Why aren't there more good MA out there?

[Laughing Cow]

Hi.

This is the continuation of a previous rant that went south.

Today we have better access to MA literature, Teachers, better training conditions, better gear, better nutrition, moe knowledge about the body and literally millions of people training in MA worldwide.

So why don't we produce more capable MA or more Masters??

Theoretically we should have more and better MA than lets say a 100yrs ago.

So what does it take to create a good MA and/or future master?

Good lineage
Good Teacher
traditional training
modern training
8hrs a day at the kwoon.
sparring
Life-in training
cross-training
etc.

I don't know, but I got a few hunches as to why?

What do you guys think?

[Former castleva]

This may be a difficult question but could you define a "good MA" in as much length as possible? May it be universal or your terms.

[Laughing Cow]

For me a good MA is as follows:

1.) Good at doing forms.
2.) Knows how to use his style in combat.
3.) Has good understanding of the style and principles.
4.) His styles principles and basics should be seen in anything he does, may it be MA or not.

Just for starters, those I think of as the main points, not neccesarily in that order though. ;)

I see many people that are good at one or two aspects of an art only.

[Starchaser107]

Because people are Lazy, and don't want to train, too many "hobbyists" for want of a better word.

[Former castleva]

OK.I see.

But I might pick on starchaser´s term "hobbyist".
One may not be good in doing forms (if this can be tested empirically) or may be not be a great "fighter" but is it bad?
The person could be doing it for fun,regardless of whether he/she has a high status or kick,not everyone is necessarily an enthusiast who wants to live on the mountains and eat rocks for breakfast ;) (a bit of an exaggeration of course) or whether their technique is smooth enough or...

[yenhoi]

1) Some "styles" and "systems" do not have "forms." Can we take this to just mean drills? Or is there some inner tendon chi element here?

2) You cant 'use' a "style."

3) What does "good understanding" mean? Application?

4) Whats your definition of "art?"


Again, even though you wont or cant or dont think Im enlightened enough to participate in your cosmic abstract randomness - what measures are you using to measure 'modern' "Martial Artists" vs those "Martial Artists" of the past? How do you know the current state of the MA union is poor compared to the state of the MA union in the past?

How does someone 'master' a 'art?'

Throwing the term Martial Artist around like it has some actual meaning. Throwing the term art and style around like they are physical touchable things, they arent. Random, random, random, silly-talk.

:eek:

P.S. School should be done in May. BS in Political Science, International terrorism. Currently I work fulltime running retail and outside sales for a turf company (thats right, grass) and regardless of a degree, its probably what Ill be doing for awhile.

:eek: :eek:

[SevenStar]

1. We don't know exactly how many "good" MA actually are out there


2. We don't know how "good" these masters were.

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

1.) Define "form".

Did you read all the 4 points I mentioned?

Point 1 and 4 are kinda the same.

As for understanding, no I don't mean "application", but the deepr understanding into what makes the techs work and how to apply the underlying principles and techs to other stuff as well, how to adapt and so on.

You can "use" a style the way I see it, but this would go into another discussion.

Sevenstar.

I kinda agree with you, but still there are many that considers todays MA as inferior to the masters of old.

How many still see the Master of old as some form of super-human beings.

[CaptinPickAxe]

In America, our main problem is most MA have been "Americanized," meaning incorporating other MA. Therefore making it a mixed-martial art. either that or its been dumbed down to the point of American Karate. The only good MA in my hometown is Shuai Chiao and I'm still thankin' god he blessed us with that so I don't have to go to Hapkido or TKD.

[Merryprankster]

I dunno. We have a lot of great martial artists:

Boxers, Wrestlers, Kickboxers, BJJ, Judo, Sambo, San Shou, Shuai Chiao, Catch Wrestlers, etc.

Don't know why you can't find 'em.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

Sevenstar.

I kinda agree with you, but still there are many that considers todays MA as inferior to the masters of old.

How many still see the Master of old as some form of super-human beings.

As compared to whom? The masters of old may have outshone the hobbyists of old. But what about the masters of today? what about the top competitors of today? I wonder how some of the masters of old would fare against Tyson, Noguiera, Le, etc.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
In America, our main problem is most MA have been "Americanized," meaning incorporating other MA. Therefore making it a mixed-martial art.

