So much to do with pressure points (dim mak,tcm etc.)

[Former castleva]

Anybody wanna chat about them?
I came up with some questions that have been traveling trough my mind for a while.
1.How do you think was acupuncture (meridian theory) created?
How did they find out about them? (locations,use) I personally know somehow ancient chinese doctors learned how to affect certain organs etc. Idea of chi was created four thousand years agoin China and so on.
2.What do you say for those who pick on TCM theory saying those methods and ideas are not real and have been made up.
I have had such situations where I´ve tried to explain this but they just seem to feel it´s not scientificical enough and can´t be proven (This is not an issue for me,for I think that strong support for TCM methods in even WESTERN countries speaks by itself)
3.What do you think is especially good about pressure points "in combat",how about what´s bad??
Here are some "points" I have come up with.
Good:
-Few know the locations of points and therefore know how to protect them.
-Does generally take little power to affect (there are points which do have multiple different effects if struck such as "light blow-knock-out hard blow-death (in some cases)
-Do have many different influences,from taking the will to fight to taking the will to live.
-Amount (there are so many)
Bad:
-Many of the points seem to be very hard to go for.This includes:
1.heavy clothing (Just try striking that lung point trough a leather jacket (of course,this also affects vital point striking in general but is especially true about dim mak)
2.Clothing in general-Hard to seek for trough any kind of clothing,requires an impressive amount of accuracy (Seeing some kyusho-jitsu instructor taking his moving student out by striking some non-vicible point from his spinal cord,get the idea?)
-Small,small size.Because of this,I personally prefer points which can be "seen",such of the head and hands,and in this case those ones which have clear locations like between the eyebrows or right below the nose.
-Possible differences in influence between people and time cycle (they should always work in a way or another,and this is probably a minor problem,seems to share some people in two though,when it comes to opinions)
Then back to main questions:
4.pressure point,nerve or even a nerve point?
While in TCM/CMA a certain point may be called a pressure point,it is not that impossible to find out that western medicine/physiology actually "recognizes" the point but instead of calling it one notes that it is a nerve (or possibly related)
As western medicine does not still look at TCM with eyes that wide open,TCM has gained some recognition from WMS (at least that is what I´ve heard,please correct if you know else) possibly because they have to find their own way of explaining it,they can´t just dump it,don´t they?
Then about nerve points,for me these have long remained the same-pp=np np=pp see? Just slightly different spelling,but it seems that for some,these can be slightly different things (as when talking about combat application one could say "this is a pressure point it can make you die of heart failure" "Oh this is more like a nerve point it causes pain and numbness.." See?)
5.While it is generally considered that there are about over 365 points on the body (not to confuse them with other organs that much) Some seem to note different numbers,such as 700,maybe even 100 and over 200 (This may be a misunderstanding as the amount of points used in MARTIAL ARTS varies and is slightly art-based.An example:shorinji kempo-138 points etc.)
6.TCM and Japanese medicine-
I don´t know if I´m using the completely correct term here but even though it is probably not that much known,there also exists this japanese way of similar medicine.
It seems that in many cases,exactly same points are used,ying/yang theory etc. is largely supported (even though it´s "in&yo" in japanese etc.) there seem to be some differences,what do you think?
Is japanese...(way of TCM:confused: ) just a copy of tcm or does it have something else to give? Should it be studied?
(As some may know there are different pressure point sets used in chinese and japanese arts,probably same points just a different kind of collection,don´t know much about that just pointed it out that nobody mess it up with this)


That´s all for now.
Any input appreciated. :) :)

[Repulsive Monkey]

Not sure whats behind this polemic?! Conventional (Western) medicine will never totally embrace in its completness any other method of medcine for number of reasons. It is financially dangerous, it doesn't comply (and this theory is so tired and blind!) enough to western though, because western medicine is the so called pinancle of the world and everything else must measure up to comply to its theorems and models of understanding, which is the most appalling sense of egotism and imbalance one could ever care to adhere to. TCM, Roots and Branches, 5-Element and the other lesser styles of Chinese Medicine ARE completely valid and effective, FACT!!.
By discussing apescts of it, i.e. Dian Xue is in one sense merely a single area of the whole issue of TCM. If you gonna say that TCM works you've got to kind of like say Dian Xue works too. Ive seen and felt both work, so Im either another dissullusioned soul or some with outsider information.

[{i^(]

Because I need to stay within the realm of my experience and thinking on it. Maybe I 'know' more, but....

Anyhow: TCM is not 'made up'. It can be profitably compared to the 'humoral' medicines of Galen, Hippocrates, and the medieval era. Before anyone flames me: 1- I know the difference. 2- it ALSO saved lives; it worked for it's time.

This medical form for the West is best regarded as traditional for us. That we eventually rejected it wholesale means nothing: our current practices evolved from it.

So: not scientific? Depends on your POV. Perhaps more 'philosophic' (in the older sense of science) is a good description.

[Former castleva]

Thanks for the answers.
Yep,I personally believe TCM works well too.
Thanks again.
:)

[Merryprankster]

Not sure whats behind this polemic?! Conventional (Western) medicine will never totally embrace in its completness any other method of medcine for number of reasons. It is financially dangerous, it doesn't comply (and this theory is so tired and blind!) enough to western though, because western medicine is the so called pinancle of the world and everything else must measure up to comply to its theorems and models of understanding, which is the most appalling sense of egotism and imbalance one could ever care to adhere to.

Or, alternately, it might be that the appropriate studies haven't been done to demonstrate that it does what it says it does. God forbid people require real experimentation rather than anecdotal evidence passed word of mouth for years until somebody decided to write it down--nevermind that different pressure points do different things completely, depending on who you talk to.

Research, experiment, document, publish, allow the results to be examined and repeated by others. It's not too much to ask. And I'm not talking about self-serving fringe studies. I'm talking about real double-blind trials conducted under appropriate guidelines.

Gosh, what temerity to insist on real evidence instead of hundreds of years of hearsay. You do know that TCM used to call for a "longevity pill," composed primarily of cinnabar ore--which (naturally) eventually killed its victims from mercury poisoning? Or shall we discuss the use of tiger ***** to cure impotence problems?

I'm as willing to admit TCM has benefits as anyone, and if it works for you, great. But until there's some REAL research out there, don't tell me that it's universally better or that you know it works because your elbow felt better and mommy's migraines went away. All sorts of reasons for BOTH of the above other than the effects of TCM.

How about we do a little searching for what's really going on? Maybe it's the TCM methods... and maybe it's not. But it would be nice to know rather than wonder, or is that part of the draw?

[RAF]

While I agree with many of your points, the history of Western medicine is fraught with error and death even with its base in experitmentation and replication.

Run around in the Reuters Health posts and you find all kind of problems with prescription drugs that have supposedly gone through rigorous scientific examination. At the University of Pittsburgh, cancer researchers have faked their data in order to receive more funding on research grants. The grant game really limits the so-called objectivity of the scientific community. I know we like to believe that it is self-correcting but if you look over the history of Western medicine, its had major problems, too.

Doctors are not scientists and there often is a big communication gap between the researchers (Ph.D.) and MDs. Doctors often rely far too much on what the drug companies report in their experimental results. Drug companies often court MDs with travel junkets.

Although there is much to be applauded in Western medicine but it also has its limits.

