Tai chi competitions and sparring

[Knifefighter]

These were posted on another forum:

Might lead to some interesting discussions and/or flame wars :)


Competiton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RLWYQbNuI


Pushing- tai chi vs. another style
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aYtgIkJ5UE

[B-Rad]

I actually like a couple of the techniques in the first push hands clip. I didn't really feel every exchange went into shui jiao or playground shoving (like many push hands competition).

I'm not sure what the deal is with the second one. LB doesn't really seem to know how to do push hands, and CXW isn't really defending himself. Not sure what the context is. It doesn't really look like they're being competitive or anything. More like CXW is just letting the other guy try to knock him down or something :p

[Water-quan]

I actually like a couple of the techniques in the first push hands clip. I didn't really feel every exchange went into shui jiao or playground shoving (like many push hands competition).

I'm not sure what the deal is with the second one. LB doesn't really seem to know how to do push hands, and CXW isn't really defending himself. Not sure what the context is. It doesn't really look like they're being competitive or anything. More like CXW is just letting the other guy try to knock him down or something :p


Looks to me like there is a lot of anger there... looks like two drunks pushing each other around. I don't know about CXW letting the guy push him - that's justmaking excuses for him. Seems to me the other guy gets right through and pushes him no sweat - so, not very impressive, lol.

Compare with this, which appears to be a very similar situation... but just look at the difference in skill level:

http://www.56.com/u81/v_MTY0MDM5MA.html

[Knifefighter]

Looks to me like there is a lot of anger there... looks like two drunks pushing each other around. I don't know about CXW letting the guy push him - that's justmaking excuses for him. Seems to me the other guy gets right through and pushes him no sweat - so, not very impressive, lol.

Compare with this, which appears to be a very similar situation... but just look at the difference in skill level:

http://www.56.com/u81/v_MTY0MDM5MA.html

That situation in not similar. In your clip the smaller guy is letting the larger guy launch his offense. Looks like they were both tai chi practitioners and the smaller guy (either because he was younger or was the other guy's student) was deferring to the larger one since he was being compliant. He was soley giving energy and doing nothing to counter or set up any offense.

In the first clip, the tai chi guy was not getting the chance to do anything because the other guy did not give the tai chi guy any angles or chances at offbalancing and was starting his offense first.

The difference between clips is the difference in intent between opponents... one was compliant while the other was not.

[Water-quan]

That situation in not similar. In your clip the smaller guy is letting the larger guy launch his offense. Looks like they were both tai chi practitioners and the smaller guy (either because he was younger or was the other guy's student) was deferring to the larger one since he was being compliant. He was soley giving energy and doing nothing to counter or set up any offense.

In the first clip, the tai chi guy was not getting the chance to do anything because the other guy did not give the tai chi guy any angles or chances at offbalancing and was starting his offense first.

The difference between clips is the difference in intent between opponents... one was compliant while the other was not.


Well, I agree - what I meant was that it seems like a chat around the dinner table has moved in to a bit of push hands.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all - the CXW clip is clearly not freindly push hands - it's just bodering on a fight breaking out because two egos are belly-flopping against each other - which is the difference. Pretty crap actually... but there again, push hands is push hands and fighting is fighting... so if they can't play nice, then they will look like two drunks pushing each other in a slightly camp bar room argument, lol.

The second clip looks like Yiquan to me, not taiji. But, to my mind, the second clip is of a much more talented push hands player. Don't know if he would have dealt wit the first guy better, but, i reckon he would.

Still - yes - compliance is a key issue... although compliance ande just not being as good are fairly indistinguishable at times. A good boxer can make a crap boxer look compliant.

[Knifefighter]

A good boxer can make a crap boxer look compliant.

Compliant? I have to disagree with that one. One person can outclass another, but making someone look compliant only happens if one person is being compliant.

Look at the first clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RLWYQbNuI

The one competitor clearly outclasses the other, but the opponent still does not look compliant.

It is obvious when one person is resisting, even if he is completely outclassed.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The first clip of tournament type pushing looks like Taiwan rules.. good stuff.. has some street value..

CXW, as i recall from some previous discussions, is in a bit of a hostile environment and is trying to maintain dignity while not offending the audience..

The third clip is nicely done.. skill and control.. but the person being doninated is of obvious lesser skill.. he is too far forward of his central equilibrium, and resting on the other person..

Be well..

[Vajramusti]

CXW, as i recall from some previous discussions, is in a bit of a hostile environment and is trying to maintain dignity while not offending the audience..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only that... note that CXW is just repeatedly pointing at his chest and asking
the other fellow to push him ...he is just adjusting and not losing his balance.
Context is much. Have to know what to look for.
CXW has the real goods. Skill, timing and power. He is selective about what to show, when, to whom. He has no need for forum accolades.

joy chaudhuri

[Water-quan]

Compliant? I have to disagree with that one. One person can outclass another, but making someone look compliant only happens if one person is being compliant.

Look at the first clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RLWYQbNuI

The one competitor clearly outclasses the other, but the opponent still does not look compliant.

It is obvious when one person is resisting, even if he is completely outclassed.

OK, point accepted.

[Water-quan]

CXW, as i recall from some previous discussions, is in a bit of a hostile environment and is trying to maintain dignity while not offending the audience..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only that... note that CXW is just repeatedly pointing at his chest and asking
the other fellow to push him ...he is just adjusting and not losing his balance.
Context is much. Have to know what to look for.
CXW has the real goods. Skill, timing and power. He is selective about what to show, when, to whom. He has no need for forum accolades.

joy chaudhuri

Well, I don't care, lol. I respect the man's taiji, but I don't make excuses for people - that's just daft to do in my view. Taiwan rules my backside! If you don't mind me saying, lol. Excuses, excuses.... Looks like two drunks pushing eaxh other around on a Saturday night. All the rest - excuses, in my view.

As for he doesn't need acoladeson forums, well, as Wang Xiang Zhai said, boxers who are great in private aren't worth a penny. In other words, seeing is belivieng, and all you can believe is what you see. You make it sound like other people's fault that the video looked so awful....

[B-Rad]

Well, I don't care, lol. I respect the man's taiji, but I don't make excuses for people - that's just daft to do in my view.
No more "daft" than your equally uninformed guesses as to what was going on. It probably isn't too smart of any of us to make these kind of guesses that without knowing the context of the situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree on our personal interpretations of what we saw unless someone gives a reliable first hand account.


Taiwan rules my backside!
I think you might have gotten Tai Chi Bob's comment confused with the comments about the CXW clip. If you were in fact referring to the competition clip though, could you explain what Taiwan rules are and the difference between

[Water-quan]

No more "daft" than your equally uninformed guesses as to what was going on. It probably isn't too smart of any of us to make these kind of guesses that without knowing the context of the situation.


Well, I'm pretty smart. The daftest of the daftest is to make up some excuse for someone else as a reason why they are exactly what they are, or are doing exactly what they are doing. The clip of CXW looks naff, and that's not my fault. What I find amusing is that when this kind of situation happens somehow it's other people's fault that someone else looked naff, lol... like, how dare you look! Ha ha.. very funny...

It's just really awful shoving. Now, ten minutes later he might have looked awesome, dealing with five drunk commandos, I don't know.... but in that clip - this being the wonder of video - I don't have to guess, because I can see.

Now, by all means find some way to make it my fault that it looks naff - good luck with that! Smoke screen smoke screen.... "how dare you assume that you know what is going on... there is a secret reason why it looks naff..." Well, maybe.

Still, it is by far adn away MORE daft to make excuses for people than it is to look at a bit of naff-ness and say "that's naff!"





We'll just have to agree to disagree on our personal interpretations of what we saw unless someone gives a reliable first hand account.



Well, we both saw the same thing, it's just that you have added in extra-scene reasons to explain the naffness of it.... which is really, amusingly, a kind of admittance by you that you know it looks naff.... very funny

[B-Rad]

http://www.56.com/u81/v_MTY0MDM5MA.html
That's a really cool clip! Definitely of different skill levels (which is a pretty easy observation to make when one guy's getting tossed on every exchange, lol). I think it's a good illustration on how to use one guy's force against himself though. The one guy keeps leaning in really hard, putting his body weight into the other guy trying to force him back. Hopefully he learned his lesson :D

[Water-quan]

That's a really cool clip! Definitely of different skill levels (which is a pretty easy observation to make when one guy's getting tossed on every exchange, lol). I think it's a good illustration on how to use one guy's force against himself though. The one guy keeps leaning in really hard, putting his body weight into the other guy trying to force him back. Hopefully he learned his lesson :D

Lol.. What I get form that is a sense of people all sat having a meal and one guy says "I do martial arts..." and it just escalates in to that, lol.... and wishing he'd never mentioned it...

[Water-quan]

Yao ZongXun:

http://www.56.com/u63/v_OTMyNjczMg.html

[B-Rad]

Well, we both saw the same thing, it's just that you have added in extra-scene reasons to explain the naffness of it.... which is really, amusingly, a kind of admittance by you that you know it looks naff.... very funny
I never said it didn't look like crap, lol. You have one guy doing ineffectual playground level chest shoves, moving himself more than his opponent, and the other doing absolutely nothing in return. It's probably one of the most boring push hands clips I've ever scene :rolleyes: Based on my observations of the video I think there's more going on than a straight forward test of push hand's skill. I simply said it looked like CXW was allowing him to try and push him over. Why did I think that? For one thing, I've never seen anyone do any kind of competitive pushing hands without even attempting any kind of attack or counter. Second, the attacks against CXW didn't look like they needed defending against anyway. He was pretty solid, and like I said, the attacker is knocking himself off balance more than CXW, lol. Maybe they were both too drunk to do decent push hands, or just flat out sucked on that day... I really don't know. It was just a guess, and I never said yours, or anyone else's interpretations, weren't valid.


I don't have to guess, because I can see.
No you CAN'T see the entire situation. You can't see that he's angry, you can't see how much they've drunk, you're making a guess, you CAN'T see or hear what lead to this or what they agreed on. No one said it's your fault it looks like crap, just that there may be more reason's behind it due to everything YOU can't see.


Now, by all means find some way to make it my fault that it looks naff - good luck with that!
Stop being so paranoid :D Making guesses on stuff not visible doesn't equal making excuses or trying to make your possibly poor observation skills at fault. Your opinion isn't any more or less valid than anyone else's. No one said your guess on what was going on wasn't valid, or tried to make you look stupid. You're being more defensive than anyone here :p

[B-Rad]

Lol.. What I get form that is a sense of people all sat having a meal and one guy says "I do martial arts..." and it just escalates in to that, lol.... and wishing he'd never mentioned it...
Lol, yeah, pretty much :p

[Vajramusti]

He wasnt pushing--- he was even pointing to his own chest several times
invitinga push or a strike... and he adusted and absorbed each time.

There are good folks who can adjust and there wont be any real power left in the push or strike.

joy chaudhuri

[Knifefighter]

The difference between clips is clear:
- The first clip is what happens when two guys are both trying at 100%.
- The second clip is “messing around” with one guy not providing the energy the other guy needs to work his techniques.
- The third clip is of one guy only providing the energy, but not attempting any attacks or counters.