"Americanization" is hardly the problem, IMO. BJJ, Judo, kickboxing, muay thai, etc. have all been "Americanized" and are still used with awesome effectiveness. I've always wondered why so many people make such a big fuss about whether an art is "pure"


either that or its been dumbed down to the point of American Karate. The only good MA in my hometown is Shuai Chiao and I'm still thankin' god he blessed us with that so I don't have to go to Hapkido or TKD.

Thank your fellow countrymen for that one. people dumbed it down so they could make a quick buck. people made training less strenuous so that people wouldn't drop out because classes were too hard. Fortunately, not every school has done that.

[Starchaser107]

FC
It's ok if you disect my word "Hobbyist"
like I said in another thread , everybody's reasons for doing CMA , JMA, MMA, or MTV2 are not going to be the same, in todays world, there are folks that just wanna do this for fun, theyre not too serious about it, they just want a relief from an otherwise stressfull world. Ok , thats fine, these people are not evil.
I am not afraid to say I have a negative opinion for the most part about the "hobbyist", I believe if a person wants spiritual balance in thier life they should do yoga , and if they want to fight they should do martial arts.
Maybe this is pig headed, and therefore I'm trying not to condemn these people to hell, just because they doin't share my beliefs.
It was just a plain answer to a direct question
"why are there so few masters, or skilled practicioners?"

* well , because kung fu , means to have skill, means to be skilled through time and dedication and effort. I think that there are alot of "hobbyists" that refuse to challenge themselves inside and outside the kwoon.

A person could buy a Boing Jet plane if they had enough money..does this mean that they would know how to fly it?
When a person joins a kung fu school, they dont automatically get kung fu. They have to work for it, and push themselves.:D

[Former castleva]

"FC
It's ok if you disect my word "Hobbyist"
like I said in another thread , everybody's reasons for doing CMA , JMA, MMA, or MTV2 are not going to be the same, in todays world, there are folks that just wanna do this for fun, theyre not too serious about it, they just want a relief from an otherwise stressfull world. Ok , thats fine, these people are not evil. "

Thanks.
It may appear as if I´m just being difficult around here but I do not think that to do it for fun must necessarily mean that one is not serious about it (quick I am to point out that you did not say this directly).


"I am not afraid to say I have a negative opinion for the most part about the "hobbyist", I believe if a person wants spiritual balance in thier life they should do yoga , and if they want to fight they should do martial arts."

Again,I´m not sure if you have a strict definition for a "hobbyist" but the hobbyist ain´t necessarily there for "spiritual balance" (and many do yoga for exercise,right?) I agree that "if they want to fight they should do martial arts" but I do not think,as I have expressed,that they need to get occupied with it.

[ZIM]

Again,I´m not sure if you have a strict definition for a "hobbyist" but the hobbyist ain´t necessarily there for "spiritual balance" (and many do yoga for exercise,right?) I agree that "if they want to fight they should do martial arts" but I do not think,as I have expressed,that they need to get occupied with it. On this, I'd agree with FC. One thing we constantly mouth to each other is that "it's better to do one thing well, than 100 things poorly". In that sense, a 'hobbyist' that doesn't know the art well might be able to do better than a 'pro' that knows it all...

...so, just asking, 'what do you exactly mean when you say hobbyist?' ;)

As to the topic:

1- agree with MP- the amazing masters of old are in your head.

2- the problem has nothing to do with access to more history, arts, articles, etc. With the above and whats below taken together, its a chimera, truthfully.

3- they had one thing we don't have- a large, active, fighting subculture. And YES it had RULES. Surprise surprise.

I personally believe that the rooftop fights of HK, the Beimo of back alleys, etc. were a LOT more important in the learning cycle of an average student, perhaps marginally more so than any stylistic concerns.

[Starchaser107]

FC
You're right, they don't need to.

Is your arguement that people who do it for "fun" are just as capable of achieving masterful proficiency as those who take it seriously?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I could retaliate and say "I train seriously and it's fun for me"

And to clarify "hobbyist" for you (like i said, i didn't have a better word).It means those who haven't committed to the art enough. They have no real interest in it. "hobbyist" is really the wrong word, cause there are people out there that take thier hobbies seriously...mnn

How about if I just call a spade a spade instead of trying to categorize and bracket people under this term thats really unfair to those who have more respect for thier hobbies...