[Braden]

Repulsive Monkey

You seem to have a narrow, reactionary, and largely incorrect concept of western medicine. For one thing, you are confounding 'western scientific' with 'western medicine' models of understanding. Only the former is directly concerned with things conforming to theorums, or even for their being an explanatory aspect to knowledge at all. 'Western medicine' is quite content to use things it doesn't understand. Moreover, if you examine the history of western medicine, you'll find it to be extraordinarily progressive. Psychotherapy is an ideal example of something which was an utter paradigm shift to the western mind, yet nonetheless became the pinnacle of 'medical academia' within a single generation. There are hundreds of other excellent examples as well, which aren't as well known to the layman. Your critique also doesn't seem to be based upon a reasonable grasp of the current situation, as western medicine is in fact accepting methods from traditional chinese medicine.

MerryPrankster

There's actually been quite a bit of western research on acupuncture. I'm not sure about work on other methods of TCM.

[Croaker]

There are undoubtably elements in all folk medicines that contain effective methodologies. However, current medicine is based upon scientific principles that have stood the world in good stead for hundreds of years.

What I think that would be required for any practice to be accepted would be that it is:

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.


The small amount that I have researched folk/new age hasn't borne much of this out.


On acupuncture, from a subjective standpoint I have seen results with acquaintances. What it APPEARS to do is remove discomfort (pain, feelings of pressure, etc.) for a short period of time. I have never actually seem it cure anything.

On the other hand, most modern medicine doesn't seem to cure anything either...it simply helps the body fix itself.

[Braden]

Croaker - I'm not sure where you have been doing your research on the subject, but there is an abundance of research on acupuncture showing significant results. Do a medline search, periodical search, or even a Google search will turn up days worth of reading on the topic.

[RAF]

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water regardless of whether we are washing Western medicine or TCM. I am more interested in paying attention to its limitations.

In both systems, there is a significant socio-political-business clouding which we have to sort out.

I have been lucky to have interacted with TCM Chinese practitioners that trained in both Western and Eastern medicine. They recognize the limits and pluses of both systems and use them pragmatically to solve the problem at hand.

Antibiotics are definitely one of the pluses in Western medicine which I wouldn't give up for a moment when needed.

However, I have been around too many grant writers and know how data gets fudged in order to receive a grant. There is a lot of "guan xi" in the world of grant writing and that spurs a lot of our research.

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.

I really wish it worked that well outside the lab.

I am sure TCM will soon face its own distortions and exploitation. Its one of the biggest expanding industries in China and it will be exploited for its potential cash flow. When the shi(e)t hits the fan, even the TCM industries in China respond to economic profit.

[{i^(]

I can sum up in one word WHY Western medicine is at once so far advanced AND so much more deadly and devious than TCM, etc.: DENTISTRY.

The difficulty in doing research is that, how are you going to test for chi? We can show that, for instance, the triple burner does not exist, but does that mean the concept is useless? Possibly the best area to check for result is the diagnostic regime: pulse taking, etc.

[BeiKongHui]

Much of TCM's "medicines" are environmentally destructive, even more so than western meds. Bear Gaul, Rhino Horn, Shark Fin, etc. Notice how it has to cause something a grisly death so they can be "virile"?

[{i^(]

There's a kind of movement afoot to export more viagra to asian countries, after noticing that the killings of endangered species went down after it's introduction. If I can find the verdammt link, I will send it.

Ah, yes, the irony....animal experimentation saves the endangered species.....!

[Merryprankster]

I should have been more clear--I agree that Western Medicine is rife with errors too. But it's the ongoing process, the willing to admit mistakes (sometimes forced to...thalidomide anyone?) and the continuing quest for ever better treatment and methods. Examining TCM should be part of that exploration.

[rogue]

Anybody for Snake Head fish?

[fiercest tiger]

It was made from the sun shining on the body, certain times of the day you will have a shadow appear on the muscle with trail and error.
i THINK!? LOL

FT :)

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by Former castleva

1.How do you think was acupuncture (meridian theory) created?
How did they find out about them? (locations,use)

Probably from observation of what happened in their bodies during meditation and by seeing what happened when they rubbed sore points.

2.What do you say for those who pick on TCM theory saying those methods and ideas are not real and have been made up.

TCM theories are no more or less "made up" than molecular theory. They are both models. Neither one of them is real.


A big part of the problem is that nobody knows what to measure. If there is chi flowing through meridians, we need to find a way to measure it. If it's a neurologic phenomenon, we need to find a way to measure what the nervous system is doing. I think there has been some work done with PET scans showing changes in brain activity during acupuncture.

We won't see any double-blind studies of acupuncture for the same reason that we don't see double-blind studies of surgery. The guy with the needle or knife in his hand needs to know what he's doing.

Single blind is just about impossible to do with acupuncture, too. You can't needle some people, not needle others, and expect them not to know the difference.

The easiest thing is to do outcome studies. Take a group and give them a particular treatment, and see how many of them get well compared to no treament and compared to other known treatments. As more of these get published, acupuncture will become more mainstream.

3.What do you think is especially good about pressure points "in combat",how about what´s bad??

I like the fact that there are places on the human body where I can hit someone and they'll feel it, even if they're much bigger and stronger than I am.


4.pressure point,nerve or even a nerve point?
While in TCM/CMA a certain point may be called a pressure point,it is not that impossible to find out that western medicine/physiology actually "recognizes" the point but instead of calling it one notes that it is a nerve (or possibly related)

A lot of acupuncture points correspond to common trigger points in muscles. See the book Acupucture Osteopathy by Mark Seem for a thorough explanation. Others are in places where nerves are near the surface, and some are in hollow places where a needle will fit nicely.


5.While it is generally considered that there are about over 365 points...

I think that's the number of points found on the main channels, but there are a bunch of extra points that aren't on channels. A lot of these extra points have been discovered in the last few hundred years.

Differences between ma styles regarding which points to hit could be a reflection of someone's favorite points, or the points that work with their favorite techniques.


6.TCM and Japanese medicine-

Japanese acupuncture has some different ways of approaching treatment that are worthwhile. I'm glad my acupuncturist got some extra study in Japanese needling techniques. I don't think there's much difference in the basic theory, though. Japanese tend to use 5 element theory for treatment more than the Chinese, who rely on 8 principles (yin/yang, hot/cold, interior/exterior, deficiency/excess).

[Croaker]

Hmmm, who first...


Braden:

"...Croaker - I'm not sure where you have been doing your research on the subject, but there is an abundance of research on acupuncture showing significant results. Do a medline search, periodical search, or even a Google search will turn up days worth of reading on the topic..."

Read again, please. I said subjective standpoint: i.e. what I have seem happen several times. Acupuncture was widely used in Japan (lived there for several years). I personally never saw it 'heal' anything, despite word of mouth reports. It did seem to blck discomfort/pain. However, if several well-run studies do show a curative effect then I'm open for it. Of course, I would like to also know if they can set up the same experiment for understanding the root causes, too.


RAF said...

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.

I really wish it worked that well outside the lab..."


(Hmm, I spelled reproducible wrong, first of all :mad:)

I am familiar with grant writing, and with what happens in the lab. Remember, the number one joke in the lab is knowing what data to ignore ;)

On the other hand, it is eminently logical to assume that successes using closed trials, trials where as many variables as possible are either held constant or blocked upon, are of greater use in understanding the validity of a treatment than simple word of mouth.

From some of the examples given in this thread there are elements in TCM that don't seem effective. What I would like to see is the research supplying some foundation to the simple belief that a 'thing' has a desired effect on this other 'thing'. In the last twenty or so years there has been some serious work done on various folk medicines (remember St. John's Wort). On the other hand, does anyone still use stumpwater to remove warts?

