TCMA in MMA [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Lucas

08-24-2007, 11:45 AM

So a couple of the current topics got me thinking....i know its rare, but i happens and sometimes i scare myself. :mad:

anyhow.

Do any of you think its even possible for a strict TCMA practitioner to enter an MMA event and do well?

now here is the distinction i am drawing.

we all know that TCMA, TRADITIONALLY, is only really tcma if we accept the skills and abilities from any source that is effecient, applicable and tested.

NOW, in this particular thread, i am posing the question from the standpoint of TCMA folks who are of the disposition to believe that their CMA they study has all the elements they need in fighting without having to cross train in wresting, submission fighting, etc.

if that makes sense at all.

the reason i decide to pose the question from the apparently absured notion that some tcma folks have is because this is the weakest link. and we all know a chain is only as good as.....

personally, my answer is No. you cannot. you MUST cross train in the areas your opponents will excell in. yada yada yada....

MasterKiller

08-24-2007, 11:47 AM

They can probably compete on some level, but not at a high level. Certainly not professionally.

WinterPalm

08-24-2007, 02:00 PM

One problem is posed with regards to training that will put you in a grey area or one or the other depending on who you talk to.

That is: TCMA, at least as I know it, focuses the majority of the time on striking and the standing range. We do have joint locks, submissions, and wrestling techniques, but in order to compete against people that do all these things equally, you would need to at least have some partners that can push you into unfamiliar areas and show you what you need to train against.
Does this mean you are now a wrestler or a BJJ guy? I don't think so, but if you want to play the MMA game, it makes sense to train your stuff against guys doing their stuff so you can compete better.

Would you play hockey without knowing how to wrist shot or pass and only know how to slap shot?

Lucas

08-24-2007, 02:02 PM

my thoughts as well.

so i wonder how long it will take before this type of thinking becomes more universal.

if ever :rolleyes:

tattooedmonk

08-26-2007, 11:38 AM

do you mean traditional in the sense of demilitarized martial arts that we see most schools teaching?Because there is a difference between the two.Authentic traditional martial arts would be more like what we see the guys in MMA events do. ( fighting,conditioning, and training. )

tattooedmonk

08-26-2007, 11:43 AM

That is: TCMA, at least as I know it, focuses the majority of the time on striking and the standing range. We do have joint locks, submissions, and wrestling techniquesif you are not doing these things then what are you doing ??
these are all part of traditional martial arts. The way that schools are structured and run now are called traditional but this in correct. They are only traditional in the sense that this is the way they have been passed down from one generation to the next. Pretty lame way to pass down the material without any martial intent , don't you think??

tattooedmonk

08-26-2007, 11:58 AM

comes from the latin word traditio meaning to" hand over" or "pass down". MMA is a traditional martial art. However they have diffenet traditions.If it was not it could not be passed down , handed over , or taught to anyone?

Now I know that mixed martial arts is where diferent aspects of fighting are brought in from multiple sources like boxing/ kickboxing, wrestling/ JJ, etc. But would an art that has multiple methods of fighting also be considered a mixed martial art, in the broadests sense??

RonH

08-26-2007, 01:29 PM

Would you play hockey without knowing how to wrist shot or pass and only know how to slap shot?

Yes, because I willed the blighter to pass through everything except the net and the ice. :p ;)

So a couple of the current topics got me thinking....i know its rare, but i happens and sometimes i scare myself. :mad:

anyhow.

Do any of you think its even possible for a strict TCMA practitioner to enter an MMA event and do well?

now here is the distinction i am drawing.

we all know that TCMA, TRADITIONALLY, is only really tcma if we accept the skills and abilities from any source that is effecient, applicable and tested.

NOW, in this particular thread, i am posing the question from the standpoint of TCMA folks who are of the disposition to believe that their CMA they study has all the elements they need in fighting without having to cross train in wresting, submission fighting, etc.

if that makes sense at all.

the reason i decide to pose the question from the apparently absured notion that some tcma folks have is because this is the weakest link. and we all know a chain is only as good as.....

personally, my answer is No. you cannot. you MUST cross train in the areas your opponents will excell in. yada yada yada....

Do you mean does it have all of what's needed without bringing in people from other styles to fight against/learn from or do you mean where you train against people of other styles to help you get a greater understanding of just what is capable of your own style? Where learning what another might do with a style not your own is secondary, where learning how adaptable your style is to situations is the primary focus?

unkokusai

08-26-2007, 01:55 PM

Oh brother, here we go again...

Dim Wit Mak

08-26-2007, 05:17 PM

Knifefighter

08-26-2007, 09:19 PM

Assuming similar physical stature and athletic ability, do you think a MMA could enter a kwoon with no rules and do well?

Similar physical stature, age, years of training, etc., MMA wins 49 times out of 50.

YiLiQuan1

08-26-2007, 09:41 PM

Similar physical stature, age, years of training, etc., MMA wins 49 times out of 50.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.

MMA - simpler skill set; experience using skill set in competitive, resistant environment; effectiveness of techniques based on actual use, not belief.

Typical CMA - complex skill set; experience using skill set against other students of same style only, infrequently against resisting opponent; effectiveness of technique based primarily on belief, not actual use.

Sad, but true.

WinterPalm

08-27-2007, 06:51 PM

I think many things are hard to say.

We train very hard where I train as my Sifu taught and as I ensure students do. MMA people only train against others usually doing MMA type of fighting. The traditional arts offer techniques and perspectives not commonly encountered by MMA folks and this can be a shock.

Without a doubt you have be regularily sparring and doing it with good technique, tempo, intensity, and sparring partners.
It's not some mystical thing that all of a sudden happens, a there is a lot of TCMA crap but there is also a lot of good!

It all comes down to doing what you do better than the next guy does his thing.

RonH

08-27-2007, 07:21 PM

brianK

08-27-2007, 08:01 PM

RonH

08-28-2007, 05:36 AM

Have any of you guys talking about how simple MMA is ever trained in BJJ, catch, sambo, or any other good system of submission grappling? The ground game is incredibly intricate. The stand up may be simpler, but even in China the sport sanda guys tend to out perform TCMA guys when it comes to fighting. And linking the different ranges together fluidly is hardly simple.

I've trained in lots of styles, but only to the point where I can get a feel for what's involved with the style for how to move and such. After that, it's been training with people of other styles, including grapplers and wrestlers, to learn how far and how much I can adapt my taijiquan against the other style, which is my primary focus. My secondary focus is learning what someone of another style might do.

Just because a training method produces skill more quickly than the traditional way doesn't necessarily mean it is simpler, dumbed down, or otherwise inadequate. Rather, they might be focusing on what has been shown to produce fighting skill, as some people do get into martial arts to learn how to fight.

Brian

My concern is the development of an 'us v them' mind set and an oversimplification of training. I view martial arts as a 'living thing', figuratively speaking, that can be used, as any other tool.

Edit: What do you mean by 'catch'? I know BJJ and sambo, but I've never heard of that style.

brianK

08-28-2007, 07:31 AM

Ron: Catch = Catch wrestling or catch as catch can wrestling. Old school western submission grappling. Check out Josh Barnett for a good example.

I'm not looking to get in an us vs. them thing. I train bagua and xingyi every day, and my IMA is much better than my BJJ. Really, I don't see why CMAs along the lines of xingyi or baji can't function as the stand up part of an MMA man's arsenal, but there probably have to be some modifications in the approach to training. More pad work, bag work, and hard sparring; less forms, weapons, overly cooperative apps training and such. The problem is that western boxing, muay thai, san da, and similar striking arts already have a realistic sport fighting curriculum in place, and so guys who want to fight at the highest level will tend to seek out those arts. So the first "CMA" guys to make a splash in MMA will be san da/san shou guys like Cung Le. Hopefully some of us TCMA guys who are getting our grapple on can change this somewhat.

Brian

RonH

08-28-2007, 08:07 AM

Ron: Catch = Catch wrestling or catch as catch can wrestling. Old school western submission grappling. Check out Josh Barnett for a good example.

I'll check it out.

1bad65

08-28-2007, 09:12 AM

Some take the idea of 'simplify how you fight; take what works and discard what doesn't' without understanding that to truly be able to simplify something, a thorough understanding of an entire thing needs to happen before actually simplifying it. Without the thorough understanding, the simplification made is not much more than really a guess at what the simplification 'could' be.

You don't actually believe that do you?

So someone should learn and understand anything and everything first and then, and only then, will they know what to discard? I guess if you start training at say 16, you should be ready for your mma debut at the young age of 50 huh?

Have you ever seen the early UFCs by chance?

1bad65

08-28-2007, 09:15 AM

MMA people only train against others usually doing MMA type of fighting. The traditional arts offer techniques and perspectives not commonly encountered by MMA folks and this can be a shock.

Yeah those BJJ guys, wrestlers, and Sambo guys who consistantly won the early UFCs were clueless as to how to defeat ninjas, KF masters, WC guys, Karate guys, and other TMA practitioners.

Lucas

08-28-2007, 10:40 AM

sorry just checked back in on this thread i started.

IMO:

your standard MMA practitioner would fair better thrust into a fight with a TCMA person with no rules than a TCMA person would being thrust into a fight with an MMA guy and his rule set.

of all the TCMA schools you have been to/trained at. How many of these schools consistantly and realistically train their guys to deal with the ground on a serious level.

how many TCMA guys will have the motor skills drilled to an extent that will create automatic muscle response for things like a standard shoot, single, double etc.

how many TCMA guys will be able to handle being mounted? side? rear?

how many TCMA guys have trained long hours in.....say escaping the RNC?

i have heard from many different CMA guys that "oh its there" or "well at my school we do that all the time"

well i can say: I am a jedi master and i practice my vulcan mind melding on a regular basis and can eat broken glass.

doesnt make it true.

so aside from people CLAIMING to have these element in their TCMA schools and furthermore, to actually TRAIN these things to an extent of familiarity and comfortability to create confidence and trust that you can rely on this training to deal with a seriously trained grappler. can anyone prove that their TCMA school is propegating this type of training?

whether your school deals with heavy grappling training or not doesnt matter.

its not really a bad thing if you dont.

every school will have its focus, if your school is on strictly stand up, thats fine.

but this is the point we need to realize that crosstraining is critical. as professional fighters anyway.

Personally I dont think serious grappling training is needed to survive in todays world.

