TCMA discussion Part dieux

[MightyB]

The other thread got too long and too filled with the same ol' MMA TCMA bullsh!t.

Stop with the bullsh!t and start talking about what works in TCMA.

What works? I'll start

Weapons training as long as you do some live drilling.
Shuai Jiao
some chin na
San Da


Then start talking about what works for you?

the development exercises both external and internal. I prefer the dynamic tension breath control stuff and hitting things.

What could we ad to bring the TCMA tradition into the modern paradigm?

ground work (not necessarily bjj)
more all-range sparring.


What seems archaic in a modern context but still is appealing to you?

Lion dancing
the multitude of forms
exotic weaponry

Now ask yourself about what you are doing for your martial experience. Does it align with what you want to do and where you're going on your martial journey? If not, there's an American Indian saying that you all have to learn. "If the horse is dead, dismount."

[MightyB]

I guess it comes down to a personal priority list.

Make a list of most important to least important and train accordingly. Hopefully your school will allow you to train in that way. It doesn't mean you can buck the system or tradition, but you should be able to weight your priorities. Just be sure to discuss your goals and expectations with your instructor. Never lose sight of your goals and expectations and periodically do performance reviews. If you're not hitting your goals, then something's wrong. The horse is dead, dismount. Be picky, it's your life and your time. Don't be an a-hole and be realistic, but don't expect that father always knows best. If you're not getting what you want out of your MA experience and you've given the methods a fair shake - dismount. You're being led astray!

[pazman]

A lot of TCMA teachers claim their boxing skills are based on sword or spear principles, then fail to ever teach sword or spear. Why not teach those things first, or hand-in-hand with boxing? Why are learning weapons considered to be "black belt material"?

I don't think there is any pressure on CMA schools to teach ground skills any more than people would expect to learn those things from a boxing or muay thai school. If you like BJJ or submission wrestling, then I guess you are free to have a class in your gym if you are qualified.

If I were to run a gongfu school open to the public, I would offer the following skills in a concise, three year syllabus, to be taught side-by-side:

Sanda
Spear sparring
Weightifting

After a student became proficient in these, if there was interest, forms, qigong, exotic weapons, etc, would be taught.

[EarthDragon]

what amuses me, is the MMA guys are always trying to say there art is better and TCMA is inferior and they truly believe it, yet they spend countless hours trying go to convince people otherwise.
I would say if you have a gun you don't need to argue with a guy who has a knife.



What works?
any technique that you train realistically and are able to do with instinct and precision.


Then start talking about what works for you?

see above, for me I am a fighter street and ring, I use what I know works and what I know I can pull off based on the circumstance and what I am good at. Redirecting, attacking high to go low, using angles, my speed, throwing "Im 6'2 238" so I have some size behind me. so for the most part I have a lot of strength. woks well also the way I carry myself people always say you walk with such confidence, this is part of the game in of itself, have you ever looked at someone adn thought man he looks tough? what does that mean actually.


the development exercises both external and internal. I prefer the dynamic tension breath control stuff and hitting things.
developing internal skills is a must, using coiling and jing are essential. conditioning is also important.


What could we ad to bring the TCMA tradition into the modern paradigm?

cross training, leanr somethign outside the box

What seems archaic in a modern context but still is appealing to you?

archaic things like certain weapons, blocks meant to defend from horse attacks defending weapons techniques, not appealing.. just for me archaic not to be trained in modern these days.

[Syn7]

Dieux is plural for god. Deux is 2. Anyways.....

What works?
I find the things that work best are the more simple techniques that can be complicated in series but alone are very easy to understand and have a high percentage of success even when the other guy knows what you are doing. I'm not really picky about where something comes from and what the history behind it is. As long as it works well for me, I'm cool with it.

Then start talking about what works for you?

I have a grappling background that pre dates my striking background, so I really like clinch fighting and grappling in general.
But if somebody wants to dance, I like that because typically I feel I have more avenues of escape should things go bad for me. In a clinch, when it gets bad, it's BAD! Ya know what I mean. I'd rather get drilled and pushed back than grappled and dropped. Either way tho, getting hit too hard sucks, lol. :)

What could we ad to bring the TCMA tradition into the modern paradigm?

I like to try new things and see how to work them. I'm open to looking at whatever(within reason). I like what works for me. What fits into MY style. So I don't really think in a way that can answer this question. If it works, great.



What seems archaic in a modern context but still is appealing to you?

Ahhh, so many things. And not just in MA's. But it's all pretty much intellectual curiosity. I don't spend much time practicing with zero benefit. Again, if I can make it work in a reasonable amount of time and see progress, I'm down for whatever.

For the record, I see great benefit in lion dancing that is directly applicable to MA's. So yeah, it's old, but it's veryy useful and pretty fun too.

Now ask yourself about what you are doing for your martial experience. Does it align with what you want to do and where you're going on your martial journey? If not, there's an American Indian saying that you all have to learn. "If the horse is dead, dismount."

I'm on a life journey. I'm happy with it. I'm in control of it. I could do more, but not without giving up other things I am not willing to give up. So it is what it is. I haven't been hurt by anyone since I was a teen. I'm healthy, agile. Still an acrobat(granted I am not as I was. I don't rock out double backs for fun anymore.), still a b-boy. So yeah I would say I'm satisfied. As satisfied as I can be in my situation anyways. I mean I would love more time in the day to do more, but you know, it is what it is. My academic studies mos def interfere with my general physical health though. But it's not forever and I'm still more active than the majority of the people around me. I guess my biggest fear is early abuse affecting old age. Tumbling isn't exactly good for you in a few ways. I know I'ma feel that **** later. And rocking out airflares half cut on a hardwood floor has it's price too. Especially when you're learning. With breakin, sometimes you have to just go for it to get it down. Some stuff you just can't walk thru. Same for some of the higher impact parts of MA's.

[bawang]

sanda rules with mma gloves. allow prolonged wrestling. problem solved.

[Kellen Bassette]

sanda rules with mma gloves. allow prolonged wrestling. problem solved.