[Former castleva]

Thanks a bunch everyone!
This is growing into a great discussion.:)

[Braden]

MerryPrankster

"Examining TCM should be part of that exploration."

I'm not sure whether or not you intended this to be an implicit statement of reality. TCM is part of that exploration.

PLCrane

"TCM theories are no more or less 'made up' than molecular theory. They are both models. Neither one of them is real. A big part of the problem is that nobody knows what to measure. If there is chi flowing through meridians, we need to find a way to measure it."

You correctly identified it as a model, but failed to properly conclude from this identification. You don't measure models, you measure their effects. And you go from effect to model, not model to effect. These concepts are being confused here (not just by you). If you identify 'chi' as a model, then you don't go looking for it. You look for [whatever sorts of observations it's supposed to model] and then decide if it's a useful model thereof. The chinese tradition, both the formal written and informal by-mouth tradition, are quite adamant on this concept - one does not feel qi, but rather qigan 'qi sensations.'

"We won't see any double-blind studies of acupuncture for the same reason that we don't see double-blind studies of surgery...Single blind is just about impossible to do with acupuncture, too..."

I know of dozens of these kinds of studies of acupuncture (in legitimate north american journals) off hand. This research has become so pervasive that you can't help but stumble on some legitimate stuff with even the most cursory search. (which is why it's so confusing to me to hear so many people say it doesn't exist) As simple a method as searching on Google for acupuncture+research will turn up hundreds of these studies from the first two links.

Croaker

"Read again, please. I said subjective standpoint"

And you also said "The small amount that I have researched".

[Repulsive Monkey]

By trying to do the complete opposite of your reply to me I'll try not to use any misdirected insults, mainly because I don't you well enough based upon a single message, however you feel that that justifies your right to insult me.
I have no narrow mindedness towards conventional medicine I champion it to. It is true that they have a problem with viewing Chinese Medicine thorugh the paradigms of the Chinese Medicine mindset, and herein lies the crux of the problem. Its impossible to view another filed and topic thorugh the previous set of tinted glasses. Hence such tools as terminology and methodology and yes dare I say it even cultural differences need to be taken into account. One cannot look at Chinese Medicine through Western Medicine eyes. Or if one does then there is great potentional for mass confusion and disharmony in basic understanding.
Please don't take any of this too literally and be dogmatic about my stance here. And please can you be less insulting because it doesn't make for credible and intelligent conversation.

[Braden]

Repulsive Monkey

"By trying to do the complete opposite of your reply to me I'll try not to use any misdirected insults, mainly because I don't you well enough based upon a single message, however you feel that that justifies your right to insult me...And please can you be less insulting because it doesn't make for credible and intelligent conversation."

I'm truly sorry you got the impression I was trying to insult you. This simply was never the case.

"It is true that they have a problem with viewing Chinese Medicine thorugh the paradigms of the Chinese Medicine mindset, and herein lies the crux of the problem."

And herein lies your confusion, which is exactly what I pointed out in my first post; though for some reason you chose to ignore it. I will repeat it with an example, in hopes you will consider it this time.

You are confounding 'western science' with 'western medicine.' The former is concerned with modelling paradigms, the later is not. For example, the 'western medicine' mindset is quite happy to 'accept' lithium into it's body of 'facts', despite utter ignorance as to what lithium is doing. 'Western science' has quite different requirements for accepting something into it's body of 'facts', and thus lithium, in this sense, is not among them.

[{i^(]

For the viagra/tiger connection:
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/viagra.htm

Possible evidence of chi:
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/readers_articles/the%20theraputic%20effect%20of%20tai%20chi.htm

A general discussion of "energy medicine" by a western doctor:http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Medicine/EnergyMed.html

The American Society of Medical Acupuncture:
http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/marf.html

[Repulsive Monkey]

I was hoping you could of not been too literal just because I used words like paradigms etc, but maybe the fault is mine, I am trying to refer more towards the understanding of processes and the views held within conventional medicine compared to the processes understood via Chinese Medicine. This is the picture I was trying to elucidate on. The physiological processes of the body and organ functions differ between the two disciplines, even though there is a lot of common ground too.
Think processes not paradigms. My fault. In this repsect conventional medicine has in their midset clear ideas of function and process, however in Chinese medicine the function of an organ can vary greatly

[Braden]

I understand. You are, of course, quite correct in identifying people's disease with culture's other than their own; however, this is not a case special to the topic at hand, which is something you tried to illustrate in your original post. You also continue to confound western science and western medicine. With respect to the science, your points are reasonably accurate. And certainly, western science and medicine overlap in a myriad ways; constructive and otherwise. However, my point is that western medicine is more than happy to embrace things which fall beyond, or even conflict with the science, so long as those things corrospond to western medicine's notion of what it takes for something to be factual. The example I offered up is lithium. There are countless others. Psychoanalysis comes to mind. To elaborate more on this point, what western medicine (contra western science) requires for something to be factual is for it to have demonstrated and consistent effects. Certainly, you don't mean to imply that, due to cultural constraints, chinese medicine falls beyond these parameters?

[{i^(]

Braden makes excellent points re: western science vs. medicine. Lithium is not understood, nor electroconvulsive therapy, psychoanalysis, most psychiatric medications, et al. And also: he is right when stating there are many studies re: acupuncture. As for the 'active ingredient' of psychotherapy, though? I'm a former counselor, so I've thought alot about it. Probably just the (re) structuring capacity of language.

I believe the criteria of examining TCM from it's standpoint is too limiting and 'anthropological' in result. Yes, it is good to respect and understand, but in no way does that increase the body of knowledge for a given field. To me, it is a complement when western science or medicine examines a premise rigorously: it was held to be an interesting notion, and worthy of testing.

And saying that it falls short of the laws of physics, yet has value, is not to say a thing is worthless. The well-known placebo effect is often trucked out as a possible reason for much of the results of TCM- and that may be its worth, maybe not.

But I feel we are splitting hairs (needed hairs, but anyhow...). Why on earth would Mr. castleva wish to explore so-called "poison fingers"? Wouldn't just a pop in the snotbox do the job? Isn't this kind of 'reverse-engineering' sort of looked down on? I know that for psychology it is.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--to be more specific, I meant that I think Western Medical researchers should devote more time to examining TCM as rigorously as they have examined the methods contained within what is typically considered "western," medicine. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that sometimes something works and we don't know why. We should look into the utility of TCM--and by 'we' I mean the western medical establishment, in a more serious, less dismissive way.

I personally don't think that TCM HAS been that well researched. I don't consider information passed down from thousands of years ago to be correct until researched and analyzed for both its truthfulness and utility. I really don't care what either the Chinese or those who believe in it think. There is not a large body of GOOD research to support TCM yet--but the fact that it has survived this long, and that it has helped many people, anecdotally, means it is well worth investigating.

[Former castleva]

Thanks once again.
Dear... {i^(
About poison fingers,
I have no idea what you mean by snotbox (nose?
:o ) but I feel this is one important area that one should learn at least to a point (opinions vary,but it´s rather large area by itself and offers many choises,including healing) of course,it is only one,as you pointed out.
Thanks for the suggestion/idea.