But in the arena of modern sport combat, its imperative that we can handle the ground element.

personally, i am not an MMA fighter. doubtfull i ever will be. I'm just not interested.

BUT at the same time I am a martial artist, these are things i think about when i train or watch fights. Someday I might train someone to fight, and you can bet your ass if at that point i am not a strong grappler, that i WILL send them to one.

Lucas

08-28-2007, 10:48 AM

in addition, IMO:

a traditional chinese martial art does not necessarily have to have an element of ground/submission grappling.

Most dont.

the Tradition of said art just may not include grappling to the extent that we see in your standard MMA arena.

I still dont understand why someone should get offended or upset when the aspect of not having a system in place that can even touch arts such as BJJ is brought up.

if someone asks you how well you can handle a bjj purple or above, and your answer is "not very well"

then, i hate to tell you, you have not been trained well enough in grappling as you might have previously thought.

where i currently train, we do not do grappling like this. At least not that i have seen. But see im fine with that.

Its a Taiji school. I am not there to learn submission grappling. I am there to learn Taiji.

If i want to eat a hamburger i dont go to a mexican resturaunt....

if i want to learn submission grappling, ill learn an art that FOCUS's on that.

if you take a pure BJJ guy, how would his striking compare to a pure CMA striker? or a Boxer? if he wanted to box, would he not get a boxing coach? or would he ask his purely BJJ instuctor to teach him to box?

Becca

08-28-2007, 12:03 PM

They can probably compete on some level, but not at a high level. Certainly not professionally.
Agreed. Not without at least some serious sparring, even if they don't actually "cross train." But since there would still be a transfr of skill and/or information, this could still be cross training of a sort.

RonH

08-28-2007, 12:24 PM

You don't actually believe that do you?

So someone should learn and understand anything and everything first and then, and only then, will they know what to discard?

I'll give you an illustrative example. Say you're into robotics and you want to build a miniature version of something you see in a movie. It may not have all the bells and wistles, as the one in the movie, but you still want a good approximation at the smaller size. If you're gonna build a mini version of something you saw on TV, you can't do that, unless you know what went into the TV version. At the very least, you need to understand the underlying principles of robotics first.

If one does not have a robotics background, the best this person can do is have a skill where they can repair and tinker a little with electronics, which they can gain by repeatedly trying to come up with the mini-robot. But, that doesn't mean they have the skill and background of someone that went through and got the robotics background before working on the miniature.

There are little tricks and nuiances that are not covered in many MMA schools. Many instructors will have a variety of experiences, but not all teach the subtlties they learned from other styles. They sometimes give a watered down version. When taught to the student that hasn't had any other experience in MA, some of the details are lost, even if the instructor has this and that belt in whatever style. To be able to truly understand it, like the teacher does, the student would have to go through the same expereinces, as the teacher. There is only so much that you can put ito words, even if you have a natural tendency to be detailed and verbose. Something will still get lost when trying to convey it in words and images.

Now, it is a guess when you don't have the traditional background. And that can be right at times. But, that's irrelevent. The fact remains is that without the background beforehand, it is still a guess, whether it ends up being right or not.

I guess if you start training at say 16, you should be ready for your mma debut at the young age of 50 huh?

Many follow Bruce Lee's teachings, which while good, he only came up with them after years of nonMMA style training. To understand his principles the same way Bruce Lee did, you must go through the same training he did. Otherwise, what you take away from his training is only what you get out of it, not what Bruce Lee got out of the simplification method. He already had the background framework when he came up with the ideas he started teaching before he died.

You don't have to wait for 50, given the requirements that MMA competitions state. One of the things I see that's bad that's amongst pretty much every MMA fighter I can remember is a lot of twitching when they're in the ring, especially at the beginning of the fight. Part of that comes from adrenaline, some of it comes from excitment, but almost any reason that can be used to explain it comes down to improper mental discipline, causing needlessly wasted energy resources. Explosive and long lasting strength is always subservient to stamina, which depends on energy resources. And you use up lots of energy from just twitching.

Have you ever seen the early UFCs by chance?

I've seen the UFC and other related sports when they were less 'sport' and more bloody and the more modern version where they are less bloody and more 'sport'. The more rules that were added made the broadcasts less and less interesting. The more rules and restrictions placed on fighters makes them feel more like robots to me and not fighters.

You can't be called 'the most dangerous man in the world' in a sport. Even the early years of the UFC had too many rules to make that title anywhere near accurate. The reason for the rules is the safety of the fighters, so they can come back and fight again.

WinterPalm

08-28-2007, 12:38 PM

Yeah those BJJ guys, wrestlers, and Sambo guys who consistantly won the early UFCs were clueless as to how to defeat ninjas, KF masters, WC guys, Karate guys, and other TMA practitioners.

A lot of traditional guys did well in the early UFCs, including the various grappling based systems.

They weren't clueless, but they did what they did better, that is all. If you train something you should be able to do it as best as possible.

My problem, and the only one I have, is that people constantly rag on TCMA, which I do, when there are so many different systems. And as many have pointed out, there are absolute monsters in TCMA that have no desire to compete.

WIthout a doubt, in MMA, one needs a grounding in very specific skills that carry over to the format...but once one's basic abilities are built, the area of expertise of many traditional arts can offer a lot the practitioner.

Again, the mindset is still there...in competition nobody will kill you...except maybe Sobral will try!:eek: Sport competition for atheletes and regular people training in techniques and methods to protect themselves with bring diffferent claims to truth and different methods.

1bad65

08-28-2007, 01:12 PM

One of the things I see that's bad that's amongst pretty much every MMA fighter I can remember is a lot of twitching when they're in the ring, especially at the beginning of the fight. Part of that comes from adrenaline, some of it comes from excitment, but almost any reason that can be used to explain it comes down to improper mental discipline, causing needlessly wasted energy resources. Explosive and long lasting strength is always subservient to stamina, which depends on energy resources. And you use up lots of energy from just twitching.

I look at it this way, why train to learn dozens(or even more) of kicks, blocks, punches, stances, etc? If you get into a fight, the human mind just cannot process that much info that quickly. It's why BJJ is so effective; they have just a few basic positions, and the first goal is to attain the best one possible. Then you either go for a sub or improve position. Once you get a dominant position and establish a base, you go for the sub or the ground and pound. It's the same thing everytime! That's the beauty of it, it's simple. Your mind does not have to process through a multitude of blocks, punches, etc. It just has to think of a few positions, and then submissions.
Boxing and Muay Thai are similar, but they are stand up arts. Both just have a few strikes to learn, you just get better at knowing which one is the best at the given time. You don't have dozens of strikes from dozens of stances to process through in a fight.

As for your quote above, I guess you must have a pretty good MMA record huh? Or you must have trained some good MMA fighters. hmmm...

Becca

08-28-2007, 01:37 PM

I look at it this way, why train to learn dozens(or even more) of kicks, blocks, punches, stances, etc? Why limit the tools in your tool box? You do ralize that if you only know th same moves your oponant knows, sooner or later you are going to come up against someone who is bettr than you at everything he knows. Which is everything you know. What's wrong with haveing a few extra tools available, even if they aren't your favorites?

If you get into a fight, the human mind just cannot process that much info that quickly. It's why BJJ is so effective; they have just a few basic positions, and the first goal is to attain the best one possible. Then you either go for a sub or improve position. Once you get a dominant position and establish a base, you go for the sub or the ground and pound. It's the same thing everytime! That's the beauty of it, it's simple. Your mind does not have to process through a multitude of blocks, punches, etc. It just has to think of a few positions, and then submissions.
Um... So does any other art. You gain controll of the situation first then solve the problem that caused it. They method you use to do that is dictated by style. The problem is not the style, but how realisticly the fighter prepared him/her self...:rolleyes:

Seriously, you don't think the gracies were the first family to succesfully fight do you?

Lucas

08-28-2007, 01:51 PM

Agreed. Not without at least some serious sparring, even if they don't actually "cross train." But since there would still be a transfr of skill and/or information, this could still be cross training of a sort.

interesting concept here. i never looked at it like that.

thanks

1bad65

08-28-2007, 03:12 PM

Why limit the tools in your tool box? You do ralize that if you only know th same moves your oponant knows, sooner or later you are going to come up against someone who is bettr than you at everything he knows. Which is everything you know. What's wrong with haveing a few extra tools available, even if they aren't your favorites?

I never said to limit, but you can really learn so much that you can't process it in the stress of an actual fight. Flying knees and the 'Superman punch' are some 'extra tools' that have been used some in MMA, for example. As for the toolbox example: keep in mind, you can put so many tools in there that it becomes impossible to carry it around :D

Um... So does any other art. You gain controll of the situation first then solve the problem that caused it. They method you use to do that is dictated by style. The problem is not the style, but how realisticly the fighter prepared him/her self...:rolleyes:

Seriously, you don't think the gracies were the first family to succesfully fight do you?

You do know that the early UFCs had some legit TMA guys right? Ichihara was a top Karate player in Japan, alot of Japanese press even followed him over for UFC 2. Pat Smith was a Sabaki Challenge champion. Gerard Gordeau was a successful Savate fighter, the list goes on and on. And they all lost to a BJJ guy quite easily, and looked pretty clueless doing so. And keep in mind, Royce Gracie was nowhere near a top BJJ competitor either. And those TMA guys competed, so you know they had realistic training methods.

The Gracies were not the first family to fight, but I dare say they were the most successful.

Lucas

08-28-2007, 03:31 PM

I never said to limit, but you can really learn so much that you can't process it in the stress of an actual fight. Flying knees and the 'Superman punch' are some 'extra tools' that have been used some in MMA, for example. As for the toolbox example: keep in mind, you can put so many tools in there that it becomes impossible to carry it around :D

You do know that the early UFCs had some legit TMA guys right? Ichihara was a top Karate player in Japan, alot of Japanese press even followed him over for UFC 2. Pat Smith was a Sabaki Challenge champion. Gerard Gordeau was a successful Savate fighter, the list goes on and on. And they all lost to a BJJ guy quite easily, and looked pretty clueless doing so. And keep in mind, Royce Gracie was nowhere near a top BJJ competitor either. And those TMA guys competed, so you know they had realistic training methods.

The Gracies were not the first family to fight, but I dare say they were the most successful.