The man is a genius.

[EarthDragon]

LOL now on the other thread the MMA guys are saying you dont need static posture or leg strengthening exercises as they are ineffective for fighting............... Is that because there always on the ground? lol this dead horse should be glue by now

[YouKnowWho]

LOL now on the other thread the MMA guys are saying you dont need static posture or leg strengthening exercises as they are ineffective for fighting............... Is that because there always on the ground? lol this dead horse should be glue by now

If you wrestle for 15 rounds and move around in low stance all the time, you will find out that your legs will be tired. Whoever has stronger legs and can still move around quickly will win the last 5 rounds.

When ground game is involved, many people take the short cut. Instead of learning a perfect "hip throw" that require "horse stance" training,

http://cdn2.judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/ogoshi.htm

or a "shoulder" throw that require "bow-arrow stance" training:

http://cdn2.judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/seoiotoshi.htm

or a "leg lift" throw that requires "golden rooster stance" training,

http://cdn2.judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/uchimata.htm

people will just use "pull guard" or "jump guard" that require no stance training at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMB3ToJPXzM

It's not fair to say that stance training is no longer important just because some people don't train throwing skill any more.

[David Jamieson]

posture and stance training is key to strength and balance as many who have put in the effort know.

to discard it is to sell yourself short, not the training.

It is not the only way to get balance an strength, but it is an effective way and anyone, I mean anyone who writes it off is just shooting off their mouth an blathering out of ignorance and you know what? There is NO shortage of that kind of attitude in martial arts pontificaters. lol

group a takes shots at group b and vice versa.
Talk is cheap, training will teach you more.

[IronFist]

LOL now on the other thread the MMA guys are saying you dont need static posture or leg strengthening exercises as they are ineffective for fighting............... Is that because there always on the ground? lol this dead horse should be glue by now

It's because static stance training, beyond the first few minutes, doesn't do anything other than build endurance at a specific joint angle, which is not applicable for fighting, unless you are spending a lot of time in that stance.

Want strong legs? Do progressive resistance training (squat, deadlift, kettlebells, etc.). These things all increase the amount of tension you can generate which means you can kick harder and lift heavier things (and people).

Want endurance for fighting? Spar, or do Tabata interval type stuff, or kettlebell rounds. Distance running won't do it, btw.

Want to be able to hold a stance for a long period of time? Do stance training.

Your body adapts to what you make it do. As the resistance is not increased with stance training, you don't get stronger from doing it (beyond the first few minutes due to some initial adaptation).

Kung fu seems to have its own form of bro science. It needs a better name, though. Any suggestions?

[IronFist]

Examples of kung fu bro science:

- stance training makes you a better fighter
- qigong lets you absorb blows with mystic energy
- weights make you big/slow/inflexible
- training against a willing partner who leaves his punches extended develops useful defense skills that will actually work in real life

Just to be fair, here are some examples of bro science:

- upper/lower abs
- you can change the shape of a muscle by the range of motion you use (such as focusing on the top portion of the movement to form a biceps peak)
- spot reduction
- a pump is indicative of a good workout and/or muscle growth

[Frost]

[QUOTE=IronFist;1206857].

Want endurance for fighting? Spar, or do Tabata interval type stuff, or kettlebell rounds. Distance running won't do it, btw.

/QUOTE]

since you hacve said this can you please show the scientific rational that proves tabatas are better for fighting endurance than distance running?

Studies showing tabatas positive effect on heart rate variability, power output throughout a fight, effect on recovery between rounds would be great, likewise studies showing the negative effect of distance running on the above would also be greatc

I mean since you have stated this you must have read some evidence to back it up right?

[IronFist]

Let me see if I can find it.

Tabata type training more closely mimics the energy expenditure in a fight than does long distance running.

Of course, sparring is the best bet.

Boxing/fighting is more anaerobic than aerobic, so an aerobic activity like distance running won't help much.

[Syn7]

For the record, anyone in MMA does a ton of leg strengthening whether they are smart enough to realize it or not. You think that guy dragging the sled is just doing cardio? Or how bout countless rounds of wrestling? Even practicing kicks on the pads is leg strengthening. Whether you do squats, stand on one leg, do mandarin duck drills, imitate a crane on plum stakes, pull a sled etc ect it all strengthens the body.


I practice standing on one leg on curbs or balance beam type objects all the time. I shift my weight and try to use my ankles to correct as much as I can. I've been doing that since I was a little kid. It's not just leg strengthening tho, it's also about weight distribution and mechanics. I do one handed handstands for the same reasons minus the ankle part, you can switch that to torso. In this case the wrist doesn't play a part the way the ankle does. You plant sink counter and stay. If it's a struggle, you aren't there. Once there I shift my mass to strengthen in the same way as with the ankle. Anyone else do this stuff too?

[Syn7]

Boxing/fighting is more anaerobic than aerobic, so an aerobic activity like distance running won't help much.

Won't help EXACTLY what much? You think having a good aerobic system doesn't help in MA's? Ofcourse you need to train the other systems, but I wouldn't just toss out aerobic like that. It has a ton of benefits that indirectly help you fight better and should you need to last longer, I personally believe it's nice to actually be able to.


You think Aerobic exercise isn't essential to prepare for a 12 round boxing match? Or a long grueling street fight? Or a long wrestling match? Or even a short one for that matter.

[Frost]

Let me see if I can find it.

Tabata type training more closely mimics the energy expenditure in a fight than does long distance running.

Of course, sparring is the best bet.

Boxing/fighting is more anaerobic than aerobic, so an aerobic activity like distance running won't help much.

really so you are arguing that a sport that can last up to 5 x 5 minute rounds, (not to mention the pre fight warm up which can be up to 30 minutes) is more anearobic than aerobic? again please state the heart rate research showing this across a typical 5 minute round

and you think a 5 minute fight is 20 seconds of all out work at 170% of your V02 max, with only 10 seconds of slower pass repeated over and over...which fights have you been watching? again can you post the motion studies done showing fights are like this, because most fights i have seen are short (under 10 seconds) burst of high activity (heavy combinations, a takedown attempt, ground and pound attack etc, with a recovery much longer than that where fighters move round, rest on the cage or the floor

ANd who said distance running cant be anearobic anyway?

where do you get this stuff?