Hmmn, ok

There are some lazy people out there who are unwilling to put enough time in, to get anywhere significant on the journey that is martial arts.

[Former castleva]

"And to clarify "hobbyist" for you (like i said, i didn't have a better word).It means those who haven't committed to the art enough. They have no real interest in it. "hobbyist" is really the wrong word, cause there are people out there that take thier hobbies seriously...mnn "

He,he.Yeah.I think it may not be the right one (or it may mislead).
What is enough? Is there a universal definition for "enough in MA"?

"Is your arguement that people who do it for "fun" are just as capable of achieving masterful proficiency as those who take it seriously?"

Nope.I was not saying that but people obviously have different motivations and goals to practice.A person who practices more would,basically,always be (more likely) more proficient.But why could not training be both for fun and still taken it seriously? And I cannot see why a person who does it for fun could not be proficient (definition for proficiency needed) too.


"There are some lazy people out there who are unwilling to put enough time in, to get anywhere significant on the journey that is martial arts."

I guess this would apply to pretty much any kind of hobby (or what it ever is for one).
I think we should be careful to distinguish between what is pure "laziness" and what is just different approach.
As said,not all go for the same goals.

[Starchaser107]

And Zim, even if you exclude the comparison to the "masters of old"
If we draw paralells to the masters of Now, there's still alot of half hearted people doing martial arts that are bbarely going through the motions and dont have a clue.


Zim: "it's better to do one thing well, than 100 things poorly".
________*

Ok, fair enough, but a pro is different from a master, a pro is just a professional..a title means nothing in my vocab

it's impossible for a "master" to do 100 things poorly when compared to someone who isn't trying

when I argue mastery , I mean the masters who deserve to be called masters , not the ones who just have the title and it means nothing.

[Starchaser107]

FC
these are some ficticious example of pure laziness.

example 1
_______________________________________________
Sifu : "Jack do 50 push ups"
Jack : " I can't"
Sifu : "Ok since you can't do 50, then do 60 push ups"
Jack : "I can't do 60 push ups"
Sifu : "Ok well do 80"
Jack : " But Sifu , I cant do 80"
Sifu: "Do 100"

at which point Jack makes a pathetic effort to do the push ups
________________________________________________

example 2
________________________________________________
Sifu : "ok punch with speed and power, and shout on your stike"

Students : feint shout, no speed no power

Sifu : "ok punch with speed and power and shout on the strike"

Students : feint shout, no speed no power

Sifu : " Fine, everybody down 100 push ups"

after students complete what vaguely resembles a distant cousin of push ups they stand once more

Sifu : "ok punch with speed and power and shout on the strike"

Students punch with adequate speed and power and shout loud enough not to get punished. Tommorrow they will repeat the same process, or possibly take the day off because training was too hard.

* Thats Lazy

[Volcano Admim]

despite all my rage
i'm still just a rat in a cage

someone will say
what is lost can never be saved

[Starchaser107]

The world is a Vampire...
sent to draiiiiiiiiiin....

[David Jamieson]

If you can't find it, you don't know what you are looking for. :-D

cheers

[shaolin kungfu]

It always seems to be the last place you look.;)

[Ikken Hisatsu]

well who keeps looking after theyve found it?

[neit]

i think one major problem is that a large percentage of people in m.a. could not hack it in other athletic activities. in all of the m.a. schools i have ever been to most of the people lacked the physical streng and skill to play any sport. thus, they went with m.a. because m.a. schools except everyone. if i had a school it would be non-profit so i could kick out those who were lazy, or were just unbearable unskilled.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
So what does it take to create a good MA and/or future master?

Good lineage
Good Teacher
traditional training
modern training
8hrs a day at the kwoon.
sparring
Life-in training
cross-training
etc.

1. A good Sifu (knowledgeable, skilled and able to teach well)

2. To learn from the Sifu, the student must possess good martial morality, courtesy and respect...these last have to be genuine...not just feigned

3. A student to progress to master must have a high level of potential skill and understanding along with determination, dedication and commitment.

GHD

[apoweyn]

I'm with SevenStar on this one. I haven't really seen much evidence to suggest that the "masters of old" were that much superior to people today. People who train earnestly are good. People who don't... aren't (myself included, at the moment). And that's as true today as it ever has been.

The question is what evidence is there that people were superior in the past? I know it's a popular notion, but...


Stuart B.

