OP
OP
rox
Guest
Hmmm, thanks. I'll see what I can find on WIKIPEDIA
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thats a generalization and not neccessarily true. You are comparing different skill sets. The military will use MA or "kung fu" for different purposes, or in different ways then "other centres outside the military". That doesn't prove greater need or greater skill.Fumanchu said:Bottom line is the military needs to excel at all aspects of combat and the need is greater than other centres outside the military.
Ummmm.... what???Fumanchu said:Stories aside, Hsing I is by far a more recent system than eagle claw. Tai Chi is derived from tam tui and is developed in the same province as Hsing I. The developers of them wrere from the military and were credited as experienced fighters.
You're right, Wing Chun's background was not from the military.
Well I'm afraid you've been a little mis-informed. Tan Tui isn't a form. It's a stand alone long fist system. It gained notarity with the Hui Chinese minorities & their use of it. Most people only see the Road Routines (10,12,14) as exercises & that one aspect of Tan Tui was absored into other systems to teach basic long fist ideas & techniques.Fumanchu said:dmax999,
Tam Tui from what I understand is one of the beginner forms of long fist. Tai Chi is more advanced but is built on that foundation.
I'll agree with that one mostly. They start with Zhuang Zhan & build from there with other exercises like Chan Si Gong & lots of repetative form practice to build the internal strength needed to properly perform taiji & apply it's principles.Fumanchu said:The power behind martial arts was already there. Chi was their way of explaning how it worked. No, they didn't learn about chi and made martial arts more powerful.
I dont know that I agree with this statement. Kung Fu is very aggressive once your committed to fighting. What makes it seem non agressive is the amount of time or issue to get to the point of fighting, but once attacked, at least my training is very, very agressive. There is actually heavy emphasis on killing the opponent, but I dont think this shows all kung fu was made for war. War is most assuredly not the only time it may be neccessary to kill, especially hundreds of years ago. Killing and serious injury are heavy points in most kung fu, thats simply the basis of self defense in my opinion. If I'm attacked with a knife or even stabbed, my self defense is to do as much damage as possible to the opponent in as little time as I can in order to secure my chances of survival.brothershaw said:kungfu if made for war you would think it would very aggressive in nature ( strike first once its decided or necessary to strike). Not to mention the emphasis on killing the enemy.
self-defense is almost the opposite.
I dont think I understood your point. ??brothershaw said:7star - maybe maybe not-
Armies dont have time for the enlightenment, and all the other aspects that add to and also increase your training time to proficiency
NOt to mention usually saving the weapons stuff for close to the end of your training while in a war situation hand to hand tends to be your last not first option.
Unless like jujitsu after the modern era things were drastically changed.