I think the statment regarding the gracies being the first family to fight was directed towards all of history, no the last 15 years of MMA.....

we cannot gauge who the best fighters of all time are, as circumstances change through out history. could gracie BJJ defeat alexander the greats broadsword? doubtful.

as for the TMA guys thing. fully. had you taken a few of those TMA guys and given them 3 years in BJJ before they competed, some of them likely would have done much better. not saying win, just better.

it would be interesting to see how many TMA guys started crosstraining seriously on the ground after a BJJ proponent handed them their asses. im betting most if not all.

RonH

08-28-2007, 03:55 PM

I look at it this way, why train to learn dozens(or even more) of kicks, blocks, punches, stances, etc? If you get into a fight, the human mind just cannot process that much info that quickly.

Of course it can. Do you realize just how many cells there are in the human body? There are trillions upon trillions of cells. I've seen some that estimate it as high as 100 trillion. All those cells need constant regulation all the time. This is all done by the subconscious mind. This regulation is done by parallel processing and the interconnectivity of the nervous system. Compared to that, dozens of moves is nothing. It is possible to use your subconscious in learning the moves. First off, it helps to see the underlying anatomical movements shared by each of those moves. After that, it requires meditation. Controlling your thoughts, so you can quiet them enough to hear the subconscious feelings and thoughts each cell of your body is sending to the brain via the nervous system. Somtimes these messages aree symbolic and other times, it's literal. You just have to take the time to figure out what each one is. They won't always be the same.

The subconscious mind is designed to be subservient to the conscious mind, but it requires reprogramming to get it to where you want it to be. And the capacity to do that is why the subconscious is subservient. Take getting over a fear, say heights. For some people, the will of their conscious mind is strong enough that, after repeatedly getting up high, they get used to it and they stop reacting negatively in an involuntary way. For some, it takes other methods, but it's still the conscious mind overriding the subconscious by repeatedly going over the same thing to reprogram it. The same thing happens when you learn a move good enough that it happens on reflex. That, too, is an example of the conscious mind reprogramming the subconscious.

This level of self-control helps to reign in the involuntary actions one might normally expect from excited situation, so they remain just as calm, as if they just had a good night's sleep. After this, you stop trying to force your conscious mind to remember the moves and allow your subconscious to remember it. The reason why they say the brain can hold a wealth of information is the redundency of the memory creations, using different parts of the brain. One memory is not just in one part, but is duplicated in numerous sections.

But, this is why I said in another thread this was a reason why you don't see a lot of artists, particularly internalists, in MMAs. They're too busy perfecting their own skills and mental discipline much of the time to compete. Also, after getting rid of subconscious programming that's a hinderence to both their lifestyle and their fighting skills, a lot of what drives and reinforces the ego goes away because they found the causes for such actions, understand why they are that way and have dealt with it, which allows them to move on because that particular drive no longer exists for them. It has literally vanished. It goes back to the idea of it not being important that other people see you can do something, that what matters most is that you know you can do it, which is taught to a lot of kids and teenagers, as they're growing up.

It's why BJJ is so effective; they have just a few basic positions, and the first goal is to attain the best one possible. Then you either go for a sub or improve position. Once you get a dominant position and establish a base, you go for the sub or the ground and pound. It's the same thing everytime! That's the beauty of it, it's simple. Your mind does not have to process through a multitude of blocks, punches, etc. It just has to think of a few positions, and then submissions.
Boxing and Muay Thai are similar, but they are stand up arts. Both just have a few strikes to learn, you just get better at knowing which one is the best at the given time. You don't have dozens of strikes from dozens of stances to process through in a fight.

After a while, when you look at the underlying similarities between the moves of different styles or even if one styles has lots and lots of different combos of moves, they really simplify into a far fewer number to your brain.

As for your quote above, I guess you must have a pretty good MMA record huh? Or you must have trained some good MMA fighters. hmmm...

I've trained against MMA people before. I've trained with grapplers and wrestlers. But, it still primarily comes down to mental discipline and self-analysis. There is a lot of psychotherapy involved to root out potential hinderences.

unkokusai

08-28-2007, 04:22 PM

Of course it can. Do you realize just how many cells there are in the human body? There are trillions upon trillions of cells. I've seen some that estimate it as high as 100 trillion. All those cells need constant regulation all the time. This is all done by the subconscious mind. .

Oh brother, here we go... :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-28-2007, 04:29 PM

Oh brother, here we go... :rolleyes:

Sadly, that about sums it up.

For someone who seems to know EVERY answer, I'm shocked that Ron is not a world champion level fighter, or at least the trainer of them.

Lucas

08-28-2007, 05:02 PM

I dont know about EVERY answer.

but you cannot discount everything he's saying.

on one level or another, he is hitting A mark.

of course IMO its not always going to be so cut and dry.

in the years ive studied martial arts the thing ive noticed above all else is that MA is very individualistic.

there is sooo much room for variance between people that we can only speak on subjects like this from one particular vantage point, to an extent anyhow.

for some people memorizing and utilizing a large degree of material may seem easy, and is assimilated without spending overly too much time.

his very brother may be the exact opposite.

ive experienced learning a technique several times faster than people many years my senior in an art new to me.

how do we explain things like this?

perhaps i was just a natural at that one thing i was learning and he wasnt. maybe past experience came into play. maybe my brain works very differently.

Of course we can look and lump things into the Majority of responses/abilities/etc. but we always have to remember there will always be exceptions on both sides fo the fence.

some people will talk from the view of a certain extreme, often times because that is the experience they have.

Now, this is not me saying anyone is good, or bad, at anything.

its just an element that is always in play no matter what we do in life.

i like to look at things from every angle, as much as possible.

RonH

08-28-2007, 05:30 PM

Sadly, that about sums it up.

For someone who seems to know EVERY answer, I'm shocked that Ron is not a world champion level fighter, or at least the trainer of them.

Not every answer. Just the ones I've responded to. There is much I don't know.

So, then, if you really think I don't know what I'm talking about, prove me wrong.

1) Prove that there aren't trillions of cells in the human body, allowing for some differences between people based on height, weight, density, etc. for an exact figure for each person.
2) Prove that the brain doesn't work by parallel processing and memories are not stored in multiple sections of the brain.
3) Prove that for some, repeated elevations to heights above ground level can help eliminate a fear of heights.
4) Prove that psychotherapy can't help people. That all those people that actually have been helped by therapy are just people that have been scammed. All those people that go to couples counseling, family therapy. People that have had horrid things done to them and they go to therapy to help work through their issues by identifying what is going on inside of them and working through those thoughts and feelings to be better people.
5) Prove that people have never shown a marked decrease in their reactions to stimuli, like keeping their cool in hostile situations and not panicking like a chiken with it's head cut off or just yelling and screaming.
6) Prove that you can think just as clearly when you're whacked out of your gord when you're high on adrenaline and fear, as you are when you're calm and at peace and happy.
7) Prove that no child has ever been taught that it's better they know they can do something than trying to get other people to see they can do it.
8) Prove that there are no underlying anatomical similarities in how moves are done between different styles. Prove a punch is not a punch when done in at least 2 different styles. Prove that a kick is not a kick when done in at least 2 different styles.

Providing a counterpoint to any of these 8 would be a good start. If I'm really talking out of both sides of my mouth, countering any of these 8 should be effortless for you. I'll be happy with you countering just one of them.

RonH

08-28-2007, 05:52 PM

I dont know about EVERY answer.

but you cannot discount everything he's saying.

on one level or another, he is hitting A mark.

These are people that have a problem with anything I say just because I have my particular spiritual beliefs. They'll look at that and then, if they don't believe in what I say about those particular beliefs, that must mean I can't speak intelligently on any other subject. So, this isn't surprising.

of course IMO its not always going to be so cut and dry.

In my experience, if you want it to be cut and dry, it mostly can. It's just every so often, that occassional nuiance that's a sticking point.

in the years ive studied martial arts the thing ive noticed above all else is that MA is very individualistic.

there is sooo much room for variance between people that we can only speak on subjects like this from one particular vantage point, to an extent anyhow.

I agree. But, for some, they just can't accept that what doesn't work for them can work for someone else.

for some people memorizing and utilizing a large degree of material may seem easy, and is assimilated without spending overly too much time.

his very brother may be the exact opposite.

ive experienced learning a technique several times faster than people many years my senior in an art new to me.

My brother and I are pretty much the same on speed of assimilating information. For me, smaller amounts from a wider range of subjects is easier. For him, he can assimilate the same amount of material as I can, but can do it for a single subject. However, I have a leg up on him because I focus a lot more on the interconnectivity of different subjects, which has let me learn more than he has. With fighting, I also am a better natural dancer. The fluidity of dancing and being able to maintain a rythim and quickly alter that rythim, when stripped of its dance context and placed into a fighting one, has helped to let me excell even further than a lot of people normally would. It would have taken many many years longer to get to where I am in taijiquan than most others. I was like a sponge for the cirriculum. After learning my first form, I was able to instinctively figure out all the nuianced details and crap to raise the level of proficiency skill more and more at a much faster pace 95% of the time.

brianK

08-28-2007, 06:18 PM

Ron, you're not claiming to be a taiji genius, now are you? Re: The trillions of cells; sure we have many cells, but in fighting things tend to get streamlined. Regardless of style, simple and efficient techniques tend to be most reliable.

I really think you're offbase when you talk about IMA guys being too busy "perfecting" their skills to sport fight. Iron sharpens iron, and fighting against top competitive fighters is a great way to perfect-and test- one's skills.
A short list of IMA guys, living and deceased, who believe(d) in testing their skills: Su Dong Chen, Li Tai Liang, Tim Cartmell, Wang Shu Jin, William CC Chen, Dan Docherty, Chen Fake, Feng Zhiqiang, Luo De Xiu, Akuzawa Minoru, Mike Patterson, etc., etc, so on and so forth. Too busy perfecting skills to cross hands with "low level" fighters like Couture, Fedor, et al is a lame excuse.

Brian

RonH

08-28-2007, 07:02 PM

Ron, you're not claiming to be a taiji genius, now are you?

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.

But, the problem that keeps coming up is a sever lack of anything close to a substantial counterargument to what I've said of late. The only one that's been able to from start to finish has been RD'S Alias -1a. He didn't try to turn the discussion into a pi$$ing match, unlike several others who don't do anything more than try to score appearance points these days when they reply to me. As if that changes the substance of their arguments, and lack there of, at all.

Re: The trillions of cells; sure we have many cells, but in fighting things tend to get streamlined. Regardless of style, simple and efficient techniques tend to be most reliable.

