of competitive strong aggressive guys who go hard contact.

There is a level you can reach by being a technician and a level you can reach by being a fighter.