Only teach rich students [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Jimbo

03-04-2012, 08:44 PM

Just had a phone conversation with my friend. Through the discussion, there was one subject that interest me. He just told one of his students only to teach rich students. I asked him why and here was the reason that he gave me.

In some TCMA system, to test your skill in tournament environment is "extreamly" important. If you teach a poor student, he won't be able to afford to travel around the world, compete in national level and international level tournaments, and test his skill against the best of the best in the world. That student's "MA skill development" and "MA experience accumulation" will always be limited no matter how talent he is and how good that you may teach him. Of course that student can always compete in local tournaments. He may become a big fish in a small pond. Will he become a big fish in open sea? You and that student will never have chance to find that out.

What's your opinion on this?

If you are a teacher, you should teach whoever comes to you, can pay your fees, has the right attitude, and is able and willing to train hard. If someone is a serious student, he will find a way to achieve what he wants. If you're a professional teacher, you already can't be so picky that you'll only take rich students. You cannot predict, through financial status alone, who is the real diamond in the rough. And besides, how do you know that someday the poor student's financial status won't change? He may end up going to someone else who won't discriminate against him and become really good. Maybe he could have been "the one," so to speak.

Besides, just because a student is rich doesn't mean he'll give a **** about traveling the world or even nationally to compete in tournaments.

YouKnowWho

03-04-2012, 08:56 PM

how do you know that someday the poor student's financial status won't change?

Even a poor student can become a rich student, will he still be young enough to compete in tournament? Old Chinese saying said, "Scholar is for the poor, and TCMA is for the rich." There is some truth in it. First, if you train hard, you will need to eat good food. Can you afford to eat good food everyday?

The TCMA training require

- free time, and
- money.

Today, free time = money that not everybody has.

Jimbo

03-04-2012, 09:06 PM

You see poor kids who become NBA, NFL, baseball, etc., players; and fighters like boxers and other world-class athletes. They were somehow able to eat well enough to become elite athletes. Although that's not CMA, why should it be any different? Many of them come from dirt-poor backgrounds.

How poor do you mean by poor?

YouKnowWho

03-04-2012, 09:08 PM

Teach whoever can afford your tuition.

That's how I feel. By looking at my friend's students who could travel and compete tournament after tournament, it makes me think.

YouKnowWho

03-04-2012, 09:10 PM

How poor do you mean by poor?

May be something like:

Can't take off 1 week, fly to China, and compete international level tournament (I don't mean modern Wushu form competation here). That may cost a student at least $2,000.

I had some experience in these kind of international tournament. Most of the time, you will find out that good students don't have money to go. Those who can afford to go are not good enough. If you form an international team, you will end with a "rich kids tourist" group instead. :(

Lee Chiang Po

03-04-2012, 11:05 PM

Just had a phone conversation with my friend. Through the discussion, there was one subject that interest me. He just told one of his students only to teach rich students. I asked him why and here was the reason that he gave me.

In some TCMA system, to test your skill in tournament environment is "extreamly" important. If you teach a poor student, he won't be able to afford to travel around the world, compete in national level and international level tournaments, and test his skill against the best of the best in the world. That student's "MA skill development" and "MA experience accumulation" will always be limited no matter how talent he is and how good that you may teach him. Of course that student can always compete in local tournaments. He may become a big fish in a small pond. Will he become a big fish in open sea? You and that student will never have chance to find that out.

What's your opinion on this?

It is all about money man. Just teach anyone that has the price of admission. You are assuming way too much here. Or your friend is. What makes him think he has the ability to teach a world class fighter in the first place? And no matter how rich a dude is, what are the odds of his rich a$$ ever becoming a world class fighter? Just forget about the BS and concentrate on the bucks. Better yet, get a real job and forget teaching Gung Fu.

doug maverick

03-05-2012, 12:00 AM

Dragonzbane76

03-05-2012, 04:28 AM

Teach whom ever can afford the fee's. I dont get this "u have to be rich" to compete thing. As someone stated a lot of professional athletes come from poor backgrounds. Boxing, look at pac man. Comes from extreme poor in the phillipines. Lots of poor background stories in mma. So i think that teachers logic is flawed. I would rather teach someone of poor stature, at least they will appreciate it more.

RenDaHai

03-05-2012, 05:39 AM

sanjuro_ronin

03-05-2012, 06:53 AM

Train whoever wants to learn and let the training process "weed out" those that are not "deserving".

pazman

03-05-2012, 07:40 AM

YouKnowWho, out of curiosity, and of course without revealing too much information, does your friend's students primarily demonstrate their skills through taolu, shuai jiao, or sanda?

MightyB

03-05-2012, 07:47 AM

Teach the rich ones TCMA, the poor ones MMA.

They pay them to fight in MMA if they're good enough.

TCMA tourneys are mostly political nonsense for philosophical elitists.

David Jamieson

03-05-2012, 09:33 AM

Train the hungry ones.
They will find a way.

"rich" usually metes out as "lazy and boorish". They can be pain in the ass students.

Train the eager, the hungry, the desirous. Train them until they are no longer eager, hungry or desiring.

done. :)

GeneChing

03-05-2012, 10:07 AM

One shall not sell his/her skills even if he/she will be paid ten thousand ounces of gold, but one may pass on his/her skills to a dedicated student whom he/she has just met on a crossing street

See Traditional Wushu and Competition Wushu (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=585) by An Tianrong and Aiping Cheng

YouKnowWho

03-05-2012, 12:30 PM

I encountered this attitude while living in China.

Its not just about competition. A rich student can afford not to work at all and devote all of his time to training. So he can achieve a higher level. Making training the only thing you do makes a big difference. Even if while working you train every available moment, you still have too many other pressures and stresses to allow your mind to completely absorb the training.

Most great masters are only interested in a student who has the free time to become really good. And most often that is those who are rich, or those who can sacrifice everything else. Free time is the best thing money can buy. Its what I spend mine on.

May be only Chinese can see TCMA development from this angle. Old Chinese saying said, "穷文富武(Qiong Wen Fu Wu) - scholar is for the poor. MA is for the rich". I have not seen anybody who worry about how to make a living all his life and become good in TCMA. The moment that person starts to look good, he joins in work force and worry about his car and mortgage payments.

YouKnowWho, out of curiosity, and of course without revealing too much information, does your friend's students primarily demonstrate their skills through taolu, shuai jiao, or sanda?

There is no taolu in Chinese wrestling. Most of his students compete in Shuai Jiao and Sanda.

md1

03-05-2012, 12:35 PM

"Teach ONLY the rich kids" Don't think I ever taught a rich kid. Thinking back over the years I must have taught 5 or 6 kids that didn't have any money at all. I will put them to work cleaning the school though.

I don't make any money at this anyway, most times I just pay the rent.
Guess I never got into it to make money so if I can help someone along to road of life why not.

If they are willing to learn, teach everyone that walks through the door.

RenDaHai

03-05-2012, 01:50 PM

May be only Chinese can see TCMA development from this angle. Old Chinese saying said, "穷文富武(Qiong Wen Fu Wu) - scholar is for the poor. MA is for the rich". I have not seen anybody who worry about how to make a living all his life and become good in TCMA. The moment that person starts to look good, he joins in work force and worry about his car and mortgage payments..

Haha, yeah, I've heard that one a few times, Chong wen fu wu..... there is truth to it. Especially if you think about the way things were 100 or more years ago.

I should clarify for everyone else here, It doesn't mean masters sell their skills to the highest bidder, they don't. Its not about the money the master gets, its about the student having free time.

What happens a lot in China is a master teaches a kid for ten years, teaches him well, then the guy gets a job, married and has a kid and forgets all his training and never trains again. The master feels he has wasted his time.

A Master would rather teach a slightly older student who has chosen his lifestyle. And someone who has enough money or who can make enough sacrifices so they can dedicate themselves to training completely.

Look at it historically, The master doesn't want to make a lot of profit, but if they teach you all day every day they need to be kept. And you need to keep yourself while training. That requires a bit of scratch.

David Jamieson

03-05-2012, 02:06 PM

In my opinion, a "master" fully expects the student to leave. What the student leaves with is another matter, but they will always leave and make their own way. Just like the "master" has.

Jimbo

03-05-2012, 02:17 PM

Of course, there's never any guarantee that any student will stick with CMA for life, rich or poor. Besides the responsibilities of job/family/etc., many (most?) will lose interest or motivation to some degree or other over time. People do find other interests. A teacher should be happy to get a good student. It's not as if people in general are gathering in droves and simply dying to learn CMA. Teaching any student guarantees nothing, no matter how naturally talented, rich, or poor they are.

I will say that even people with less finances can often afford more than they'd admit to, if they really want something. There are 'poor' kids who will drop $300 for a pair of fancy basketball shoes. Lots of people who say they're strapped for cash have no problem spending $150 to $200 or more for a night on the town, every week. I know a guy who goes on surfing trips to Bali for up to 2 weeks at a time about every other year, and he's a far cry from being rich.

In a lot of cases, it comes down to what's really important to the individual.

TenTigers

03-05-2012, 02:22 PM

on one hand, you want your students to be able to afford more than simply paying tuition.
If they barely scratch enough to make tuition, then they won't be

buying equipment, gear, weapons
going to tournaments
going to seminars, events

that being said, I do have some students on "scholarship," and some pay through barter (construction etc)
I also sell gear that has been "donated" to the school (left behind by ex-students, or outgrown,etc)
at a much lower cost-$30.00 for hands,feet, head, and chest
as opposed to $194.00 for new complete set.
I also have incentives-say if you bring in people who sign up, one item per new student. If you bring in three who sign up, you get the complete package.
and I have footed the bill for tournaments for top performers who couldn't afford the entry fee.

David Jamieson

03-05-2012, 02:47 PM

In a lot of cases, it comes down to what's really important to the individual.

In every case it comes down to what the person values.

Having said that, 300 bucks for a pair of kicks when you are poor means you are also stupid...which is probably why you're poor. Vicious cycle there....

omarthefish

03-05-2012, 02:50 PM

The Chinese expression about poor scholars and rich warriors is out of date. It doesn't apply any more.

The main reason is "poor" just aint what it used to be. "Poor" when that Chinese expression showed up meant living in a mud brick home with a dirt floor and eating mainly just thin rice gruel for subsitance with meat pretty much just on holidays and other special occasions. As Jimbo said, there are really not many people out there today in developed countries who are so poor they can not afford any of this stuff.

Heck, I thought I was poor living on a Chinese income and all that (about 550$/month) but I still managed to come up with the scratch for a 5 day trip to Hong Kong to participate in a big tournament. I couldn't have done it on short notice but as long as I knew long enough in advance I could manage. It's just how I have organized my life these days.

Jimbo pointed out $300 sneakers. How about $200/iPhones? The latest playstation? A decent laptop? Everyong makes their choices. Poor is poor but MA just ain't really that expensive.

Syn7

03-05-2012, 03:00 PM

Syn7

03-05-2012, 03:02 PM

Also it needs to be said that American poor and Chinese dirt farmer poor are in a whole different class of poverty.

Syn7

03-05-2012, 03:04 PM

In every case it comes down to what the person values.

Having said that, 300 bucks for a pair of kicks when you are poor means you are also stupid...which is probably why you're poor. Vicious cycle there....