That will always and only be true, as long as you keep thinking it is so. This is why I said meditation is the next thing to do to bring your skills up to the next level.

I really think you're offbase when you talk about IMA guys being too busy "perfecting" their skills to sport fight. Iron sharpens iron, and fighting against top competitive fighters is a great way to perfect-and test- one's skills.
A short list of IMA guys, living and deceased, who believe(d) in testing their skills: Su Dong Chen, Li Tai Liang, Tim Cartmell, Wang Shu Jin, William CC Chen, Dan Docherty, Chen Fake, Feng Zhiqiang, Luo De Xiu, Akuzawa Minoru, Mike Patterson, etc., etc, so on and so forth. Too busy perfecting skills to cross hands with "low level" fighters like Couture, Fedor, et al is a lame excuse.

No, I'm saying most don't care one way or the other because it isn't important to them to go around trying to get title and trophy after title and trophy. I'm not saying MMA people have low skills and that's why you don't see it that much. More value is placed on perfecting themselves and their craft. But, there are some that do wish that there are more IMA people in sports fighting, so they try to rally people to the same feelings.

And, with the same thinking as iron sharpens iron...when you're trying to perfect yourself and deal with thoughts and feelings that you have, so that you can surpass those hinderences, as an avenue to become a better fighter, you aren't gonna step into an actual ring for that.

unkokusai

08-28-2007, 07:29 PM

but you cannot discount everything he's saying. .

Yes we can. He's a headcase, nothing more.

unkokusai

08-28-2007, 07:31 PM

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. .

As I was saying... :rolleyes:

cjurakpt

08-28-2007, 08:56 PM

There are trillions upon trillions of cells. I've seen some that estimate it as high as 100 trillion. All those cells need constant regulation all the time. This is all done by the subconscious mind. This regulation is done by parallel processing and the interconnectivity of the nervous system.
cell regulation is a complex, multi-factorial process involving but not limited to mechanical, chemical, hormonal and genetic factors (so the nervous system is really only one piece of a much larger puzzle); on the flip side, the term "subconscious" is a term coined by Freud to describe the unconscious mind, and is essentially a quallitative term used by psychologists as a model to try to explain certain aspects of human behavior; now, certainly there is a relationship between physiological / cell function and emotional / psychological state, that has been clearly demonstrated objectively; but to state that the subconscious is what is regulating cells is at best an oversimplification, and at worst simply not true - if this were so, it would require a precise definition of what the "subconscious" is (simply saying anthing that the conscious mind is not aware of doesn't really cut it) and to describe the mechanisms by which it directly or indirectly influences the various means by which cell regulation occurs; as far as parallel processing, in physiology it refers specifically to the ability of the brain to simultaneously breakdown and process component pieces of complx incoming stimulii, such as in vision where it separates things like shape and color, compares them to stored memory and then puts it back together to "tell" you what you are seeing - this really doesn't describe what is happenening with cell regulation

Compared to that, dozens of moves is nothing. It is possible to use your subconscious in learning the moves. First off, it helps to see the underlying anatomical movements shared by each of those moves. After that, it requires meditation. Controlling your thoughts, so you can quiet them enough to hear the subconscious feelings and thoughts each cell of your body is sending to the brain via the nervous system. Somtimes these messages aree symbolic and other times, it's literal. You just have to take the time to figure out what each one is. They won't always be the same.
not really: controlling thought requires thought, and so is actually not quieting of thought - it's just replacing one type of thought - whatever thoughts you are trying to control and quiet - with another type - the thought of controlling and quieting; and therefore, this is not meditation, which is the "activity" of seeing things such as they are - neither encouraging nor quelling, but rather being aware without judgement of the rising and falling of thought; this is the idea of "stopping and seeing", which is the basis of Ch'an (which means "suchness"); in meditation, all the so-called "messages" your cells are alledgedly sending to your brain are simply more manifestations of thought, to be neither desired nor rejected; coming to a place of true stillness, one sees into ones true nature without the conditioned mind judging what one observes

But, this is why I said in another thread this was a reason why you don't see a lot of artists, particularly internalists, in MMAs. They're too busy perfecting their own skills and mental discipline much of the time to compete.
that's one heck of a generalization and can not be proven - the best you could say is that of the IMA people you have spoken to directly, this is the case; it also is biased, implying that competition is not a viable means of perfecting ones skills in IMA, and I know plenty of skilled IMA folks that would heartly disagree with you

anyway, these are just my opinions, giving others an alternate perspective on the matter

cjurakpt

08-28-2007, 09:18 PM

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.

wonderful! so then you could easily discuss the following:

1) what is the cardinal direction you allegorically face at the beginning of the taiji form, and why?
2) in the beginning of the taiji form, what is the mechanism by which the so-called "qi" is activated (hint: go read up on your Chuang Tzu)?
3) in the opening movement "Taiji Ascends" what meridian is the first to be activated and why?
4) as the form progresses, what direction does the it then travel in, why, and why are there 5 brush knees, and what does each one represent?
5) what is the correlation between the "taiji" of the body and the "tai ji" of the observable sky?
6) in the classical form, what realm is represented by each of the three chapters and why?
7) what is the active relationship between the I Ching and the macro-pattern of the taiji form (hint: the first move of the second chapter that most call "Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain" is pretty much a dead giveaway) and why is it that particular configuration?
8) in the Tai Gihk Sahp Yu (taiji ten principles), the first principle, "heui ling yuen ding" translates as "empty the collar, suspend the top" - what does this mean, how does it feel and why does it work, either from a taoist alchemical / internal body view (e.g. - The Nine Celestial Peaks) or a western anatomical / physiological / kinesiological perspective (e.g. - function of connective tissue via the principles of tensegrety)?
9) what is the relationship of the movement Wild Horse Parts Mane to the I Ching hexagram Kun, the Receptive, and why is it fundamental to the development of the taiji form, and how does it directly relate to the phrase "Energy rises to the top; Dragons battle in the field; Their blood flows dark and yellow."?
10) the movement "dan bin" is typically translated as Single Whip; however, an alternate viable translation is Cinnabar Transformation or Transforming the Elixir; from a taoist internal alchemical perspective, examining the experiential kinesioenergetics of that movement, why does this name make sense and accurately describe what is occuring here? also what is the move that precedes it that is necessary to set it up properly (hint: some people are missing it in their forms...) and what is the move after it that is required to resolve it correctly (also missing in most versions of the form)?

BTW - this is not, as you call it, a pi$$ing contest: you are making a claim of high-level taiji knowledge & experience; so come on then - enough generalizations, let's get down to specifics: provide some solid evidence to support that claim, plain and simple;
since these questions are all pretty much based on a combination of intellectual and experiential knowledge of taiji energetics at an intermediate to advanced level, they should be no problem for you...in fact, if you can answer even the first five of these questions correctly, I'd say that your level is respectable (although hardly profound); answer all 10 and I will not only validate your claim, I will no longer question your statements in any future posts, and in fact I will go back and delete the earlier posts I made that caused you such chagrin elsewhere; can you ask for anything more?

and if you think that this post is derailing this thread, I will be happy to delete it and start a new one dedicated to you providing support of your claim...

1bad65

08-29-2007, 06:06 AM

Ron, there is no way i'm gonna read through and discuss that mega-post/syllabus you wrote.

Bottom line, if this Taji/Chi/internal junk you say works, why can't it be proven? Why are NONE of the best(or any for that manner) MMA guys doing it? Chi is bs, period. Watch(on Youtube) the Dillman clips from National Geographic and his student 'The Human Stun Gun' make fools of themselves when called out on their bs.

Becca

08-29-2007, 06:50 AM

You do know that the early UFCs had some legit TMA guys right? Ichihara was a top Karate player in Japan, alot of Japanese press even followed him over for UFC 2. Pat Smith was a Sabaki Challenge champion. Have you ever watched a Sabaki Challenge? I have; it's held in Denver every now and then. Very good full contact karate, but still only point sparring. They stop and reset after every point earned. Not exactly good training for MMA.

Gerard Gordeau was a successful Savate fighter, the list goes on and on. And they all lost to a BJJ guy quite easily, and looked pretty clueless doing so. And keep in mind, Royce Gracie was nowhere near a top BJJ competitor either. And those TMA guys competed, so you know they had realistic training methods.Competed in what? Pride has been around that long, I believe. There were no Pride fighters in the early UFC. I know Koshu has been around that long. There were no koshu fighters in the UFC, earlier or current. And on exaple of one Savate fighter loosing to BJJ does not mean Savate itself is ineffective against BJJ.

The Gracies were not the first family to fight, but I dare say they were the most successful. Really? So the Ali family were chumps? And the Formans? And those are just Household boxing names. The Gracies are a household name in the world of martial arts. But so is Hulk Hogan. Being a household name here in the U.S. does not make one the most successful.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 07:21 AM

Have you ever watched a Sabaki Challenge? I have; it's held in Denver every now and then. Very good full contact karate, but still only point sparring. They stop and reset after every point earned. Not exactly good training for MMA.

Competed in what? Pride has been around that long, I believe. There were no Pride fighters in the early UFC. I know Koshu has been around that long. There were no koshu fighters in the UFC, earlier or current. And on exaple of one Savate fighter loosing to BJJ does not mean Savate itself is ineffective against BJJ.

Really? So the Ali family were chumps? And the Formans? And those are just Household boxing names. The Gracies are a household name in the world of martial arts. But so is Hulk Hogan. Being a household name here in the U.S. does not make one the most successful.

You can do better than that. Ok, so you say Pat Smith had inneffective training. What about Gordeau? Kevin Rosier was a World Champion kickboxer. Art Jimmerson was a Top 25 boxer. Ken Shamrock was a King of Pancrase. I know you hate the Gracies, but give them props for competing and WINNING. As for what styles/fighters did not fight; Art Davie(the matchmaker) put out ads for fighters in every MA mag he could, they chose the best of WHO APPLIED. Guys like Frank Dux and Emin Boztepe declined to enter it. Can't fault the UFC for that.

The Ali and Foreman families? Get real. While George Foreman and Mohammed Ali were excellent boxers, they don't have a fighting family history like the Gracies. Laila Ali? She fights tomato cans and runs from real fighters like Anne Wolfe. Helio Gracie was doing it in the 1950s! And the young Gracies are entering it now, Roger, Daniel, Ryan, etc. And I did not call anyone 'chumps'.