The first two clips are non-compliant, with the first one being closest to the reality of a live encounter. The third clip is what things look like when one partner is compliant.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The third clip reminds me of the "Sensei Syndrome" rather than a compliance issue.. i think the "compliant" gentleman wishes he could do something, but.. reverence for the senior and the effect of good technique defeats his wishes quickly.. WHen i think of "compliance" issues i think of so many Aikido clips i have seen..

Be well..

[Ma Long]

Actually if you know about the conversation prior to the CXW LB demonstration it sheds more light. CXW asked him to go ahead and try to "fajin" on him, allowing him to attack from a bridging position. To me it looks like LB doesn't know any push hands and his structure is often open or broken. Perhaps yes he can do his fajin from some of these angles, but he has so many vulnerabilities in structure that CXW could have easily taken advantage of - if that were in fact the purpose. On the other hand CXW maintains good structure, distance and peng. If a push lands on his chest, does not admit defeat IMO, because he effectively deflects him each time without breaking his structure or giving much ground.

Over all there's not much to really see here, but if you know what to look for you can see CXW amazing root being demonstrated.

[Water-quan]

Over all there's not much to really see here, but if you know what to look for you can see CXW amazing root being demonstrated.

Thing is, we all know what to look for. If it was awesome, my Dad would be impressed, my kid would, my neighbour would.

Ok.... let me have another look. By the by, I'd like to know how anyone knows what the conversation was, lol - not saying he didn't say "fa jing me" - and believe me, I;ve heard plenty hair raising stories about CXW... anyway... let me see again...

[Water-quan]

Well, on a second look, CXW is clearly inviting the man to push him, that's true. I think, everyone, really, wanted that to be better - I did as well.

I just believe in honest assesment is all. CXW wants to honestly assess the other guy's level - that's why he's inviting him to push. In turn, we want to assess CXW's level. Can't do that from one tiny clip, that's true - but right at the end, the guy comes right through and pushes him no sweat - CXW doesn't block it or anything. So, rather than say "he let him" I'd rather focus on what I can see - the solidity of CXW - he doesn't fall over - but neither does he leave the guy pushing air. So I assess that as maybe taiji can give a person a solid foundation, but isn't always able to allow someone to quickly move out of the way or block an unexpected shove.

I

[Knifefighter]

The fact is you can't tell anything about two guys shoving, at least in terms of actaul fighting. And since there is no documented evidence that either one of these guys ever has fought for real, no one will ever know whether or not either knows anything of fighting.

[neilhytholt]

The fact is you can't tell anything about two guys shoving, at least in terms of actaul fighting. And since there is no documented evidence that either one of these guys ever has fought for real, no one will ever know whether or not either knows anything of fighting.

Only Knifefighter fights for real or knows what real fighting is. Because he's had so much experience in the ghettos of Huntington Beach.

[Knifefighter]

Only Knifefighter fights for real or knows what real fighting is. Because he's had so much experience in the ghettos of Huntington Beach.

When you come down here to show me your devastating standing locks, we'll see who has real fighting experience, won't we, fukkwad.

[neilhytholt]

When you come down here to show me your devastating standing locks, we'll see who has real fighting experience, won't we, fukkwad.

LOL

Look, you want to make $$$ you're totally taking the wrong approach here.

Instead of putting down CMA on a CMA forum, you should be teaching MMA fitness for weight loss. You could make a total killing, like $120 per hour or more.

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL!! He's BAAAAAAAaaaaaack!!!!!;)

[neilhytholt]

LOL!! He's BAAAAAAAaaaaaack!!!!!;)

I'm thinking of starting a reality series with angry old martial artists who put years into training but can't compete with the local USSD or ultra-diluted TKD for business.

They've got 'Ultimate Fighter', and the 'Biggest Loser'. We can call it the 'Ultimate Loser'.

We can set some old Wing Chun guys against Knifefighter and the Dog Brothers and they can win a contract teaching old fat people how to lose weight.


No, seriously, what happened when the top taiji masters on the planet fought?

They came and drank tea, and left. Everybody went, "What happened, didn't they fight?" The senior disciple said, "Didn't you know? Two taiji masters could never fight, because taiji is only for self defense! With no attack, there is no fight." ;)

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL!! The board just isn't the same without you neil!

[Scott R. Brown]

I'm thinking of starting reality show where MMA masters fight various nut jobs, such as: a crazed meth addict with an AK-47, a red neck hunter with a hunting rifle and scope, a gang banger with a MP-5, a gang of drunk soccer hooligans after their team loses, Ted Nugent with a crossbow, etc.

It will be called, "The Ultimate Fighter Meets Reality!!!":D

[Water-quan]

I'm thinking of starting a reality series with angry old martial artists who put years into training but can't compete with the local USSD or ultra-diluted TKD for business.

They've got 'Ultimate Fighter', and the 'Biggest Loser'. We can call it the 'Ultimate Loser'.

We can set some old Wing Chun guys against Knifefighter and the Dog Brothers and they can win a contract teaching old fat people how to lose weight.


No, seriously, what happened when the top taiji masters on the planet fought?

They came and drank tea, and left. Everybody went, "What happened, didn't they fight?" The senior disciple said, "Didn't you know? Two taiji masters could never fight, because taiji is only for self defense! With no attack, there is no fight." ;)

Yeah, but those stories are nonsense. When the Yang brothers touched hands with Wang Xiang Zhai, they didn't drink tea, and they weren't succesful.

Now, you know I'm not on e of these fantasy hero worshippers - I'm fully aware that it may well have been that wang just was more modern in his approach which gave him the edge over others - maybe old Wang would be dead in UFC as well - no way to know now.

But, Kinifefighter isn't dissing CMA by what he says. In fact, he's echoing what Wang said when he talked abut the disgraceful state of CMA, and that even in those days, Western boxing and Japanese martial arts were way ahead. Now, Wang was a top rated Hsing Yi expert, and is now widely regarded as one of the top masters ever to come from mainland China... so if people like Kinfefighter are saying similar things, then we have to stop and have a think - who is really attacking CMA, and who is really helping it?

One of the fantasies that needs wioing away is the "no fight" excuse... CMA is martial art - it's heart and foundation is searching for true, real martial art skills. One of the great mistakes is to think that it's not about fighting, because straight away the path is corrupted... And it's the path that matters - the method - I don't mean the style, I mean the genuine method- free, personal unfolding of insight through honesty, hard training, thought, experimentation - because that process is the process that is supposed to lead to wisdom and insight, and dare one even say it, understanding of Tao. Without that honest process, it goes no where near that achievement.

Now, if someone is in to wushu forms, say, then that is another path, to be approached in a similar way - wushu has its heart same as boxing... but the first real, honest question to ask is why you want martial arts. Is it to get real boxing skills, or is it to express beautiful, acrobatic movement? Is it for ego? Is it for something else? The great lie that protects kung fu from reality by pretending that it has transcended its definitive purpose is just nonsense. Taiji masters have had plenty fights - there's a video up here of one of the top rated masters having a bit of an ego tiff.

All of these ridiculous expectations we appoint about wushu experts are the first thing we need to let go of. The reality is more exciting than the illusion. Without honesty, the whole thing is dead. Gives a new meaning to "Wu De" - ethic, not just in behaviour, but to ourselves, in the way we train. Bravo Kinifefighter for being honest. You are a good friend of CMA.

[Scott R. Brown]

One of the fantasies that needs wioing away is the "no fight" excuse... CMA is martial art - it's heart and foundation is searching for true, real martial art skills. One of the great mistakes is to think that it's not about fighting, because straight away the path is corrupted... And it's the path that matters - the method - I don't mean the style, I mean the genuine method- free, personal unfolding of insight through honesty, hard training, thought, experimentation - because that process is the process that is supposed to lead to wisdom and insight, and dare one even say it, understanding of Tao. Without that honest process, it goes no where near that achievement.

Hi Water-quan,

I think you have some interesting thoughts. If I might suggest: It is not about fighting, it is about prevailing. Prevailing does not always involve physical altercation and neither does it require the adherence to any method, nor does it require any necessarily hard training. Sun-tzu teaches that prevailing without combat is the essence of gaining your purpose.

One of his primary goals is to establish such a position/appearance/reputation for yourself that it makes combat not worth the risk for an opponent. Having said that, true combat does not require exceptional skill when one is willing to use whatever means necessary in order to prevail. Too often those discussing combat on these boards envision combat as a typical dual, Mano-a-mano. In this event the man thinking according to this view has established for himself a limit to the tactics he is willing to use.

Alexander the Great had a man in his entourage that was a pankration fighter. On one occasion he was challenged to a fight by one of Alexander's soldiers. The soldier claimed that the athlete was no real warrior. The Pankration fighter won the duel, but in the end lost his life. He was able to fight mano-a-mano, but was speared by the angry loser later. The pankration fighter was an expert in the pankration, the warrior was an expert at being a warrior. In the pankration the warrior had the advantage, using warrior skills the warrior had the advantage. The point of all this is that any master of any art is only as good as his limitations.

I have a friend who is a world class tactical/combat shooter. Physically I can kick his a$$ in a second or two, but he wouldn't be foolish enough to challenge me according to my strength. He would challenging me according to his strength and apply it towards my weakness.

Therefore, we must accept that all feelings/beliefs we have of our own competence can only apply within the realm of our expertise. Outside our own expertise we can be defeated and/or humiliated just as easily as anyone else.

[neilhytholt]

But, Kinifefighter isn't dissing CMA by what he says. In fact, he's echoing what Wang said when he talked abut the disgraceful state of CMA, and that even in those days, Western boxing and Japanese martial arts were way ahead. Now, Wang was a top rated Hsing Yi expert, and is now widely regarded as one of the top masters ever to come from mainland China... so if people like Kinfefighter are saying similar things, then we have to stop and have a think - who is really attacking CMA, and who is really helping it?

Yeah, I'm just giving KF a hard time because while he does bring up the non-fighting point, he does it with a huge club -- essentially saying that all CMA sucks and the only real fighting is boxing, kickboxing and grappling. He even has a quote to that effect on another thread somewhere.

The problem is, I think, the entire hierarchy of teaching in CMA and the 'master knows best' mentality, which causes all the problems, like not fighting with other people, thinking that taiji should be learned for years without practical applications, that martial arts are separate, etc.

I don't know how to resolve it, though. There are some encouraging things happening in China like a lot more sanshou/sanda and sparring/MMA style fighting. It really seems like the PRC had a big influence on the wushuification of CMA in the past 15 years or so, and now that they're getting more into fighting perhaps some of that mentality will go away.

[neilhytholt]

I'm thinking of starting reality show where MMA masters fight various nut jobs, such as: a crazed meth addict with an AK-47, a red neck hunter with a hunting rifle and scope, a gang banger with a MP-5, a gang of drunk soccer hooligans after their team loses, Ted Nugent with a crossbow, etc.

It will be called, "The Ultimate Fighter Meets Reality!!!":D

Watching Ted Nugent with a crossbow hunt after Tito Ortiz, or better yet that **** Forrest Griffith ... I think I'd definitely want to get that on pay per view.

You could call it just 'Ultimate Reality'.

[Knifefighter]

Yeah, I'm just giving KF a hard time because while he does bring up the non-fighting point, he does it with a huge club -- essentially saying that all CMA sucks and the only real fighting is boxing, kickboxing and grappling.