[Starchaser107]

AP,
this brings up the other question.
"Do the martial arts get watered down from generation to generation, or , does the student improve on thier sifu's teachings?"

If the masters today are no better htan masters of old , then that would mean nothing has improved or possibly the standards have dropped.

But is the bar ever raised?

[Merryprankster]

Yes, the bar is frequently raised. I would argue that the best now are probably at least as good, if not BETTER than the best then. Better nutrition, training methods, health, etc--bigger, faster, stronger....

Hey, that's no joke either. We're generally bigger and stronger than those of old. Adequate protein intake really changes that...

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Starchaser107
AP,
this brings up the other question.
"Do the martial arts get watered down from generation to generation, or , does the student improve on thier sifu's teachings?"

If the masters today are no better htan masters of old , then that would mean nothing has improved or possibly the standards have dropped.

But is the bar ever raised?

Hard to say, in my opinion. If we could devise a standard by which to determine that, we still wouldn't have any hard data on which to base the comparison.

Our data on masters of old come in basically two forms: 1) Accounts of duels they've had. And second-hand accounts aren't really that reliable. 2) Logical conclusions based on the fact that their styles have survived to the present day.

We can't directly observe duels of old, obviously. Hell, even modern-day "duels" aren't likely to be conducted in such a way that we can all observe them. So the closest things we have are venues like the lei tai, the octagon, etc.

And in what data I've seen along those lines, I don't believe the bar's been lowered. The most prominent example I can bring to mind is that B&W film that circulated around here a while back with a master of taiji vs. a master of... mantis, was it?

Then there's the logical conclusion that since martial arts were originally used on the battlefield, they must work. And that since we no longer use martial arts on the battlefield, we've lost that edge.

But success on the battlefield rarely came down to the sword skill of one warrior, don't you think? (Not really rhetorical) It came down to formations, numbers, and a good dose of sheer luck. I mean when you meet a survivor from Normandy Beach (which I did just recently), you don't say "man, you must be a really good soldier!" You say, "you lucky sod!"

All that said, regardless of time period, a person who trains devoutly will be better than a person who trains sporatically. And a person who receives a constant reality check (whatever the reality of the time might be) is going to be better than a person who does not. That's why the Navy SEALs are scarier than my paintball team. But without any way of saying, reliably, how things went down in the distant past, it seems disingenuous to say that masters of old were better than practitioners today.


Stuart B.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by apoweyn


And in what data I've seen along those lines, I don't believe the bar's been lowered. The most prominent example I can bring to mind is that B&W film that circulated around here a while back with a master of taiji vs. a master of... mantis, was it?

Then there's the logical conclusion that since martial arts were originally used on the battlefield, they must work. And that since we no longer use martial arts on the battlefield, we've lost that edge.

But success on the battlefield rarely came down to the sword skill of one warrior, don't you think? (Not really rhetorical) It came down to formations, numbers, and a good dose of sheer luck. I mean when you meet a survivor from Normandy Beach (which I did just recently), you don't say "man, you must be a really good soldier!" You say, "you lucky sod!"

Stuart B.

Good post Apoweyn. A couple of questions.

1. That film must have pre-dated my KFO days. Does anyone have the link?

2. Luck may play a huge part of the battlefield, then and now, but isn't there a difference in the worth of one's skill when you are predominetely using short range martial weapons vs. rushing a beach defended with several machine gun nests?

[apoweyn]

Thanks Judge Pen,

1) I don't have it, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's on "Empty Flower."

2) Well, the analogy probably isn't perfect. But I don't know. A hail of arrows and droves of sword-wielding attackers. In either event, I think it's overly romanticized to say that survival came down strictly to your ability to stave off five attackers at a time with your martial skills. Know what I mean?



Stuart B.

[MasterKiller]

2. Luck may play a huge part of the battlefield, then and now, but isn't there a difference in the worth of one's skill when you are predominetely using short range martial weapons vs. rushing a beach defended with several machine gun nests? I was thinking the same thing.

I think it's overly romanticized to say that survival came down strictly to your ability to stave off five attackers at a time with your martial skills. Know what I mean?If someone repeatedly performs this task, and survives to pass on those techniques to others, I would say skill was the predominant factor.