It's amazing how many poor kids have Jordans. Very sad. When I was in elementary school I was made fun of coz I had cheap shoes. I didn't care tho. I got mine. Of course that has a lot to do with why as a youth I felt justified in taking theirs.

David Jamieson

03-05-2012, 03:46 PM

When I was a kid, we wanted Keds.

http://www.fashionwindows.net/images/2009/01/pmc29593.jpg

5 bucks a pair!
I still like em now! lol

03-05-2012, 04:08 PM

Tournaments are not worth half a pound of dog poop.

Everyone just kick-boxes and there is the pathetic pitty-pat point "fighting".

Oh...and the dancing competition that is sold as "forms" competition.

Go chase the nice trophies and the shiny medals.

Its your time (and money) to waste.

-jo

bawang

03-05-2012, 05:42 PM

if someone is poor, he will make a great student.

in kung fu society, traditionally, rich people are not seen as human.

YouKnowWho

03-05-2012, 05:54 PM

How many great TCMA masters came from rich families in our previous generation?

- Shuai Jiao master Chang Tung Sheng could afford to travel around with his own gangs and polished his skill in different part of China.
- Baji master Liu Yuan Chao could afford to invite his teacher to live in his house and just taugh him only.
- 6 Harmony mantis master Ding Zicheng hired many body guards and he learned from them.
- ...

How come we don't see many great TCMA masters in our generation as we can see in our previous generation? TCMA means time. Today we don't have time.

劉雲樵出生於書香世家，清代時族中曾出過二十幾位進士，在地方上很有名望。其父親劉之沂為北洋軍將領，故鄉人皆稱他們家為「劉將軍府」。[1]。劉雲樵生于1909年农历2月08日，因為從小身體不好，五歲起，由家中僕人張耀廷教導他迷蹤拳，以求強身。

八歲時，父親劉之沂邀請八極拳名家「神槍」李書文，到府教拳，成為他晚年的關門弟子。李書文當時在京津一帶名氣甚大，但因他曾在劉之沂部隊擔任教習，與劉之沂熟識，因此才能請得動他。李書文教學極為嚴格，劉雲樵因此壂定深厚武術基礎。

Liu also points was born in a family of houses, during the Qing dynasty has been in the family over who are well-known in the local. His father Liu Zhiyi as generals of the Beiyang army, the people referred to them as "General Liu's Mansion". [1]. Liu Yunqiao was born in 1909 lunar calendar February 08, because poor health from childhood, from the age of five, Mizongyi servant Zhang Yaoting taught him at home, in order to keep fit.

At the age of eight, bajiquan father Liu Zhiyi invited famous "gun God" Li Shuwen, to the House to teach boxing, became his close disciples in his later years. Li Shuwen in the Beijing-Tianjin area is famous, but because he had Liu Zhiyi forces serve as teachers, and Liu Zhiyi are familiar with, to move him. Teaching very strict Li Shuwen, Liu Yunqiao Dian strong martial arts Foundation.

丁子成，山東黃縣富戶，他家在山東省執典當業，有丁百萬的外號。丁子成自幼愛好武術，從族人學習三通拳。典當業一般在店鋪裏都有招請武術家做為保鏢、護院。丁子成借著招請保鏢、護院的機會，接觸許多武術，後來聘請林到黃縣家中任教，和王吉臣一起學習六合螳螂拳。

Ding Zicheng, Shandong huangxian well-off tenants, his home is in private practice in Shandong province, pawnbrokers, million Ting's nickname. Ding Zicheng since childhood like martial arts, learning links from people back. Pawn shops in General recruiting martial arts family as bodyguards, protect a yard. Ding Zicheng under bodyguard, to protect a yard of opportunities, contact with many martial arts, subsequently hired forest to teach in huangxian, together with Wang Jichen liuhe Mantis fist.

bawang

03-05-2012, 06:17 PM

wong fei hong was poar. im poar.

RenDaHai

03-05-2012, 06:39 PM

wong fei hong was poar. im poar.
.

Bawang, I bet your just a moocher.

In a lot of cases, it comes down to what's really important to the individual.

Yeah, that's the truth of it. Most people in our society have enough disposable income for a hobby. You come across these people who never have any money, yet they do a solid job and have no kids.... Where does it all go?

If people say they can't afford a class it makes me think they just don't value it enough to actually pay for it.

Its all about choices and sacrifice. For most of us if you sold all your possessions and severed all your relationships and vices you would have enough money to pursue your dream, whatever it is. But you would be taking a huge risk. Its all about how much you want to do it. If you want to really pursue a skill you have to give up a lot. Give up on family, relationships, give up on luxury, give up on plans for the future, above all give up your time. But once you give all that up you have no responsibilities and can afford to pursue any dream. Then your rich.

When you see people who can spend all their time on pursuing a skill, don't think its because their rich, or lucky... Its because they were willing to sacrifice all other elements of their life.

bawang

03-05-2012, 06:51 PM

personally for me, all the important priceless lessons i learned in kung fu, i learned for free.

the times i paid for lessons motherfukers just taught me a bunch of forms.

the last class i went i didnt pay him and gave the 100 dollars to a homeless guy instead.

lance

03-05-2012, 08:15 PM

If you are a teacher, you should teach whoever comes to you, can pay your fees, has the right attitude, and is able and willing to train hard. If someone is a serious student, he will find a way to achieve what he wants. If you're a professional teacher, you already can't be so picky that you'll only take rich students. You cannot predict, through financial status alone, who is the real diamond in the rough. And besides, how do you know that someday the poor student's financial status won't change? He may end up going to someone else who won't discriminate against him and become really good. Maybe he could have been "the one," so to speak.

Besides, just because a student is rich doesn't mean he'll give a **** about traveling the world or even nationally to compete in tournaments.

I agree with you too .

IronFist

03-05-2012, 08:41 PM

TCMA tourneys are mostly political nonsense for philosophical elitists.

Why do I have a feeling this is correct?

mickey

03-05-2012, 09:01 PM

Greetings,

Two roads:

If I was teaching for the money, I would chase the money. I would also donate time to those who could not afford it.

If I was teaching for the love of the art, no one could pay me enough-- except through grit and determination.

mickey

Shaolin

03-05-2012, 11:23 PM

Just had a phone conversation with my friend. Through the discussion, there was one subject that interest me. He just told one of his students only to teach rich students.

1. Does your friend own their own school in an upscale community?

Or

2. Do they teach at a park, or out of their house or at a community center/ college?

If the answer is no to question 1 an yes to any part of question 2 they don't know what they're are talking about.

YouKnowWho

03-05-2012, 11:37 PM

1. Does your friend own their own school in an upscale community?

Or

2. Do they teach at a park, or out of their house or at a community center/ college?

If the answer is no to question 1 an yes to any part of question 2 they don't know what they're are talking about.

My friend doesn't have to teach for living. "Only teach rich students" has nothing to do with "teacher and money" but "students and free time". It has nothing to do with my friend. It was a suggestion for my friend to his student "How to select his student's students".

My friend had already found such student. The student that my friend has is rich. He just suggested that student how to select students for the next generation.

Greetings,

Two roads:

If I was teaching for the money, I would chase the money. I would also donate time to those who could not afford it.

If I was teaching for the love of the art, no one could pay me enough-- except through grit and determination.

mickey
My friend is not teaching for money, but to create someone who can pass the TCMA to the next generation. That single student may be hard to find. When you find him, you put a lot of hope on him. Hope oneday he will teach whatever that you have taught him to his students instead of either quite training himself or not teach at all. When that happen, after you die, your art dies too.

In other words, when you select a student and intend to teach everything you know, you want to make sure that:

- He will test his skill through tournament environment while he is still young.
- He will never quit his own training.
- He will promise you that he will teach his own students someday.

MightyB

03-06-2012, 06:06 AM

Besides being rich - the ideal student can't have a girlfriend or wife. As my Sifu once said when asked, "Sifu, what's the most powerful kung fu?" His reply "Woman Kung Fu".

"Woman Kung Fu... What's that?"

"It goes like this (pantomiming another man's voice) Honey, I'm going to kung fu tonight (woman's voice) NO YOU'RE NOT! (man) OK guess I'm staying here with you tonight." :D

mickey

03-06-2012, 07:13 AM

YouKnowWho,

I agree. It is incredibly difficult to find that "one" student. Nevertheless one still have the obligation to try to find one.

mickey

pazman

03-06-2012, 07:32 AM

YouKnowWho, thank you for your clarifications.

I think there might be a better way to qualify a student to uphold a certain tradition. Instead of rich, I would submit "successful" as the key attribute.

In Chinese culture, being rich is pretty much the only factor in what determines a person being deemed a success, whereas in the West the idea of success can take on many forms.

One of my teachers, an inheritor of a traditional style, came from a poor family, but managed to put himself through the top university of his country, become fluent in several languages, and become a respected investment banker for a time. He was rich by many people's standards, but he showed he could excel in any situation and showed a lot of dedication.

But as far as taking to students to international competitions, um, no, rich boys aren't hungry and generally make the worst students to show off.;)

TenTigers

03-06-2012, 07:34 AM

it's about as hard as finding staff.
You need a bright,young, energetic, people person, good communication skills, responsible, martial arts skills-not need to be amazing, but able to teach and demonstrate and correct.
Have all that going for them-and not be going to an ivy league school and becoming a doctor or other business professional, and want to do Martial Arts for their livelihood.
Lots of luck.

ShaolinDan

03-06-2012, 08:14 AM

When you see people who can spend all their time on pursuing a skill, don't think its because their rich, or lucky... Its because they were willing to sacrifice all other elements of their life.

I think the answer is here... rich or poor is irrelevant. If they are in love with the art they will find a way to make time for the relationship.

Pork Chop

03-06-2012, 09:22 AM

i don't run my own school, but I always found wisdom in the saying:
"nobody wants a free puppy"
Giving away your lessons is an easy way not to have any loyal students.

My coach runs one of the cheaper gyms in the city.
Lots of low income students, there have been many over the years who didn't pay any sort of tuition.
A lot of them have brought drama to the gym - getting in trouble with the law, dealing with shady folks, or just coming to the gym with very bad attitudes.
Others turned out just fine (at least until conquered by Woman Kung Fu :D )

In boxing (and to a lesser extent, muay thai) a gym that's run down is considered a badge of honor. Fighters from low income families in bad neighborhoods are seen as superior.
"White collar" athletes and "white collar" gyms are generally looked down upon.

I understand this viewpoint; but I've never been a fan of it.
My favorite gym was as nice as any LA Boxing. It has 30 heavybags, including a 300lber. It has a nice ring, top of the line hammerstrength & freeweights, huge sauna, and even half a basketball court. It is clean, with a pro shop, an "oxygen bar", loads of cardio machines, an aerobics room, and anything I wanted. I went there every day and had complete run of the place.
I've also done time in 1500 square foot sweat boxes and been less productive.

I don't run my own school (yet), but I think I'd rather be a drill sergeant for a slightly-lazy upper middle class kid than have to deal with some thug off the street who's going to get into trouble both inside and outside of the gym.