:)

[northstar]

As Braden points out, there is quite a lot of ongoing research on the effects of acupuncture, and acupuncture is already in use as a compliment to pharmacological anaesthesia in many respectable hospitals. There have in fact been developed a "placebo needle" for acupuncture research, but I don't think it has been used yet.
Another huge and important area of Chinese medicine is of course its enormous heral pharmacopeia. Of course, research here is severely limited by the difficulty of securing patents...

[{i^(]

Mr. castleva:
Yes, that's from western critical 'point' terminology:
snotbox= nose
bread basket= gut
'fambly joo-els'= well, you know...

Here's an idea, though: why not go to an antique store and look for a hatpin? You could use that legal & innocent-looking thing to get to your tiny targets, even through clothing...

I accept your reasoning that you want to learn more. That's a valid thing. I studied brainwashing methods for the same reason. Its just that motives for things like that can be suspect, which is kind of why I ask.

[Braden]

MerryPrankster - I understand. I was not referring to the idea of a traditional, or folk, basis of 'fact' or 'research' in the sense that it's been passed down for many generations in the chinese culture. Rather, I did mean specifically 'rigorous' 'western' medical research on the topic. Of which, there really is quite a bit, considering how new a topic it is for that community. And, of course, it's a body of work which continues to grow and assess itself.

[Former castleva]

Thank you all.
{i^(
Thanks for the non-hesitating reply.
And terminology,that´s part familiar to me already,bread basket is solar plexus,right? :cool:

"Here's an idea, though: why not go to an antique store and look for a hatpin? You could use that legal & innocent-looking thing to get to your tiny targets, even through clothing... "

I´m fairly familiar with that too,I have not heard about hatpins that much but keys an example seem to be appreciated,not to say it would not be good.Those are good add-on´s if you are interested,easy to use etc. But just like other such weapons they do have a limited range of use/motion and one should not count on them (one´s natural tools are always available,that´s what most MA methods are about)


"I accept your reasoning that you want to learn more. That's a valid thing. I studied brainwashing methods for the same reason. Its just that motives for things like that can be suspect, which is kind of why I ask."

Brainwashing? Huh,you mind telling me more? Or am I already trapped?;)
I understand your point very well as you do mine.
It is hard to find people sincerely interested in such in modern world (with firearms floating round the streets etc. etc.)
Suspect then,
you mean like own purposes? (know what I mean...)
We walk trough the dark side at times,there comes the sensitivity and resbonsibility.
:cool:

[PLCrane]

Braden,

You're right, we don't need to measure chi to test the model. I wasn't thinking of chi as the model, but of TCM as a model that posits the existence of a substance or energy called chi. I want to know the mechanism of action, but I'm perfectly happy to see evidence that TCM works without knowing that mech.

I took a look at pubmed for acupuncture studies, and I realize now that I have a narrow view of what a double-blind study is. To me, it implies some inert control or placebo treatment. What I found were studies in which the control group got some kind of sham acupunture, such as having the wrong point needled, having a non-point needled, and having the right point needled superficially. I don't feel comfortable calling these treatments inert. This is not to say that there isn't good science there, just that I might not agree with their terminology.

PLC

[Braden]

I don't think I understand your criticism of pseudo-acupuncture as an experimental control.

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by Braden
I don't think I understand your criticism of pseudo-acupuncture as an experimental control.

In medical studies, the subjects are generally split into a group that gets the drug being tested and a group that gets a sugar pill. Neither the subject nor the experimenter knows who's getting the real treatment or not, hence it's a double-blind experiment. If only the patient doesn't know, then it's single blind.

With acupuncture, it's not so clear. Using the examples I mentioned, if you do shallow vs. deep insertions, there's no guarantee that the shallow insertions aren't therapeutic. I noticed one recent study that did find a difference between the two, but I heard from an acupunturist several years ago that a similar study showed that shallow insertion works as well as deep insertion.

Besides that, the person doing the needling knows whether they're doing the shallow or deep insertions. That negates any blindness on the part of the therapist. Come to think of it, the person being needled might be able to tell if it's shallow or deep, too.

If you use non-points for the control, again, the therapist knows it's not a real point, and again, the blindness is gone. I suppose an exception would be if you had someone untrained in acupunture theory to insert the needles where they're told to put them. Then you have the problem of an unskilled person doing the treatment, and something in the treatment might be lost with that.

If you use the wrong point for the control, then you're actually doing a therapy for which there are no indications. That's generally considered unethical. It would be equivalent (in theory, anyway) to doing a study on one drug, and giving another drug as the control. The control has a physiological effect, and that could possibly interfere with the results. It would be more accurate to say that you're comparing two treatments in this case.

Again, none of this is meant to suggest that studies like this shouldn't be done or that they don't give us useful information. I probably should read some of these studies to see how they handle these issues.

[Braden]

"there's no guarantee that the shallow insertions aren't therapeutic."

And this would come out in the results. This is why people are critical of a small-number of studies, or studies that all take the same approach to controlling. Which isn't the case here.

"That negates any blindness on the part of the therapist."

This is a 'problem' for any treatment requiring special training or knowledge - in other words, is something which is true of a wide variety of topics in traditional western medicine; so should not be taken as critique of western approaches to understanding acupuncture or TCM. In other words, single-blind is often considered adequate control.

"It would be equivalent (in theory, anyway) to doing a study on one drug, and giving another drug as the control."

Which, of course, is sometimes done. It depends on the specifics. I wonder if they consider the specifics of the control acupuncture treatment. I would think, and certainly hope, they do!

"Again, none of this is meant to suggest that studies like this shouldn't be done or that they don't give us useful information."

Certainly not. They're valid criticisms. I just don't see how they're a special case for acupuncture/TCM, as opposed to problems general to medical research.

[MA fanatic]

I work in a hospital and have many friends who are doctors from various disciplines. Most respect western medecine. Most have even received treatment from credible accupuncturists. I was even refered by my western doctor to get accupuncture for a pinched nerve I sustained during training. All that aside, most western doctors will agree that there is not enough research done into TCM. As for herbs and ancient remedies being helpful, rather than harmfull, that is also up for debate. Anyone who has worked with patients could tell you as many night mare stories associated with TCM as you may hear success stories. No method is perfect, but I'd go with calling 911 should there be a medical emergency with a family member, and not drive him/her or myself to a skilled eastern medical doctor. And, if Western medecine was so terrible, how come they practice it widely in the East?

As for pressure points being used in combat, there is a great little article about that on www.mixedmartialarts.com. The writer states that "it's hard enough to find someone's face with a knee in the heat of battle" how does one expect to set up and trigger a dime sized pressure point which is enecdotally supposed to work. In most situations they simply don't.
MA fanatic

[mantiskilla]

"The writer states that "it's hard enough to find someone's face with a knee in the heat of battle" how does one expect to set up and trigger a dime sized pressure point which is enecdotally supposed to work. In most situations they simply don't. "

agree. but ithink that it also goes to show the high-level of training that one could acheive...maybe not in the modern world, but in the past.from what little i know from reading, there is one major spot for every six inches on the body, and one minor every .5 inches. lmost all spots are governed by time except two major ones: jen, tu, and these could be attacked any time. if enough spots are attacked, maybe one could be hit. of course this is just talk, and i have no hands on knowledge, and i have trouble enough just keeping someones hands and feet out o my face.:D
________
Toyota Hilux Platform (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Hilux_platform)

[Merryprankster]

but ithink that it also goes to show the high-level of training that one could acheive...maybe not in the modern world, but in the past

People need to get out of the habit of regarding the past as a time in which people were somehow more capable.