[MightyB]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk65/harashawn/stay-on-target-1.jpg

This threads about what works in TCMA. If you want to bash TCMA, start your own thread and call it "TCMA sucks because:" and then bash it to your hearts delight.

[Syn7]

Energy systems are very appropriate in a "what works in tcma" conversation, no?

[bawang]

if obeseity is a disease, then muscular atrophy should also be a disease.http://images.wikia.com/how-i-met-your-mother/de/images/3/35/Trollface-small-normal2pl7-1.png

[EarthDragon]

MY GOD the MMA/ TMCA haters are following us frpom board to board like bitter Jehovah witnesses preaching why our religion is not good enough as thiers....

Ironfist


It's because static stance training, beyond the first few minutes, doesn't do anything other than build endurance at a specific joint angle, which is not applicable for fighting, unless you are spending a lot of time in that stance.[/QUOTE]

I usually like and read your posts and responses but it seems now as you are just talking out your a$$. Whatever we say that we do you say thats not good for fighting you gotta do it this way for it to be effective.

PLEASE post some video of you fighting so the board may see what you mean and how you move PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE this will end the discussion once and forall

[SoCo KungFu]

LOL now on the other thread the MMA guys are saying you dont need static posture or leg strengthening exercises as they are ineffective for fighting............... Is that because there always on the ground? lol this dead horse should be glue by now

No, I believe he was saying that static postures are not a good means of developing leg strength. What was it you were saying about arguing logic when one person is unarmed?

[LaRoux]

really so you are arguing that a sport that can last up to 5 x 5 minute rounds, (not to mention the pre fight warm up which can be up to 30 minutes) is more anearobic than aerobic? again please state the heart rate research showing this across a typical 5 minute round

and you think a 5 minute fight is 20 seconds of all out work at 170% of your V02 max, with only 10 seconds of slower pass repeated over and over...which fights have you been watching? again can you post the motion studies done showing fights are like this, because most fights i have seen are short (under 10 seconds) burst of high activity (heavy combinations, a takedown attempt, ground and pound attack etc, with a recovery much longer than that where fighters move round, rest on the cage or the floor

ANd who said distance running cant be anearobic anyway?

where do you get this stuff?

Distance running isn't very efficient for training high intensity fighting done in 5 minute rounds. If you are going to running training for this, interval training is much better.

Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands (SAID) is the principle that underlies all efficient training methods.

Distance running for high intensity fighting violates this principle, as does holding stances.

[Kellen Bassette]

Why do boxers and Muay Thai guys do distance running?

[Frost]

Why do boxers and Muay Thai guys do distance running?

because the following all rely on a good aerobic system
1) how fast you recovery between rounds
2) how quickly you can recover from an alactic burst and repeat it
3) How much power you can produce at your threshold before going lactic
4) how low your resting heart rate is

3 and 4 are interlinked, the lower your resting heart rate the more work you can do before going lactic, the higher your power output at your threshold is the harder and longer you can hit before going lactic (and when you o go lactic you gas quicker)

Not to mention MMA fight camp training (and any fight camp training for that matter) is the hardest thing you can do to your body, aerobic work helps you to recover between sessions and not be over trained. definition of overtrained?? go watch an episode of TUF they have hard grappling matches, hard sparring and hard interval sessions right up to their elimination fights...then they gas in the first 5 minutes...go figure

No where did i say intervals werent useful, i asked for tabata research to show its better for mma training than long distance work (tabatas are one form of interval, and i think for MMA a terrible one but willing to be proved wrong by the research)

[Kellen Bassette]

La Roux thinks distance running is an archaic training method that serves no use in fighting. Or maybe that's only when they do it in TCMA, as opposed to when they do it in sport fighting.

I'm beginning to see how this works.

[EarthDragon]

SoCo


[QUOTE]No, I believe he was saying that static postures are not a good means of developing leg strength.

no....his point and his actual quote, not what you interpreted said was because TCMA does it its ineffective for fighting. not leg strength

[Frost]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk65/harashawn/stay-on-target-1.jpg

This threads about what works in TCMA. If you want to bash TCMA, start your own thread and call it "TCMA sucks because:" and then bash it to your hearts delight.

What works? If you are referring to combat then simple basic techniques which allow you to issue maximum force and take your opponents head off. Simple Overhands, long range uppercuts, long range hooks punches stiff jabs and crosses, all of which can be found in my experience in CLF and hung gar as well as the MMA and thai I train. Footwork patterns involving slipping to the side, moving in and out and sideways, as long as you work them against an opponent trying to hit you.
What else working for fighting? , progressive sparring allowing you to use those simple techniques and footwork against a resisting opponent both with and without safety equipment.

Other things that work grappling and clinch fighting (call it sticky hands, bridge work etc I don’t care as long as you allow it to flow into and out of grappling and throwing range it works), both with and without strikes: short power punches and palm strikes, forearm hits and elbows, knee strikes to the legs to off balance the opponent or to the body to drop them, headbutts, hammerfist strikes and shoulder hits also work. All these can be found in the bakmei, village hunggar, and lung ying I train. Some standing locks and chokes work as well, mainly when against a wall though and in close

What else works? strength training be it using rings, lifting locks, using very heavy weapons or stone barbells, hitting things such as sand bags, poles and bags to build striking power
Weapon work: isolated drills to learn the proper technique then sparring, sets can be useful for learning to issue power with a weapon but they are not necessary really

Do sets help with actual combat skills? other than showing you what the style founder thought was useful for them in a fight in terms of technique (hint if something is repeated a lot in a set it was important to someone) and help explaining the fighting strategy they preffered to use in a fight…., not really.no

