Is older really better

[Vajramusti]

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

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

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

 

[Vajramusti]

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

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

 

[Orange Lightning]

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

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

 

[zuti car]

My ques

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

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

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

 

[mograph]

Older?

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

Newer?

• good: contains more recent refinements
• bad: contains shortcuts for $, short attention span
• bad: refinements based on atomistic, not holistic, component-based focus

To make a vast generalization, changing something can make it better or worse, right? In the former case, newer is better. In the latter, older is better. So what to do? IMO, learn as much as we can, but combine a critical eye with humility and respect for our elders. (shrug)

 

[zuti car]

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

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

My ques

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

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

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


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

 

[mograph]

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

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

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

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

 

[tshadowchaser]

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

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

 

[zuti car]

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

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

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

 

[zuti car]

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

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

 

[tshadowchaser]

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

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

 

[zuti car]

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

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

 

[Orange Lightning]

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

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

 

[elder999]

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

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

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

 

[Orange Lightning]

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

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

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

 

[Vajramusti]

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

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


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

 

[Orange Lightning]

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

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

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