[mantiskilla]

well, iknow that i dont have that much time to practice. i also know that i've never used my kung fu in a real life or death situation. i think that if both of those situations were reversed i would be better. also i believe that some things are either lost or are just not being taught much anymore. like dim mak.:)
________
LusieR (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/LusieR/)

[{i^(]

MA fanatic brought up a fairly interesting point/question: are there situations where you would regard TCM as CONTRAindicated? I can think of one: I would never teach meditation to a schizophrenic. Thats like letting go of a kite-string.

Re: finding tiny spots: very true. And I wonder if all the hoopla regarding times of day, etc. are not just wive's tales and inaccuracies that crept in over time. For skill, sure, it takes a lot, and that's cool. For info, ehhhh, maybe. You have to know a lot of the medical theory/action to understand it well, so there is that. But having this, why use it to kill? Maybe it was originally a torture thing?

The question: is it lost or little taught? is a good one. They used to teach some kind of amazing light-body leaping skill in pa kua, apparently, but that isn't addressed anymore. One wonders whether it ever really existed (I mean, stories about jumping across rivers and whatnot). Same, in some ways, with dim mak.

[Buby]

"also i believe that some things are either lost or are just not being taught much anymore. like
dim mak."

It's still being taught, as a matter of fact I'm sure that you have learned a couple of set ups for DM. Most TCMAs practice them daily and don't even know it (hint).


buby

[Former castleva]

Probably both TCM and WMS have their qualities,I reasonably believe.I will add couple of examples of CMA "celebrities" saying this.
1 is Jet Li (could be a freaky example but many believe he is good kung-fu stylist) In his site he says as an answer to a question that there are situations where he would rather use TCM for healing and times where he´d pick WMS (I think it was because of it´s high technology)
Second is dr.Yang Jwing Ming who notes in one his books that best results can be had by studying both of the arts.

And when it comes to dim mak,I think it has been said that western medicine confesses those theories to be effective and real (sure they don´t say a thing about chi etc.)
It is not that mystical,in it´s own way it is even scientifical,pure correct knowledge and application.
This does not mean,however,that it should be revealed for people of unproven character.

[NorthernMantis]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


People need to get out of the habit of regarding the past as a time in which people were somehow more capable.

True but you need to know why they would think that in the past they were better fighters and how they came up with it.

I belong as part of that group somehwat, however I acknowledge that just because it was in the past it doesn't naturaly make certain things better.

To some degree it makes sense since in the past there were no guns. What else did they have to defend themselves other than their fists or their swords? This allowed more room for trial and error because that was that they had. Ok granted that we are far more knowledgable than in the past and our military strategy is light years ahead of theirs but the past does have it's merits.

Would you train under some innovator who "tested" his techniques in some gym with a couple of weekend warriors or would you train with someone who has the knowledge of a proven Roman Praetorian guard or a common soldier who had experience in the battle field regardless of how old it is.

Well I guess our excuse is that back in the day they had to fight for their lives,maybe not daily but they did. They didn't go having point fighting contests that's for sure.

Remember for us it's the past but for them it was the present and it was a very real thing with all the raping and looting going on. Many times I hear many modern ma state in disbilief that people in the past didn't have it harder than us. Can you not deny the fact that ancient China has had a turbulent past? Look at it's history with all the civil wars, foreign invasions, and different dynasties. Of course don't you think over time methods of fighting would have been forced to improve in order to get the upper hand?

Not only that but you also need to acknowldge that just because it is the present for us it doesn't make us more capable. Maybe 100 years into the future someone is going to say that bjj is outdated and doesn't work.

Even though I can't prove wether it is true or not but I heard from a friend of mine's that our US generals are required to read the art of war, which was written by a general thousands of years back mind you.

[{i^(]

how you could test your dim mak in sparring: put olives on your fingers! nyah nyah!

Castleva: they use 'bread basket' where you're at? small world!

[Nexus]

The main difference in the Chinese TCM approach to the Western Approach is how it views illness as a whole. TCM would say that the heart of illness lies at the ego, which is the cause of blockages in the mind-body. Western approach would view the illness more acutely, dealing with the effects and not the cause. Because TCM views things in cause and effect, it is looking towards alleviating the cause and in doing so the effects dissapear.

However, if one were choosing to take on such a practice such as TCM, there is nothing to say that they would be any less delluded (ego) than a person studying western medicine. If such is the case, then how can one expect them to be able to sniff out what is actually true in their studies, and what must be taken upon faith because it cannot be tested. TCM deals with many things that must be understood conceptually in order to treat a patient, however it also deals with many things that must be taken as faith or beliefs and may not actually be true.

Because of the TCM approach however, the better a practitioner is at understanding themself, the better they will be able to faciliate their patients needs. Although many of the concepts and theories are only relative, they can use their relative nature to be of an aid to a patient by giving a patient concepts to work with. In an absolute sense, the healing that occurs for a patient in a TCM setting is actually done by the patient, because as I stated above, the ego is the cause of suffering (four noble truths) and is considered the cause of blockages and illness. If the patient can use concepts presented to them to alleviate these blockages, whether emotional, spiritual, psychological, energetic then the patient will be on their way to improved health. The doctor of tcm faciliates the tools and concepts in a means of helping the patient better understand themself and find tools in which they can understand the cause of their illness or problem (the self) and improve upon their own wellbeing.

[Merryprankster]

The main difference in the Chinese TCM approach to the Western Approach is how it views illness as a whole. TCM would say that the heart of illness lies at the ego, which is the cause of blockages in the mind-body. Western approach would view the illness more acutely, dealing with the effects and not the cause. Because TCM views things in cause and effect, it is looking towards alleviating the cause and in doing so the effects dissapear.

Look. Ignorant arrogance in the form of a post.

[Merryprankster]

NorthernMantis--I'm not saying that ancient things don't have value. The Art of War is a bit blase, but it's a good example...and I can verify they are required to read it. Aristotle and Plato are others. Good is good, regardless of WHEN, and the principles involved will have a tendency to survive.

What I am saying is that people need to remove this idea that the human animal is fundamentally different than it is today. People try to ascribe better morals, greater toughness, purity of heart, mind and soul to people in the past (or present, depending on your viewpoint). It's bunk.

People have been people since they were people, and have been driven, more or less, by the same sets of motivators. Politics started in the first family group, only the mechanism of implementation, and scope has changed. But the underlying motives remain. The dedicated would have been dedicated, regardless of era--the liars liars, and the great men great (history might not have remembered them as great, but they would have possessed the same qualities).

In essence, I am saying the idea that the QUALITY of individual present in the world is not significantly any different than it ever was, and people need to stop pretending like it was (or is).

[Braden]

Thoughts...

NorthernMantis

"Would you train under some innovator who 'tested' his techniques in some gym with a couple of weekend warriors or would you train with someone who has the knowledge of a proven Roman Praetorian guard or a common soldier who had experience in the battle field regardless of how old it is."

That depends on how I figured my desired application of the training would be. Frankly, provided the person doing it in the gym on the weekend is doing a good job of it, I'd rather learn from them. Why? Because my needs, even speaking strictly from a martial perspective, are alot different from those of a career soldier.

Nexus

"Western approach would view the illness more acutely, dealing with the effects and not the cause."