[Black Jack]

2. Luck may play a huge part of the battlefield, then and now, but isn't there a difference in the worth of one's skill when you are predominetely using short range martial weapons vs. rushing a beach defended with several machine gun nests-

Thats just one analogy and in the many others analogy's you could use for modern warfare I would say no there is no difference.

Skill in combat is skill in combat. It's training used succesfully in combat, be it shooting, using fields of cover, or fighting with bayonets or trench knives in close quaters.

[apoweyn]

If someone repeatedly performs this task, and survives to pass on those techniques to others, I would say skill was the predominant factor.

Who's skill? That of the soldier? Or that of the general?

I can't say one way or the other myself. But how many accounts can you bring to mind of individuals repeatedly staving off that kind of attack?

The smaller the conflict you're talking about, the greater the influence of the individual's skill. In a one-on-one duel, the deciding factor will presumably be the individuals involved. At Normandy... not so much. Small-unit actions (like the SEALs or SAS, for example) are going to fall somewhere in the middle. There's luck. But there's clearly also a lot of training, tactics, and skill involved.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are far too many variables to conclude anything about the overall superiority of past generations of martial artists based on the information we have.


Stuart B.

[No_Know]

What does it take to make a good martial artist?

Perhaps experiences (in Life) and ability with time.

Why aren't there more? I wonder how many you think there are.

What you consider a martial art. What you call as signifying good.

Several good does not Mean most. Some good does not Mean few.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by apoweyn


Who's skill? That of the soldier? Or that of the general?

I can't say one way or the other myself. But how many accounts can you bring to mind of individuals repeatedly staving off that kind of attack?

The smaller the conflict you're talking about, the greater the influence of the individual's skill. In a one-on-one duel, the deciding factor will presumably be the individuals involved. At Normandy... not so much. Small-unit actions (like the SEALs or SAS, for example) are going to fall somewhere in the middle. There's luck. But there's clearly also a lot of training, tactics, and skill involved.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are far too many variables to conclude anything about the overall superiority of past generations of martial artists based on the information we have.


Stuart B.

I think that's fair. To use a sports anaolgy the coach can put you in a position to make a play, but you have to use you skill to execute to play the coach has called. The battlefield is probably similar in that regard.

[Merryprankster]

I think what Ap is trying to say is that being a good soldier and being a good fighter, individually, are not necessarily the same skill sets.

[ZIM]

As a point of order-

Comparing modern conflict and the skills required of soldiers to that of the past is very possibly a mistake- no one fights in formations like the phalanx any more, and the skills of Swiss pikemen are much more similar to TCMAs than those of Brit Commandos.

It is also a fallacy to envision combat of the past as some sort of heroic mass melee... there were units and formations, group techniques and tactics, cooperation with units of complementary weapons, etc.

[Merryprankster]

ZIM,

Exactly. Formation fighting ain't the same. And while we may not fight that way anymore, there are still significant differences between what makes a good soldier vs. a good fighter.

[MasterKiller]

It's also a fallacy to envision combat of the past as being entirely in a large-scale arena.

Bodyguards, criminals, and even small villages fought many smaller-scale battles without generals commanding them or pre-designed flanking manuevers.

A battlefield littered with 10 bodies is no less a battlefield than one littered with 10,000.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I think what Ap is trying to say is that being a good soldier and being a good fighter, individually, are not necessarily the same skill sets.

Yeah. And that evidence we might gather that a person was a good soldier doesn't necessarily mean that a person was a good fighter.

All of which seems to be wandering a bit from the original point. For that, I apologize. My original point was just that a style surviving to the modern day isn't really all that great a gauge as to its effectiveness.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ZIM
As a point of order-

Comparing modern conflict and the skills required of soldiers to that of the past is very possibly a mistake- no one fights in formations like the phalanx any more, and the skills of Swiss pikemen are much more similar to TCMAs than those of Brit Commandos.

It is also a fallacy to envision combat of the past as some sort of heroic mass melee... there were units and formations, group techniques and tactics, cooperation with units of complementary weapons, etc.

Well, I think you got my meaning, despite the arguably imperfect analogy. A style surviving to the modern day, if it's a battlefield style, is as much a testament to the bloke next to you, to the general running the battle, etc. as it is to the style of the individual.


Stuart B.