There are some encouraging things happening in China like a lot more sanshou/sanda and sparring/MMA style fighting. It really seems like the PRC had a big influence on the wushuification of CMA in the past 15 years or so, and now that they're getting more into fighting perhaps some of that mentality will go away.

Not all CMA sucks... just the one's that are isolated in their little fantasy worlds of push hands, forms, chi sao, and pretend "too deadly to do full contact" sparring.

And, yes, real, unarmed fighting is, essentially, boxing, kickboxing and grappling. You can't tell the difference between a CMA fighter and any other type of fighter, at least at the higher levels. Watch MMA and sanshou from China. Their fighting (other than the beginners who have not figured this out at the lowest levels) will be boxing, kickboxing and grappling... any CMA differentiated fighting you might potentially see will be a very small percentage of the overall fighting.

[neilhytholt]

Not all CMA sucks... just the one's that are isolated in their little fantasy worlds of push hands, forms, chi sao, and pretend "too deadly to do full contact" sparring.

And, yes, real, unarmed fighting is, essentially, boxing, kickboxing and grappling. You can't tell the difference between a CMA fighter and any other type of fighter, at least at the higher levels. Watch MMA and sanshou from China. Their fighting (other than the beginners who have not figured this out at the lowest levels) will be boxing, kickboxing and grappling... any CMA differentiated fighting you might potentially see will be a very small percentage of the overall fighting.

Many people have brought up examples such as throat grab, back of the head/neck strikes, but every time you pooh-pooh it, even with the counter example of the MMA match that was stopped because of a back of the head strike.

In other words, you seem to be deep in denial ... so it goes in the circular file.

[Knifefighter]

Many people have brought up examples such as throat grab, back of the head/neck strikes, but every time you pooh-pooh it, even with the counter example of the MMA match that was stopped because of a back of the head strike.

In other words, you seem to be deep in denial ... so it goes in the circular file.

Throat grabs, eye pokes, head neck strikes, biting and all the other "dirty" fighting weapons are just as much a part of boxing, kick boxing, and grappling as they are of CMA, or any other type of fighting. Boxing, kickboxing, and grappling are just the delivery systems for the weapons.

[neilhytholt]

Throat grabs, eye pokes, head neck strikes, biting and all the other "dirty" fighting weapons are just as much a part of boxing, kick boxing, and grappling as they are of CMA, or any other type of fighting. Boxing, kickboxing, and grappling are just the delivery systems for the weapons.

Last I checked, boxing, kickboxing and grappling don't train those types of techniques. They're not "dirty" fighting, they ARE fighting. (Except maybe the biting part).

[Knifefighter]

Last I checked, boxing, kickboxing and grappling don't train those types of techniques. They're not "dirty" fighting, they ARE fighting. (Except maybe the biting part).

CMA doesn't train them either, they pretend to train them... anyone can do any of these techniques if they have the right delivery system.

[neilhytholt]

CMA doesn't train them either, they pretend to train them... anyone can do any of these techniques if they have the right delivery system.

Well, maybe you do make a good point about the 'pretend to train them'.

Since I haven't been able to find any decent places to train, I guess I shouldn't assume there are any decent places left out there.

The problem is that there is just far too little apps practice, and if you find someplace that does do apps, they only allow you to do THEIR apps, which most of the time are pretty lame.

It's kindof sad, but perhaps you're right in that respect. Most CMA places seem to do just a few drills and kickboxing type sparring.

[Water-quan]

Hi Water-quan,

I think you have some interesting thoughts. If I might suggest: It is not about fighting, it is about prevailing. Prevailing does not always involve physical altercation and neither does it require the adherence to any method, nor does it require any necessarily hard training. Sun-tzu teaches that prevailing without combat is the essence of gaining your purpose.



Well, that's a good and wise point. One can also say that one of the primary pointsof martial arts health and well being. Prevailing, avoiding trouble - being wise, insightful, healthy - should all be subsidiary benefits of martial arts, I agree.

However, it is my perception that many of the detriments of CMA masquarade as its virtues. And that processis so ingrained, it is almost impossible to get past it. I call it "dis-appointment of expectations." We have all of these expectations about martial arts, and often, those expectations are the barriers that prevent us acquiring good skill or insight. What we seem to do is appoint those expectations and then expect reality tolive up to them, rather than the other way around - deliberately dis-appointing our expectations so we can see beyond them to the reality.

There is an idea that agression is wrong - people say, even in a fight you should be emotionless. I say that's all part of a nonsense thing. Agression is good and useful - that's why we have it. Peaceability and wisdom seem to have been corrupted to extend to an excuse, excusing CMA from actually being able to do what it is intended.

In other words, prevailing is good, but that kind of says that prevailing is better than boxing theory and knowledge in a way. I, personally, am interestedin martial arts - in the actual fight and the science of fighting. I am, of course, interested in Sun Tzu and Taoism, I just see Taoism as a process of unfolding natural knowledge - and we can unfold it via martial arts, painting, forms - anything. All paths lead no where.

We should recognise the "CMA people don't fight" claim for what it largely is - an excuse. And we should ask, what would happen if they did fight.






One of his primary goals is to establish such a position/appearance/reputation for yourself that it makes combat not worth the risk for an opponent. Having said that, true combat does not require exceptional skill when one is willing to use whatever means necessary in order to prevail. Too often those discussing combat on these boards envision combat as a typical dual, Mano-a-mano. In this event the man thinking according to this view has established for himself a limit to the tactics he is willing to use.


Well, fair enough on the last point, but on the first, that's a strategy for a different objective. If the objective is to avoid trouble, or put off enemies, then that's a strategy for that. If your strategy is, say, to be a good Western boxer,t hen it simply doesn't apply except in terms of psychological tactics. You have to train for what you want to learn.

I'm reminded of Wang Xiang Zhai saying that a boxer who considers himself great behind closed doors isn't worth a penny. Meaning, one might thinkt hey are great, but without ever testing it, what is it worth?







Alexander the Great had a man in his entourage that was a pankration fighter. On one occasion he was challenged to a fight by one of Alexander's soldiers. The soldier claimed that the athlete was no real warrior. The Pankration fighter won the duel, but in the end lost his life. He was able to fight mano-a-mano, but was speared by the angry loser later. The pankration fighter was an expert in the pankration, the warrior was an expert at being a warrior. In the pankration the warrior had the advantage, using warrior skills the warrior had the advantage. The point of all this is that any master of any art is only as good as his limitations.


Well, that is a wise and insightful point I think.





I have a friend who is a world class tactical/combat shooter. Physically I can kick his a$$ in a second or two, but he wouldn't be foolish enough to challenge me according to my strength. He would challenging me according to his strength and apply it towards my weakness.

Therefore, we must accept that all feelings/beliefs we have of our own competence can only apply within the realm of our expertise. Outside our own expertise we can be defeated and/or humiliated just as easily as anyone else.

Well, could be - but tat assumes that boxing theory is about the surface - the techniques... what about that which authors the techniques, the intent, and the essence?

[Water-quan]

Yeah, I'm just giving KF a hard time because while he does bring up the non-fighting point, he does it with a huge club -- essentially saying that all CMA sucks and the only real fighting is boxing, kickboxing and grappling. He even has a quote to that effect on another thread somewhere.


Well, personally, I'm not suprised that anyone would say that. They're just looking at what's in front of them and giving an honest assesment. I say Bravo! It needs saying. Boxing and kickboxing -miles ahead of 99.99999 % of all CMA.



The problem is, I think, the entire hierarchy of teaching in CMA and the 'master knows best' mentality, which causes all the problems, like not fighting with other people, thinking that taiji should be learned for years without practical applications, that martial arts are separate, etc.


I don't know how to resolve it, though. There are some encouraging things happening in China like a lot more sanshou/sanda and sparring/MMA style fighting. It really seems like the PRC had a big influence on the wushuification of CMA in the past 15 years or so, and now that they're getting more into fighting perhaps some of that mentality will go away.

You might like this article - not to over-promote Yiquan, lol - Yiquan is an idea, really, like JKD - but some of the points I think you might be interested as they deal with CMA as a whole:


http://www.yiquan.com/v3/en/file/en018.htm

[neilhytholt]

We should recognise the "CMA people don't fight" claim for what it largely is - an excuse. And we should ask, what would happen if they did fight.


Knifefighter is right about this point which is that usually if CMA people actually had to fight, they would lose. In most every situation because especially most taiji people, they don't practice enough and realistically enough to be able to prevail.

I can't count the number of taiji places that I've gone and brought up the issue only to be told I had a bad attitude, taiji is about peaceful 'taoism', etc.

There's the old saying, walk softly and carry a big stick. Well, IMHO most CMA people especially those who claim to study taiji walk loudly and don't carry any stick.

But I don't know what to do about it. I've brought up the issue countless times, suggested more open training, suggested schools be more open in their curriculum, spend less time practicing form and more time on applications, but it always goes nowhere.

The only reason I mention this on the Taiji competitions and sparring is that it's kindof a joke. Taiji fighting? Taiji is perhaps the least fighting oriented style I've ever come across. Because most places claim you have to have years and years of forms training, character training, etc., before you can fight. And then they're old and gray and don't even fight.

Anyways ... whatever. Now TaiChiBob will chime in he can beat anybody and he does great applications ... down in Florida or wherever. But the exception doesn't discount the fact that the vast majority of CMA is nowhere up to the level of MMA.

[neilhytholt]

Well, personally, I'm not suprised that anyone would say that. They're just looking at what's in front of them and giving an honest assesment. I say Bravo! It needs saying. Boxing and kickboxing -miles ahead of 99.99999 % of all CMA.



You might like this article - not to over-promote Yiquan, lol - Yiquan is an idea, really, like JKD - but some of the points I think you might be interested as they deal with CMA as a whole:


http://www.yiquan.com/v3/en/file/en018.htm

Don't even get me started on watered down Chinese communist non martial arts.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Now TaiChiBob will chime in he can beat anybody and he does great applications ... down in Florida or wherever.
Neil: Do us both a favor and don't assume to speak for me.. i have never, and never will, claim i can beat anybody. but, yes, we do train extensively in applications and with mixed styles AND with Taiji principles.. I understand your complaint, but.. ride a different horse, man.. it's like the trendy thing to do, dis the Taiji guys.. C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

[neilhytholt]

Greetings..


Neil: Do us both a favor and don't assume to speak for me.. i have never, and never will, claim i can beat anybody. but, yes, we do train extensively in applications and with mixed styles AND with Taiji principles.. I understand your complaint, but.. ride a different horse, man.. it's like the trendy thing to do, dis the Taiji guys.. C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

I guess I just figure if I complain often enough and loudly enough that something will start being done about it out of sheer embarassment.

But I'm not going to go down South, or to Canada or to Ohio or wherever.

[neilhytholt]

Also, maybe somebody can explain why Seattle doesn't have any decent apps oriented taiji.

After checking out the local places it's all older guys doing who knows what ... definitely not MMA taiji.

You know, I think I've just been looking for the wrong thing. Of course, CMA especially taiji isn't going to be heavy apps oriented, especially around Seattle. The places around here that are apps based are MMA.

[Water-quan]

Don't even get me started on watered down Chinese communist non martial arts.