I wouldn't agree this is necessarily true. Certainly, treatments such as pain-killers, antipyretics, sometimes anti-inflammatories, things like bismal, etc overtly treat the symptom. On the other hand, anti-biotics seem to overtly treat the cause. The majority of surgical interventions seem to overtly treat the cause. You could argue that there are deeper causes than what these treatments are calling causes; but this becomes a slippery game. Some philosophers make a real mouthfull about 'types' of causes; the point being that one can ultimately construe nearly anything to be a cause. I think, for most practical and theoretical concerns, the type of cause addressed by the treatments above is sufficient. So, by principle, does western medicine treat the symptom? It doesn't seem so; and most certainly not in void of a persuasive argument, which hasn't been provided.

As a general thought which I think relates to many people's comments:

We have to distinguish on one hand, adoption and research upon a practice, and on the other hand, adoption and research upon a theory. When you ask about western medicine considering traditional chinese medicine, which of these do you mean?

[Nexus]

Merryprankster: Are you projecting arrogant ignorance yourself in your labeling of views different from your own?

Braden:

This is true, what I said is not absolutely true, and is a generalization much like all words. A person must come to understand things for themselves. Although my post may have been appearing to advocate TCM, I am neither for nor against Western or TCM approaches. Both have their merits and success stories as well as flaws and failures. I do what works for me and provide the tools and assistance for those whom I work with and spend time with. Information is valuable but only if it is readily understood by those whom are viewing it.

[Former castleva]

{i^(

Hi again,thanks to you and other civilians.

{i^(
Oh sure we use bread baskets in here,useful things they are...you mean plexus,eh?:D It´s a nice common sense word you are referring to,but I still prefer the "network of nerves"...big word!:D
"how you could test your dim mak in sparring: put olives on your fingers! nyah nyah!"
Don´t,harder to look for meridians of fingertips and nails when your tools are messed up,messy fingernail is disgusting to press for a knock-out..;) Oh well...

[NorthernMantis]

Very good points Braden and MP.

[Merryprankster]

No nexus, I'm suggesting that western medicine doesn't always "treat the symptom rather than the problem." To categorically state otherwise is a mistake, much as it would be a mistake to dismiss Traditional Medicine of any sort as utter bunk.

[Nexus]

Thank you for clarifying and we are in agreement.

[MA fanatic]

I have attended a few Kyoshu jitsu and Ryuku-kempo seminars. I also had a private teacher (though I was training in Muay Thai and grappling at the time)...actually I was teaching kids at his school while he gave me lessons in ryuku kempo and pressure point interpretations of Okinawan Kata. Anyway, I went to seminars conducted by credible pressure point masters (names withheld...but you may know who I am talking about). What I saw at those seminars baffled me. I saw individuals, grosely out of shape, with high ranking black belts (I'm talking 5th dans, 7th dans). I heard these same individuals discuss various methods of setting up and applying pressure point strikes agaist NHB fighters. Some actually implied that NHB fighters "don't understand combat." I was sitting there shocked that people whos entire knowledge of combat was based not through experience but through reading books on meridians, screet moves hidden in kata, and secret societies, were actually judging individuals who actually fight. I have seen some top pressure point experts demonstrate pressure point KOs on compliant apponents who basically stood in the middle of the room and waited to be KOed. I have yet to see (actually see not just hear about ancient legends) any of these techniques be applied successfully against trained, conditioned, adrenaline pumped, none compliant individuals. I remember one fighter in UFC7 from Okinawan karate school stating that he will use some secret strikes. Guess what, he fought Remko Pardoe (a judo guy from Holland) and was choked out in a few minutes. He made attempts to set up pressure points, but they simply didn't work.
MA fanatic

[{i^(]

That just because he choked him at the right time of day, the stars were in alignment with his opponents birthchart, and his chi was increased by the heat of conflict. That's no test at all!!!

[Merryprankster]

Nexus,

In return, I offer my apologies for having a smart mouth and jumping the gun.

[{i^(]

"We have to distinguish on one hand, adoption and research upon a practice, and on the other hand, adoption and research upon a theory. "

Agreed here. We also have not distinguished what we mean, in general. To distinguish between 'vital points' (eg., solar plexus or temple) typically used as targets, 'pressure points' (eg., nerve pinches, possibly joint twists) and 'dim mak' (eg., WTF?) may serve to clarify matters, or divvy them up to more manageable entities.

FWIW: for the first 2, I agree that they have a high degree of relevance, both in Eastern and Western approaches. The last is the bone of contention that we seem to be falling out over. Also: this last I consider fairly useless, at least as far as combat applications go. It is, however, a grand entry point for TCM, if that is what the person is after. This, in turn, is the 'adoption and research upon a theory', mentioned earlier.

I would not trust my life to a theory, at least not one of this nature. It just seems too similar to astrology, etc. That's the bottom line.

[Former castleva]

Thanks all.
MA fanatic,
I thought pressure points were not allowed in UFC,could this be the reason?;)
To the actual topic then,as far as my limited knowledge goes,pressure points have been used in it.
There have been some fights were exponent(s) have unintentionally knocked another one out (this is how I have read,from quite believable sources)
And as previously said,it probably is not any saviour perfect for all situations,takes much skill/knowledge etc.
But as it is practiced in nearly any martial art to some point (with some exceptions,including sport arts) and basic self-protection,they all can´t be wrong/useles,don´t they?

{i^(
"That just because he choked him at the right time of day, the stars were in alignment with his opponents birthchart, and his chi was increased by the heat of conflict. That's no test at all!!!"

Wow,you mind teaching some of that stuff to me?

;)

[Merryprankster]

Castlevania, you are welcome to try any pressure point attacks you like, in both UFC and Pride. In fact, All tha amatuer events I've seen don't even address them in the rules--if it isn't prohibited, it's legal.

[Former castleva]

Merryprankster,
Thanks for the reply.
Is this a challenge/offer?;) :)
Maybe in the future,I´m currently flushing away my falsehood pride,if I go further with training I might have the skill someday,but I almost forgot...then I would be done with my pride-no need for ultimate fighting then.
I´ve been taught to avoid competitive mindset.
What I least would like to do,is cause unnecessary harm,that just does not support my ideas,not to mention being harmed.
I Hope I did not offend you,or anyone else.

[Merryprankster]

No, no... I think you're a bit confused. It's a quirk of the english language. The you I used is the universal you, and not YOU. Just, in general, anybody who enters either UFC or Pride, is, I believe, welcome to try "pressure points" attacks. Sorry to have confused!!!

[Braden]

Bouncing off something {i^( said...

What do you mean when you say pressure points, dim mak, vital points, etc?

This is directed at anyone who has made a statement about them.

I tend to think of this knowledge/practice generally as the knowledge/practice of selecting locations on the body to attack, and possibly, ways to strike certain locations. A constraint being that the consideration of location is involved with maximizing martial efficiency (ie. a consideration based upon allowable points in a sportive setting, or not striking a location for reasons of percieved honor or cultural reasons, wouldn't count)

In this sense, the question begins as - does your practice take this into account at all? And, if it does, the imporant question becomes - will any given knowledge/practice, in particular, relating to this topic, be helpfull to me?

I think that considering it this way divorces us from confusion resulting solely from nomenclature, cultural influences, and purely theoretical accounts, and also generally allows a more fruitfull discussion.

What do you think?