But if you mean useful in terms of health and fitness then things change: sets can help build muscular endurance, help with aerobic and anaerobic conditioning and help with muscular imbalances. For instance from years of powerlifting and sitting at a desk I have issues with my rhombus not firing and my lats no longer working properly, in addition to rehab band work certain hung gar forms with isometric work and wide arm movements have really helped with my rehab
Running through certain CLF forms and bakmei forms (alongside bag work, shadow boxing, bodyweight work etc) helps keep me aerobically fit and I find more interesting than simply just running or just doing shadow boxing
Heavy weapon work has helped with shoulder issues that have resulted from the above imbalances, and can help build strength in range of motion and flexibility in the hips and legs

Now are these the only way (or even the best way) to get these improvements? maybe not but its also fun and that is an important aspect of training to.
Im 6ft, 230 pounds train and compete in powerliftering, and to be honest its been years since I have been in even a pushing contest let alone an actual fight so enjoyment and fitness are the main reasons I train these days, yes I like what I do to actually work if I need it and im glad I have a sifu who still mixes it up with BJJ and judo guys in grapplng and still trains at a local MMA gym even in his 50’s, but I train TCMA for the same reason I train grappling and powerlifting (and even MMA) because I like it, its fun and enjoyable

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: HIIT and "steady pace" endurance running.
It is not a question of either/or.
Good regimes to BOTH.
Both have their merits and both make a fighter have better cardio-vascular endurance and maximize VO2.
BOTH.
There is no reason to do one over the other.
Boxers, for example, have done both for ages:
Steady road work and HIIT bag work.
MMA fighters do both, pretty much every sport combat systems does a form of both steady ( paced) cardio and HIIT.

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: Static stance training.
It serves its purpose, which IS NOT leg strengthening or increasing leg muscle endurance.
It build stability and teaches how to "root" oneself.
Is it needed to develop a fighter? Of course not, many systems do not use it and produce excellent fighters.
IMO, it does build a sort of "base" ( if you pardon the pun) for beginners to build off of.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So, what works in TCMA?
That depends on what you are "working at" right?
In terms of fighting what works is ANYTHING that you train to fight with. ie: anything that you train hard/full contact VS a resisting opponent and you can make work.
IN terms of the other things that TCMA is good for ( exercise and such), anything that you enjoy doing is something that you will do more often than something you do NOT enjoy doing.

[Lucas]

Examples of kung fu bro science:

- stance training makes you a better fighter
- qigong lets you absorb blows with mystic energy
- weights make you big/slow/inflexible
- training against a willing partner who leaves his punches extended develops useful defense skills that will actually work in real life

The problem here is you're focusing on the bottom feeders, scrubs, noobbs, and losers...why listen to people at the lowest experience levels and then act like this is everyone? You have just been wasting your time. No one successful subscribes whole to those lines of thought.don't you know you're supposed to ignore those things?

The first point is true however. Every single fighter in the history of the world does stance work. I think you mean to say prolonged static stance holding....

[Paul T England]

Everything can work at some point, stamp kicks, eye jabs, claw strikes, elbows, knees, sweeps, punches, blocks, throws, trips, pushes, head butts...ok you ge tmy meaning :) So its how you train which is important.

Problem is that oriental martial arts instruction is mixed with culture, performance and health and fighting is not been the main focus for many schools. There are exceptions to the rule such as WSL Ving Tsun, of Hung Sing Choy li fut maybe.

Todays teachers need to focus on what it is they are teaching. Health tai chi is fine but if you pracitce it for self defence you will do alot of push hands, impact training, applications etc. If you are going to use it in San Da or MMA you will need even more conditioning and sparring.

On the weapons front. We should use solid weapons and drill basics and use the weapons to develop skills. Double Broadsword has always been assoicated with coorrdination and footwork, kwan dao and staff with arm and upper body development etc. So wepaons can be used for technical training.

Paul

[IronFist]

MY GOD the MMA/ TMCA haters are following us frpom board to board like bitter Jehovah witnesses preaching why our religion is not good enough as thiers....

Ironfist

I usually like and read your posts and responses but it seems now as you are just talking out your a$$. Whatever we say that we do you say thats not good for fighting you gotta do it this way for it to be effective.

I'm not trying to say whatever you do isn't good fighting just because it's what you say you do.

I'm saying if you spend lots of time doing stance training, it's not making you any stronger. I used to do stances for a while (8-30 minutes) each day as part of my training and in hindsight, I realize how much time I wasted because I wasn't coming closer to my goals. The only thing it did was give me a stable horse stance. I didn't get any stronger. My legs were still quite weak.

Stance training is useless for building leg strength after the first few minutes.

The nervous system and muscles adapt due to increased resistance. This is why when you lift weights, over time you increase the weight and get stronger, and then once you plateau, you start over again with a lighter weight and increase the weight again over time, ideally finishing that cycle a little heavier than you finished your previous cycle.

Horse stance doesn't do any of that. The weight stays constant (unless you gain weight over the weeks). There is never an increased resistance so there is never a biological need to increase strength.

To make things worse, it's a static posture. Most people only get stronger in the range of motion that they train. So with horse stance training, not only are you not getting strong (past the first few minutes for an untrained individual), but you're also only increasing your muscular endurance in one specific angle.

The only adaptation you end up with is the ability to hold that stance in that particular position.

That's an adaptation, just isn't one that is useful for fighting. Do you fight from a training stance? Of course not. Do you hold low positions for long periods of time in a fight? No.


PLEASE post some video of you fighting so the board may see what you mean and how you move PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE this will end the discussion once and forall

That has nothing to do with anything. Why is the only defense of the kung fu person to ask for proof of the other person fighting?

Just because someone is a good fighter doesn't make them right, either. That's like assuming a huge bodybuilder knows a lot about bodybuilding, or that a skinny person with ribbed abs knows a lot about dieting. It's a pretty noob mistake.