Ultimately, what's most important is ensuring the student has a good heart, a good head on their shoulders, and is capable of making the commitment to training before you invest any time in them.

sanjuro_ronin

03-06-2012, 09:43 AM

I've trained in the upper class gyms, gyms with elite fighters and gyms with no fighters, typical boxing gyms with blood stains on the ring that no one washes out and typical MA gyms that smell of generations of feet and some gyms that one goes in because killing is a way of life and some gyms that sweating is taboo !
Gyms under bowling halls, gyms in the financial district, gyms in the back of butcher shops and gyms that have more kids than adults !
Takes all kinds to make the world go round.
I trained at a karate dojo that was kosher :D and at a Judo dojo where I was the only non-japanese :eek:
Preference?
Any place where I could learn something that I didn't know.

wenshu

03-06-2012, 10:33 AM

The whole poor scholars rich warriors doesn't make much sense to me. Assuming by scholar they mean someone who passed the Imperial Civil service examinations most of whom were by and large from aristocratic families since they were the only ones who could afford the tutors.

Didn't Qi Jiguang recruit his anti-pirate corps from farmers and miners because of their naturally rugged constitution and work ethic? They weren't exactly land owners. That saying doesn't make any sense.

It might make more sense as a description of the end result. Warriors get all the money and scholars are balling on a budget.

RenDaHai

03-06-2012, 11:30 AM

Chong wen, fu wu.

It applies only to scholars

If your a scholar who is poor study 'wen' which is like culture, writing, calligeraphy that kind of thing. If your a rich scholar study 'wu'.

YouKnowWho

03-06-2012, 12:00 PM

The whole poor scholars rich warriors doesn't make much sense to me.

Both scholars and warriors all require to devote a lot of time into it. The difference is, it's cheaper to learn from a scholar than to learn from a warrior in the ancient time. Also the reward will be greater if you can succeed in your scholar field than your warrior field.

The poor scholars rich warriors is in the beginning. At the end, a successful scholar will be richer than a successful warrior.

bawang

03-07-2012, 07:00 AM

in ancient times, rich bored playboys in big cities would pay money to learn forms. the people that taught those flowery forms made a lot of money but were considered at the same level as prostitutes.

you are all prostitutes.

sanjuro_ronin

03-07-2012, 07:09 AM

bawang

03-07-2012, 07:11 AM

its a bad thing because you guys overcharge.

sanjuro_ronin

03-07-2012, 07:15 AM

its a bad thing because you guys overcharge.

Hey, if someone wants to pay good money to get beat up, who am I to judge or interfere in their sado-masochistc tendencies?

wenshu

03-07-2012, 07:18 AM

Both scholars and warriors all require to devote a lot of time into it. The difference is, it's cheaper to learn from a scholar than to learn from a warrior in the ancient time. Also the reward will be greater if you can succeed in your scholar field than your warrior field.

The poor scholars rich warriors is in the beginning. At the end, a successful scholar will be richer than a successful warrior.

Chong wen, fu wu.

It applies only to scholars

If your a scholar who is poor study 'wen' which is like culture, writing, calligeraphy that kind of thing. If your a rich scholar study 'wu'.

Yeah, I understand it's intended meaning.

Still doesn't make any sense.

If you're poor join the army.

bawang

03-07-2012, 07:22 AM

there is no set price to martial arts in ancient times. some taught in the name of revolution for free, some taught to playboys in cities for rediculous sums of money. soldiers got paid to train kung fu.

what is important is you teach what you are worth. todays problem in kung fu is that sh1t is sold at the price of gold.

i have no problem paying good money to an ex shaolin monk because i get my moneys worth.

David Jamieson

03-07-2012, 07:24 AM

Jimbo

03-07-2012, 10:28 AM

My friend doesn't have to teach for living. "Only teach rich students" has nothing to do with "teacher and money" but "students and free time". It has nothing to do with my friend. It was a suggestion for my friend to his student "How to select his student's students".

My friend had already found such student. The student that my friend has is rich. He just suggested that student how to select students for the next generation.

My friend is not teaching for money, but to create someone who can pass the TCMA to the next generation. That single student may be hard to find. When you find him, you put a lot of hope on him. Hope oneday he will teach whatever that you have taught him to his students instead of either quite training himself or not teach at all. When that happen, after you die, your art dies too.

In other words, when you select a student and intend to teach everything you know, you want to make sure that:

- He will test his skill through tournament environment while he is still young.
- He will never quit his own training.
- He will promise you that he will teach his own students someday.

Even if you find that one perfect student, there are still no guarantees. People, especially many young people, make promises all the time that they don't keep. They may mean it at the time, but as life progresses for them, there are many other aspects of life and interests that will pop up. Unless that person is going to be a lifelong 'martial monk' devoted 100% to CMA only. It would sure be a gamble pinning one's hopes on that perfect student.

Or that one guy could end up being lost in an accident.

I'm not being pessimistic, but realistic.

IMO, the best and most consistent students tend to be finished with college/university and already stable in life. Many of us may have trained MA since childhood, but overall, lifelong MAists are very rare. For the majority of kids training today, their MA will eventually become a thing of their pasts.

And as for rich people having so much free time, IDK. Unless maybe you're talking about some rich kid living off of an inheritance or something. I've known a few rich men, and every one of them were among the hardest-working people I've known. They were middle-aged. Some of them also trained MA, but coincidentally, they tended to practice various forms of JMA (aikido/aikijutsu, iaido/iaijutsu, karate, etc.). They had taken them up as adults and, although having extremely busy lives, they were quite good at their MA, and very serious about it.

Dragonzbane76

03-07-2012, 06:32 PM

i have no problem paying good money to an ex shaolin monk because i get my moneys worth.
__________________

haha how bout a WC "master". :D

RenDaHai

03-07-2012, 07:58 PM

Yeah, I understand it's intended meaning.

Still doesn't make any sense.

If you're poor join the army.

Its an ancient expression. In the olden times normal soldiers were basically like slaves. They don't get to study wushu outside of a few drills that work on mass. You would need to be rich to be an officer and it is them who study 'wu'.

wenshu

03-08-2012, 02:24 PM

Its an ancient expression.

Yes. We know.

In the olden times normal soldiers were basically like slaves. They don't get to study wushu outside of a few drills that work on mass. You would need to be rich to be an officer and it is them who study 'wu'.

Too busy actually killing people to go collecting forms.

Qi’s view of the role of boxing as the foundation for developing weapons skills
(primarily broadsword and polled weapons in anti-pirate operations) conforms
closely to the explanation contained in the Han History Bibliographies (c. 90 A.D.).
[3] With this purpose in mind, Qi developed a boxing routine comprised of 32 forms
selected from what he considered to be the foremost styles of the day. The result
was his chapter titled, “Boxing Classic Essentials”, in the New Book of Effective
Discipline. [4]
Although boxing, with its agile movements, was considered to be the foundation for
weapons use, it was only one element in Qi’s overall training regimen. The training
regimen included: maintaining an overall strong fighting constitution (through
remaining “lean and mean”); strong hands and arms through training with heaver
than normal weapons; strong feet and legs through running over 600 yards without
gasping for breath an, using ankle weights (bags of sand) while running; and
overall bodily strength and endurance by training while weighted down with
heavier than normal armor. [5] Strength, endurance, and agility were physical traits
prized in the Chinese military from earliest times. Weight lifting, long distance
running, jumping, climbing, and swimming were among the activities associated
with military training and martial arts prowess over the centuries.

http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/qijiguang.pdf

Sounds like wu to me.

Also, explain to me how poor people weren't "basically like slaves"? At least in the army you got three hots and a cot.

过去穷苦人家因为家境贫寒往往将参加科举考试做为改变自身命运的途径，再就是因为吃不好，营养不行，习武的体力无从谈起，很多人虽然喜欢武术却也不能习练。而富裕的人家一方面因为有条件（营养跟得上）就可以让自己的子女习练武功，另一方面也是从保护自己财富不被人偷抢的需要。往往是请上几个护院之类的教头，一举数得。

http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/57249254.html

In the past impoverished people often took the Imperial Examinations to improve their station in life (alter destiny). Alternately impoverished people's bodies are not strong enough for martial arts because of poor diet and nutrition. Although many people like martial arts they simply are unable to practice them. Prosperous people have access to good nutrition and can allow their children to study martial arts. Also they needed to protect their families wealth from theives.
(The last part threw me off, something about drill masters and killing two birds with one stone.)

This explanation kind of makes sense of it for me, I see now it is keeping with YKW's original explanation about nutrition. Again, I say be all you can be.

RenDaHai

03-08-2012, 04:53 PM

Yes. We know.

Yeah man, I was just answering you cos' you said, 'If your poor go join the army' which at the time of this expression would not be a great solution. Thats why I thought perhaps you did not realise it was an old expression. There is a HUGE division between foot soldiers and officers in times past. Foot soldiers were generally 'impressed' into being soldiers, and it was not a good life to go for. Their skill was to stay in formation.

RenDaHai

03-08-2012, 05:05 PM

Also, explain to me how poor people weren't "basically like slaves"? At least in the army you got three hots and a cot.
.

Poor people would indeed have been more like 'Serfs'. But poor people could exercise some degree of free will. THose in the army didn't choose to be in the army and would not even be allowed to leave the fort to go for a walk. Add to that it is a more dangerous vocation than simply being poor. One you didn't choose. Its not like they could quit.

Robinhood

03-08-2012, 07:03 PM

That might make some sense if your just teaching sports martial arts.

rett

03-08-2012, 11:51 PM

Yes. We know.

speaking of "we know", we also know it's normal to state a known fact as the (relevant) lead-in to a line of argument.

Picking it out for this kind of biatch slap is a backfire kind of proposition.

SteveLau

03-10-2012, 12:32 AM

In some TCMA system, to test your skill in tournament environment is "extreamly" important. If you teach a poor student, he won't be able to afford to travel around the world, compete in national level and international level tournaments, and test his skill against the best of the best in the world.

What's your opinion on this?

This is a similar reason to the one that I have read some years ago in a magazine article. There was a school of art's inheritar looking for one to carry on the torch. And one of the three requirements for the candidate is that he must be wealthy enough. The reason behind is that the person needs to have ample free time and mind to study the system, and carry on developing the school. If he is so poor such that he needs to spend most of his time and effort in supporting his basic needs, that will not work.

But the topic of the thread said only teach rich students is too extreme. What about middle class students? They might fit the bill.

Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

YouKnowWho

03-10-2012, 01:08 AM

But the topic of the thread said only teach rich students is too extreme. What about middle class students? They might fit the bill.

The term "rich" is a relative term and not an absolute term. As long as you don't have to work and have enough money to travel. It's rich by my definition.

-N-

03-10-2012, 07:24 AM

The term "rich" is a relative term and not an absolute term. As long as you don't have to work and have enough money to travel. It's rich by my definition.

Were you rich when your teacher accepted you as a student?

How about your friend that originally asked the question?

My teacher wasn't rich when he was a student, or after that even.

mooyingmantis

03-10-2012, 07:53 AM

If your friend wants to only teach rich kids, so be it. It's his business.

However, let me share two examples from history, Jiang Hualong and Song Zide. Jiang was born into poverty, while Song's family was very wealthy. As teenagers they became kung fu brothers and studied under the tanglangquan master, Liang Xuexiang. Both rose to become masters of tanglangquan. Both have lineages that are still active today. Some even say that master Jiang was considered the senior of master Song. Yet it was master Song who had the financial means to build his master, Liang Xuexiang, a home in the village that in which Song's family had a financial interest.