Well, I have had my fiar share to say on talou as well... thing is, one first has to sit down and say "what am I actually after in martial arts?" Problem there is that in every endevour, the driving force - the greatest ally, and also the greatest hold up is ego! Every ego needs... so a lot of the stuff in CMA that is about ego, and getting past ego, in my view, is increadibly wise, but that virtue has been corrupted in to a vice! When I think about it I feel sick for days on end!

Ego wants many things. Ego WANTS to feel that it is special. Ego WANTS martial arts as a status, to fill some percieved void. More the people want it for that reason, the more they grab on to surface - like lineage, form, respect-blindness - all the surface stuff... and the reason is that at that stage what they "want" is the ego-need - status - not real insight in to quan. I was exactly the same. Slowly, over the years, I realised, and then one day at a meal with other martial artists I understood - and I didn't actually "want" martial arts at all - and I realised how much I had "wanted" it - rather than wanted to understand it.

That being by the by, some people's objective is forms. I say good for them if they do wushu! I find it very beautiful. But whent hey say "this is martial arts" well, I feel sick for days on end! Like Wang XIang ZHai said - surface form, cheating the people. But he meant all forms, not just modern ones.

In terms of forms, modern wushu blows away all other forms as far as I am concerned. And if that is people's aim - and I can understand it, just as I can understand wanting to do free running or break dancing - then all power to them! What makes me want to lie down with a towel on my head is when they lecture me about martial arts, as if what they do makes them expert! Very funny!

[Water-quan]

PS, meant ot say that the getting over the ego thing in CMA is extremely profoundly wise in my view - but it's been corrupted in to false humility, slavish slavery, and using it as an excuse never to actually box! What it really is all about, in my view, is profound Taoist understanding that being aware of, and getting past, our ego needs is the gateway to deep understanding. Nothign about that syas that when you get that understanding you won't fight.... It might mean that you don't feel any need to - no ego issues bothering you in to it - but it doesn't meant htta you make a shameful excuse and cower!

[Water-quan]

Greetings..


C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

I like the sound of that, taichi Bob!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Water-quan,


There is an idea that agression is wrong - people say, even in a fight you should be emotionless. I say that's all part of a nonsense thing. Agression is good and useful - that's why we have it. Peaceability and wisdom seem to have been corrupted to extend to an excuse, excusing CMA from actually being able to do what it is intended.

One can be aggressive without being emotional. The emotion of aggression can lead to disastrous consequences. Emotional aggression leads to actions that cause thoughtless mistakes, wastes energy and inflicts excessive damage. One may win the battle, but lose the war. In today’s world too much force lands one in jail and sued. The platitude, “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six!”, is foolishness. I would rather NOT be judged by 12 and NOT be carried by 6. A wise and judicious use of force absent of the emotion of aggression is of greater advantage. Actions are then guided by reason and not by feelings. The more equanimity in our emotions the less obstruction to our perception and the greater our ability to adapt as the situation requires.


In other words, prevailing is good, but that kind of says that prevailing is better than boxing theory and knowledge in a way. I, personally, am interestedin martial arts - in the actual fight and the science of fighting. I am, of course, interested in Sun Tzu and Taoism, I just see Taoism as a process of unfolding natural knowledge - and we can unfold it via martial arts, painting, forms - anything. All paths lead no where.

Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc. Winning our purpose is generally more easily accomplished without physical altercation. This is the teaching of Sun-tzu. With physical altercation comes a cost and many times the cost is greater than the benefit. If we perform actions based upon our feelings (aggression) rather than reason we are more likely to make erroneous decisions that work against us rather than benefit us. And this is NOT prevailing. Prevailing means not just winning the altercation, but ending up in a better position than we were to begin with or were likely to end up with!

With competitive fighting winning the fight is our purpose. With self-defense eliminating the threat while sustaining as little damage as possible and inflicting as little damage as possible is our purpose. In self-defense, fighting with its attending methods and strategies is merely a means to an end. That end being our safety and perhaps the safety of others. It is not always necessary to fight in this circumstance and in many cases, if not most cases, it is detrimental to fight. That is, the negative consequences frequently outweigh the benefits.

While competitive fighting can be fun, its purpose is to provide us with a result which is to win in personal combat with another person. This goal may be gained in a number of ways. Personal fitness and acquisition of skills is important, but so are strategy and tactics. If our purpose is to fight competitively our training is different than if our purpose is fitness or self-defense. In the modern world the time and effort spent training the body for self-defense purposes, is better spent learning to shoot a gun, use pepper spray, perceive danger, develop maturity, and learn effective social skills.

Somewhere on this board recently (in the main forum I think) someone provided a clip showing two men in a brief altercation. As they passed each other on a sidewalk one bumped the other. When the “bumpee” confronted the “bumper”, he struck him. (slapped his face or some such action.) The “bumper” pulled out a gun and emptied it into the “bumpee”! The end result was one man dead and the other in jail for life thanks to the emotion of aggression and a lot of immaturity. No amount of MA training would have saved the “bumpee”. On the other hand, some maturity and strategy and tactics would have been of benefit. The “bumpee” was expecting a duel; the “bumper” used a hammer to kill a bug. The “bumpee” paid the price for his foolish aggression. What is important is to prevail. Sometimes that means eating your pride and walking away. In REAL life this event is always a possibility. MA training is not necessary, nor does it necessarily train one for real life circumstances like this, in fact, it could just as easily be detrimental. One who is overly confident in his abilities is more likely to entertain foolish thoughts of fighting rather than avoiding any confrontation.


We should recognise the "CMA people don't fight" claim for what it largely is - an excuse. And we should ask, what would happen if they did fight.

I guess it depends upon ones purpose and needs. No one is faster than a bullet! In the above example a MMA would not have fared any better and would not have been any better prepared for the circumstance. This is because the shooter increased the stakes of the altercation before the victim had time to respond effectively. The victim expected a mano-a-mano duel and this is my point! The error many MM fall into is thinking in terms of a duel mano-a-mano in a fair and somewhat even fight! This is foolishness! While the victim was thinking in terms of a duel the shooter was thinking in terms of prevailing. The shooter did prevail in the battle, but he lost the war and now he is spending the rest of his life in prison. But the other man is dead. He lost the duel (the battle) AND the war. This is because he naively thought he was fighting a duel. REAL criminals don’t fight duels. They fight to win and that does not require hours and years of MM training, only diabolic strategy and tactics and in this case not even much shooting ability.


Well, fair enough on the last point, but on the first, that's a strategy for a different objective. If the objective is to avoid trouble, or put off enemies, then that's a strategy for that. If your strategy is, say, to be a good Western boxer, then it simply doesn't apply except in terms of psychological tactics. You have to train for what you want to learn.

Yes and what you want to learn has a purpose for you. What is important is not to confuse the ability to grow a flower with being a horticulturist. Being a MMA, or a CMA, or a boxer, or a fencer does not necessarily prepare one for a REAL WORLD altercation. Being a pankration athlete does not make one a warrior and being a warrior does not make one a pankration athlete.

My argument is that many of those who profess the superiority of MMA fall into the same errors they claim for CMA. They are not any more prepared for REAL life than they claim CMA’s are! They worry too much about the shortcomings of others rather than focusing on their own shortcomings. It is more advantageous to peer into our own weaknesses and to attempt to understand the truth of REAL LIFE altercation with REAL criminals than point out the flaws of others to no useful purpose. It is foolishness to point out the blindness of others when we do not perceive our own blindness.


I have a friend who is a world class tactical/combat shooter. Physically I can kick his a$$ in a second or two, but he wouldn't be foolish enough to challenge me according to my strength. He would challenging me according to his strength and apply it towards my weakness.

Therefore, we must accept that all feelings/beliefs we have of our own competence can only apply within the realm of our expertise. Outside our own expertise we can be defeated and/or humiliated just as easily as anyone else.


Well, could be - but tat assumes that boxing theory is about the surface - the techniques... what about that which authors the techniques, the intent, and the essence?

I think the above example of the shooting demonstrates my point effectively. Knowledge of the essence of boxing, its strategy and tactics does not prepare one for a gunfight. While the experienced boxer may feel confident in a duel, he is NOT prepared for the REAL world. His over confidence could be his undoing just as the “bumpee’s” over confidence was his undoing. If I expected an altercation with someone who I knew to be skilled in a particular method I would ensure I had an equalizer. I would fight to prevail, not to be fair. That means I would use devious and diabolical means to prevail, because prevailing is what is important; NOT winning within any preconceived set of rules. Rules are for competitions not the REAL world.

In the real world it is prevailing that matters. How we define prevailing depends upon the circumstance. In short, if I am alive, unharmed, and have suffered no legal or financial consequences, I have prevailed. If I am in jail rather than dead, I have prevailed. If I am in jail or have been sued needlessly due to my reckless actions, then I have not prevailed.

[spiralstair]

If I am 80 years old, with fluid, powerful movement derived from practicing T'ai Chi form, I have prevailed.

If I am 60 years old, with arthritic hands and shoulders from 'proving' my martial abilities over and over as a younger man, have I prevailed?

If I am 90 years old, with enough 'jing' to still respond like a man, cultivated by the 'non-martial' aspects of my T'ai Chi practice, I have prevailed.

If I am 70 years old, sitting down looking at my YouTube scrapbook of all my great real life applications, sitting down because my back doesn't really work so well standing, have I prevailed?

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.
Ali, "The Greatest", has he prevailed?

[Water-quan]

If I am 80 years old, with fluid, powerful movement derived from practicing T'ai Chi form, I have prevailed.

If I am 60 years old, with arthritic hands and shoulders from 'proving' my martial abilities over and over as a younger man, have I prevailed?

If I am 90 years old, with enough 'jing' to still respond like a man, cultivated by the 'non-martial' aspects of my T'ai Chi practice, I have prevailed.

If I am 70 years old, sitting down looking at my YouTube scrapbook of all my great real life applications, sitting down because my back doesn't really work so well standing, have I prevailed?

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.
Ali, "The Greatest", has he prevailed?

Well, I feel ill after reading that. Let the fakers go away and pretend to be great boxers with their good health.

[Knifefighter]

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.


Gene Lebell, training hard and kicking @$$ for 50+ years and still going strong in his late 70's.

Helio Gracie, still giving the young guys fits on the mats at 86.

Dan Inostanto- 6 days per week of training and sparring, receiving his BJJ blackbelt at age 70.

[Water-quan]

Hi Water-quan,

One can be aggressive without being emotional. The emotion of aggression can lead to disastrous consequences. Emotional aggression leads to actions that cause thoughtless mistakes, wastes energy and inflicts excessive damage. One may win the battle, but lose the war. In today’s world too much force lands one in jail and sued. The platitude, “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six!”, is foolishness. I would rather NOT be judged by 12 and NOT be carried by 6. A wise and judicious use of force absent of the emotion of aggression is of greater advantage. Actions are then guided by reason and not by feelings. The more equanimity in our emotions the less obstruction to our perception and the greater our ability to adapt as the situation requires.


Well, that is a noble idea, i suppose, but doesn't bear much relation to reality. Often, when people haven't had a fight, they assume that when it comes to an actual fight that nature will take its course and they will explode with natural agression.... but it often doesn't happen like that, and it is dangerous that people don't know. Fear can totally supress one's agression - it's a natural ape response to being chastised, due to evoloutionary reasons of ape trouping behaviour.