[GeneChing]

As a modern martial artist, I beleive it is our responsibility to shoot a gun at least once, if not many times. It gives us a realistic perspective of the practicality of our arts in combat. Just look at the tragedy of Alex Gong. All it takes is one shot. So in order to remain vital, martial arts has had to shift its emphasis away from just combat to health since we've been bested by technology. This is not to say MA is obsolete at all, just evolved to meet the demands of the environment.

So when you say, "good MA" you have to take into account the context of modern times. Otherwise, you've lost the heart of the art.

[rubthebuddha]

i guess as a sidenote to this discussion is medicine, Gene recently quizzed us on the Shaolin forum about the three treasures of shaolin -- Chan, kung fu and the third, which everyone failed on, medicine.

a question would be, why are so few arts glossing over if not omitting entirely the healing aspect of TCMA?

[MasterKiller]

a question would be, why are so few arts glossing over if not omitting entirely the healing aspect of TCMA? Please post all tree-hugging hippy threads in the Internal Forum.

[rubthebuddha]

i was referring to the medicinal and practical side. ever know a hippy that knew how to set a bone properly?

way to stick up for your heritage, mk.

[MasterKiller]

If I want a bone set, I'll go to the emergency room.

Plus, I think there's a little law in America called "practicing medicine without a license." Some people get their panties in a bunch when people perform medical procedures without going to medical school.

[rubthebuddha]

and fighting arts are typically illegal* outside of an emergency setting -- one in which your skills are the only ones at hand.

you're missing the point. you're allowed to fight when it's truly needed, and you're allowed to provide medical help when it's truly needed as well.

* exception noted is competition, when both sides are aware of threat and medical staff is on hand.

[MasterKiller]

Since when is bone setting a major medical emergency? You can go a few days before setting most bone fractures without any ill side-effects. Plenty of time to get to a trained physician.

If you want to learn to help people, become a licensed EMT. I don't want some Kung Fu quack trying to save my life with something he learned in a 2-hour seminar.

[rubthebuddha]

bonesetting was just an example. problem with bones is that when they fracture/break, they can easy cut up other things the leg. that's fine when you're 10 minutes away from a hospital. but not all that fine when you hiking in the backcountry and are 10 miles from the nearest dirt road and your partner takes a tumble.

my point is that there are skills to be learned in this, and they aren't typically taught. i was curious what others felt about this.

i don't want some kung fu quack teaching me a **** thing, either for self defense or health. you don't study martial arts from a sifu that learned his stuff in a weekend, so why are you even suggesting contrary in this case?

[norther practitioner]

The thing is that there is much more to tcm than just bone setting (dit da). All the herbology, accupucture, accupressure, tui na, etc.

[MasterKiller]

Barbers used to perform major dental surgery when there was a need for it. That doesn't mean I'm going to a barber to get a root canal nowadays.

Medicine today is so much more advanced than it was 200 years ago. Even Chinese medicine is a specialized college degree.

There are plenty of places to learn proper medicine and healing techniques. A kung fu class is not one of them.

[Golden Arms]

It never ceases to surprise me how quick many of the people on here are to close their minds to different things. For example, MK, do you know that the average time it takes a bone to heal that is set and then treated in a traditional dit da way is 3 WEEKS? How many bone injuries have you had that healed in even 2 MONTHS? Blow it off if you like, but its pretty cool stuff.

[MasterKiller]

Perhaps you should open a chain of Kung Fu AM/PM clinics.

[Former castleva]

I agree with MK.

[Golden Arms]

Thats cool..I am not here to convert anyone...I only encourage people to keep an open mind.....

[rubthebuddha]

MK,

fair enough. what aspects of general healing do you think one should be taught by his or her sifu, if any?

[Former castleva]

Teaching basic first-aid (relevant to MA) is about the best you can hope to include in a MA class IMHO.

[MasterKiller]

MK,
fair enough. what aspects of general healing do you think one should be taught by his or her sifu, if any?

Really, I have misgivings about someone teaching any kind of healing unless they are certified to do so, whether it's Chinese medicine or Westen medicine. If they have been certified to teach, they can show whatever they feel is relevant. There are plenty of places available in America to get certified in herbology, acupuncture, and general Chinese medicine.

If they were shown something in the back room, with the windows covered and lights out, after closing, so no one would steal their secret healing wisdom by a teacher who was shown the same way, they should keep it to themselves.

I don't have a problem with using Ditjow, but I wouldn't buy it from someone I didn't trust.