[IronFist]

because the following all rely on a good aerobic system
1) how fast you recovery between rounds
2) how quickly you can recover from an alactic burst and repeat it
3) How much power you can produce at your threshold before going lactic
4) how low your resting heart rate is

3 and 4 are interlinked, the lower your resting heart rate the more work you can do before going lactic, the higher your power output at your threshold is the harder and longer you can hit before going lactic (and when you o go lactic you gas quicker)

Not to mention MMA fight camp training (and any fight camp training for that matter) is the hardest thing you can do to your body, aerobic work helps you to recover between sessions and not be over trained. definition of overtrained?? go watch an episode of TUF they have hard grappling matches, hard sparring and hard interval sessions right up to their elimination fights...then they gas in the first 5 minutes...go figure

No where did i say intervals werent useful, i asked for tabata research to show its better for mma training than long distance work (tabatas are one form of interval, and i think for MMA a terrible one but willing to be proved wrong by the research)

Hey,

I know I've read this somewhere before but I can't remember where. Let me see if I can find it. I'm not sure I know where to begin looking, though. Most of the things I found when I Googled just now were discussions on forums similar to the one we're having now.

I remember where I was when I read it, which was a place I lived about 6-7 years ago, so it may take me a while to find.

Not dodging your question. Now you've got me curious to find it again, too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Videos or fight records prove if a person is a good fighter (or bad), period.
When discussing training regimes and protocols, the fighting ability of the person discussing it means as much as their driving ability when discussing the color of car they like.
That many fighter regimes have redundant ( I don't like using the term useless) exercises is very clear for anyone that has ever seen or trained with fighters.
Or those cross fit pussies.
:D

[IronFist]

The problem here is you're focusing on the bottom feeders, scrubs, noobbs, and losers...why listen to people at the lowest experience levels and then act like this is everyone? You have just been wasting your time. No one successful subscribes whole to those lines of thought.don't you know you're supposed to ignore those things?

Dude, we've had 10+ page threads here about absorbing blows with your qi.


The first point is true however. Every single fighter in the history of the world does stance work. I think you mean to say prolonged static stance holding....

Yeah, holding stances for time.

Obviously even a boxer doing shadow boxing is technically training his stance.

Sorry, thought that was clear from the context.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hey,

I know I've read this somewhere before but I can't remember where. Let me see if I can find it. I'm not sure I know where to begin looking, though. Most of the things I found when I Googled just now were discussions on forums similar to the one we're having now.

I remember where I was when I read it, which was a place I lived about 6-7 years ago, so it may take me a while to find.

Not dodging your question. Now you've got me curious to find it again, too.

The consensus now is BOTH are crucial in complete development.

[IronFist]

RE: Static stance training.
It serves its purpose, which IS NOT leg strengthening or increasing leg muscle endurance.
It build stability and teaches how to "root" oneself.
Is it needed to develop a fighter? Of course not, many systems do not use it and produce excellent fighters.
IMO, it does build a sort of "base" ( if you pardon the pun) for beginners to build off of.

What is the purpose of learning to "root" oneself?

I've heard and read that term in many discussions and TCMA books, and it's usually accompanied by a demo of a guy who is "rooted" with people trying to push or pull him off balance.

You know the pic where a sifu is there in some stance and has like 5 students trying to push him over. It's bordering on, but not quite at, "mystic power" nonsense.

Like this kind of thing:

http://www.indianwingchunkungfu.com/one%20leg%20root.JPG

What is that all about? Obviously it's a conceptual demo and not anything that is applicable in real life, otherwise you would see professional fighters who cannot be taken down because they are "rooted."

[IronFist]

The consensus now is BOTH are crucial in complete development.

You know, that may have been the conclusion of the article. I just remember it was emphasizing that distance running won't get you where you need to be (lol that was sort of a reverse pun).

Boxers who were winded during fights and wanting to improve their endurance would increase their distance running from 5 to 10 miles but it didn't improve their stamina in the ring because the energy systems taxed were different.

[Frost]

The consensus now is BOTH are crucial in complete development.

That’s your consensus stop trying to make us all agree and be nice it wont happen:eek:

Joking although I’ll argue that Tabatas are next to useless for MMA and fighting, that intervals are useful but when and how you use them depend on which energy system you which to improve, and that those which target the aerobic system and alactic energy systems are more important than those which target the lactic system when it comes to MMA and that simply doing intervals because they are feel hard and a 5 round fight is also hard is silly, your training should be targeted to improving the specific energy systems you will use during a fight and targeted to your strengths,

[Frost]

You know, that may have been the conclusion of the article. I just remember it was emphasizing that distance running won't get you where you need to be (lol that was sort of a reverse pun).

Boxers who were winded during fights and wanting to improve their endurance would increase their distance running from 5 to 10 miles but it didn't improve their stamina in the ring because the energy systems taxed were different.

again please quote it because its flat out wrong

[sanjuro_ronin]

You know, that may have been the conclusion of the article. I just remember it was emphasizing that distance running won't get you where you need to be (lol that was sort of a reverse pun).

Boxers who were winded during fights and wanting to improve their endurance would increase their distance running from 5 to 10 miles but it didn't improve their stamina in the ring because the energy systems taxed were different.

I think I know which article you are talking about, that was a way back.
It was brought upon by Hatfiled's claim of training Holyfield with strictly HIIT training.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That’s your consensus stop trying to make us all agree and be nice it wont happen:eek:

Joking although I’ll argue that Tabatas are next to useless for MMA and fighting, that intervals are useful but when and how you use them depend on which energy system you which to improve, and that those which target the aerobic system and alactic energy systems are more important than those which target the lactic system when it comes to MMA and that simply doing intervals because they are feel hard and a 5 round fight is also hard is silly, your training should be targeted to improving the specific energy systems you will use during a fight and targeted to your strengths,

Tabata's are NOT the best choice in terms of HIIT protocols for fighters.

[Frost]

Tabata's are NOT the best choice in terms of HIIT protocols for fighters.

:):)................:):):)

[sanjuro_ronin]

:):)................:):):)

In all fairness, Tabata's were aimed more at the fat burning protocols than the "cardio-vascular" ones.
The typical Tabata's that take you into the 120% of your VO2 Max for a VERY brief period, just don't translate into the fight game.
20 seconds on and 10 seconds off is just to little BUT they can work when done as part of what happens within a round.
The 2:1 ratio is a good one to follow with HIIT.
You need steady state cardio to build the "endurance" for ANY event that lasts more than 5 min BUT you need the HIIT to build the "anerobic endurance" needed for any event that requires "explosive bursts" of energy.