I personally wouldn't limit myself to only teaching rich/influencial people. I have two students that have been my students and closest friends for over thirty years. Neither of them would be considered rich by any means, but I would be the poorer one without their influence in my life.

BTW, the wealthiest students that I have taught never returned after they earned their black belts (in jujutsu). Not even a call in the last decade.

Food for thought!

-N-

03-10-2012, 08:54 AM

"The Mantis King", Wong Hon Fan, was a janitor when became a student.

mooyingmantis

03-10-2012, 12:15 PM

"The Mantis King", Wong Hon Fan, was a janitor when became a student.

Wow! Imagine where Hong Kong Mantis would be if he had been turned away. :eek:

rett

03-11-2012, 12:20 AM

Maybe just teach students who are rich in something.

Rich in talent, okay.
Rich in character and dedication, okay.
Rich in money, okay.

Only one of the above: teach him if you like him.
Two of the above: teach him unless he's an absolute bastiche.
All three of the above: Don't miss the chance, this doesn't come often.

bawang

03-11-2012, 06:22 AM

Its an ancient expression. In the olden times normal soldiers were basically like slaves. They don't get to study wushu outside of a few drills that work on mass. You would need to be rich to be an officer and it is them who study 'wu'.

no, you made that up. ancient chinese soldiers were very skilled.

wenshu

03-11-2012, 08:34 PM

speaking of "we know", we also know it's normal to state a known fact as the (relevant) lead-in to a line of argument.

Picking it out for this kind of biatch slap is a backfire kind of proposition.

You call that a ***** slap?

***

"It's an ancient expression."

"Oh, well then, it's obviously true and accurately represents reality."

rett

03-11-2012, 11:50 PM

oh never mind

RenDaHai

03-12-2012, 06:13 AM

You call that a ***** slap?

***

"It's an ancient expression."

"Oh, well then, it's obviously true and accurately represents reality."

What? Just, What? How.... ug... Who said.... what?

You tried to make it look like I said something stupid by clarifying it was an ancient expression.

Because I used the fact it was an ancient expression in my response I restated the fact in my post as is the convention of argument. I also did this because what you said made it seem like you did not realise it was an ancient expression.

What you say above is not relevant to any thing anyone else said... Its like your trying to fabricate what someone else said so you can then insult it.... but they didn't say or even infer that in the first place. This is the refuge of politicians and Lawyers and is not fit for dignified conversation.

So just... What?

Sorry to go Off topic

@Bawang, Professional soldiers of the warrior class were indeed very skilled. But in the China of the past as it still is today people buy their position. If you were poor you would not break into this class of soldier. Ancient armies the world over contained a large number of conscripted and impressed auxiliaries.

David Jamieson

03-12-2012, 06:59 AM

I think you could wind up in a cycle of confusion if you keep trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. :p

bawang

03-12-2012, 10:44 AM

@Bawang, Professional soldiers of the warrior class were indeed very skilled. But in the China of the past as it still is today people buy their position. If you were poor you would not break into this class of soldier. Ancient armies the world over contained a large number of conscripted and impressed auxiliaries.

china had no warrior class. you are just stereotyping ancient peoples from hollywood movies, or those kung fu movies where the bad guys from the government always lose.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2012, 11:37 AM

For their to be, typiclaly, a warrior class/caste, that would mean that warriors were "born" into it, not "made" by joining the military.
Think Spartans,Samurais and Janissaires as opposed to legionaires for example.
Chinese military was more roman army than samurai caste.

wenshu

03-12-2012, 02:25 PM

What? Just, What? How.... ug... Who said.... what?

You tried to make it look like I said something stupid by clarifying it was an ancient expression.

Because I used the fact it was an ancient expression in my response I restated the fact in my post as is the convention of argument. I also did this because what you said made it seem like you did not realise it was an ancient expression.

What you say above is not relevant to any thing anyone else said... Its like your trying to fabricate what someone else said so you can then insult it.... but they didn't say or even infer that in the first place. This is the refuge of politicians and Lawyers and is not fit for dignified conversation.

Relax meng.

I was responding to rett's contention that my comment was somehow a ***** slap and explaining via example that not only was the initial barb intended to let you know that I was aware of the time frame of the saying but that in spite of its origins I was challenging its acceptance as an apt representation of life in ancient times.

In fact I think it has more to do with Chinese family life than it does with martial arts.

This is just my opinion and I could very well be way off the mark but I'm in no mood to try any cursory research at the moment.

Even conscripts were trained, you can't have an effective army composed entirely of cannon fodder. I'd call a farmer spilling his guts into the mud a martial artist before I would a playboy dilettante.

RenDaHai

03-12-2012, 03:33 PM

I'd call a farmer spilling his guts into the mud a martial artist before I would a playboy dilettante.

Yeah, I guess thats true

jdhowland

03-12-2012, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=bawang;1162542]china had no warrior class. QUOTE]

Correct. Not since earlier Han dynasy, anyway.

rett

03-13-2012, 01:23 AM

I was responding to rett's contention that my comment was somehow a ***** slap and explaining via example that not only was the initial barb intended to let you know that I was aware of the time frame of the saying but that in spite of its origins I was challenging its acceptance as an apt representation of life in ancient times.

Okay, so it wasn't a biatch slap, it was a "barb". And you didn't mean it the way it sounded. Thanks for clarifying. I'll be more careful in future.

Even conscripts were trained, you can't have an effective army composed entirely of cannon fodder. I'd call a farmer spilling his guts into the mud a martial artist before I would a playboy dilettante.

A trained farmer who goes to war is certainly more martial than a playboy dilettante or than any of us who haven't been to war. But if a playboy dilettante has used his leisure time to get very good at his spear or whatever, and would easily defeat the farmer in an otherwise fair match – well then your idea gets complicated don't you think? Maybe in a way the lesser man wins, but "artist" implies devoting a huge amount of time and effort to developing skills, not just having received some training.

SPJ

03-13-2012, 08:01 AM

Rich or not

Students would offer food or shelter/room to a teacher.

Students would offer some money or gift as a pay or fee.

It is called shu xiu. 束修.

How much to pay is depending on how sincere the students are about his learning.

or how much a teacher would ask for.

In short, there is a price for rich students.

There is also a price or no fee for a sincere or poor student.

etc etc.

:cool:

wenshu

03-13-2012, 09:41 AM

Okay, so it wasn't a biatch slap, it was a "barb". And you didn't mean it the way it sounded. Thanks for clarifying. I'll be more careful in future.

I meant it exactly the way it sounded. I was being a jerk but it was hardly a ***** slap.

I usually think of a forum ***** slap as involving more cursing and name calling punctuated by some creative image manipulation. But that's just me, maybe things are different in Sweden.

But if a playboy dilettante has used his leisure time to get very good at his spear or whatever, and would easily defeat the farmer in an otherwise fair match – well then your idea gets complicated don't you think? Maybe in a way the lesser man wins, but "artist" implies devoting a huge amount of time and effort to developing skills, not just having received some training.

My money's on the farmer in this case as well.

Artist also implies superfluous. The conscript farmer knows only what is necessary.

rett

03-13-2012, 10:05 AM

I meant it exactly the way it sounded. I was being a jerk but it was hardly a ***** slap.

I usually think of a forum ***** slap as involving more cursing and name calling punctuated by some creative image manipulation. But that's just me, maybe things are different in Sweden.

There are different ways of parsing the expression. It could be a slap you give your biatch. But it could also be a slap dealt out by a biatch, i.e. a bit *****y but not much of a slap. In grammar terms that would be the difference between an accusative and genitive relationship between the components. you’re free to decide which one I thought it sounded like.

My money's on the farmer in this case as well.

Ok, see? You're doing it again.

I posited the case of a playboy rich spoiled pampered kid who can defeat the average farmer soldier because he's had all the time in the world to practice spear. It's not your call to just go and redefine it.

Artist also implies superfluous. The conscript farmer knows only what is necessary.

Sure, but now you contradict yourself. You began by saying the famer is more of a "martial artist" than the playboy with a knife hobby. I suggested you scrap the word artist there. The farmer is martial pastoral.

Now what you've done is actually come around to my position. You think the farmer is martial and does what raw and necessary, but not fluffy and artistic.

bawang

03-13-2012, 11:41 AM

stop the mindless jargon spewing, high school drop out philosophizing and theorizing. if you feel the need to wall spam garbage go to the wing chun forum, mang.

from ancient times to modern times, rich people pay a lot of money to learn flashy forms, what is there to argue?

wenshu

03-13-2012, 11:44 AM

There are different ways of parsing the expression. It could be a slap you give your biatch. But it could also be a slap dealt out by a biatch, i.e. a bit *****y but not much of a slap. In grammar terms that would be the difference between an accusative and genitive relationship between the components. you’re free to decide which one I thought it sounded like.

Please. The structural ambiguity due to the lack of visible case marking in English doesn't affect the pragmatics of '***** slap'.

I posited the case of a playboy rich spoiled pampered kid who can defeat the average farmer soldier because he's had all the time in the world to practice spear. It's not your call to just go and redefine it.

You're begging the question. The outcome is assumed in the premise itself. No matter what, if I disagree with the premise you can attack me for some rhetorical blunder rather than anything substantive.

Sure, but now you contradict yourself. You began by saying the famer is more of a "martial artist" than the playboy with a knife hobby. I suggested you scrap the word artist there. The farmer is martial pastoral.

Now what you've done is actually come around to my position. You think the farmer is martial and does what raw and necessary, but not fluffy and artistic.

Do you just want to argue about the semantics of my imprecise rhetorical flourishes or about whether or not people could learn gong fu in the army?

bawang

03-13-2012, 11:47 AM

The farmer is martial pastoral.

Now what you've done is actually come around to my position. You think the farmer is martial and does what raw and necessary, but not fluffy and artistic.

you are wrong on a cosmic scale of galactic proportions. the farmer is the epitomy, the apex of the chinese martial artist that we should all look up to.

the biggest mistake from your self blinding, comatose, self praising theorizing is that farmers learned different, more primitive kung fu.

99% of kung fu out there traces lineage directly from farmers.

example: what is the difference between "primitive farmer kung fu" and "special elite kung fu that i must be from"?

ming dynasty conscripts learned 24 move six harmony spear. chen style tai chi spear added about 50 flower twirling and spinning movements to the original form.

wenshu

03-13-2012, 11:48 AM

stop the mindless jargon spewing, high school drop out philosophizing and theorizing.

college drop out, thank you very much.

bawang

03-13-2012, 11:56 AM

its rediculous how high and mighty middle class crackerjacks look down on farmers.

chinese farmers in the 1500s trained for 1 year and defeated japanese samurai. that takes skill and balls.

David Jamieson

03-13-2012, 12:16 PM

its rediculous how high and mighty middle class crackerjacks look down on farmers.

chinese farmers in the 1500s trained for 1 year and defeated japanese samurai. that takes skill and balls.

pfft that's nothing. The Japanese Feudal system and Samurai rule defeated itself! Itself!!!

Lucas

03-13-2012, 12:42 PM

i defeated bawangs mom with only 3months of training. completely dominated

sanjuro_ronin

03-13-2012, 01:21 PM

sanjuro_ronin

03-13-2012, 01:24 PM

RenDaHai

03-13-2012, 01:57 PM

My money's on the farmer in this case as well.