Agression that makes one totally lose control is one thing - but a certain ampunt of agression is very good - it overcomes fear, and makes a person hard to handle.

Agression is good! A fighter needs it, and in, say, Western boxing, everyone can tell the boxer who hasn't got it.

Point being that 1, agression is a necessary means of overcoming fear, and two, the virtue of controlled, channelled agression is corrupted by people in to meaning that CMA is nothing to do with fighting because fighting is too agressive.





Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc.


Well then that's your thing. And all power to you for it. What you have to consider is if it is necessary for you to tell other people what their primary goal should be?? My primary goal is boxing theory, not projecting the illusion of being great so that no one will fight with me.

All paths lead no where - we are both interested in different things... yours is for you, mine's for me. But those who aren'tinterested in boxing theory aren't really part of the debate, and trying be part of the debate only holds back those who are.





Winning our purpose is generally more easily accomplished without physical altercation. This is the teaching of Sun-tzu.


Sun Tzu fought wars - real wars, where people died.



With physical altercation comes a cost and many times the cost is greater than the benefit.


Hmmm.. but "benefit" here means only what you consider to be benefit, Scott. You can't judge for me what is to my benefit. See, CMA has these huge barriers to overcome - like people actively working to make it less effective for its primary purpose of being a martial art - actively putting down the drive to make it an effective martial art again. I'm sorry, but I see what you say not as wrong, but in the wrong place... Your thing is projecting strength to avoid trouble. I don't want to project anything - I just want to promote genuine boxing theory that is actually useable.

[Water-quan]

If we perform actions based upon our feelings (aggression) rather than reason we are more likely to make erroneous decisions that work against us rather than benefit us. And this is NOT prevailing. Prevailing means not just winning the altercation, but ending up in a better position than we were to begin with or were likely to end up with!


Well, that's so much words in my view, but not much more. Agression has many layers to it. many a bullied child turns the tables when he finds his agression. Prevailing "means" one thing for you and another for me. Only ego makes us impose our own aims on to others.

The virtue of controlled agression has been distorted in to the vice of cowardice.





With competitive fighting winning the fight is our purpose. With self-defense eliminating the threat while sustaining as little damage as possible and inflicting as little damage as possible is our purpose. In self-defense, fighting with its attending methods and strategies is merely a means to an end. That end being our safety and perhaps the safety of others. It is not always necessary to fight in this circumstance and in many cases, if not most cases, it is detrimental to fight. That is, the negative consequences frequently outweigh the benefits.


Well, self defence has many aspects, and in that case, your words on prevailing come in to play. But "quan" has a deeper core, and the true search for quan is a search for Tao - opening doorways, learning overcoming ego barriers, flase perceptions, delving to the heart of something - self defence is only a side issue compared to that.

But again, that side issue should not be allowed to overwhelm in to a vice that strangles the beautiful quest to unfold personal insight and expression of the nature of quan.






While competitive fighting can be fun, its purpose is to provide us with a result which is to win in personal combat with another person. This goal may be gained in a number of ways. Personal fitness and acquisition of skills is important, but so are strategy and tactics. If our purpose is to fight competitively our training is different than if our purpose is fitness or self-defense. In the modern world the time and effort spent training the body for self-defense purposes, is better spent learning to shoot a gun, use pepper spray, perceive danger, develop maturity, and learn effective social skills.




Well, go do that then. You do that and don't bother one jot about others with different objectives. I don't.




Somewhere on this board recently (in the main forum I think) someone provided a clip showing two men in a brief altercation. As they passed each other on a sidewalk one bumped the other. When the “bumpee” confronted the “bumper”, he struck him. (slapped his face or some such action.) The “bumper” pulled out a gun and emptied it into the “bumpee”! The end result was one man dead and the other in jail for life thanks to the emotion of aggression and a lot of immaturity.


Well, there arw a million ways to make people feel bad about being who they are - human beings - all thenew age nonsense we have to put up with makes me feel ill. Agression is a part of us, and as such it has its place and deserves some honour for what it contributes to the whole.

Key to what you say is immaturity. Immaturity makes all of our emotions difficult to use, with difficult results. With maturity comes the skill to use all of our gifts - including agression, which is one of our most valuable attributes.





No amount of MA training would have saved the “bumpee”. On the other hand, some maturity and strategy and tactics would have been of benefit. The “bumpee” was expecting a duel; the “bumper” used a hammer to kill a bug. The “bumpee” paid the price for his foolish aggression. What is important is to prevail. Sometimes that means eating your pride and walking away. In REAL life this event is always a possibility. MA training is not necessary, nor does it necessarily train one for real life circumstances like this, in fact, it could just as easily be detrimental. One who is overly confident in his abilities is more likely to entertain foolish thoughts of fighting rather than avoiding any confrontation.


Well, one can just as easily say that if someone dropped a nuclear weapon on the shooter then having a gun wouldn't avail them much either.




Yes and what you want to learn has a purpose for you. What is important is not to confuse the ability to grow a flower with being a horticulturist. Being a MMA, or a CMA, or a boxer, or a fencer does not necessarily prepare one for a REAL WORLD altercation. Being a pankration athlete does not make one a warrior and being a warrior does not make one a pankration athlete.


Well, I am a warrior, so I don't care about those others.




My argument is that many of those who profess the superiority of MMA fall into the same errors they claim for CMA. They are not any more prepared for REAL life than they claim CMA’s are! They worry too much about the shortcomings of others rather than focusing on their own shortcomings.


Well, that may be true, but seeing shortcomings is useful - but so is seeing benefits. MMA is not superior. As for REAL life - MMA int he ring is real - trainign on your own is real... real is whatever you are doing. Not every fight involves a gun, and if you are going to have knowledge, best to have the best, most useful knowledge.




It is more advantageous to peer into our own weaknesses and to attempt to understand the truth of REAL LIFE altercation with REAL criminals than point out the flaws of others to no useful purpose. It is foolishness to point out the blindness of others when we do not perceive our own blindness.


Well, Scott, I have heard words like that before, but there's no way to say it without it applying to you as well - here you are, pointing out the deficencies in others!

Scott, it is ten times harder to be honest abpout ourselves than about others - and one of the ways we learn to be honest with ourselves is by practicing critical thinking "against" others, and then, if we have the courage and insight, applying it to ourselves. That's not an easy process - so, I would say let people follow the path of that asit unfolds for them - it's not an easy thing to do.

Asessing the merits or lack thereof of various styles is no great sin, Scott - you're over-reacting in my view. Critical assessment is good - the world could do with more of it, on every level.






I think the above example of the shooting demonstrates my point effectively. Knowledge of the essence of boxing, its strategy and tactics does not prepare one for a gunfight. While the experienced boxer may feel confident in a duel, he is NOT prepared for the REAL world. His over confidence could be his undoing just as the “bumpee’s” over confidence was his undoing. If I expected an altercation with someone who I knew to be skilled in a particular method I would ensure I had an equalizer. I would fight to prevail, not to be fair. That means I would use devious and diabolical means to prevail, because prevailing is what is important; NOT winning within any preconceived set of rules. Rules are for competitions not the REAL world.



Well, winning is irrelevent in the case of searching for knowledge. I have had many competitions with others where they have taught me something by getting me with a technique.

Other than that, I'm afraid people don't usually give you a warning that they will attack you, giving you a chance to get an equiliser ready. If you are saying that what matters to you is to win, so if you were fighting a boxer int he training hall you would iron bar him over the head because that is more "real" then we are in to very different things.




In the real world it is prevailing that matters. How we define prevailing depends upon the circumstance. In short, if I am alive, unharmed, and have suffered no legal or financial consequences, I have prevailed. If I am in jail rather than dead, I have prevailed. If I am in jail or have been sued needlessly due to my reckless actions, then I have not prevailed.


Well, there's more to life than beating people up.

[Scott R. Brown]

Gene Lebell, training hard and kicking @$$ for 50+ years and still going strong in his late 70's.

Helio Gracie, still giving the young guys fits on the mats at 86.

Dan Inostanto- 6 days per week of training and sparring, receiving his BJJ blackbelt at age 70.

3 examples out of thousands does not demonstrate a trend towards a healthy later life.

If you want a good example of health into his aged years Jack LaLanne would be a better example and he never fought anyone!

[Water-quan]

People have different reasons for training. Pretending to myselfto be a great boxer whilst never actually putting on the gloves ? - I'd rather die at 20 than live to a hundred in that case.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Water-quan,


Well, that is a noble idea, i suppose, but doesn't bear much relation to reality. Often, when people haven't had a fight, they assume that when it comes to an actual fight that nature will take its course and they will explode with natural agression.... but it often doesn't happen like that, and it is dangerous that people don't know. Fear can totally supress one's agression - it's a natural ape response to being chastised, due to evoloutionary reasons of ape trouping behaviour.

Agression that makes one totally lose control is one thing - but a certain ampunt of agression is very good - it overcomes fear, and makes a person hard to handle.

Agression is good! A fighter needs it, and in, say, Western boxing, everyone can tell the boxer who hasn't got it.

Point being that 1, agression is a necessary means of overcoming fear, and two, the virtue of controlled, channelled agression is corrupted by people in to meaning that CMA is nothing to do with fighting because fighting is too agressive.

If you mean by aggression “focused intention” then I agree with you. However, you don’t seem to have much knowledge regarding the masters of Japanese combat during the Shogunate. I would refer you to the manuals written by Musashi, Yagyu and Takuan in particular. Emotional detachment is considered essential for mastery. If one has a personal emotional attachment to winning or losing they fragment their mind/intention and become subject to fatal errors. Winning is to be an objective goal not beclouded by emotion attachment. The inclusion of visible aggressive emotion is merely a mask used to intimidate the adversary, but does not affect ones own internal equanimity. If your purpose is mastery of martial activities I recommend in-depth research on verified masters and the application of their teaching into your own training. These are the lessons of those who were verifiable masters who fought in life and death combat and were not merely MA athletes.

On the other hand, uncontrollable aggression/fear is a great compensation for lack of skill. It can turn a mediocre fighter into a dangerous adversary for even the most skilled of fighters. However, this is not the optimal condition to find oneself in when one needs to defend their self or others.


Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc.


Well then that's your thing. And all power to you for it. What you have to consider is if it is necessary for you to tell other people what their primary goal should be?? My primary goal is boxing theory, not projecting the illusion of being great so that no one will fight with me.

All paths lead no where - we are both interested in different things... yours is for you, mine's for me. But those who aren'tinterested in boxing theory aren't really part of the debate, and trying be part of the debate only holds back those who are.

You have misunderstood my comment and taken it out of context. It is not my intention to presume what your goals should be for you. I have drawn a distinction between the goals of a professional athlete and REAL life and death altercations. The lessons of boxing and MA do not directly apply to the REAL world where diabolical means are used to prevail. The criticisms you apply to CMA also apply to professional athletes who believe they are prepared for REAL world encounters with REAL criminals. Your intention to learn and apply boxing principles is laudable; it does not prepare you for REAL life encounters (other than the simplistic duels that many consider to be the REAL world) anymore than the CMA you feel the need to criticize. REAL criminals use diabolical and unexpected tactics in order to prevail. They do not care about the consequences to themselves.