[Robinhood]

Stance training if done right should develop your root, but usually no one does it right or even knows what a root is, so they just do it wrong and it makes their legs a little stronger.

[taai gihk yahn]

Stance training if done right should develop your root, but usually no one does it right or even knows what a root is, so they just do it wrong and it makes their legs a little stronger.

of course; and doubtless, it just so happens that you are the one of those few who do know how to train it right (funny, this forum seems to be a magnet for that supposedly rarified group, as opposed to the rest of the unwashed masses...:rolleyes:)

[Frost]

In all fairness, Tabata's were aimed more at the fat burning protocols than the "cardio-vascular" ones.
The typical Tabata's that take you into the 120% of your VO2 Max for a VERY brief period, just don't translate into the fight game.
20 seconds on and 10 seconds off is just to little BUT they can work when done as part of what happens within a round.
The 2:1 ratio is a good one to follow with HIIT.
You need steady state cardio to build the "endurance" for ANY event that lasts more than 5 min BUT you need the HIIT to build the "anerobic endurance" needed for any event that requires "explosive bursts" of energy.
it might be a good ratio to follow for HITT but is it the best type of interval to do as a fighter? id argue not,

Id say to build alactic power you need interavls of explosive power output under 10 seconds, with at least 2 minutes recovery, you need to be fresh for each interval in order to reach maximum potential and become quicker, more explosive etc, and once you have worked on increasing alactic power you then work on capacity (hoe often you can produce said power) by extending the work intervals gradually up to about 14 seconds and decreasing the rest intervals from 1 minute until you are under 30 seconds active rest for each interval
but thats just one example, you also need to work extended intervals at your threshold, the point where you go from majority aerobic to anaerobic energy usage (usually around 170 -175 bpm for fighters) in order to improve how much power you can produce aerobically, these intervals need to be between 5 and 10 seconds a set, for a total duration of about 20 minutes.

just two examples of intervals i think are better suited for MMA, of course then there are intervals which help with recovery from hard sessions which are probably almost as important

[LaRoux]

Why do boxers and Muay Thai guys do distance running?

Many don't anymore, especially the ones who have conditioning trainers with degrees in the field of exercise science.. They do more specificity type training. The ones that still do LDR are still training based on the methods used before there was such thing as exercise science.

[LaRoux]

because the following all rely on a good aerobic system
1) how fast you recovery between rounds
2) how quickly you can recover from an alactic burst and repeat it
3) How much power you can produce at your threshold before going lactic
4) how low your resting heart rate is


All of the above are better suited by interval training. That's why sport fighters do their training in rounds instead of continuous 30 or 40 minute long continuous sessions.



Not to mention MMA fight camp training (and any fight camp training for that matter) is the hardest thing you can do to your body, aerobic work helps you to recover between sessions and not be over trained. definition of overtrained?? go watch an episode of TUF they have hard grappling matches, hard sparring and hard interval sessions right up to their elimination fights...then they gas in the first 5 minutes...go figure

That's because they forget about two other important aspects of training: tapering and peaking.

[LaRoux]

La Roux thinks distance running is an archaic training method that serves no use in fighting. Or maybe that's only when they do it in TCMA, as opposed to when they do it in sport fighting.

I'm beginning to see how this works.

No, it's antiquated in both.

[Frost]

Many don't anymore, especially the ones who have conditioning trainers with degrees in the field of exercise science.. They do more specificity type training. The ones that still do LDR are still training based on the methods used before there was such thing as exercise science.

so when the likes of martin rooney, joel jamison, and cain vasquez's coach all include running for distance their fighters when appropriate they are wrong then

And the majority of boxers and thai fighters still do run for distance, its the MMA crowd in the states that moved away from distance running, and alot paid the price for it in terms of gassing in the cage

[LaRoux]

RE: Static stance training.
It serves its purpose, which IS NOT leg strengthening or increasing leg muscle endurance.
It build stability and teaches how to "root" oneself.
Is it needed to develop a fighter? Of course not, many systems do not use it and produce excellent fighters.
IMO, it does build a sort of "base" ( if you pardon the pun) for beginners to build off of.

Wrestlers and Judoka arguably have the best "bases" in the world. Little to none of their training involves static stance training.

[sanjuro_ronin]

it might be a good ratio to follow for HITT but is it the best type of interval to do as a fighter? id argue not,

Id say to build alactic power you need interavls of explosive power output under 10 seconds, with at least 2 minutes recovery, you need to be fresh for each interval in order to reach maximum potential and become quicker, more explosive etc, and once you have worked on increasing alactic power you then work on capacity (hoe often you can produce said power) by extending the work intervals gradually up to about 14 seconds and decreasing the rest intervals from 1 minute until you are under 30 seconds active rest for each interval
but thats just one example, you also need to work extended intervals at your threshold, the point where you go from majority aerobic to anaerobic energy usage (usually around 170 -175 bpm for fighters) in order to improve how much power you can produce aerobically, these intervals need to be between 5 and 10 seconds a set, for a total duration of about 20 minutes.

just two examples of intervals i think are better suited for MMA, of course then there are intervals which help with recovery from hard sessions which are probably almost as important

You have to take into account the specific conditions of a sport combat fight.
HIIT idn't as much about BPM as VO2 Max, which is, of course, hard to measure so many HIIT people still fall into the "error" of using the BPM.
The standard 3 min on 1 min off for boxing/MT is being done far less with more emphaises being placed on the 3 min on, 30 sec off ( or 45), for obvious reasons BUT we are also seeing rounds being "played" with:
Withing those 3 min you get drills that go 20 one 10 off or 10 on 5 off or 1 min on 30 sec off ( the off being used to work defense and footwork), so you do HIIT WITHIN the round.
A longer "rest" period than active period is NEVER desirable as it falls into the "best case" scenario ( you don't get many rest periods in a give round).
To train for lest rest and finding yourself with MORE rest is great, while training for more rest and finding yourself with LESS is NOT so great.