Artist also implies superfluous. The conscript farmer knows only what is necessary.

Ah! But Kung Fu is not about what is necessary. It is about doing a great deal more than is necessary. The ability to do what is necessary is not a great achievement, it is simply a functional skill.

The 'Superfluous' are where the great achievements of our society come.

Much of the contention on this site comes from people discussing the functionality of KungFu.

I can see now why many arguments are hard to reconcile. Because we are using the same words for different things.

There are two types of people who learn the Martial Arts. Those who learn it with a view to acquiring a FUNCTIONAL Skill (self defense, sport, fitness etc.) and those who learn it as a Way of life. (Their Muse, the Catalyst of their decisions, the focus of their creative energy).

This is a profound difference in why you practice the MA. It is reflected in the way you train.

From many threads I may conclude that people from one side find it very difficult to understand the motivations of people on the other.

So who are you? Obsessed with the functionality of the MA, or with the less tangible abstract influence MA has on your life?

wenshu

03-13-2012, 02:33 PM

Ah! But Kung Fu is not about what is necessary. It is about doing a great deal more than is necessary.

Gong fu is definitely not starkly pragmatic but not necessarily superfluous. Some of the highest level gong fu is composed of strikingly simple movements. It's more about the time spent perfecting it than the perceived utility of the application.

The ability to do what is necessary is not a great achievement, it is simply a functional skill.

The 'Superfluous' are where the great achievements of our society come.

Careful. This is a bold statement I fear you will quickly find not easily defended.

There are two types of people who learn the Martial Arts. Those who learn it with a view to acquiring a FUNCTIONAL Skill (self defense, sport, fitness etc.) and those who learn it as a Way of life. (Their Muse, the Catalyst of their decisions, the focus of their creative energy).

What about people for whom "functional" skill as you define it is their Muse, catalyst etc. Is that any less noble or artistic because it doesn't fit this narrow definition you have provided?

You are oversimplifying. There are two types of people in the world, people who think there are two types of people and everyone else.

I realize there are a lot of people who have much invested in this idea of martial arts as this lofty noble pursuit but it is really nothing more than a childish fantasy born of wu xia fictions about knight errants.

So who are you? Obsessed with the functionality of the MA, or with the less tangible abstract influence MA has on your life?

I try not to think about life in only two dimensions.

David Jamieson

03-13-2012, 02:56 PM

These 3D glasses changed my life.
They've done nothing for one dimensional acting though....

Lucas

03-13-2012, 03:18 PM

These 3D glasses changed my life.
They've done nothing for one dimensional acting though....

unless there is 3D cleavage involved...

RenDaHai

03-13-2012, 03:58 PM

Gong fu is definitely not starkly pragmatic but not necessarily superfluous. Some of the highest level gong fu is composed of strikingly simple movements. It's more about the time spent perfecting it than the perceived utility of the application.

Indeed, but perfecting beyond what is necessary of its function. Its not about the simplicity, its about taking things beyond what they are.

Careful. This is a bold statement I fear you will quickly find not easily defended.

Agreed and withdrawn. That was badly worded. I mean it as an extension of above, Necessity is the mother of invention, but it is taking things beyond their perceived function, that I am talking about. Inspiration, new ideas, high culture and scientific theory.

What about people for whom "functional" skill as you define it is their Muse, catalyst etc. Is that any less noble or artistic because it doesn't fit this narrow definition you have provided?

Quite right, this is more of a personal observation. To be their way of life it has to be something that affects all aspects of their life. When something becomes more precise in its function it becomes more efficient at its task but less versatile and will have less effect on their whole life.

You are oversimplifying. There are two types of people in the world, people who think there are two types of people and everyone else.

Of course, it is necessary to simplify to make a more quickly understandable point. I suggest a gradient with Abstract at one end and specific function at the other. Peoples opinion of things are somewhere along the line. This varies depending on the thing.

I realize there are a lot of people who have much invested in this idea of martial arts as this lofty noble pursuit but it is really nothing more than a childish fantasy born of wu xia fictions about knight errants..

Then I pity you if you have no childish fantasies left.... Those with them make the most interesting people, and often very successful ones. I still hang on to the childhood fantasy of making it with Yasmine Bleeth... and with every passing year it gets more realistic. However its not about this, its about abstract function. Its about the skill affecting ALL decisions you make, not just the ones pertaining to combat, or whatever function you choose. This is hard to explain...

I try not to think about life in only two dimensions.

You should try it, it is a good method to solve problems. Reduce the number of dimensions, solve the simple problem, then extend it to three and extrapolate. This works going into 4 or 5 or however many you need. I'm actually not joking here, its a legitimate method. All problems become simple when you reduce them to a simple choice between two things. And many many problems can be simplified in this way. Even complicated and important decisions in all aspects of your life. In fact when we get down to the particulars of the universe there are often 2 opposing extremes. Yin and Yang. I consider many things in this way. Read the DaoDeJing you'll know what I mean.

RenDaHai

03-13-2012, 06:38 PM

Further to my earlier comments;

I must clarify I do not feel that my MA should be non-functional.

Off course all the techniques should also be functional, but for me Kung Fu is much more than serving a specific function, or set of them.

This 'way of life' point of view does not mean I am not interested in practical Kung Fu, it simply means I appreciate a more esoteric aspect as well. I accept that Kung Fu has a vast influence over my decision making process outside of its usual domain of combat and fitness etc. And in such the training I follow is not geared to a specific function.

Many people try to make Kung Fu functional in a specific set of circumstances, but in real life we never know what these circumstances will be. Training Kung Fu as Harmony of movement and mind means we can use it in anything from moving furniture to dancing to dodging a car to combat to making decisions to studying to learning how to paint etc etc. By focusing on a specific function too much we draw a box around kung fu and lessen the versatility of its lessons.

rett

03-14-2012, 02:28 AM

you are wrong on a cosmic scale of galactic proportions. the farmer is the epitomy, the apex of the chinese martial artist that we should all look up to.

the biggest mistake from your self blinding, comatose, self praising theorizing is that farmers learned different, more primitive kung fu.

99% of kung fu out there traces lineage directly from farmers.

example: what is the difference between "primitive farmer kung fu" and "special elite kung fu that i must be from"?

ming dynasty conscripts learned 24 move six harmony spear. chen style tai chi spear added about 50 flower twirling and spinning movements to the original form.

My post wasn't meant to put down farmers and praise pampered rich playboys. Nor was I denying the connection between farmers and kung fu traditions. I have seen what you are talking about first hand in mainland China and respect it very much.

What I was doing was positing a situation where a farmer who hasn't had the benefit of a lifetime of that kind of training gets conscripted or enlists out of need and receives some training in the army. And then has to face a pampered playboy who has done nothing but train spear his whole life.

Skill or art is a product of time and effort. And as I wrote, those without means, especially subsistence level farmers at risk of famine often won't have had the possibility to put in that much time and effort. That was what I was positing to pick at the relationship between the words martial and art as Wenshu had used them.

rett

03-14-2012, 03:05 AM

Do you just want to argue about the semantics of my imprecise rhetorical flourishes or about whether or not people could learn gong fu in the army?

Of course the latter. I just had a nit to pick with you.

穷文富武 must have reflected reality in some way, at least as people saw it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been repeated and remembered.

It might for instance have been meant as advice for getting ahead and making a name for yourself. Tried and true options. Then it wouldn't actually be saying anything about whether its possible for a poor person to learn wu. Just that a poor person's lot in the army would be to be at the bottom of the hierarchy there. Not as much chance for social advancement as passing the exams and becoming a bureaucrat.

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 06:04 AM

Just that a poor person's lot in the army would be to be at the bottom of the hierarchy there. Not as much chance for social advancement as passing the exams and becoming a bureaucrat.

Exactly, that explains it clearly.

bawang

03-14-2012, 07:28 AM

What I was doing was positing a situation where a farmer who hasn't had the benefit of a lifetime of that kind of training gets conscripted or enlists out of need and receives some training in the army. And then has to face a pampered playboy who has done nothing but train spear his whole life.

that is impossible because:

1. chinese consripts have been documented to repeatedly kill highly trained japanese samurai with under 1 year of training during wokou invasions.

2. the exact methods for trainnig conscripts has been recorded by many generals step by step and it is very complex and advanced.

3. all battle hardened chinese generals agreed in their writing that fighting skill plateaus at 1 to 2 years.

4. chinese army had a written policy to ban the recruitment of rich people. you could not even join the army if you had white skin.

rich playboys dont join the army. they smoke opium and bang prostitutes all day.

bawang

03-14-2012, 07:50 AM

穷文富武 must have reflected reality in some way, at least as people saw it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been repeated and remembered.

let me explain the proper meaning.

scholars should be rich, but theres so many scholars competing, so many dont get jobs and end up poor.

no one wants to be a soldier, yet soldiers make a lot of money by collecting head and ear bounties.

its an ironic saying about hard honest work, it has nothing to do with martial arts.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 08:05 AM

bawang

03-14-2012, 08:19 AM

i got the info from the book wu bei zhi. it collects every important chinese military text of the last 2000 years.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 08:45 AM

i got the info from the book wu bei zhi. it collects every important chinese military text of the last 2000 years.

Cool, you should do a thread about what it says.

rett

03-14-2012, 08:48 AM

i got the info from the book wu bei zhi. it collects every important chinese military text of the last 2000 years.

Is that available in a 500-most-common-characters edition?

rett

03-14-2012, 08:59 AM

that is impossible because:

1. chinese consripts have been documented to repeatedly kill highly trained japanese samurai with under 1 year of training during wokou invasions.

In one-on-one duels, or are you talking about melees? And are you saying that the samurai never killed conscripts?

2. the exact methods for trainnig conscripts has been recorded by many generals step by step and it is very complex and advanced.

Okay. But you're saying it never happened that generals cut corners or were in hurry to field a formation? Manuals are ideals and guidelines, not necessarily always followed. What was the reality like? Were there never third-rate garrison troops that got cruddy training?

3. all battle hardened chinese generals agreed in their writing that fighting skill plateaus at 1 to 2 years.

Sure, if those people were campaigning and fighting often they're likely to burn out. That’s a different situation from a dueller who can rest and recoup between encounters.

4. chinese army had a written policy to ban the recruitment of rich people. you could not even join the army if you had white skin.

At all times and places? There were never privileged generals or officers anywhere, ever?

Also, were there differences throughout history and in different places in the extent to which the army was a meritocracy? How high could a recruit from simple circumstances rise if he showed skill? How high could a privileged person start out just by buying his way in? How did this vary in actual practice (as opposed to manuals?)

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 09:08 AM

that is impossible because:

1. chinese consripts have been documented to repeatedly kill highly trained japanese samurai with under 1 year of training during wokou invasions.

2. the exact methods for trainnig conscripts has been recorded by many generals step by step and it is very complex and advanced.

3. all battle hardened chinese generals agreed in their writing that fighting skill plateaus at 1 to 2 years.

4. chinese army had a written policy to ban the recruitment of rich people. you could not even join the army if you had white skin.

rich playboys dont join the army. they smoke opium and bang prostitutes all day.

I think there is a difference between the micro part of a battle where it is head to head, soldier on soldier, then the Macro part of the battle with the tactics and strategy. Officers and Soldiers are separate even today.