Sun Tzu fought wars - real wars, where people died.

I am talking about REAL fights where people die as in the shooting circumstance I mentioned in my previous post! Being a good boxer, MA, or professional MA does not ensure one will survive a REAL encounter. It is only a benefit when one engages in a duel, not a REAL encounter with a REAL bad guy! REAL bad guys won’t meet you on fair mano-a-mano terms. Their purpose is to prevail over you not to look good or try out their boxing or MA skills.



Hmmm.. but "benefit" here means only what you consider to be benefit, Scott. You can't judge for me what is to my benefit. See, CMA has these huge barriers to overcome - like people actively working to make it less effective for its primary purpose of being a martial art - actively putting down the drive to make it an effective martial art again. I'm sorry, but I see what you say not as wrong, but in the wrong place... Your thing is projecting strength to avoid trouble. I don't want to project anything - I just want to promote genuine boxing theory that is actually useable.

No, I did not and do not presume to determine what may be of personal benefit for anyone. I am speaking about survival in REAL world encounters. In these circumstances our purpose is to survive with as few negative effects as possible; negative effects, for civilized people, includes but is not limited to: physical injury, financial loss and social and legal consequences. This does not commonly apply to socio-paths and these are the ones that seek to prevail no matter what the consequence.

Projecting strength is not always an optimal tactic; sometimes projecting harmlessness is more prudent. Knowing when, where and how to project presence is as valuable a skill as any other in REAL world encounters as well as within the professional arena. Posturing prior to fights both in the REAL world and in the professional area is a psychological tactic for the purpose of attacking the confidence of ones opponent. If you are not interested in learning to project your presence and intent, whether for aggression or harmlessness, then you are limiting your effectiveness.

As an aside, when engaging in a professional fight one presumably wants to avoid needless injury and this is a benefit as well.



Well, that's so much words in my view, but not much more. Agression has many layers to it. many a bullied child turns the tables when he finds his agression. Prevailing "means" one thing for you and another for me. Only ego makes us impose our own aims on to others.

The virtue of controlled agression has been distorted in to the vice of cowardice.

Once again you misunderstand the point. If you have no insight into the workings of your own mind and possess a limited understanding of psychology then you cannot understand the point.

Emotions cloud judgment. It is that simple. When one reacts emotionally to any circumstance their mind is beclouded and subject to making errors in judgment. This is a fact of life. An objective emotional state provides the benefit of clearer perception. Clear perception provides for better decision making allowing one to choose the optimal response to a threat. This is a fact of life and not an opinion that I am forcing on you. If you do not understand this about yourself and human psychology you will find it advantageous, regarding your personal goals, to educate yourself and apply this information in order to optimize the opportunity for you to achieve your goals.

I would say that it is your ego that is interfering with your understanding. I have not imposed an aim here. I am providing information that is backed up by real world events, examples, and people to demonstrate the validity of my points. These are not merely my opinions they are the opinions and teachings of well established MA masters and masters of Tao with real life experiences, not the ramblings of MA athletes.



Well, self defence has many aspects, and in that case, your words on prevailing come in to play. But "quan" has a deeper core, and the true search for quan is a search for Tao - opening doorways, learning overcoming ego barriers, flase perceptions, delving to the heart of something - self defence is only a side issue compared to that.

But again, that side issue should not be allowed to overwhelm in to a vice that strangles the beautiful quest to unfold personal insight and expression of the nature of quan.

Now it appears that you are imposing your definition of the “deeper core of quan” on others. There is no requirement for the study of quan to include a “search for Tao”. However, I do believe, and it has been demonstrated historically, that any activity may facilitate an understanding the principles of Tao. Your points here are the same ones I have been making. According to your comments it appears your understanding is still rudimentary on these matters however. Your time would be better spent watching over your own ego rather than becoming preoccupied with your perception of the ego of others.

I would refer you to the Zen master Shoju, who defeated numerous sword masters all attacking him at once. Shoju had no MA training. His skill was a clear unobstructed perception of Tao. He projected neither aggression nor vulnerability. His manner was devoid of emotional attachment which allowed him to respond spontaneously and instantaneously to attacks. Not one swordsman touched him while he rapped each one on the head with his fan. Soju was a teacher of Hakuin a very well-known Japanese Zen master himself who had a similar encounter as well.

[Scott R. Brown]

Agression is a part of us, and as such it has its place and deserves some honour for what it contributes to the whole.

Key to what you say is immaturity. Immaturity makes all of our emotions difficult to use, with difficult results. With maturity comes the skill to use all of our gifts - including agression, which is one of our most valuable attributes.

Murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. are part of us as well yet we discourage these actions because we understand them to be destructive behaviors. Aggression fulfills a purpose, it is an emotional reaction to a fearful circumstance, but that does not make it an optimal behavior. I once again refer you to the writings of REAL masters, such as Musashi, Yagyu and Takuan and the example of Shoju.


As for REAL life - MMA int he ring is real - trainign on your own is real... real is whatever you are doing. Not every fight involves a gun, and if you are going to have knowledge, best to have the best, most useful knowledge.

You have changed the context of my comments. They specifically referred to REAL altercations with REAL bad guys who do not play by rules. They fight to win using diabolical means and are not concerned with the consequences. To them prevailing is the goal, not technique, the deeper insights of combat, or Tao. They will blindside you, gang up on you, and use any number of dirty underhanded means to get the advantage. They do not care about being fair or fighting you man to man.

The best knowledge in these circumstances is not technique, but perception and psychology. This allows one to avoid or defuse the situation before physical means become necessary.

One can never be prepared for someone who breaks the rules of how we THINK an altercation is supposed to transpire. The illusion of being prepared or capable is ones greatest weakness, not lack of ability.



Well, Scott, I have heard words like that before, but there's no way to say it without it applying to you as well - here you are, pointing out the deficencies in others!

Scott, it is ten times harder to be honest abpout ourselves than about others - and one of the ways we learn to be honest with ourselves is by practicing critical thinking "against" others, and then, if we have the courage and insight, applying it to ourselves. That's not an easy process - so, I would say let people follow the path of that asit unfolds for them - it's not an easy thing to do.

Asessing the merits or lack thereof of various styles is no great sin, Scott - you're over-reacting in my view. Critical assessment is good - the world could do with more of it, on every level.

I agree with examining our own deficiencies. I am merely taking the opportunity here to point out for you what you presume to point out for others. Think of me as a mirror of your own behaviors. I have not complained about anyone pointing out their perceived deficiencies of me and I have not presumed more than you presume for yourself. I have not commented in any manner other than mirroring your own comments back towards you. I have just as much right to point out what I perceive to be your shortcomings as you presume to point out for others and I accept your right to do the same to me. I will reply as my level of interest in your comments guides me.

I must disagree with you that one of the ways to find our own deficiencies is to practice critical thinking against others. The way to discover our own deficiencies is to examine our SELVES. Examine our own mind and abilities and test these, whether physical, emotional or intellectual, in the world of social interaction. We then assess the results and question our methods seeking more efficient and capable techniques for achieving our purpose.


Well, winning is irrelevent in the case of searching for knowledge. I have had many competitions with others where they have taught me something by getting me with a technique.

Other than that, I'm afraid people don't usually give you a warning that they will attack you, giving you a chance to get an equiliser ready. If you are saying that what matters to you is to win, so if you were fighting a boxer int he training hall you would iron bar him over the head because that is more "real" then we are in to very different things.

Well, there's more to life than beating people up.

You seem to be persistent in redefining my comments according to a context that is not explicit in my writing. Clearly and repeatedly I have stated: REAL world fighting with REAL world bad guys. You were the one who repeatedly criticized CMA for not fighting and winning in real combat to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have merely pointed out that your own preconceived notions fall prey to the same flaw. If anyone wants to really demonstrate their prowess they must not only fight in duels, but engage in REAL world encounters, and a lot of them. That means with people who do not fight according to any preconceived pattern using any means necessary to win. I am stating, apply the same critical view you have towards CMA to yourself. It is as simple as that.

I have made no claims that have not been illustrated through real life examples. This validates my points as worth considering within the context of REAL fighting. I am not addressing simple duels here although one would enjoy numerous benefits within this arena as well.

[Water-quan]

Hi Water-quan,



Hello.



If you mean by aggression “focused intention” then I agree with you.


No, intent is somethign else. I mean agression, as in the desire to hurt others.

Agression ius a vital part of us, and deserves honour, as do all aspects of us. Repressing aspects of ourselves is not controlling them. In ancient times a man would smash inthe skull of an animal and eat it without once feeling sick. All aspects of us have evolved for a reason.




However, you don’t seem to have much knowledge regarding the masters of Japanese combat during the Shogunate.


That's true. But neither have you - unless you were there. Second hand stories are just that.



I would refer you to the manuals written by Musashi, Yagyu and Takuan in particular. Emotional detachment is considered essential for mastery.


Emotional detachment is just some new age nonsense - yet another aspect of "it's bad to be human" - original spin. If anything, over-blown agression COMES from emotional imbalance - one emotion being in control - like agression. Supression of emotions isn't the answer - balance is.

Musashi had many fights and killed many people.

Agression is good and proper in its right place.




If one has a personal emotional attachment to winning or losing they fragment their mind/intention and become subject to fatal errors. Winning is to be an objective goal not beclouded by emotion attachment. The inclusion of visible aggressive emotion is merely a mask used to intimidate the adversary, but does not affect ones own internal equanimity. If your purpose is mastery of martial activities I recommend in-depth research on verified masters and the application of their teaching into your own training. These are the lessons of those who were verifiable masters who fought in life and death combat and were not merely MA athletes.



You seem like an intelligent person, so i am a bit ashamed to say that this is all surface nonsense in my view. Attachment to winning is not the issue. Agression is an emotional tool, used at the correct time. Verified masters means nothing to me - I verify my own understanding.

All the talk of no emotion is nonsense. Agression is a powerful tool.





On the other hand, uncontrollable aggression/fear is a great compensation for lack of skill. It can turn a mediocre fighter into a dangerous adversary for even the most skilled of fighters. However, this is not the optimal condition to find oneself in when one needs to defend their self or others.


Well, whoever gets the optimal condition? Talk of agression and detachment in that way are surface considerations in my book.

In fact, those involvedin real research in to martial arts know full well that many people simply can not bring themselves to strike another, even when they know they areunder attack imminently! Agression is supressed by socialisation, and it is essential for a fighter to access it again - and then keep it under a leash. I'm afraid all of your students will die in the first ten seconds of a fight, not caring whether they win or lose, and never finding their agression!



You have misunderstood my comment and taken it out of context. It is not my intention to presume what your goals should be for you. I have drawn a distinction between the goals of a professional athlete and REAL life and death altercations. The lessons of boxing and MA do not directly apply to the REAL world where diabolical means are used to prevail. The criticisms you apply to CMA also apply to professional athletes who believe they are prepared for REAL world encounters with REAL criminals. Your intention to learn and apply boxing principles is laudable; it does not prepare you for REAL life encounters (other than the simplistic duels that many consider to be the REAL world) anymore than the CMA you feel the need to criticize. REAL criminals use diabolical and unexpected tactics in order to prevail. They do not care about the consequences to themselves.