PRIDE came after UFC. PRIDE 1 was on 10/11/97. UFC 1 was on 11/12/93. The closest to MMA was Pancrase. The then-current King of Pancrase, Ken Shamrock, fought in UFC 1.

RonH

08-29-2007, 07:28 AM

Ron, there is no way i'm gonna read through and discuss that mega-post/syllabus you wrote.

You consider that to be a mega-post? Good lord. That's barely anything compared to pretty much most online boards.

Bottom line, if this Taji/Chi/internal junk you say works, why can't it be proven?

It has been for thousands of years. If you close your eyes to the evidence or don't take time to see its effect, you won't ever see it. Not every instance of 'proof' will always be loud, flashy and overly obvious.

Why are NONE of the best(or any for that manner) MMA guys doing it?

You'll have to ask them, but I would suspect that they are unwilling to put in the time and effort to actually work on it. They want it all now, they don't want to wait for it and if it isn't what they were expecting, it must be complete and total crap.

Chi is bs, period.

If a lot of your evidence is based on whether or not someone else does it, like someone in sports fighting circles, that's a grossly inadequate level of proof.

Watch(on Youtube) the Dillman clips from National Geographic and his student 'The Human Stun Gun' make fools of themselves when called out on their bs.

The one on youtube, where, with paramedic equipment hooked up to people, it showed changes in heart rate, which are consistent with getting shocked. They also noted visual signs of sweating and skin changes, also associated with it. The 'hit' he gave the reporter was barely anything and she had a noticable reaction to him touching her, which she calls a lapt tap technique, but still says 'you hit me in the head!'. And even the paramedics didn't how how these changes could be made by someone on their own.

As far as the Jujitsu students, his explanation seems weird. It's more likely that they have a more dulled reaction to it. Just as one's senses can be dulled and they react less noticably to external stimuli. One guy even said he'd been hit in the head a lot. The guy said there there is a limited number of people he can do it on, based on their susceptability, which does explain why those that are longer term internalists are more sensitive to it than others. There is also natural sensitivty factored in, too.

There is also the fact that energy follows the mind. If it is believed to not exist for someone, it doesn't. Dillman also said that changing how the toes and tongue are can neutralize it. This is true, but understanding it requires an understanding of chi, meridians, grounding and such, just as you would need an understanding of electronics to understand why something happened with a device.

Without that information, it'd be like saying 'I'm gonna use the law of gravity to explain how we get energy from food. If I can't explain it with the law of gravity, it must be BS. Anyone that says differently is a fraud.'

lkfmdc

08-29-2007, 07:42 AM

RonH = Mordiot

1bad65

08-29-2007, 07:47 AM

It has been for thousands of years. If you close your eyes to the evidence or don't take time to see its effect, you won't ever see it.

Nice out there, buddy.

"Not every instance of 'proof' will always be loud, flashy and overly obvious." That's called FAITH, not PROOF.

You'll have to ask them, but I would suspect that they are unwilling to put in the time and effort to actually work on it. They want it all now, they don't want to wait for it and if it isn't what they were expecting, it must be complete and total crap.

Yeah, not taking time to learn skills that will help them earn 6-figure fight purses and 7-figure endorsement deals. Get real.

If a lot of your evidence is based on whether or not someone else does it, like someone in sports fighting circles, that's a grossly inadequate level of proof.

You can prove it, can't you? Oh wait, you already gave your out in the above quote. My bad. :D

Dillman and that fat 'Human Stun Gun' are real to you? Dude, get some meds, please. Wally Jay could not KO a 125lb SCIENTIST, not a fighter! Notice how Dillman conveniently did not try, he let his stupid lackey fail and look retarded.

So it won't work if the target is a sceptic? And you believe in it!!!! I'll say this, even if you don't believe in a Rear Naked Choke I GUARANTEE I can put you out with it if you let me apply it like the scientist and the reporter gave those Chi fools a 'free shot'.

Also, if it's so real Ron, when will you be picking up your million dollar check? Go to Randi.org and arrange for a test, it should be the easiest million dollars you could ever earn.......

Becca

08-29-2007, 08:09 AM

I know you hate the Gracies, but give them props for competing and WINNING.

Don't hate the Gracies. It's not that I don't care for the Gracies; I just don't care about them. The things you say about Lilia Ali are true from your point of view. From mine: aren't some of those wins Royce claims against his on children when they were little?:rolleyes:

There's two sides to everything. For you MMA begins with UFC 1. For me, It has no beginning, at least not in recorded history. We will never agree because we aren't even using the same criteria to define the argument.

Becca

08-29-2007, 08:20 AM

... controlling thought requires thought, and so is actually not quieting of thought - it's just replacing one type of thought - whatever thoughts you are trying to control and quiet - with another type - the thought of controlling and quieting; and therefore, this is not meditation, which is the "activity" of seeing things such as they are - neither encouraging nor quelling, but rather being aware without judgement of the rising and falling of thought; this is the idea of "stopping and seeing", which is the basis of Ch'an (which means "suchness"); in meditation, all the so-called "messages" your cells are alledgedly sending to your brain are simply more manifestations of thought, to be neither desired nor rejected; coming to a place of true stillness, one sees into ones true nature without the conditioned mind judging what one observes...

This is truely one of the very best explinatons of meditation I've ever read. :)

RonH

08-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Nice out there, buddy.

"Not every instance of 'proof' will always be loud, flashy and overly obvious." That's called FAITH, not PROOF.

Wrong, unfortunately for you. When chemical reactions happen in the human body for normal, everyday functions, they aren't loud, flashy and uberobvious. So, for starters, your basis for 'what is evidence' is already flawed before you look at any subject. And when you 'analyze' this subject, you conclusions are even more flawed because you screwed up at the beginning before you started.

Yeah, not taking time to learn skills that will help them earn 6-figure fight purses and 7-figure endorsement deals. Get real.

And wrong again. They choose to focus on the skills that get them to the quickest place they can be to compete. What I was talking of, which is obvious to everyone (given the topic we are talking about) is a different skill set that takes much longer to learn and requires more effort.

It'd be better for the discussion, if you paid more attention.

You can prove it, can't you? Oh wait, you already gave your out in the above quote. My bad. :D

You know, you were actually doing so much better than when we talked on the last thread. You provided a counterperspective and limited your use of unintellectually sufficient fallacious logic. What's sad is that you're starting to head back towards it.

I'll say again that not all evidence is always loud, flashy and uberobvious. What you seem to want is a level and specific types of evidence that's often shown in comics. You need to ignore the commercialization of things and focus on what they are, if you truly wish to get anywhere with the topic.

Dillman and that fat 'Human Stun Gun' are real to you? Dude, get some meds, please. Wally Jay could not KO a 125lb SCIENTIST, not a fighter! Notice how Dillman conveniently did not try, he let his stupid lackey fail and look retarded.

You just ignored the part where I said energy follows the mind and the part where there are varying degrees of sensitivity levels.

Again, I want to stress to you that paying attention to what I say brings about a more beneficial discussion for everyone, those involved and readers...even those that can do nothing more now than write in large print, make it bold and come up with childish words that severily abuse the english language.

So it won't work if the target is a sceptic? And you believe in it!!!! I'll say this, even if you don't believe in a Rear Naked Choke I GUARANTEE I can put you out with it if you let me apply it like the scientist and the reporter gave those Chi fools a 'free shot'.

You cannot use the law of gravity to explain how we get energy from ingested food. This is something you should pay attention to and not gloss over or skip, as you have been doing with what I write.

You are comparing apples and oranges, which, if you truly wanted to be scientific about it, would mean that you are doing your experiement and your reasoning contradictory to standard scientific principles.

Also, if it's so real Ron, when will you be picking up your million dollar check? Go to Randi.org and arrange for a test, it should be the easiest million dollars you could ever earn.......

First off, I don't need the million dollars. I'm fine on money. Second my ego doesn't require that I make someone believe me, just so I can get money. Thirdly, I've looked at the site. The methodology is just the same as using the law of gravity to explain how and why we get energy from ingested food. Fourth, since when is randi.org anything special? Why would he be the only one to give credence to such things from a skeptic's point of view.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 08:32 AM

Don't hate the Gracies. It's not that I don't care for the Gracies; I just don't care about them. The things you say about Lilia Ali are true from your point of view. From mine: aren't some of those wins Royce claims against his on children when they were little?:rolleyes:

There's two sides to everything. For you MMA begins with UFC 1. For me, It has no beginning, at least not in recorded history. We will never agree because we aren't even using the same criteria to define the argument.

We won't agree because you have your FACTS wrong! And you have no idea, without asking me, what my stances on issues are yet you post them!

Laila Ali fights cans, period. She ducks Anne Wolfe, period. And it's not just me, got to ANY boxing board and ask about her. She is a joke, she just has a lucrative boxing career due to her father.
Royce does not claim children as MMA victories. Are you crazy?! His MMA record begins at UFC 1 vs Art Jimmerson. Get real.

MMA does not begin at UFC 1 in MY opinion. Ask me next time, before posting MY opinions. As i posted, Helio Gracie was fighting Vale Tudo in the 1950s. Gene Lebell fought Milo Savage, a boxer, in the 1960s. Both of these were well before UFC 1. And all the 'Gracie Challenge' vids were pre-UFC too.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 08:36 AM

So the bottom line Ron is that you can provide NO PROOF, you will take NO TESTS, and you are training NO fighters to take over the MMA world, correct?

Your about as good at avoiding tests and proof as Rudy is at ducking fights. You should be real proud of yourself :rolleyes:

sanjuro_ronin

08-29-2007, 08:44 AM

Laila Ali fights cans, period. She ducks Anne Wolfe, period. And it's not just me, got to ANY boxing board and ask about her. She is a joke, she just has a lucrative boxing career due to her father.

I have to agree with that, though she did do a number on Erin :D

The only thing that Ron is "right" about , in my view, is this :

They choose to focus on the skills that get them to the quickest place they can be to compete.

Fighters go for the best available in the shortest amount of time, and rightly so.

The power production of Taiji would not fit into their game plan for various reasons.

RonH

08-29-2007, 08:53 AM

Well, I do have to give you points for not allowing yourself to degrade the discussion to the shallow end of the pool.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 09:00 AM

I just want proof Ron. I have seen these Chi fools look so deady, ON THEIR OWN STUDENTS! Not once have I ever seen it work on a skeptic.