@3. That makes sense, so if someone spends a lifetime studying Wu but the fighting skill plateau's after 1 year, what is the rest of the time spent on? Perhaps on the other things I have talked about.

@4. What about the generals? The officers? There has always been this separation. A Private does not become a General if he does well. This is true today also. A private can make it to Sargeant Major, but this is still ranked below a Second Lieutenant. Commissioned and Enlisted. Its always been this way.

Please bear in Mind that 'Wushu' is the art of stopping conflict, it is NOT the art of killing.

rett

03-14-2012, 09:13 AM

In case anyone's interested here's a question and answer page from baidu on 穷文富武

Bit of a fiddle to read but I'll try to work through it.

http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/12352396

“穷文富武”是什么意思啊？
提问者：匿名
希望大伙讲详细些，谢谢咯！[answers follow]

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 09:37 AM

Re: Military training

I don't doubt that the chinese generals viewed that it took 1-2 years to get a soldier to "peak" with his fighting skills.
That is about the same time that it takes now.
After that what you have is the experience factor being added.

Drake

03-14-2012, 10:10 AM

Can we get back to the opium and prostitutes, plz?

Lucas

03-14-2012, 10:13 AM

seriously!!! vid or it didnt happen

bawang

03-14-2012, 10:52 AM

Please bear in Mind that 'Wushu' is the art of stopping conflict, it is NOT the art of killing.

mighty general qi jiguang defined it as "the business of killing". mighty general qi jiguang disagrees.

At all times and places? There were never privileged generals or officers anywhere, ever?

at all times and places. there were never privileged generals or officers anywhere, ever.

David Jamieson

03-14-2012, 11:17 AM

In all fairness, the correct killing does stop conflict.

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 11:31 AM

In all fairness, the correct killing does stop conflict.

Well, indeed. But it is in deciding 'who' needs to be killed, when and how, and predicting the consequences, these decisions, this is the art.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 11:34 AM

Can we get back to the opium and prostitutes, plz?

http://media1.behance.com/article_images/5564_1_the_opium_den.jpg

bawang

03-14-2012, 11:35 AM

when i hit 40 and have a family, i also plan to google noodie pix all day.

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 11:35 AM

mighty general qi jiguang defined it as "the business of killing". mighty general qi jiguang disagrees.

at all times and places. there were never privileged generals or officers anywhere, ever.

Qi Jiguang was born in the town of Luqiao (鲁橋) in Shandong province to a family with a long military tradition.

When Zhu Yuanzhang later became the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty, he bestowed upon the Qi family the hereditary post of commander-in-chief of Dengzhou Garrison (登州衛)
(from Wikipedia)

Flies in the face what you were saying! You unhorsed yourself! :eek:

bawang

03-14-2012, 11:39 AM

his whole family was broke. i unhorse nothing.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 11:42 AM

when i hit 40 and have a family, i also plan to google noodie pix all day.

I don't think you could handle that.
:D

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 11:42 AM

his whole family was broke. i unhorse nothing.

Dunno, sounds like he was kind of a warrior caste.....

bawang

03-14-2012, 11:44 AM

nope

sdfsdfsdfsdf

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 11:45 AM

I

Please bear in Mind that 'Wushu' is the art of stopping conflict, it is NOT the art of killing.

I think that your head may be a bit stuck in the sand, sorry.
In terms of military application, martial arts are about killing, period.
Nothing stops a conflict like the death of the other guy.

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 12:18 PM

I think that your head may be a bit stuck in the sand, sorry.
In terms of military application, martial arts are about killing, period.
Nothing stops a conflict like the death of the other guy.

Yeah, but its not indiscriminate. If you could end a war by killing one man, that is Wushu. If you do it by killing all of them that's no kind of art. Ending a war by killing no one is far superior Wushu. So Wushu cannot be defined by the art of killing.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 01:02 PM

Yeah, but its not indiscriminate. If you could end a war by killing one man, that is Wushu. If you do it by killing all of them that's no kind of art. Ending a war by killing no one is far superior Wushu. So Wushu cannot be defined by the art of killing.

This predisposes that ONE man is an "island" as the saying goes and history has shown over and over that there is always someone to "take their place".
No one knows better than I the value of "selective targeting" but no war has ever been ended by "one shot".

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 01:15 PM

This predisposes that ONE man is an "island" as the saying goes and history has shown over and over that there is always someone to "take their place".
No one knows better than I the value of "selective targeting" but no war has ever been ended by "one shot".

That may well be true, but the principle stands. If victory can be achieved without killing then that is superior Wushu, thus Wushu can not be defined simply by its ability to kill. Although this may not be possible in large scale war it is at least applicable on a smaller scale. I.e Capture is better than killing, Selective bombing is better than nuking the lot, diffusing an opponent with words is better than nutting him etc etc.

sanjuro_ronin

03-14-2012, 01:24 PM

That may well be true, but the principle stands. If victory can be achieved without killing then that is superior Wushu, thus Wushu can not be defined simply by its ability to kill. Although this may not be possible in large scale war it is at least applicable on a smaller scale. I.e Capture is better than killing, Selective bombing is better than nuking the lot, diffusing an opponent with words is better than nutting him etc etc.

You are confusing morals with fighting.
While we MAY combine the two now, that was not the case.
No one ever developed a MA system that was "morally superiour", regardless of revisionist history.

Sure in any military expedition, the surrender and capture of the enemy was superiour, because it didn't cost the winning general any of his assets, not because of the "superiour moral result".

Of course many a times a "peaceful resolution" was in of itself simply a ploy to get a better military advantage and the general accepting that proposal knew this all to well.

RenDaHai

03-14-2012, 03:53 PM

You are confusing morals with fighting.
While we MAY combine the two now, that was not the case.
No one ever developed a MA system that was "morally superiour", regardless of revisionist history.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Morals. It is about consequences, ripples of effect. A good general understands the consequences of his actions. Death begats death. The ripples of effect are complex. The smallest perturbation is preferred. This is not a function of morality, morality may well be a function of it however. It is part of Strategy, and strategy is part of all MA. Harmony is always the goal of Wushu. A smaller ripple is closer to harmony. We needn't call it morality.

Syn7

03-14-2012, 07:50 PM

In all fairness, the correct killing does stop conflict.

I've been saying that all along. Some folks just gotta go. That's all that's it....!!! Time for a muligan.

Hasta la victoria siempre. Viva la revolucion!

bawang

03-14-2012, 07:54 PM

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Morals. It is about consequences, ripples of effect. A good general understands the consequences of his actions. Death begats death. The ripples of effect are complex. The smallest perturbation is preferred. This is not a function of morality, morality may well be a function of it however. It is part of Strategy, and strategy is part of all MA. Harmony is always the goal of Wushu. A smaller ripple is closer to harmony. We needn't call it morality.

your shameless ranting infuriates me. i smash my testicles against the keyboard.

SPJ

03-14-2012, 09:04 PM

1 Every thing takes money from food to shining armor/weapon

2 Soldiers are in the business of killing people or be killed.

The rank of a general was awarded after you have beheaded 500 enemy or more.

without being killed of course.

3 There is no moral in killing.

It is only senseless slaughter.

Ask Guan Gong. Ask Zhang Fei. Ask Chu Ba Wang (Xiang Yu).

Do not ask Liu Bang. Do not ask Ju Ge Liang.

Better yet ask Han Xin.

4 You need money to pay your soldiers, to feed your soldiers and to arm your soldiers.

In short, we are talking about waging war or organized fights with huge groups of people.

:eek:

David Jamieson

03-15-2012, 05:17 AM

Real life scenario.

If B. Al Assad was to be killed, the Syrian oppression and murder of it's people would stop.

When Gaddafi was killed, the conflict was over in Libya.

Of course, we could bring it down a notch from "killing" and use removal, such as removal from society of those who do harm and by so doing, end conflict.

sanjuro_ronin

03-15-2012, 05:36 AM

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Morals. It is about consequences, ripples of effect. A good general understands the consequences of his actions. Death begats death. The ripples of effect are complex. The smallest perturbation is preferred. This is not a function of morality, morality may well be a function of it however. It is part of Strategy, and strategy is part of all MA. Harmony is always the goal of Wushu. A smaller ripple is closer to harmony. We needn't call it morality.

If it is ONLY about military strategy and outcome then uter destruction of the enemy with minimal collateral damage/loss is always the way to go because only THAT way guarantees absolute victory with minimal chance of reciprocation.

sanjuro_ronin

03-15-2012, 05:37 AM

David Jamieson

03-15-2012, 05:53 AM

The conflict is over in Libya?
Or do you mean the conflict against Gaddafi's regime is over in Libya?
Those are two different things.

There is some power sorting on the ground, but there isn't military action taking place in the manner that was occurring prior to Gaddafi being offed.

sanjuro_ronin

03-15-2012, 07:06 AM

There is some power sorting on the ground, but there isn't military action taking place in the manner that was occurring prior to Gaddafi being offed.

Of course not because there is no military in power.
The moment that Gadaffi was eliminated all that did was create a vacum of power that all these guys are trying to fill and things will then go back to "same ol, same ol".

RenDaHai

03-15-2012, 08:05 AM

If it is ONLY about military strategy and outcome then uter destruction of the enemy with minimal collateral damage/loss is always the way to go because only THAT way guarantees absolute victory with minimal chance of reciprocation.

But its never really possible, even in this age of Nuclear Weapons. And if you leave one seed you have created problems forever. There are strings connecting everything. Even if you could do it such destruction would undoubtedly bring about unforeseen consequences. Victory can only be momentary thing. There may be extreme times that call for an attempt at absolute destruction, but that is going to be in the face of impending destruction of yourself. The more harmonious option is preferred.

sanjuro_ronin

03-15-2012, 08:29 AM

But its never really possible, even in this age of Nuclear Weapons. And if you leave one seed you have created problems forever. There are strings connecting everything. Even if you could do it such destruction would undoubtedly bring about unforeseen consequences. Victory can only be momentary thing. There may be extreme times that call for an attempt at absolute destruction, but that is going to be in the face of impending destruction of yourself. The more harmonious option is preferred.

I think you are looking back into history with a 21st century outlook.

Lets remember one thing, H2H combat methods ( and weaponry of course) were NOT created to bring about peace or harmony.

RenDaHai

03-15-2012, 11:03 AM

I think you are looking back into history with a 21st century outlook.

Lets remember one thing, H2H combat methods ( and weaponry of course) were NOT created to bring about peace or harmony.

Indeed but the weapons and methods are not the Wushu. They are meerly tools. It is the DECISIONS involved in employing them that is the 'art'.

When all your decisions are made and you are committed to a course of action you are executing the drill but you have finished employing Wushu. You have become the tool or the weapon. It is the cunning used to choose the course of action that is the Wushu.

sanjuro_ronin

03-15-2012, 11:31 AM

Indeed but the weapons and methods are not the Wushu. They are meerly tools. It is the DECISIONS involved in employing them that is the 'art'.

When all your decisions are made and you are committed to a course of action you are executing the drill but you have finished employing Wushu. You have become the tool or the weapon. It is the cunning used to choose the course of action that is the Wushu.

Well..." art" is subjective of course and prefer "method" or "skill" myself.

RenDaHai

03-15-2012, 12:05 PM

Well..." art" is subjective of course and prefer "method" or "skill" myself.