[MA fanatic]

I think somewhere down the line, some masters wanted to brainwash their students further by stating that pressure points were not allowed in NO RULES compeitions. In fact, they are. Actually, they are used by grapplers and strikers all the time. I'm sure if anyone claiming to have mastered the Dim Mak (striking pressure points located on accupuncture meridians according to what is called 'the circle of destruction.') would apply to compete, he would be welcomed to step in the ring. He would also be KOed in less than a few minutes. NHB has rules against biting, eye gouging and fishhooking. This "no pressure point" rule is an urban legend. Some NHB competitions also prohibit small digit manipulations. Why? Because they wont make a determined apponent tap (another myth spread by some MA masters is that manipulating fingers would break any conditioned fighter), but will needlessly break a finger.
MA fanatic

[Former castleva]

MerryP,
Oh,now I see.I got it wrong.

Braden (and others on PP)
My understanding is that when talking about dim mak,you´re talking about pressure points/meridians,mostly (rubbing,striking,pressing-as in cavity press etc. can also be used in connection with chin-na grabbing/joint-locking and "blood press") They can be called vital points in my opinion,but separating "vital points" (general vulnerable targets) from "pressure points" can be beneficial for clearing worthless conflicts.Pressure points are also vital points and sometimes they refer to them as vital points.
But the point goes:vulnerable´s (knee) ----pressure´s. (point on knee)

[Crimson Phoenix]

In a REAL fight, a broken finger is NEVER needlessly broken...every action hindering your opponent's fighting ability is a victory.
They won't tap out with a broken finger? Indeed, when they're determined they will endure...however, they might not punch or grasp you that hard after...is it needlessly broken then?

[PLCrane]

Now I'm really confused. You guys sound like you're saying that it's ok to strike pressure points and manipulate small joints (e.g. broken finger) in UFC, yet the rules I can find online prohibit those moves.

What's up? Are these the rules, or what?

http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/14160/rules.html


B. Fouls

In MMAC sanctioned events, the use of any of the following techniques shall result in a foul:

-biting

-eye gouging of any kind (includes chin)

-throat strikes of any kind

-no fingers in opponent’s mouth or nose (fishhooking)

-hair pulling

-headbutting

-elbow strikes to back of head or neck

-pressure point strikes of any kind

-groin attacks of any kind

-small joint manipulation

-kicking a downed opponent (three support points kneeling, sitting or prone)

-spitting at opponent

-holding onto fence to stall action

-faking an injury

-unwillingness to fight, timidity (includes dropping to backside)

-lifting or throwing opponent out of enclosed fighting area

-corner interference

[Merryprankster]

Well, then I was wrong about the UFC. That was pretty simple :)

As far as Pride, just reviewed their list of illegal techs, and pressure points aint on it.

So, to sum up, if you want to do pressure points, try to find an event with rules more like Pride. :)

[{i^(]

There's no rules about bringing in feathers to tickle your opponent to death with, either.

You know why? Too ridiculous to even consider bringing the subject up. Hmmm.....

Maybe we should leave the competitions out of it...they are obviously 'too narrow minded', hmmm?

Jeeziz, I'm getting scarcastic, here. OK, OK, I'll cut it out....

[old jong]

"Some NHB competitions also prohibit small digit manipulations. Why? Because they wont make a determined apponent tap (another myth spread by some MA masters is that manipulating fingers would break any conditioned fighter), but will needlessly break a finger.".....:rolleyes:

I know ,I know!....(MMA's guys are sooooo tough!);)

[Former castleva]

Thanks.
Some stuff about finger manipulation,it does:
-cause significant pain.
-requires little strength.
-more pain if you twist and bend the finger around after breaking it.
-finger chin-na (small circle chin-na) can be used to control the opponent completely,even trough one finger (of course,requires lots of skill)

[fiercest tiger]

Are you aloud to hold down an opponent in pride and phoenix eye them in the temple like 10 times? thats cool!:)

FT

[MA fanatic]

The rules for various mma events are different. UFC rules are diffrent from Pride. Gladiator challenge rules differ from Cage Combat. Hook and Shoot rules are different from Rings. And International Vale Tudo competitions (which don't even require grappling gloves) have less rules than Internation Fighting Championship. The rules someone just listed did prohibit pressure point manipulations. I believe those were rules utilized in some of the Cage Combat events. The pressure points they're referring to have nothing to do with meridians or Dim Mak. Most of those guys wont even know what Dim Mak is. They're referring to putting pressure on the throat with elbows and sticking elbows into eye suckets and shoulders while grappling. Keep in mind, grapplers have numerous ways of manipulating pressure points aimed to force an apponent to give an opening for submission or give up advantageous position. Those techniques have nothing to do with Dim Mak. Actually MMA has more rules than NHB (No Holds Barred events) or Vale Tudo events. As for small joint manipulations: I'm not saying it's not effective. I'm saying that they wont cause a submission, and most likely cause needless injury (I have seen guys continue to fight with busted ankles, broken shin bones, hyper extended elbows, cracked ribs and broken noses). Rinky dink finger locks wont stop NHB fighters.
MA fanatic

[Serpent]

Yeah, right. I'd like to see any NHB fighter continue a bout with all his fingers broken.

It's all about degrees, ain't it. Those UFC rules listed above are a joke. I can't believe that's still considered a "real" fighting tournament!

[Former castleva]

FiercestTiger,
you just stole my words out of my mouth...that´s illegal,kind of fishhooking.
But there has to be a rule for that.

[MA fanatic]

Serpent: Don't fool yourself into believing that you can easily break fingers and stop attackers. That is simply not true. Some masters would have you believe that manipulating small joints will win the fight. It wont. As a matter of fact, many fighters in NHB as well as other full contact events fought with broken wrists, fingers, arms and even shin bones. I'm not even talking about those guys who continue with fractured ribs (which are more painfull and dangerous than a broken finger) and broken noses.

As for the UFC rules, yes there are too many rules for the event to be called "No Rules" fighting. But, that is what UFC had to do in order to be sanctioned as a sport and finally allow fighters to get the purses and recognition they need. There are many competitions much more difficult than the UFC. Vale Tudo tournaments in Brazil (where many Americans compete) dont even require fighters to wear gloves. As for UFC in particular, it still has less rules than any 'full contact' event and certain less rules than any Kung Fu tournament. If you know some meridian pressure point set ups, go ahead and try them in the UFC. So far name me another martial arts competition which allows punches, kicks, elbows, knees, thows/takedowns, ground grappling, joint manipulation and strangulation and choking. It is true, when UFC first began it had fewer rules, but it was also on the brink of becoming extinct. But, let me assure you, pressure points (I'm talking about meridian strikes and set ups as taught in Dim Mak...Kyoshu Jitsu...Ryuku kempo...etc.etc.) didn't work than, and they wont work now against those guys.
MA fanatic

[Merryprankster]

Those UFC rules listed above are a joke. I can't believe that's still considered a "real" fighting tournament!

As compared to a barfight? Nah. I agree that it's not "real."

But since it's all a matter of degrees, as you posted, one might conceivably argue that UFC style events are more "real," than most other tournaments let you be.

Still, for my money, PRIDE! If you don't like the rules for UFC read the Pride Rules at www.pridefc.com. (unless you're just elbow happy.) :)

[Le nOObi]

I feel the styles that are most disadvantaged in a NHB ring are not predominately striking styles but really styles that concentrate on throws such and cheng bagua, Shoy chiao, or even greco/roman wrestling. If NHB competitions were on concrete instead of a ring these styles really would be too deadly!