[LaRoux]

so when the likes of martin rooney, joel jamison, and cain vasquez's coach all include running for distance their fighters when appropriate they are wrong then

And the majority of boxers and thai fighters still do run for distance, its the MMA crowd in the states that moved away from distance running, and alot paid the price for it in terms of gassing in the cage

Interval training instead of LSD training has nothing to do with them gassing. They gas because (1) it is harder to work at a slower pace in MMA than it is in boxing. (2) MMA fighters are notorious for neglecting to taper before fights.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wrestlers and Judoka arguably have the best "bases" in the world. Little to none of their training involves static stance training.

Absolutely.
Stand up grappling arts are all about dynamic "stance" training.
Hence me stating that many systems do NOT use any "stance training" at all.

[LaRoux]

Distance running for sport athletes is mostly used to help maintain or get to competition weight.

[YouKnowWho]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk65/harashawn/stay-on-target-1.jpg

This threads about what works in TCMA. If you want to bash TCMA, start your own thread and call it "TCMA sucks because:" and then bash it to your hearts delight.

+1, So what works in TCMA?

From what my guys told me, MMA guys like the following TCMA offer.

1. How to turn your opponent's clinch into your shoulder lock (showing in the following picture).

http://imageshack.us/a/img819/4378/chang2.jpg

2. How to reverse your opponent's MT clinch into your head lock or reverse head lock (guillotine).
3. What to do after you have obtained a reverse head lock (guillotine) on your opponent.
4. How to turn your opponent's single leg shooting into your over hook.
5. How to deal with "pull guard" and "jump guard".
6. How to prevent your opponent from pulling you down backward.
7. How to deal with a front and back "bear hug".
8. How to move in with the minimum risk.
9. How to force a striker to play your grappling game.
10. How to integrate kick, punch, lock, throw, following on strike.
11. ...

[bawang]

dynamic tcma stance training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQHuAgV53A


this was secret training in tcma.

internal styles increase repetition, external styles add weight.

[LaRoux]

Some other areas in which LSD training could be appropriate:

(1) For recovery training sessions.

(2) In the beginning cycle of building up conditioning.

Although for fighting, it would probably be more appropriate to do more activity specific easy training.

[SavvySavage]

Hey,

I know I've read this somewhere before but I can't remember where. Let me see if I can find it. I'm not sure I know where to begin looking, though. Most of the things I found when I Googled just now were discussions on forums similar to the one we're having now.

I remember where I was when I read it, which was a place I lived about 6-7 years ago, so it may take me a while to find.

Not dodging your question. Now you've got me curious to find it again, too.

In a book about Evander Holyfield it discussed his training before his first fight with Rid**** Bo. Rid**** Bo destroyed him in heir first encounter. During his training for try first fight Holyfield did lots of distance running. After his loss his coach got rid of roadwork almost completely. That's what I remember anyway. I could be wrong.

[Frost]

Some other areas in which LSD training could be appropriate:

(1) For recovery training sessions.

(2) In the beginning cycle of building up conditioning.

Although for fighting, it would probably be more appropriate to do more activity specific easy training.

which has already been mentioned and why saying tabatas are better than distance running was wrong, and why saying distance running is of no use is alos incorrect, its useful at the start of a conditioning block to build a base, and its useful throughout a training block to aid recovery from harder sessions

and i agree some more specific training, light bag work, shadow boxing, shadow wrestling might indeed be better, but what running does is allow you toe easily regulate intensity without a heart rate monitor and to keep your heart rate within a specific range, if you have access to a HR monitor than doing sports specific work might be better, especially if you are in a heavier weight class

[LaRoux]

which has already been mentioned and why saying tabatas are better than distance running was wrong, and why saying distance running is of no use is alos incorrect, its useful at the start of a conditioning block to build a base, and its useful throughout a training block to aid recovery from harder sessions

and i agree some more specific training, light bag work, shadow boxing, shadow wrestling might indeed be better, but what running does is allow you toe easily regulate intensity without a heart rate monitor and to keep your heart rate within a specific range, if you have access to a HR monitor than doing sports specific work might be better, especially if you are in a heavier weight class


OK, agreed.

[bawang]

enhanced athletes dont need as much recovery work. if ur drug free. u need some sort of exercise to increase your blood flow on ur recovery days.

[Drake]

which has already been mentioned and why saying tabatas are better than distance running was wrong, and why saying distance running is of no use is alos incorrect, its useful at the start of a conditioning block to build a base, and its useful throughout a training block to aid recovery from harder sessions

and i agree some more specific training, light bag work, shadow boxing, shadow wrestling might indeed be better, but what running does is allow you toe easily regulate intensity without a heart rate monitor and to keep your heart rate within a specific range, if you have access to a HR monitor than doing sports specific work might be better, especially if you are in a heavier weight class

I run distance, and in combatives, I have endless endurance.

BUT, that being said, you MUST run both intervals and distance, or, like you said, you won't be used to your high HR during a fight, and you can burn out. I know during the clinch drills, after my third or fourth opponent, I was getting pretty tired. It wasn't recommended, but I just took my blows and charged the guy, because I was so tired that I was in no mood to duck, dodge, or weave. I opted for the infinitely less desirable act of taking a few punches and closing on the guy as soon as I could. That's how I identified my HR shortcomings.

[bawang]

I run distance, and in combatives, I have endless endurance.

BUT, that being said, you MUST run both intervals and distance, or, like you said, you won't be used to your high HR during a fight, and you can burn out. I know during the clinch drills, after my third or fourth opponent, I was getting pretty tired. It wasn't recommended, but I just took my blows and charged the guy, because I was so tired that I was in no mood to duck, dodge, or weave. I opted for the infinitely less desirable act of taking a few punches and closing on the guy as soon as I could. That's how I identified my HR shortcomings.
i agree wit what u said man, ur spot on.

i dont like to talk about "teh streets", but running is really important training for "teh streets".