That's the crucial point I think. Skill and Art are different things. Skill is execution but Art is in making decisions.

For example if you were to define the 'Art of the Sniper' would you define it by the skill involved in aiming, holding the rifle steady and squeezing the trigger, or would you define it by the many decisions necessary in choosing the location, the mark, the timing, the adjustment for projectile motion, estimation of distance, the patience, the discipline, the detection, the stalking, the stealth, the camo, the psychology etc. etc. Sure the shooting skill is part of the art, but is it the bigger part?

lance

03-25-2012, 04:12 PM

Just had a phone conversation with my friend. Through the discussion, there was one subject that interest me. He just told one of his students only to teach rich students. I asked him why and here was the reason that he gave me.

In some TCMA system, to test your skill in tournament environment is "extreamly" important. If you teach a poor student, he won't be able to afford to travel around the world, compete in national level and international level tournaments, and test his skill against the best of the best in the world. That student's "MA skill development" and "MA experience accumulation" will always be limited no matter how talent he is and how good that you may teach him. Of course that student can always compete in local tournaments. He may become a big fish in a small pond. Will he become a big fish in open sea? You and that student will never have chance to find that out.

What's your opinion on this?

YouKnowWho , that may be true to him , because he ' s the one doing it . But still yet it all depends on the learning , training potential of those rich students . What if they are rich , but can ' t progress fast enough to prepare for any tournaments , what is the student going to do ? Tournament is ' nt the only place to test out the skill of a person , it can also happen in the streets too . In the tournamnet just incase the sparring match go dirty the refree is there , in the streets it all depends on your opponent what he really wants to do with you . In the tournament you fight for points , in the streets you fight for your life . The main thing is that the rich students learns the basic self defense skills first like blocking , trapping , punching , striking , kicking . But it all depends on the sifu though , what he wants teach the students .

Drake

03-25-2012, 04:20 PM

David Jamieson

03-26-2012, 07:46 AM

And who will remove the man? I don't think the US has much interest in wars for the time being. We're a bit tired, if you hadn't noticed.

I think the US has plenty of interest in Wars. If it didn't it wouldn''t spend so much on them or preparing for them.

I think there is not a lot of interest in Syria because there is nothing to be gained materialistically from going in tehre and stopping the murders. No oil, no gold, no wealth, nothing.

So, human life obviously has little value to the countries that decide to mount NATO attacks like what was held on Libya. But the difference was that Libya had oil, so it was worth it to swoop in and smash that. In fact, the British and Americans helped set up an oil company and a bank for money transfers WHILE they were conducting bombing runs.

But Syria? Nothing there but Syrians and the leader assisted with all those rendition flights in the last decade, so let him kill his people I guess.

seriously guys, there is NO such thing as a complex political situation. it always comes down to some asshat wanting something he can't have and stalling. People need to take a good long hard look at just how naked the emperor is. because it doesn't matter where you go, the emperor is flesh and blood and therefore, no better or worse than the least of us.

I wish reality had more value.

Drake

03-26-2012, 01:43 PM

I think the US has plenty of interest in Wars. If it didn't it wouldn''t spend so much on them or preparing for them.

I think there is not a lot of interest in Syria because there is nothing to be gained materialistically from going in tehre and stopping the murders. No oil, no gold, no wealth, nothing.

So, human life obviously has little value to the countries that decide to mount NATO attacks like what was held on Libya. But the difference was that Libya had oil, so it was worth it to swoop in and smash that. In fact, the British and Americans helped set up an oil company and a bank for money transfers WHILE they were conducting bombing runs.

But Syria? Nothing there but Syrians and the leader assisted with all those rendition flights in the last decade, so let him kill his people I guess.

seriously guys, there is NO such thing as a complex political situation. it always comes down to some asshat wanting something he can't have and stalling. People need to take a good long hard look at just how naked the emperor is. because it doesn't matter where you go, the emperor is flesh and blood and therefore, no better or worse than the least of us.

I wish reality had more value.

Clearly you haven't been keeping up, then. We're in the midst of a massive drawdown in forces. A LOT of soldiers are on the chopping block for involuntary separation. Tens of thousands, actually.

It's over.

Syn7

03-27-2012, 07:45 PM

Clearly you haven't been keeping up, then. We're in the midst of a massive drawdown in forces. A LOT of soldiers are on the chopping block for involuntary separation. Tens of thousands, actually.

It's over.

Good, breakthefukcout already! You can't win, all you can do is throw money at it and create even more animosity. The Russians think this sh1t is hilarious. Like how slow can a military be?

Also I think all trade should be cut off with Syria. NOTHING IN NOTHING OUT. In the short term there will be suffering but Assad will be gone. Probably dead. He will either be killed or jailed by somebody on his own team looking to make a play. Then a puppet or two will try before they get stomped out and the people get what they want and deserve.

I find it very ironic that the US will use human rights abuses as an excuse to invade one country when one of the largest violations in recent history is being televised and still nobody will do anything about it because Russia china and the "west" are engaged in a p1ssing contest. It's beyond sad.

Syria doesn't really have anything the US wants aside from a promise to be nice to Israel. The Syrians have actually had a good friendly relationship with the US despite the fact that human rights violations has been a theme of that regime since his father. Funny how the US preaches democracy and then will actively ally themselves with anti-democratic dictators for the sake of "peace". Is that what yall did in your revolution? Gave in to the king in order to achieve "peace". No, of course not. So why do yall keep fukcing with everyone else's revolutions?

If that was happening in Mexico you would roll in so fast. Coz it would scare you being so close. Syria is too far away to be scary and it's quite clear that the US places "the easy route" over the lives of people that are too far away to be human.

Leave people alone, you have no right what so ever to tell anyone outside of your borders anything. You are a nation in decline because of your own greed and the simplistic idiocy of the majority of voters. You have NO moral authority and you haven't done anything democratically productive in YEARS! In fact you are going backwards.

What gives the US the right to tell anything to anyone outside its own borders? It's laughable that there is a presumption of moral superiority. This coming from a nation who mostly live a sedentric life style and can't even name every state in the union. I bet the average is like 25, but only if they can have a pen and paper, otherwise it'll be like 15.

Canada isn't any better. We don't point our finger in peoples faces so often like the US does tho. But we are mostly fat and stupid too. It will also be our downfall. We are being more and more "Americanized" every day. I use that word cause the US has set a new global standard of sleazy practice. From a financial perspective the US is literally eating itself.

Syn7

03-27-2012, 07:48 PM

And who will remove the man? I don't think the US has much interest in wars for the time being. We're a bit tired, if you hadn't noticed.

You mean beaten. it's the opposite of winning. I realize it has never traditionally been a part of American military vocabulary but it's something yall should've learned in the 50's when you lost that one. Or the 70's when you lost THOSE ones. Or the the proxies in the 80's when your funding went for nothing or in the 2000-2010 era when yall lost 2, count em, TWO wars simultaneously.

Drake

03-28-2012, 09:13 AM

You mean beaten. it's the opposite of winning. I realize it has never traditionally been a part of American military vocabulary but it's something yall should've learned in the 50's when you lost that one. Or the 70's when you lost THOSE ones. Or the the proxies in the 80's when your funding went for nothing or in the 2000-2010 era when yall lost 2, count em, TWO wars simultaneously.

How did we "lose" Iraq? Especially when the government that asked us to go was the one we set up? SH is gone, and the country is staying above water? Loss? I don't think so.

How did we "lose" Afghanistan? The TB have no power base in AFG, and must conduct virtually all planning from either Pakistan, or way out in rural areas. Last I checked, Mullah Omar is afraid to cross the border, and Karzai calls the shots. How is that losing?

And specify which other wars we lost. Last I checked, Vietnam was the only one I would consider a loss.

Syn7

03-28-2012, 06:35 PM

Destabilizing a region is not equal to victory. The gov. you set up is a joke and won't last if you left. The only way you guys will have the gov you want is if you are prepared to keep soldiers there forever. When you guys "pull out" rarely is there mention of who is left behind and what their jobs are. You re-classify the theater, call it a new name and pretend like you have left to the American public but really there will be soldiers there indefinitely. Just not as many. But there none the less.

You have not achieved a reasonable amount of objectives given the time money and bodies you've thrown at it. The US hasn't won a war since WW2 and they take way too much credit for that. According to a good percentage of Americans the US saved the world.

But whatever. I don't want to argue bout that. Yall haven't won anything since the 40's. OK. Better?

What I really want to know is why the US military and foreign affairs depts. feel they have some sort of moral authority to tell ANYONE ANYWHERE what to do outside of the US? I don't get that. How come American morals are the best morals? Why is crony capitalism the great blueprint for economic success? Why are you forcing others to act the way you want them to act? Just answer me that and I'll be happy.

Oh and one more question. Why do you fight for a nation that puts it's own economic interests ahead of the lives of people from trouble spots? All that rhetoric about how the US is the great torchbearer of freedom and democracy yet the US has consistently sided with dictators over popular democratic movements.

OH OH OH one last question. How come the masses have not risen in outrage over the killing of a citizen without DUE PROCESS? Due process IS judicial process. I don't dispute that the citizen in question deserved to be treated like a combatant aggressive to the US. But why couldn't they just present evidence to high up justice in secret and get the paperwork right? This is a CRAZY precedent that due process isn't judicial process. That means that ones right to a fair trail is no longer a guarantee under that interpretation of the US constitutions 14th amendment. Specifically the Due Process Clause(I think there is a clause in the 5th amend. as well). Why are Americans not enraged? I don't get that. The only answer I can come up with is that the majority of Americans simply don't understand what the due process clause even is. In fact I bet majority aren't even knowledgeable about what the 14th contains. I'll go even further and suggest that the majority don't even fully understand the rights and freedoms they demand as natural entitlements. Canadians are a bit better. I find the average Canadian knows more about their own Gov than the average American. But the difference isn't very much at all. I find northern Europeans to be the most knowledgeable, on average, about their own governments. By a HUGE margin. I would mos def move there if I had a reason to. Denmark is fresh. Their legal, education and health systems are way above par and the average life expectancy is higher. The average income is higher(the real numbers, not the juked stats you see over here). The rate of mental health and depression is significantly lower than here.

D@mn socialistas!!! :mad:

lol

Drake

03-28-2012, 06:38 PM

So, in other words, you have no answer. Thanks.

Syn7

03-28-2012, 06:57 PM

What? You're gonna criticize me for not answering your question when you never even addressed most of my questions? In fact you didn't answer any of them.

That's kind of like when you accuse somebody of generalizing then do it yourself over and over.

Don't be an defensive wimp. You shouldn't even be capable of being offended by my words. And don't go and act like you haven't been. An IQ of 85 does that kind of sh1t. Like when a child insists they didn't eat the chocolate when it's all over their hands and face. lol. Don't be a child. Mmmmkaaay squirt :)

kisses

Drake

03-28-2012, 08:35 PM

Syn7

03-29-2012, 03:08 PM

Are you drunk posting? The rules go as follows. The first person who asks the questions gets theirs answered.

Unfortunately now you are just being sarcastic and rude, so I think it's appropriate to let others see how you are behaving while I exit this futile discussion in subjectivity.

Rules?