Like I've never heard the 'I don't need the money' excuse. Take the test, win the money, and then give it away. Give it to a charity, a political party, your family, or me! We all know that the reason you won't take ANY test is the same reason Rudy won't ever fight. You know you will fail, and fail badly, and in a hilarious way.

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 09:50 AM

This is truely one of the very best explinatons of meditation I've ever read. :)

thank you - but it's not mine - this is basic Ch'an "doctrine"

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 09:53 AM

Becca

08-29-2007, 10:12 AM

And you have no idea, without asking me, what my stances on issues are yet you post them!
And you don't? You said I hate the Gracies. I've never said that. I really don’t care what your opinions are any more than you care about mine...:rolleyes:

I may have the dates on which MMA organization came before another. I’m pretty certain of my facts as far as Royce at one point claiming several hundred victories, and it came out later that he counted every time he sparred as a victory regardless of who the opponent was. And sometimes that opponent was one of his kids.

RonH

08-29-2007, 10:17 AM

I just want proof Ron. I have seen these Chi fools look so deady, ON THEIR OWN STUDENTS! Not once have I ever seen it work on a skeptic.

But, there is so much more to chi than whether you can knock someone down with it. That is why most proof of it isn't flashy, loud and uberobvious.

Like I've never heard the 'I don't need the money' excuse.

You want me to lie about my financial situation? What for? That isn't gonna help anything.

Take the test, win the money, and then give it away. Give it to a charity, a political party, your family, or me!

You? IF I were to give you a million dollars, there better be a very good reason.

We all know that the reason you won't take ANY test is the same reason Rudy won't ever fight. You know you will fail, and fail badly, and in a hilarious way.

Who is Rudy?

If you took the time to expand your knowledge of just what chi involves, you would know why. I have been giving examples this whole time, but you consistently ignore them.

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 10:20 AM

Who is Rudy?

the King of Ducking; looks like you are well on your way to be his successor though...

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790875&postcount=42

the world is waiting...

1bad65

08-29-2007, 10:27 AM

And you don't? You said I hate the Gracies. I've never said that. I really don’t care what your opinions are any more than you care about mine...:rolleyes:

I may have the dates on which MMA organization came before another. I’m pretty certain of my facts as far as Royce at one point claiming several hundred victories, and it came out later that he counted every time he sparred as a victory regardless of who the opponent was. And sometimes that opponent was one of his kids.

Wrong again! Rickson 'claims' several hundred victories. None vs kids though. This INCLUDES BJJ tournamnets, Sambo and Judo tournaments etc, not just MMA fights. Also, Rickson himself has never confirmed or denied that number, thats why I put the ' ' around the word claimed.

You may not hate the Gracies, but you are not giving them the props they deserve. Before the Gracies and UFC, most MA's were katas, one step drills, point sparring tournaments, and Eastern philosophy, etc being marketed as effective self-defense. They put their art, and family name, one the line to PROVE their art/style was superior. No art wins 100% of the time, but they made some very high level TMA guys look BAD, and they had other 'tough guys'(like Boztepe and Dux) avoiding them like the plague.

lkfmdc

08-29-2007, 10:29 AM

James Randi has had his challenge for years, maybe 20 years? All the chi blast master has to do is show him their chi and they can walk away with a million dollars. They can use it to advance mankind, help stray dogs, buy granola, whatever, yet NO ONE HAS EVER DONE IT.....

There's a good reason, they are parlour tricks and James would debunk them faster than a prom dress comes off.

RonH = Morodiot

RonH

08-29-2007, 10:35 AM

So the bottom line Ron is that you can provide NO PROOF

I have been giving proof since the first day I started posting on this forum. I have said examples of what those proofs are, but no matter how often I say them, what I say gets ignored by the more loud and boisterous on the board here and is sometimes deliberately misquoted, so it can be rewritten for purposes to mock me. Your difficulty does not fall on me. I'm not the one that has failed to do something.

you will take NO TESTS

I have taken all the 'tests' that actually are required of me. The rest are options that I feel no compulsion to partake in. As I said before, I don't need the money. Doing it for the money is so utterly common.

and you are training NO fighters to take over the MMA world, correct?

I don't need to.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 11:01 AM

What PROOF Ron? What TESTS Ron? And No fighters either....:rolleyes:

Again, bottom line is you won't take the Randi test. No matter what the excuse you won't take it. All talk and no action. Is this common in CMA or are you and Rudy the exception?

Also, I'm not asking to see 'Chi', just the results/effects of it. I can't explain the physics of how a jet flies, sorry. But I can PROVE it does by pointing one out as it flies over.

Save your phycho-babble, I want PROOF, not more bs.

RonH

08-29-2007, 11:24 AM

Also, I'm not asking to see 'Chi', just the results/effects of it. I can't explain the physics of how a jet flies, sorry. But I can PROVE it does by pointing one out as it flies over.

What did I say? I've been showing proof this whole time and I even have been giving examples. In this thread, the gracie one, the thread before that and on and on and on.

You keep wanting to use gravity to explain how energy is taken in from ingested food.

brianK

08-29-2007, 11:29 AM

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 11:30 AM

and yet, when given the concrete opportuniy to demonstrate his knowledge, he remains silent...

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790875&postcount=42

1bad65

08-29-2007, 11:30 AM

You keep wanting to use gravity to explain how energy is taken in from ingested food.

Just stop! Please! :eek: Where is the PROOF? I will look at it. And you rambling on and on is not proof, just as if I wrote page after page on Bigfoot, it would not PROVE it's existance.

Notice I showed solid, video PROOF that Dillman, that fat follower of his, and Wally Jay FAILED and are full of ****. I want something similar as proof. Not a bunch of ranting about food and body chemistry, etc. Basically show that it works in PRACTICE, not that it works in THEORY.

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 11:44 AM

I just want to state, for the non-IMA guys here, that most of us IMA guys do not believe in that Dillman LKJ BS. Also, while I believe in qi as a Chinese philosophical/medical term for a complex interaction of body processes (and yes, I FEEL the sensations associated with qi), I believe that structure and intention are the engines driving IMAs. Structure and intention fit nicely into modern ideas of bio-mechanics and sports psychology. You're making us look like a bunch of qi twinkies, Ron.

Furthermore, I gave a list of IMA masters who would disagree vehemently with your views on the value of sport fighting. Maybe your IMA genius exceeds Tim Cartmell's,Li Tai Liang's, Su Dong Chen's, et al; for me to believe that, though, you've got to post a vid, fight record, something. If you can convince me your depth of knowledge is greater than their's, I've got to meet you.

Brian

well said; I agree in regards to your assessment of "qi", that it is a metaphorical descriptor for the net effect of the body's internal functional interrelationships as well as the ones in the external environment, and that one can certainly feel many different types of intrinsic processes in the body that are all components of this descriptor, and that there is no mystical "other" force that needs be invented to encompass all this; as for modern concepts, you might also look into the structure of connective tissue in context of tensegrity theory as another way of understanding how initernal principles are readily described from a contemporary paradigm

also as far as IMA guys pushing the bar higher, my friends here are doing just that: http://www.taichili.com/ ; click on the tournament training link

of course, all this is anathema to Ron's perspective; of course, he won't even substantiate his claims of taiji knowledge either (of course, he probably feels justified in not answering because he previously announced he would no longer respond to my posts - how convenient for him...)

1bad65

08-29-2007, 11:46 AM

Furthermore, I gave a list of IMA masters who would disagree vehemently with your views on the value of sport fighting. Maybe your IMA genius exceeds Tim Cartmell's,Li Tai Liang's, Su Dong Chen's, et al; for me to believe that, though, you've got to post a vid, fight record, something. If you can convince me your depth of knowledge is greater than their's, I've got to meet you.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer it. The early UFC were nothing like UFC today. There were 3 'rules': no biting, no eye gouges, and no fish hooking(fingers in the mouth). And there were NO dq's. If you broke a rule, you were only fined, you were NOT disqualified. To me it proved alot, especially since other than Ichihara, Royce was the smaller man in every one of his early UFC fights.

I admit ignorance on the names mentioned. Honest, did they advocate 'alive' training or were they part of the 'too deadly' eye-gouge and bite crowd? Not being a jerk, I really don't know the answer.

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 11:48 AM

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer it. The early UFC were nothing like UFC today. There were 3 'rules': no biting, no eye gouges, and no fish hooking(fingers in the mouth). And there were NO dq's. If you broke a rule, you were only fined, you were NOT disqualified. To me it proved alot, especially since other than Ichihara, Royce was the smaller man in every one of his early UFC fights.

I admit ignorance on the names mentioned. Honest, did they advocate 'alive' training or were they part of the 'too deadly' eye-gouge and bite crowd? Not being a jerk, I really don't know the answer.

Tim Cartmell for one is a xing yi / bagua guy who also has a BB in BJJ; he has not competed in UFC, but he is right up there when it comes to realistic approach to fighting; the other two names are familiar, but I can't speak to their approaches

sanjuro_ronin

08-29-2007, 11:52 AM

What is this thread about again ???

brianK

08-29-2007, 12:00 PM

cjurakpt:Looks like good stuff. I think I've seen Mike Pekor hanging on EF lately. My own IMA teacher is a big MMA fan, and says students who engage in sport fighting are almost always better able to apply their skills than those who don't. And he teaches plenty of non-sport legal tactics. He also encourages my practice of BJJ and my goal of taking my stuff in the MMA ring.

Guo Yunshen, Yin Fu, Cheng Tinghua, Ma Gui, Yang Banhou and many others did not become famous for healing senior citizens or helping hippies connect to the universe. They got famous for kicking a sizable amout of a$$. Unless you're looking to take the M out of IMA, we should all be pushing our arts towards greater practicality.

Brian

brianK

08-29-2007, 12:06 PM

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer it. The early UFC were nothing like UFC today. There were 3 'rules': no biting, no eye gouges, and no fish hooking(fingers in the mouth). And there were NO dq's. If you broke a rule, you were only fined, you were NOT disqualified. To me it proved alot, especially since other than Ichihara, Royce was the smaller man in every one of his early UFC fights.

I admit ignorance on the names mentioned. Honest, did they advocate 'alive' training or were they part of the 'too deadly' eye-gouge and bite crowd? Not being a jerk, I really don't know the answer.