I practice CMA, by the by, not mma or Western boxing - although, such categories are really meaningless. Amazingly, I don't live in a fantasy land - I actually DO live in the real world. I would leave you to your diabolical means, whatever that means for you. A punch is a punch, whoever you punch. The punch needs to be correct, powerful, well timed and aimed, regardless of who the opponent is, or where you are. If al you have is a punch, then that is all you have, regardless of pointless arguments.

If someone nukes you, then it is meaningless to say "what point martial arts?"


I am talking about REAL fights where people die as in the shooting circumstance I mentioned in my previous post! Being a good boxer, MA, or professional MA does not ensure one will survive a REAL encounter. It is only a benefit when one engages in a duel, not a REAL encounter with a REAL bad guy! REAL bad guys won’t meet you on fair mano-a-mano terms. Their purpose is to prevail over you not to look good or try out their boxing or MA skills.


This is all surface nonsense. I have never had a fight with someone who jad a gun, and if I did, I would get shot no doubt. So what does that have to do with anythign else? If someone blows me up, I can't punch them - so what?

All this tak of real fights... people would hide away, never learning any useful skills because you say "what ifthey have a gun?" fifty times on the run. Well, you'll get shot! But what if they don't, but youneverlearned to throw a punch?? Well, you still lose, even if they don't have a gun! Bravo!





No, I did not and do not presume to determine what may be of personal benefit for anyone. I am speaking about survival in REAL world encounters. In these circumstances our purpose is to survive with as few negative effects as possible; negative effects, for civilized people, includes but is not limited to: physical injury, financial loss and social and legal consequences. This does not commonly apply to socio-paths and these are the ones that seek to prevail no matter what the consequence.


Well, that's like worrying about being nuked. The fates that you can't avoid - well, you can't avoid them. Buy a gun.





Once again you misunderstand the point. If you have no insight into the workings of your own mind and possess a limited understanding of psychology then you cannot understand the point.


I have a degree in social-psychology.

[Water-quan]

Murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. are part of us as well yet we discourage these actions because we understand them to be destructive behaviors.


That's a reversal of understanding. Supression of emotions causes imbalance. All your stuff about supressing agression only causes other emptions to take over and cause imbalance. In our society, agression is repressed, causing people to lose the edge which made our ancestors geared up to survive.

Agression is simply an evolved survival trait. Without it, compliance takes over. Some people will be complied to death, lay onthe floor being kicked to death, because some fake teacher told them agression was bad. What a shameful end!




Aggression fulfills a purpose, it is an emotional reaction to a fearful circumstance, but that does not make it an optimal behavior. I once again refer you to the writings of REAL masters, such as Musashi, Yagyu and Takuan and the example of Shoju.



Those real masters aren't masters of my style.



You have changed the context of my comments.


So you keep saying.




They specifically referred to REAL altercations with REAL bad guys who do not play by rules. They fight to win using diabolical means and are not concerned with the consequences. To them prevailing is the goal, not technique, the deeper insights of combat, or Tao. They will blindside you, gang up on you, and use any number of dirty underhanded means to get the advantage. They do not care about being fair or fighting you man to man.


I have been there and met these people and beem ont he floor being kicked to death, so thank you for your theoretical input.



The best knowledge in these circumstances is not technique, but perception and psychology. This allows one to avoid or defuse the situation before physical means become necessary.


Well, I agree - but self defence is only one aspect. After all, one could say never go out, sit in your chair with a shotgun. In the meantime, while I am waiting for a chance to avoid fighting, I might do a bit of bag work, in which case, I may as well find the right way.




One can never be prepared for someone who breaks the rules of how we THINK an altercation is supposed to transpire. The illusion of being prepared or capable is ones greatest weakness, not lack of ability.


I know.




I agree with examining our own deficiencies. I am merely taking the opportunity here to point out for you what you presume to point out for others. Think of me as a mirror of your own behaviors. I have not complained about anyone pointing out their perceived deficiencies of me and I have not presumed more than you presume for yourself. I have not commented in any manner other than mirroring your own comments back towards you. I have just as much right to point out what I perceive to be your shortcomings as you presume to point out for others and I accept your right to do the same to me. I will reply as my level of interest in your comments guides me.


I am not offended by what you say, I just think it is one sided - but the other side you have correct. I laud your attempt to approach the subject with an open approach. However, your point is made - if someone shoots you, you'll get shot. Alternatively, embrace formlessness? I agree.



I must disagree with you that one of the ways to find our own deficiencies is to practice critical thinking against others.


Thus proving how right I am.



The way to discover our own deficiencies is to examine our SELVES. Examine our own mind and abilities and test these, whether physical, emotional or intellectual, in the world of social interaction. We then assess the results and question our methods seeking more efficient and capable techniques for achieving our purpose.


Self, others - examine it all. Most of our ideas, at first, come from others, so it is the same process.



You seem to be persistent in redefining my comments according to a context that is not explicit in my writing. Clearly and repeatedly I have stated: REAL world fighting with REAL world bad guys. You were the one who repeatedly criticized CMA for not fighting and winning in real combat to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have merely pointed out that your own preconceived notions fall prey to the same flaw. If anyone wants to really demonstrate their prowess they must not only fight in duels, but engage in REAL world encounters, and a lot of them. That means with people who do not fight according to any preconceived pattern using any means necessary to win. I am stating, apply the same critical view you have towards CMA to yourself. It is as simple as that.


What I say IS CMA ideas, by the by.
Sure, I understand your point, and it is not in contention. However, rules and no rules is not the point of the CMA issue. All encounters take place in the real world.




I have made no claims that have not been illustrated through real life examples. This validates my points as worth considering within the context of REAL fighting. I am not addressing simple duels here although one would enjoy numerous benefits within this arena as well.


In many ways we are in agreement .

[Water-quan]

Article fromthe martial arts consultancy Gate of Quan:

MORBID OBSSESION WITH VIOLENCE.
The essence of Quan is really only one small aspect of a greater essence – the essence of human movement. This in itself is only a small aspect of the essence of Human. The attempt to unfold the essence of Quan should in no way be taken as meaning the attempt to learn how to be the most violent and cruel that one can possibly be. That is a complete misunderstanding. The quest to unfold the essence of Quan is that of allowing Intent to act fluidly and without hesitation, achieving one’s aim in the most efficient way possible. No part of that concept can be taken as meaning that one’s aim must be violence or cruelty. One might have any one of an infinity of aims. In fact, in most situations, if one’s aim is self preservation the most effective strategy will probably be one of avoiding violence. In addition to this, fluid and unhesitating expression of Intent is a goal in and of itself, regardless of any concerns relating to self defence or violence.

Searching for the essence of Quan is a means to unlock the body’s true potential for movement. In fact, fighting is only one tiny aspect of this. Humans use their bodies for a myriad of tasks, and understanding how to most effectively use them is a benefit not only to self defence but also to health and efficiency in every area, including all other sports.

Strengthening ones ability to channel ‘Intent’ is a benefit to clarity and wisdom on many levels, and leads one to understand that there are usually more options than violence. In fact, violence is often only caused because of self-importance, but essence can not really be understood without losing some of this. And so there are peaceful benefits all round!

One thing is for certain, those who seek violence will invariably find it.

To actually become a formidable person, capable of executing extreme acts of violence is easy. The means to do this are within everyone’s daily reach. In fact, any person with a gun is far more dangerous than even the most powerful martial artist. This is not the essence of Quan. Fluid and unhesitating expression of Intent is the goal, not inflicting suffering on to others, or even the self. Those who desire to inflict suffering on to others are the kind of people who desire to inflict suffering on to others; there is no way round that.

The ‘essence’ is the free and unhesitating choice of the correct and most efficient action to achieve a desired aim. It is our assertion that the aim, the Intent, and the movement can all happen in the same instant, and are all part of the same event.

We assert that it is a mistake to think that martial arts should be simply ‘hurting people as efficiently as possible’. This situation has reached such a point of ridiculousness that the people who have reduced their technique simply to being, in effect, efficient killers, claim to have discovered essence. We assert that this is not so. It is a gross mistake. For one thing, there are many types of self-defence encounter, such as dealing with a drunken relative, or fending off a dangerous animal. One might need to avoid an inanimate object, or use one’s energy to shift a car. Those whose techniques simply encompass punching and kicking as hard as possible, far from being liberated from form, are in fact strictly bound by it as they can not freely choose from all of their available options and perform each one with equal efficiency.

We do not assert that it is wrong for people to be morbidly obsessed with violence, but we do assert that it is in no way necessary if one wishes to learn some effective self-defence. Some people desire truth, and this attitude does not express truth. We point this out specifically because some groups, clubs and individuals, even those claiming to teach essence, recommend morbid obsession – and by this we include thinking that we must go out and have fights or work as a bouncer to ‘understand’ violence. We assert that this is not so, and that understanding violence is a simple matter if that it one’s aim. We abhor the fact that so many people have been conned in to thinking like this. Essence is a part of you, yourself, and doesn’t come from without. Sadly, many people who truly searched for essence have been left without it, even after giving countless hours and plenty of cash to people who claimed to offer it. In some cases people have been left with nothing, even after years of training.

In the same vein, we say that it is not necessary to devote one’s life utterly to training. There is more to life than martial arts. Often, for financial reasons, instructors lead students to think that they need to spend much longer training in martial arts than they really do to get a good level. How terrible it must be for some people to realise that after years of training and obsession with violence the only thing that they are any good at is hurting people! What else did they expect?

Gate of Quan is happy to help people re-claim their own time, and asserts that gaining a good level is by no means as difficult as people have been led to believe.

Copyright 2005 Gate of Quan

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Water-quan,

Gosh! Where to start??

You appear to have only a rudimentary understanding of this topic.

1) Controlling emotionally motivated aggression is not the same thing as repressing it. Transcending aggressive impulses is not the same thing as repressing them. Learning to control our impulses is an act of growth. Humans must learn to transcend the impulse to irrational aggression, just as we learned to control our impulses to murder, rape and pillage. It is an act of maturity.

2) Yes I do have knowledge of the masters I have previous mentioned! I have READ and STUDIED their written works. You may want to try it yourself before you make more ill-informed comments.

3) Musashi killed when he was a youngster, not when he matured. He also lived in a historical period and culture where such behavior was acceptable. As he matured he fought with a wooden sword and realized that true insight into and mastery of swordsmanship comes from the transcendence of aggression and the development of spiritual maturity and insight.

4) Emotional detachment is NOT new age nonsense. It is Buddhist AND Taoist philosophy. My god, educate yourself before you spout tripe about subjects you know nothing about! Your comments are revealing your complete lack of understanding on the matter. Try reading the works of Takuan, Musashi and Yagyu. A good fourth work would be the biography on Yamoka Tesshu, by John Stevens called “The Sword of No-Sword”. All four were established masters! Takuan was a well known Zen master who taught and advised Musashi and Yagyu. Tesshu was a sword master AND a Zen master. I would also recommend to you “Flashing Steel” by Masayuki Shimabukuro.

5) If you want to ignore the teachings of REAL masters who fought in life and death circumstances and believe the teachings of athletes who play for money and fame that is your prerogative. You will not reach the higher levels of understanding that you seem to indicate is your intention. But then you should stop throwing around the word Tao and pretending to know what you are talking about!