I did ask the first questions. A handful of them and you didn't answer any of them. You asked me a question and fronted like you got in first? Or maybe you are that slow and you really believe you got in first.

Just answer the questions then we will move on to yours. As per YOUR rules, I did get in first. Do I really need to prove it? It's all in this thread.

Ok for the slow, here we go.

you wrote

Clearly you haven't been keeping up, then. We're in the midst of a massive drawdown in forces. A LOT of soldiers are on the chopping block for involuntary separation. Tens of thousands, actually.

It's over.

then I wrote

What gives the US the right to tell anything to anyone outside its own borders? It's laughable that there is a presumption of moral superiority

which wasn't actually my first question but it was the most important which is why I repeated it twice afterwords.

It's all one page back, why did I need to spell all this out for you?

According to you

The rules go as follows. The first person who asks the questions gets theirs answered.

OK so I have now proven my case. Now either answer my questions or back off, but don't come back at me with more rhetoric bullsh1t that steers you away from answering my question. You don't have to answer me. You can back off if you like. Just stop with the misdirection. I'm not some average civi that you can manipulate with absolute bullsh1t.

Your rules, now follow them. I might, if I feel like it. They aren't my rules. And they certainly aren't the rules in the US political sphere. For now I will conform. If only to get an answer to my questions. If you do actually put some real thought into answering them and don't come back with more trash, I will gladly partake in an exchange of Q n A. I would like nothing more, from you that is.

Mkay... Shoot......

Drake

03-29-2012, 11:40 PM

rett

03-30-2012, 04:13 AM

You mean beaten. it's the opposite of winning. I realize it has never traditionally been a part of American military vocabulary but it's something yall should've learned in the 50's when you lost that one. Or the 70's when you lost THOSE ones. Or the the proxies in the 80's when your funding went for nothing or in the 2000-2010 era when yall lost 2, count em, TWO wars simultaneously.

This is a pretty foggy-headed comment.

We all agree that the USA and its allies won WWII. Armistice day, ticker tape parade, the defeated countries laid down their arms and cooperated with the occupier.

Yet even then, the USA was war-weary. Ask anyone from that time what the mood of the nation was. Being war-weary doesn't equate to having lost.

Insurgencies are more like fighting crime; they may never have a clear closing date. It's always a compromise. This has to do with the ruthlessness and inhumanity of the insurgents (terrorizing the population, using human shields etc).

Using standards of the big wars between nations of the past and applying them to insurgencies in the 2000s is muddle-headed and really adds up to nothing more than you wanting to tease and provoke an active service member.

Syn7

03-30-2012, 05:41 PM

You didn't ask me a god**** thing. I simply questioned your idea of what "losing" meant, because as far as I know, we've accomplished our objectives. Whether or not General Syn from the Internet thinks any of it was worth it is utterly irrelevant, because you played no part in any of the planning or defining of objectives. We knew people were going to die, and we actually lost much less than we thought we would.

And no, making up objectives or their inherent value just so you can therefore label it a failure is inherently flawed on all levels of thinking, and does not qualify as discussion.

Saddam Hussein is removed. Any threat of a WMD program, real, fabricated, or grossly overblown, is gone. Bin Laden is dead. The taliban have to either live in the boonies or Pakistan, because they are arrested or killed when they come here.

You didn't ask the first question, considering my second POST WAS QUESTIONING YOUR DEFINITION OF DEFEAT.

I even reposted my question for you. How can you say "what question"? And that was just one of the many I asked. I posted it all out for you. Don't get all over emotional over it. Relax.

OK now on to the war. Ok let's do this then. We can start with Afghanistan.

The US military has not completed the majority of the objectives originally stated when they first went in. The US drove the Afghan Taliban leadership into Pakistan. These exiles allied with tribes in Pakistan and through that process of receiving aid from the Pakistani side the Pakistani Taliban gained power and influence with goals aimed at their own Pakistani gov. The Pakistani gov. deals with the Afghan Taliban, even giving aid and weapons in documented cases, but they do not officially talk with the Pakistani Taliban. India also has a large role here, but we don't have to talk about that and I'm trying to keep this very simple. OK so the U.S. went in with all these promises about rebuilding, creating a real democracy and most importantly it promised to create an indigenous economy. Then took a ton of those promised resources and flew into Iraq with most of the cash and aid to support your clusterfukc over there.

Obama's surge was like 3 years too late. There have not been enough civilian programs. All these people that are working for this war in one capacity or another will be unemployed after the pull-out. The whole economy is based on Opium and whichever army is occupying at the moment. After you leave do you really think they will continue to grow your soybeans? Of course not. they will go back to the best cash crop they have where they can be free of foreign control and subsidy.

After crop season the money goes to Afghan Taliban and then is sent to the Pakistan Taliban for weapons and supplies and goes back to the Afghan Taliban for a new season of fighting. When you leave everything you did will crumble within a few crop seasons. The Afghan Taliban will subvert and destroy with relative ease. The Gov left behind cannot hold on it's own, military or politically. The simple truth is that Afghanistan isn't ready for what you want to create there. They need to do this on their own. They aren't like Egypt. They need more peacetime on their own to create any sort of real democracy with a lasting chance. You lost before you even started. You did kill bin laden, but you'll leave 1000 bin ladens behind you when you pull out. The tribes will fall into old style alliances and the Taliban will weasel it's way in like it always does. With gifts for those who support and violence to those that hold out. Like in Vietnam, you guys can only hold real estate by keeping heavily armed resources there. As soon as they leave the vacuum is filled right away with enemy combatants.

the bottom line is that if you want to prevent this scenario then the US will have to strike deal with the Taliban before leaving. And recently the US has ****ed it's friendship with Pakistan. The US needs them to get anything out of the last decade and however many billions of dollars that was spent. Without a handful of treaties and agreements and compromises I don't think the US is willing to make, the last decade will be for naught. Not to mention the THOUSANDS of innocent CIVILIANS that were killed over the last decade by allied weapons. Do you really call that winning? The average Afghan, you know, the guy who wants nothing to do with you, he doesn't agree with you. I have never spoken to an Afghan that considered your war a success. Not one. Those dudes that always hang around and are more than willing to talk to anything remotely American are a massive minority. Most of them are there for the work and can't wait to get away from y'all. They smile and bow their heads to your face and talk behind your back. "Yes sir, OK sir." but as soon as you leave it's "they are such motherfukcers!"

You don't need to be a general to compare a promise list to a completion list. I see more failure than achievement.

The US military clearly approves of collateral damage in such magnitudes otherwise they wouldn't keep repeating it. And we all saw the wikileaks videos, you would be lying to say that wasn't more normal than the officials are willing to admit.

I believe that there is a massive set of flaws in the military culture and attitude of the USA and there is lots of evidence to support that theory. I bet that if I had free access to all military recordings I would find some atrocious sh1t.

Syn7

03-30-2012, 05:50 PM

This is a pretty foggy-headed comment.

We all agree that the USA and its allies won WWII. Armistice day, ticker tape parade, the defeated countries laid down their arms and cooperated with the occupier.

Yet even then, the USA was war-weary. Ask anyone from that time what the mood of the nation was. Being war-weary doesn't equate to having lost.

Insurgencies are more like fighting crime; they may never have a clear closing date. It's always a compromise. This has to do with the ruthlessness and inhumanity of the insurgents (terrorizing the population, using human shields etc).

Using standards of the big wars between nations of the past and applying them to insurgencies in the 2000s is muddle-headed and really adds up to nothing more than you wanting to tease and provoke an active service member.

I'm not criticizing them because it's hard to fight an indigenous insurgency in occupied land. I'm not even criticizing them for largely failing in dealing with that. I'm criticizing them for coming in with gold plated promises and falling short on almost every one of them. Yeah sure they achieved some American objectives but they failed miserably with the Afghan objectives. All those civilian bodies for Bin Laden? That is some seriously selfish sh1t right there. If the US had delivered on their promises it would have been a decent trade. But they didn't. The economy is fragile and reliant on the occupiers. If the U.S. army can't even clear the borderlands then what chance does the Afghan army have? The Taliban will creep back in. You know it, I know it and they know it.

Syn7

03-31-2012, 04:33 PM

So Drake, what gives the US the moral authority to tell anyone anything at any time outside of their own borders?

If you can't even achieve any sort of moral consensus within your own culture what makes you think you not only have the right, but have the ability to tell anyone else how to act?

That question goes for any country telling anyone else how to act. Britain does it a ton. Canada not so much, traditionally we've been more peacekeeper than peacemaker, but we have our moments too.

Syn7

04-03-2012, 06:03 PM

You don't feel like taking on any of that huh? Are you playing the "I couldn't be bothered" card or the "you aren't on my level therefor I won't even dignify you with a response" card?

Whenever you're ready then :rolleyes:
You know where to find me.

Syn7

04-05-2012, 07:41 PM

Ok then what do I have to do to get you to answer a question in full? Seriously. I wrote all that out cause you whined about who asked first and you still punk out? WTF???

Syn7

04-15-2012, 05:19 PM

still being a pu$sy about it then?

i guess you are just a ticket punching robot.

quelle surprise! :rolleyes:

Syn7

04-22-2012, 04:25 PM

Here's an idea... How bout we both make predictions, long term and short term, and we'll see who's right. Since you are the expert and I dunno sh1t how bout we do that and see what's what?

I'll even go first, just say the word. Show me you aren't all talk and that at least some of you "intelligence" guys isn't a complete waste of skin and oxygen. Oh I'm sure you have nothing to prove, but let's do it anyways, ticket puncher.

Only pus$ies use ignore. It's a weakness, not a strength. There are tons of cats I won't even talk to, but none of it is cause of a crutch like an ignore list.
Reminds me of my ex. She was never willing to hash anything out because quite frankly she wasn't that smart, she hated to lose. Beauty, athlete, but not a brain. She's the reason why I put brains light years ahead of looks now. Are you a dumb bi1ch too? Make me eat my words and show me how wrong I am. I am totally willing to put it all on the line, I actually believe in my words. I'm not just some robot repeating what I've been told to believe.

Put your money where your mouth is, that's what I've been trying to do despite your massive b1tch move backing off.

If I am wrong I will leave forever, if you are wrong you don't have to leave, iI'll just treat you like my prag. Mkay sweetie...

Kisses....

Syn7

07-15-2012, 03:07 PM

You guys still winning over there? Kicking ass all over I'm sure :rolleyes:

You ready to admit you lost yet?

I'm still waiting for you to counter the challenge that YOU made and I accepted.

Word is bond...... just not yours.:o

Your word is who you are, you shouldn't trash yourself like that. Stay true to your words.

It's okay to be a cowardly hypocrite, more are than aren't. It just looks retarded when you pretend otherwise. You should back your stuff up.

Come on, throw me a bone at least, lol. I'm sure you have accomplished many objectives there, but overall you are losing and when you finally leave you will have lost.

I don't understand why so many are so afraid to admit loss? It took years before anyone official even hinted at the fact that yall lost in Vietnam.

The only way you can win is to stay there and rule indefinitely. Look at Iraq, slowly but surely slipping away into enemy hands. What makes you think Afghanistan will be any different? Not answering me doesn't change the facts on the ground. I'm sure you have convinced yourself you are taking the high road here. Most people who cop out like that do. Maybe it's time to take a moral inventory and get your sh1t straight. You can't have multiple sets of values like that.