Chill, man, that was directed at Ron. I'm pretty much on your side of this debate. That was addressing Ron's "IMA masters are too busy achieving the rainbow body to bother with actual martial training" attitude. Tim teaches IMA standup and BJJ ground stuff for use in MMA (and teh streetz). Li Tai Liang is an ex-sanda champ who is known for his xinyi. Su Dong Chen is a student of Hong Yixiang, and a generally scary gentleman. They're all IMA guys who believe IMAs are about fighting. Sadly, they're in the minority these days.

Brian

1bad65

08-29-2007, 12:08 PM

Brian, it sound like they advocate alive training and cross training. I would say because of that they are completely legit. Getting a BB in BJJ is not an easy task either.

I'm not saying BJJ is the be all, end all of fighting. I am saying that the TMA guys who say biting and eye-gouges can stop any BJJ guy or even pro MMA guys are fools. The ones who saw holes in their games and cross trained are smart, legit guys. Hell, even the Gracies doing MMA cross-train now. If they admit they need to cross-train, I can't understand why anyone would not feel they need to in order to have a COMPLETE system.

brianK

08-29-2007, 12:09 PM

1bad65

08-29-2007, 12:09 PM

Chill, man, that was directed at Ron.

Good luck getting a straight, rational answer shorter than 'War and Peace'. :D

sanjuro_ronin

08-29-2007, 12:10 PM

I think it was very easy and natural for Tim to "turn" to BJJ, he had a huge background in Practical Chin-na so, BJJ would have been the next logical step to round off his game.
The fact that he stuck it out to get his BB shows how much it had to offer him.

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 12:51 PM

Good luck getting a straight, rational answer shorter than 'War and Peace'. :D

good luck getting ANY answer out of him when it is in the form of a direct request to substantiate his proported level of taiji knowledge:

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790875&postcount=42

keep ducking the question, it really enhances your credibility...

RonH

08-29-2007, 01:19 PM

I just want to state, for the non-IMA guys here, that most of us IMA guys do not believe in that Dillman LKJ BS. Also, while I believe in qi as a Chinese philosophical/medical term for a complex interaction of body processes (and yes, I FEEL the sensations associated with qi), I believe that structure and intention are the engines driving IMAs. Structure and intention fit nicely into modern ideas of bio-mechanics and sports psychology. You're making us look like a bunch of qi twinkies, Ron.

Oh, brianK. I can already tell that you have one major hinderence within you. You're too worried about other people's views of you. Qi is still qi. It always has been, it always will be. Its existence isn't dictated by popularism. It doesn't matter if an EM scanner can pick up on qi or not. Protons and neutrons have always been protons and neutrons and they always will be, regardless if one has the technology to detect them or not.

Furthermore, I gave a list of IMA masters who would disagree vehemently with your views on the value of sport fighting. Maybe your IMA genius exceeds Tim Cartmell's,Li Tai Liang's, Su Dong Chen's, et al; for me to believe that, though, you've got to post a vid, fight record, something.

I already said that there are some that do wish more IMA people, even CMA in general, were in sports fighting before you gave your list. This isn't new ground.

If you can convince me your depth of knowledge is greater than their's, I've got to meet you.

A sample of my knowledge base is within each and every post I've made on this board. Some is uberobvious, some isn't, but it is there.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 01:23 PM

Where is the PROOF Ron?

Remember, I'm asking for proof it works in PRACTICE, not THEORY.

brianK

08-29-2007, 01:33 PM

Oh, brianK. I can already tell that you have one major hinderence within you. You're too worried about other people's views of you. Qi is still qi. It always has been, it always will be. Its existence isn't dictated by popularism. It doesn't matter if an EM scanner can pick up on qi or not. Protons and neutrons have always been protons and neutrons and they always will be, regardless if one has the technology to detect them or not.

I already said that there are some that do wish more IMA people, even CMA in general, were in sports fighting before you gave your list. This isn't new ground.

A sample of my knowledge base is within each and every post I've made on this board. Some is uberobvious, some isn't, but it is there.

Ron, first of all, thanks for diagnosing my hindrance. Maybe next time you are doing one of your distance healings (I believe Buddhists call it tonglen), you can hit me up with some sweet, sweet Shen.

Furthermore, the sample of your knowledge base reveals a lot of theory and intellectual conjecture; what it doesn't reveal is practical fighting experience. That much seems uberobvious to me. Martial arts, even internal ones, don't take place in the mind alone.

Brian

RonH

08-29-2007, 01:49 PM

Just stop! Please! :eek: Where is the PROOF?

Examples include: people have different levels of sensitivity to things, including energetic effects, what I said about meditation and the subconscious, not the overly simplistic and very limited perspect of cjurakpt. There was proof that something happened to those guys in the 'human stungun' video when the paramedics' machine was hooked up to them, but even then, it isn't enough for you, so you brush it off. I made a post some time ago about my own experiences of merging my subconscious with my conscious mind and spoke briefly about the impact it had on not just my fighting skills, but all aspects of my life.

I have provided proof after proof after proof. It's not my fault you don't want to see it.

I will look at it. And you rambling on and on is not proof, just as if I wrote page after page on Bigfoot, it would not PROVE it's existance.

I have again and again, shown you roadmaps each and every time, but you are the one that won't look at the map. I can't force you to look at the map. I keep saying the proof over and over again.

Notice I showed solid, video PROOF that Dillman, that fat follower of his, and Wally Jay FAILED and are full of ****.

That's very bad spin. The machines hooked up to the people showed characteristics of people being shocked, but that isn't enough for you.

How many times do I have to say to stop using the law of gravity to explain how and why we get energy from ingested food? What you are doing is demanding a certain type of proof, wanting it to exist in only one type of fashion. But, what you want is the use of the law of gravity in the analogy. How and why we take in energy from ingested food represents qi.

If you took a few minutes to actually look at the analogy and compare it to what I have been saying, you will actually begin to understand where the proof is that you keep demanding I give. You will see I have been giving it all along.

I want something similar as proof.

What you want is the only type of proof you say will suffice. You want proof of qi to conform to what you want and you keep failing miserably. That is why you have yet to get it. That and you refuse to look at the proof.

Not a bunch of ranting about food and body chemistry, etc. Basically show that it works in PRACTICE, not that it works in THEORY.

Everything operates on its own logic and I have been trying to get across to you exactly what that logic is, but no matter what I say, you say I'm not saying proof. That is contradictory to what I have said. I have given both the analogy and many many literal examples that are qi's proof.

Good luck getting a straight, rational answer shorter than 'War and Peace'. :D

Yeah, listen up. If you actually took stock of all the subjects commonly accepted by the modern world, you'll see that to understand any part of them, they require background information, proof. To understand that, you need more than 1+1 or 1+1 and 2+2. I have been telling you some of the required background information, so that you can identify the proof, but you don't want to listen.

You need to actually take the time and learn what I am saying to you. Otherwise, you will never get anywhere.

brianK

08-29-2007, 01:51 PM

Ron: I was maybe a bit aggressive in that last post. I had just put in an hour in san ti. You know how that is. Still, you do come off a bit condescending when you talk about my hindrances or tell me I have to meditate. For all you know, I've been in the qigong/neigong/IMA game longer than you, and have studied TCM. Granted, I'm no genius, but I think you're assuming some things about me which might not be true. Just something to consider.

Brian

lkfmdc

08-29-2007, 01:58 PM

Examples of my lack of knowledge base is within each and every post I've made on this board.

there, fixed that for you.....

RonH

08-29-2007, 02:11 PM

Ron, first of all, thanks for diagnosing my hindrance. Maybe next time you are doing one of your distance healings (I believe Buddhists call it tonglen), you can hit me up with some sweet, sweet Shen.

Mockery gets you nowhere with me. Look at what it did for cjurakpt. He's right that I don't reply to his questions anymore. It's because of how he's acted recently. I would have been happy to discuss the list of "points" he brought up before all this happened. You don't get to derail a conversation I'm having and continuously complain and moan and mock what I say and then, say you want me to answer your questions because of something I said to someone else.

Not with me. He's only got himself to blame for shooting himself in the foot with his juvenile behavior.

Furthermore, the sample of your knowledge base reveals a lot of theory and intellectual conjecture;

You say it's conjecture, in the face of not only the logic, but also the fact that the logic that has been presented for the other side hasn't had much of a decent counterargument to it. There have been some, but the majority of 'replies' (very loosely described as such) have been fueled by ego dripping drives, which have intensified amongst those I have said I don't reply to anymore. This itself is one of the proofs that keep being demanded I give, no matter how many times I describe it.

what it doesn't reveal is practical fighting experience.

Well, you know this small group of people that have been discussing this and similar issues of late. When I tried to explain, only one person out of all those that responded to what I said actually gave a decent counterargument from start to finish in the last thread.

That much seems uberobvious to me. Martial arts, even internal ones, don't take place in the mind alone.

That's true. And when I try to give the background information necessary to properly understand how it can have an influence on martial arts experiences and to be able to see it properly, the longest running person that has tried to say he wants proof ignores everything I have told him. There is only so much I can do.

TenTigers

08-29-2007, 02:17 PM

you sure you are not referring to Wally Jay's son, Leon? I 've heard Leon is doing the PT Barnum act with Dillman, much to the dismay of his father's followers. I have met Wally Jay and felt his Small Circle Jiu-Jutsu, and there are no ch'i blasts,dim-mak, or parlor tricks. Just pure technique. and pain. lots of pain.

oh, did I mention the pain?

lkfmdc

08-29-2007, 02:20 PM

Look at cjurakpt. He's right that I don't reply to his questions because if I did I would leave no shadow of a doubt that I'm a clueless goober living in fantasy land

there, fixed another one for you :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-29-2007, 02:46 PM

Brian hit it on the head. You are a THEORY guy, you have no PRACTICE. You really are smug for someone who has never teasted if his stuff really works. :)

Let's look at the fat guy 'Stun Gun' video. The EMTs said the STUDENTS and the INSTRUCTORS eyes dilated, heart rate went up, and the skin got clammy. But the bottom line is that if the 100lb female reporter or any of the BJJ guys had attacked him, he would have been at their mercy. PERIOD. It only worked on the believers, NOT ANYONE ELSE.

It was indeed Leon Jay, I stand corrected.

I have also stated if there is a Dillman seminar in Austin I fully plan to call him a fraud publicly and challenge him or any follower to KO me with Chi. If I am told to leave the building, I will park one of my cars outside with a sign saying I will sign over the title to it to ANYONE who can KO me with Chi. I put my money where my mouth is.