[omegapoint]

Originally posted by MA fanatic
Serpent: Don't fool yourself into believing that you can easily break fingers and stop attackers. That is simply not true. Some masters would have you believe that manipulating small joints will win the fight. It wont. As a matter of fact, many fighters in NHB as well as other full contact events fought with broken wrists, fingers, arms and even shin bones. I'm not even talking about those guys who continue with fractured ribs (which are more painfull and dangerous than a broken finger) and broken noses.

As for the UFC rules, yes there are too many rules for the event to be called "No Rules" fighting. But, that is what UFC had to do in order to be sanctioned as a sport and finally allow fighters to get the purses and recognition they need. There are many competitions much more difficult than the UFC. Vale Tudo tournaments in Brazil (where many Americans compete) dont even require fighters to wear gloves. As for UFC in particular, it still has less rules than any 'full contact' event and certain less rules than any Kung Fu tournament. If you know some meridian pressure point set ups, go ahead and try them in the UFC. So far name me another martial arts competition which allows punches, kicks, elbows, knees, thows/takedowns, ground grappling, joint manipulation and strangulation and choking. It is true, when UFC first began it had fewer rules, but it was also on the brink of becoming extinct. But, let me assure you, pressure points (I'm talking about meridian strikes and set ups as taught in Dim Mak...Kyoshu Jitsu...Ryuku kempo...etc.etc.) didn't work than, and they wont work now against those guys.
MA fanatic

I doubt anyone in the first UFCs knew any real pressure point or vital point techs except Royce! Don't get it twisted vital point techs include chokes and such. As for people getting punched in the neck or other vital/pressure points, I don't recall anyone trying anything like that. I didn't even see that many kicks to joints, or pin-point punching to vital areas with bare knuckles. With the exception of Royce and Ken Shamrock, a lot of those guys were unrefined fighter-brawlers and sport oriented types.

Even the few karate and chuan fa "experts" that entered resorted to panic and haymakers. These cats ain't never fought anyone for the reals, as was painfully obvious from the clusterf u c k that ensued when a true master of his style, Royce, entered the fray.

So what is the evidence that pressure point or vital point tactics were ever used in UFC? There was one dude, a "stout" African-American guy, I think he was Bujinkan, who choked out some fool with an "eagle claw" carotid pressure point tech. So, other than Royce people relied on kickboxing (basic punches and kicks) and sport grappling ("ground-n-pound") for the most part.

The proper mind-set is essential to executing, dian xue. You gotta believe and act like it's life or death. There is no halfway, like sinking in a choke or cranking an armbar. None of those guys who fought in the first few UFCs, or those in it now for that matter, had the knowledge or the training required to do pressure point stuff. That's why BJJ was so effective. It wasn't some superficial hope fighting like kickboxing or wrestling, it was a deadly and specific art (still is) used to dispatch of opponents using effective "pressure-point" techs. It takes dedication and time to master (most BB are achieved in 10+ years). You can't learn some intermediate fighting skills, like vale tudo or shootfighting, and expect to beat a proven, scientific method of submission like GJJ. It may be different now but that's the prob with divulging "secrets" of your system to the average sucker. Yes, that is the reason that you'll never see someone with real or advanced karate or chuan fa fighting skill join a NHB comp. Think about it...

[{i^(]

omegapoint: "The proper mind-set is essential to executing, dian xue. You gotta believe and act like it's life or death. There is no halfway..."

-----------------------------------------
"Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness. " --Gurdjieff

This is true of everything in the MAs, just maybe more so in dim mak/ dian xue. Thing is, I don't buy hope with my life, or the lives of others. I really do want to know that this stuff works if someone is teaching me it.

I completely agree that it takes many years to learn this, and if you did, you wouldn't be in the ring. Can we all agree that this is so? "death touch", if it exists, wouldn't be there simply because no one enters a game with the idea that they will die.

Not since Rome, anyhow.

[Former castleva]

ThanksForTheReplies.

[MA fanatic]

Omega: You make good points. Actually, the man who choked out a tkd fighter named Joe Son was himself named Keith Hakney. Hakney had a background in boxing and held a 2nd degree black belt in kenpo karate. It is important to note that prior to choking out his Korean foe, Hakney TKOed a 6'8 618lb
sumo champion with a pressure point strike above the eye brow (I forgot the points he used, but Earl Montaigue covers that strike in depth on his Dim Mak tapes). It is important to also keep in mind that Emanuelle Yarboro (the sumo guy) had never been struck in the face. Joe Son was never choked and sustained 4 clean shots in the groin prior to submitting to an eagle choke. Hakney was one tough guy (ex marine) who was eventually defeated by Royce Gracie via arm bar submission. From what I hear, Hackney had since combined kenpo with pankration grappling.

You're right, initially UFC had very few world reknown fighters. The ones who were masters (actually most grapplers were of masters level in their art) were the ones who became victorious. I think strikers made a mistake of thinking that "master" only refers to stand up martial artists. Most never expected the same quality of fighting from bjj, sambo, judo, pankration, and even Greco Roman wrestlers. I know there are many UFC critics, but to me, UFC was an eye opener.
MA fanatic

[omegapoint]

Thank you, sir. You made many valid points as well. The thing is that I have quite a few friends who are MMA stylists or NHB competitors. They are all very good people. They are non-violent unless pushed, in real life, but in the ring it's on!!! I myself have been a consumate cross-trainer since gaining a strong foothold in one style. It hasn't hampered my knowledge and ability one bit. If anything, I know more about fighting now than I ever have, for sure. As much as I respect eminent master of so-called NHB disciplines like the Gracies, Mario Sperry and Professor Caique, I have just as much reverence and respect for my traditional (whatever that means) sensei. My current sensei, who is 50+ years old, is one of the most knowledgable and deadly cats I've ever had the pleasure of training with. Understand that he is the exception when it comes to karateka and not the rule.



Originally posted by MA fanatic
Omega: Actually, the man who choked out a tkd fighter named Joe Son was himself named Keith Hakney. Hakney had a background in boxing and held a 2nd degree black belt in kenpo karate. It is important to note that prior to choking out his Korean foe, Hakney TKOed a 6'8 618lb
sumo champion with a pressure point strike above the eye brow (I forgot the points he used, but Earl Montaigue covers that strike in depth on his Dim Mak tapes). It is important to also keep in mind that Emanuelle Yarboro (the sumo guy) had never been struck in the face. Joe Son was never choked and sustained 4 clean shots in the groin prior to submitting to an eagle choke. Hakney was one tough guy (ex marine) who was eventually defeated by Royce Gracie via arm bar submission. From what I hear, Hackney had since combined kenpo with pankration grappling. MA fanatic


As for Hackney.. I wasn't talking about him but he is another one of the early UFC participants who showed some knowledge of real fighting. I'm just not that impressed with American Kempo and its use of open hand techs to hard targets, like big-ole' sumo guys heads. Still, he had some decent showings in the Octagon, but what good is a style that is willing to damage it's primary weapons? The cat I'm talking about was a black dude, who was a replacement, who came in and handled his opponent very efficiently and intelligently. I forget his name, but he showed some real fighting knowledge. Anyway, have a great week all...

[Former castleva]

Thanks again.
It seems we are getting some great support for dim mak,however.
I think I know that point,but I´ve forgot it´s use (could go further to similar points near it etc. etc. but that may not be wise trough my status)

[Former castleva]

Thanks again.
It seems we are getting some great support for dim mak,however.
I think I know that point,but I´ve forgot it´s use (could go further to similar points near it etc. etc. but that may not be wise trough my status)
omegapoint,
what do you mean by damaging one´s primary weapons?