6) Yes you DO live in a fantasy world and you will enjoy the fruits and limitations of your poor understanding!

7) You are the one who presumed to criticize the training methods and teaching methods of others pretending to have true understanding about fighting! You appear to have learned very little by being kicked to death other than to over compensate for your fear by worshiping aggression! I am surprised you haven’t realized this about yourself, being a social-psychologist and all! Your ability to throw a pretty punch will do you no good against a REAL bad guy. One might think that being kicked to death by real bad guys would have taught you this! You are living in your own fantasy world, but cannot see it yet.

8) I doubt very seriously you have a degree in anything. You don’t write like you have an education and your insight is non-existent. If you actually do have a degree in social-psychology then I am appalled at the poor state of higher education. Your money or the money of your parents has been sorely wasted. You have not gained much by your efforts.

9) No one said anything about “suppression” of emotion. That is your own personal issues being projected onto the topic. Transcendence is not suppression. Growing up and maturing is not suppression of emotions. I thought you said you had a degree in social-psychology? Didn’t you learn anything? Perhaps being kicked to death has confused your thinking process.

10) If you only listen to the masters of your style then you are behaving foolishly! Learn everything you can about the topic of your interest and also learn about topics that are not related to your topic of interest. Musashi and many other true masters learned calligraphy and painting, practiced the tea ceremony and wrote poetry. They understood that mastery is a quality of the mind and not the body. When one masters themselves they are masters of all things. This was demonstrated by Shoju when he defeated the swordmasters with nothing but his insight and a fan!! Practice, read and learn more about your own mind and spirit rather than spouting your foolishness; then perhaps you will achieve your goal. Remain in the ignorance of your present condition and you will remain like one of those you self-righteously criticize!

11) Your critical views of the methods of others are of value however your manner of expressing them is unproductive. I am applying the same criticism to you that you have applied to those you criticize and you don’t like it. The lesson is don’t to unto to others what you don’t like done to yourself.

12) Rules and no rules is the heart of the matter. Your criticism of CMA is that they don’t train according to the real world. That is the real world according to your own narrow definition. You have changed the context of their purpose. I have done the same to your definition of the real world of fighting I have redefined your definition of what a real world encounter is just as you have done for the CMA. You are pretending to know what you are talking about just as you criticize the CMA teachers you don’t agree with. REAL world encounters occur according to a context. You have redefined their context to demonstrate them ignorant and wrong and I have redefined your context to demonstrate you ignorant and wrong. You claim they cannot see past their own fantasy world and yet you are unable to see past your own fantasy world. You are guilty of the same thing you have criticized the CMA teachers of yet you cannot see it in yourself. Your time would be better spent addressing your own ignorance before you address the ignorance of others. I have provided you with bona fide references written by well-established masters for the principles I have addressed and you refused to consider them. This is not the act of a person wishing to learn and grow and discover insights into their self, life and the MA. This is the behavior someone who doesn’t want their own fantasy world challenged! This reveals that you are just as enamored with your own fantasies as those in CMA you claim live in a fantasy world!

13) As I have stated above, try reading and thinking more in depth about the topics you are spouting non-sense about. Consider the opinions of others, especially the opinions that upset your apple cart. Those are the thoughts that will challenge the limits of your own belief system. Then, in about 20 or 30 more years, you MAY have something worthwhile to say.

[Water-quan]

Hi Water-quan,

Gosh! Where to start??



Firstly, by listening. Secondly, by understanding.


You appear to have only a rudimentary understanding of this topic.


Clearly.


1) Controlling emotionally motivated aggression is not the same thing as repressing it. Transcending aggressive impulses is not the same thing as repressing them. Learning to control our impulses is an act of growth. Humans must learn to transcend the impulse to irrational aggression, just as we learned to control our impulses to murder, rape and pillage. It is an act of maturity.


Well, transcend your agression then, if that is your aim, and best of luck with that. For me, I don't need or want to transcend who I am - I'm happy with who I am - human being.


2) Yes I do have knowledge of the masters I have previous mentioned! I have READ and STUDIED their written works. You may want to try it yourself before you make more ill-informed comments.


Why would I need their knowledge when I can unfold my own? There's nothing that they knew that can't be known. Anyway, I dare to say that I understand their ideas deeply.


3) Musashi killed when he was a youngster, not when he matured. He also lived in a historical period and culture where such behavior was acceptable. As he matured he fought with a wooden sword and realized that true insight into and mastery of swordsmanship comes from the transcendence of aggression and the development of spiritual maturity and insight.


Well, good luck with maturing spiritually! Personally, I am already evolved in to a human being, and that's ok by me. By the by, when i become spiritually mature will I be on the net telling people how un spiritually mature they are?? I would rather hope that I would have transcended that behaviour, along with my agression!




4) Emotional detachment is NOT new age nonsense.


Don't worry, no ideologies are hurt by questioning them.



It is Buddhist AND Taoist philosophy. My god, educate yourself before you spout tripe about subjects you know nothing about! Your comments are revealing your complete lack of understanding on the matter. Try reading the works of Takuan, Musashi and Yagyu. A good fourth work would be the biography on Yamoka Tesshu, by John Stevens called “The Sword of No-Sword”. All four were established masters! Takuan was a well known Zen master who taught and advised Musashi and Yagyu. Tesshu was a sword master AND a Zen master. I would also recommend to you “Flashing Steel” by Masayuki Shimabukuro.


Did any of these people know anyting that can't be known? If not, I can find it myself, without them, just by looking... as it says in the Tao Te Ching.



5) If you want to ignore the teachings of REAL masters who fought in life and death circumstances and believe the teachings of athletes who play for money and fame that is your prerogative. You will not reach the higher levels of understanding that you seem to indicate is your intention. But then you should stop throwing around the word Tao and pretending to know what you are talking about!


Well, I'll get by, just the same. Maybe I'll be like the Forest Gump of martial arts.




6) Yes you DO live in a fantasy world and you will enjoy the fruits and limitations of your poor understanding!


Well, if so, then so be it. Why does it bother you though?


7) You are the one who presumed to criticize the training methods and teaching methods of others pretending to have true understanding about fighting!


Oh, it doesn't take any presumption - just open eyes, then open mouth. Nothing to it.


You appear to have learned very little by being kicked to death other than to over compensate for your fear by worshiping aggression! I am surprised you haven’t realized this about yourself, being a social-psychologist and all! Your ability to throw a pretty punch will do you no good against a REAL bad guy. One might think that being kicked to death by real bad guys would have taught you this! You are living in your own fantasy world, but cannot see it yet.


Amazingly, I wasn't actually kicked to death - even without a degree in social psychology you could have worked that out! Very funny.

Is this what is known as a ****ing contest? It's quite fun! This obsession with real bad guys is an interesting compulsive view point you have.



8) I doubt very seriously you have a degree in anything. You don’t write like you have an education and your insight is non-existent. If you actually do have a degree in social-psychology then I am appalled at the poor state of higher education. Your money or the money of your parents has been sorely wasted. You have not gained much by your efforts.


Thank you for the kind and insightful words of encouragement.


9) No one said anything about “suppression” of emotion.


I did.


That is your own personal issues being projected onto the topic. Transcendence is not suppression. Growing up and maturing is not suppression of emotions. I thought you said you had a degree in social-psychology? Didn’t you learn anything? Perhaps being kicked to death has confused your thinking process.


Well, I'm sure it would of, had I actually died. Clearly I haven't. It;s my fault for saying I was being kicked to death - I see where the confusion comes from. They were trying to kill me, but I survived. Hope that's cleared up now! Otherwise, my zombie kung fu system would be all the rage!


10) If you only listen to the masters of your style then you are behaving foolishly!


I see what you did there - imposed your thinking on to mine. The master of my style is me - the master of your style is you. I am the only master of my stlye - who else knows more about me than me?



Learn everything you can about the topic of your interest and also learn about topics that are not related to your topic of interest. Musashi and many other true masters learned calligraphy and painting, practiced the tea ceremony and wrote poetry.


I am not them, nor do I desire to be them. I am happy being me. I am interested in different things, not pretending to be a sixteenth century samurai.


They understood that mastery is a quality of the mind and not the body. When one masters themselves they are masters of all things.


I don't want to be the master of anything.




This was demonstrated by Shoju when he defeated the swordmasters with nothing but his insight and a fan!! Practice, read and learn more about your own mind and spirit rather than spouting your foolishness; then perhaps you will achieve your goal. Remain in the ignorance of your present condition and you will remain like one of those you self-righteously criticize!


I'm not sure which of us sounds the most ridiculous. A draw maybe.

[Water-quan]

11) Your critical views of the methods of others are of value however your manner of expressing them is unproductive. I am applying the same criticism to you that you have applied to those you criticize and you don’t like it. The lesson is don’t to unto to others what you don’t like done to yourself.


Well, if that was true it would be quite funny.




12) Rules and no rules is the heart of the matter. Your criticism of CMA is that they don’t train according to the real world. That is the real world according to your own narrow definition. You have changed the context of their purpose. I have done the same to your definition of the real world of fighting I have redefined your definition of what a real world encounter is just as you have done for the CMA. You are pretending to know what you are talking about just as you criticize the CMA teachers you don’t agree with. REAL world encounters occur according to a context. You have redefined their context to demonstrate them ignorant and wrong and I have redefined your context to demonstrate you ignorant and wrong.


Well then we are all ignorant wrong, so that's at least a blank page to start from.


You claim they cannot see past their own fantasy world and yet you are unable to see past your own fantasy world. You are guilty of the same thing you have criticized the CMA teachers of yet you cannot see it in yourself. Your time would be better spent addressing your own ignorance before you address the ignorance of others. I have provided you with bona fide references written by well-established masters for the principles I have addressed and you refused to consider them. This is not the act of a person wishing to learn and grow and discover insights into their self, life and the MA. This is the behavior someone who doesn’t want their own fantasy world challenged! This reveals that you are just as enamored with your own fantasies as those in CMA you claim live in a fantasy world!


Well, then let me get on with it.


13) As I have stated above, try reading and thinking more in depth about the topics you are spouting non-sense about. Consider the opinions of others, especially the opinions that upset your apple cart. Those are the thoughts that will challenge the limits of your own belief system. Then, in about 20 or 30 more years, you MAY have something worthwhile to say.

Well, someone will have shot me by then, no doubt...

[Ma Long]

Thing is, we all know what to look for. If it was awesome, my Dad would be impressed, my kid would, my neighbour would.


I couldn't possibly disagree more

[Water-quan]

I couldn't possibly disagree more

Are you sure you are trying hard enough?

[cjurakpt]

LOL!

(10 characters)

[Scott R. Brown]

"Do, or do not. There is no try!" - Yoda

[imperialtaichi]

...Searching for the essence of Quan is a means to unlock the body’s true potential for movement. In fact, fighting is only one tiny aspect of this. Humans use their bodies for a myriad of tasks, and understanding how to most effectively use them is a benefit not only to self defence but also to health and efficiency in every area, including all other sports....

....In the same vein, we say that it is not necessary to devote one’s life utterly to training. There is more to life than martial arts....

Copyright 2005 Gate of Quan



I like it. Who wrote this?

Cheers,
John

[Water-quan]

I like it. Who wrote this?

Cheers,
John


I did........