Ron, I live in Austin, Texas. If you live near enough you can try to show me Chi. Prove it, and I will defend you on EVERY board you post on as a man who PROVED that your stuff works too. BTW, this is not a challenge to fight, I just want to see in person this Chi(or its effects) you speak of.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 02:48 PM

And Ron, notice I showed VIDEO where these con artists failed. You keep just typing WORDS as your version of proof. :rolleyes:

RonH

08-29-2007, 03:13 PM

Ron: I was maybe a bit aggressive in that last post. I had just put in an hour in san ti. You know how that is.

Don't worry about it. Your last post did seem kind of off.

Still, you do come off a bit condescending when you talk about my hindrances or tell me I have to meditate. For all you know, I've been in the qigong/neigong/IMA game longer than you, and have studied TCM.

If you mean by the 'oh, brianK' part, that wasn't condescension. That came out of sympathy and a desire to help. It came from the fact that you're concerned with people thinking IMA people are twinkies. For the most part, those that already think that will never be convinced otherwise. Nor should these people be catered to. I was concerned about the idea of being seen as a twinkie in general or in any specific case could lead to a tiny miscalculation somewhere down the road for you. That's all. I've spent years working on hinderences and in several respects, I had concerns before about people seeing me as a twinkie, whether online or in real life. I'm always finding hinderences burried further and further within myself. Each new layer I take off shows something new and I've been working on perfecting these hinderences for many decades.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 03:26 PM

I was concerned about the idea of being seen as a twinkie..

Don't worry. You do indeed come off as a twinkie.

I've spent years working on avoiding being tested in several respects,..

Fixed that for ya.

RonH

08-29-2007, 03:35 PM

Brian hit it on the head. You are a THEORY guy, you have no PRACTICE. You really are smug for someone who has never teasted if his stuff really works. :)

Given that you use as a standard of proof that there aren't a lot of IMA people in sports fighting, whatever standard you're using here is not surprising that it doesn't stand up to logic.

Let's look at the fat guy 'Stun Gun' video. The EMTs said the STUDENTS and the INSTRUCTORS eyes dilated, heart rate went up, and the skin got clammy. But the bottom line is that if the 100lb female reporter or any of the BJJ guys had attacked him, he would have been at their mercy. PERIOD. It only worked on the believers, NOT ANYONE ELSE.

The ridiculousness of your suggestion that the reporter would have overpowered him is beyond words.

I have also stated if there is a Dillman seminar in Austin I fully plan to call him a fraud publicly and challenge him or any follower to KO me with Chi. If I am told to leave the building, I will park one of my cars outside with a sign saying I will sign over the title to it to ANYONE who can KO me with Chi. I put my money where my mouth is.

This is one example of how meditation is very good for you by deconstructing these ego drives of yours.

Ron, I live in Austin, Texas. If you live near enough you can try to show me Chi.

I don't live anywhere near you.

Prove it, and I will defend you on EVERY board you post on as a man who PROVED that your stuff works too.

While your offer is nice, it is unrequired because my ego doesn't need it. Also, even if I had convinced you, no amount of trying to make believers out of the peanut gallery that keep thinking that shouting horrid english at me is acceptable behavior is gonna be convinced on an internet board. It'd be futile of you to try. And it isn't on me to convince every Doubting Thomas I come across. Nor should it be for you either, even if I did convince you.

BTW, this is not a challenge to fight, I just want to see in person this Chi(or its effects) you speak of.

I have spoken of how one can feel qi for themselves when I said meditation and quieting your conscious thoughts to hear the subconscious ones. When that is achieved, truly search out for the energy and you will find it. Remember that energy follows mind. Doubting you will find it makes it harder for you because your mind will have pushed the capacity to detect it 'further away' from you. You don't need me or anyone else to try to knock you out to show you that it exists.

RonH

08-29-2007, 03:41 PM

Don't worry. You do indeed come off as a twinkie.

Fixed that for ya.

That's it. You have let yourself stray and have turned to flat out mockery and even quoting what I said and rewritting it for further mockery, as several others have done. And you have assumed that this is acceptable behavior.

I will no longer be replying to your posts.

unkokusai

08-29-2007, 03:54 PM

I will no longer be replying to your posts.

Yes you will. Lunatics like you can't help but spew an endless stream of nonsense and pontificate as if anyone in the world but the multiple personalities battling it out inside your pin head buys your crap. Like the crazy person on the public bus, you will talk to anyone who will listen because that's really what you are desperate for.

1bad65

08-29-2007, 04:01 PM

Reply if you will, up to you. As of now I'm still trying to figure out if you are a con artist yourself(like Dillman) or a truly deluded follower(like the fat Stun Gun guys students).

I have not stated yet what proof I will accept. And a fight is not even proof either. Seeing a no-touch KO on a sceptic would suffice, as would you(or any others) winning the Randi challenge.

The reporter may not have been able to take him, but I GUARANTEE any of the BJJ guys would have. He did hit her and not KO her though :rolleyes:

It's not ego that makes me despise people like Dillman, it's an abject hatred of con-men of any type. Notice I did not say I wanted to kick his ass, I just wanted to prove his 'no-touch KO' bs is a sham. I will say if he hits me, we will see an asskicking, my money is on me winning though :D

I knew you never would want to test yourself, I was just unsure of your excuses for declining any test. Now I see you have plenty of money and no ego. You got the major excuses covered. :D

I would love an answer to this, so I'll bet you don't answer it: I'm curious, how can guys like Dillman KO these guys with a mighty Chi blast, but not have any effect on the 'catcher' directly behind the 'target'? :rolleyes:

1bad65

08-29-2007, 04:04 PM

Oh, Oh! I almost forgot!

Ron, do you really believe that putting your tongue on the roof of your mouth or putting one big toe up and the other one down will nullify the Chi?

cjurakpt

08-29-2007, 06:48 PM

A sample of my knowledge base is within each and every post I've made on this board. Some is uberobvious, some isn't, but it is there.
right, specifically the answers to the questions that would back up this claim:

You can be a genius and know taijiquan. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to taijiquan and related fields. So what? Someone has to. Not everyone must be stuck in an eternal 'I only this tiny bit of it' state where their knowledge and experience is confined to a small series of topics.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790875&postcount=42

the overly simplistic and very limited perspect of cjurakpt.
it must kinda stick in yer craw a bit then, that with my "overly simplistic and very limited perspect" (translation: not agreeing with your point of view) I can somehow come up the sorts of questions that without a rather expansive and integrated perspective one just could not ask, let alone answer...it's funny how you have chosen to completely define me and my range of experience based on a few posts on several threads, and then stick to this judgement when further evidence comes to light that maybe I was engagin you with only one aspect of my totality...

Look at what it did for cjurakpt. He's right that I don't reply to his questions anymore. It's because of how he's acted recently. I would have been happy to discuss the list of "points" he brought up before all this happened. You don't get to derail a conversation I'm having and continuously complain and moan and mock what I say and then, say you want me to answer your questions because of something I said to someone else. Not with me. He's only got himself to blame for shooting himself in the foot with his juvenile behavior.
see, this is where your own limited ego-construct really comes through - you couch your comments in terms of "he said something I didn't like and so now he gets what he deserves by my not answering him"; don't you get it? I personally am not the less for you answering or not answering them one way or the other; but you try to set it up as if I "want" you to answer the questions as if it were for my sake, and that by you not answering them I am being slapped on the proverbial wrist; gimmie a break - talk about lame and boring, your MO is getting as tiresome as Takeshi's riff;

to be clear, as I said before on other topics, I personally don't care if you can or can't answer the questions, because I know the answers to them; in fact, if you take a step back and depersonalize it, all I am really doing is giving you the opportunity to substantiate your claim (who you said it to is irrelevant - you said it, but have furnished no proof to support it, plain and simple); and I'll tell you what, just in the spirit of fair play - if you do answer even just one of them, right or wrong, I will go and delete every post that I made that you find objectionable and beyond resolving the issue on this thread I will no longer post to you directly or comment about posts you make in the future - that's just for answering even one question; and if you answer even just one correctly, I will publically apologize for having doubted the veracity of your claims - take it or leave it, your choice;

Knifefighter

08-29-2007, 08:04 PM

LOL @ Chris and the rest of you guys arguing with Ron...

You know those street people you see babbling to themselves?

You do know they can walk into just about any public library and log on to the computers there, right?

You do realize that is what you are dealing with here, right?

1bad65

08-29-2007, 08:37 PM

You know those street people you see babbling to themselves?

Whoa! Are you saying they are Chi masters too? Can they KO me without touching me too? :D

cjurakpt

08-30-2007, 04:54 AM

Whoa! Are you saying they are Chi masters too? Can they KO me without touching me too? :D

maybe with their breath?

1bad65

08-30-2007, 06:06 AM

maybe with their breath?

Well you see the protons on their breath would react with the neutrons in your lungs. This would create a quantum effect on your Chi. Due to the harmonal imbalance you could indeed be rendered unconscious.

jet64

09-10-2007, 10:37 PM

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.

MMA - simpler skill set; experience using skill set in competitive, resistant environment; effectiveness of techniques based on actual use, not belief.

Typical CMA - complex skill set; experience using skill set against other students of same style only, infrequently against resisting opponent; effectiveness of technique based primarily on belief, not actual use.

Sad, but true.

Thats what you think of CMA because in US there's a lot of undertrained individuals who claims as master.

From your post i can say you havent seen a real kungfu.

YiLiQuan1

09-11-2007, 12:40 AM

Thats what you think of CMA because in US there's a lot of undertrained individuals who claims as master.

I've been to a good many schools in more countries than most (less than others), and what I've seen is that the US isn't alone in having some underqualified instructors passing off their hokey half-assed chop-sockey as the real deal.

From your post i can say you havent seen a real kungfu.

This is something I really hate... You're trying to judge what I do and don't know based on a single post. Answer me this - how long have I trained? In what countries? In what systems/styles? Under whom? If you can't answer any of those questions, don't presume to state what you think I have and haven't seen...

I have seen some skilled practitioners... There was a particular Chen stylist, quite a skilled performer, acclaimed as one of the best players in Japan. However, he had absolutely no fighting skill whatsoever.

I've seen "real kung fu," but I've seen very few people capable of applying it against anything more resistant than the air... There is a difference.