[EarthDragon]

Ironfist
you train MA and you seriously dont know what rooting is?


What is the purpose of learning to "root" oneself?

I've heard and read that term in many discussions and TCMA books, and it's usually accompanied by a demo of a guy who is "rooted" with people trying to push or pull him off balance.

this is way to show and prove true rooting, the other side is to become very light.

You know the pic where a sifu is there in some stance and has like 5 students trying to push him over. It's bordering on, but not quite at, "mystic power" nonsense.


nonsense? have a person root to the ground then try to pick them up. try it before you call it nonsense.

[LaRoux]

nonsense? have a person root to the ground then try to pick them up. try it before you call it nonsense.

I've tried it. And, yes, it seems to be pretty much nonsense.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wanna see rooting? see sumo.

[LaRoux]

Wanna see rooting? see sumo.

Or Greco-Roman wrestling. Both of these develop their "rooting" through dynamic training against resisting partners.

"Root" is simply the ability to dynamically change one's body postures and force production based on reactions to an opponent's forces and body postures.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that, because of the word root, people think of a tree with its "well planted and deep roots", so they think "immobile" and "unliftable".
Rooting is a balance between lower center of gravity and being able to re-direct force so as to not lose balance or be thrown/tripped.
It is dynamic.
Judoka, Sumotories, wrestlers, they all have excellent rooting because the whole point ( basically) is the uprooting of your opponent WITHOUT you getting uprooted.

[EarthDragon]

babies do this naturally ask ANY mother, when thier baby wants to be picked up his raises his hands and is very light, when he doesn't he feels twice as heavy this is rooting

[taai gihk yahn]

babies do this naturally ask ANY mother, when thier baby wants to be picked up his raises his hands and is very light, when he doesn't he feels twice as heavy this is rooting

not really, but it does coincide with the misconception most people have about it

rooting is the ability to combine a relatively stable stance with a flexible upper torso; the ideal is root in the lower (gan) and lightness in the upper body (him); many people misunderstand this and overly emphasize the lower body "heaviness", by overtucking the pelvis and basically dropping into the structure of their lower body - sure, you maybe can't pick them up, and u might have trouble knocking them over if you play by their rules; but they also are more susceptible to other tactics, because they loose the lightness of the upper torso

if u r rooted "correctly", IMO, u feel relatively solid on the top, but u feel an elongation thru the spine that gives u a feeling of buoyancy - u also find u have a great deal of "peng" energy which, IMO, is due to the fact that you are able to channel ground reaction force thru the legs / torso into the arms more efficiently;

incidently, I'm not sure how useful this skill is in a free-for-all fighting situation - it works very well for certain types of situations (push-hands), and I personally believe practicing it is good for spinal health, but beyond that i have my doubts

and babies can't root - they can just be heavy or light - they can't combine the two because developmentally they haven't acquired the required degree of dissociation in terms of postural control between different body segments (I work w babies a lot, trust me on this)

[taai gihk yahn]

I think that, because of the word root, people think of a tree with its "well planted and deep roots", so they think "immobile" and "unliftable".
Rooting is a balance between lower center of gravity and being able to re-direct force so as to not lose balance or be thrown/tripped.
It is dynamic.
Judoka, Sumotories, wrestlers, they all have excellent rooting because the whole point ( basically) is the uprooting of your opponent WITHOUT you getting uprooted.

this is closer on the mark; it's a dynamic situation - including the ability to step when pulled or pushed beyond what u could withstand if static, but doing so with relative control

[Syn7]

Ironfist
you train MA and you seriously dont know what rooting is?




nonsense? have a person root to the ground then try to pick them up. try it before you call it nonsense.

I can train a 14 year old girl to make it so you can't pick her up. It would take me ten seconds to show her how. Massive body builders wont stand a chance. Physics, not that deep. I'm not saying rooting is useless, I'm just saying your example can be abused. I would not consider the 14 year old girl with 10 seconds of physics instruction to be more immobile than a long time practitioner. I'm just sayin, a lot of so called rooted is basic mechanics and position rather than some long term training regiment creating some sort of special condition. IMO the training helps you keep your distribution within those areas while under pressure. I also think that this info helps your argument that rooting is indeed useful. Assuming you are realistic about what it is. It's simply how you distribute your mass. Nothing more. The real skill is being able to stay that way while being attacked for real, and that is where the training comes in. I think stance training helps you stabilize and does assist the rooting. But I don't feel it is directly useful for rooting in any other ways.

[Syn7]

not really, but it does coincide with the misconception most people have about it

rooting is the ability to combine a relatively stable stance with a flexible upper torso; the ideal is root in the lower (gan) and lightness in the upper body (him); many people misunderstand this and overly emphasize the lower body "heaviness", by overtucking the pelvis and basically dropping into the structure of their lower body - sure, you maybe can't pick them up, and u might have trouble knocking them over if you play by their rules; but they also are more susceptible to other tactics, because they loose the lightness of the upper torso

if u r rooted "correctly", IMO, u feel relatively solid on the top, but u feel an elongation thru the spine that gives u a feeling of buoyancy - u also find u have a great deal of "peng" energy which, IMO, is due to the fact that you are able to channel ground reaction force thru the legs / torso into the arms more efficiently;

incidently, I'm not sure how useful this skill is in a free-for-all fighting situation - it works very well for certain types of situations (push-hands), and I personally believe practicing it is good for spinal health, but beyond that i have my doubts

and babies can't root - they can just be heavy or light - they can't combine the two because developmentally they haven't acquired the required degree of dissociation in terms of postural control between different body segments (I work w babies a lot, trust me on this)

IMO rooting should be dynamic. If you train to use it flexibly, it's helpful. In wrestling it's basically the first thing you learn. How not to get run over or tossed with ease.

Great post tho.

[EarthDragon]

Iron, Ok I see your point now I thought you were excluding rooting all together
Taai


and babies can't root - they can just be heavy or light - they can't combine the two because developmentally they haven't acquired the required degree of dissociation in terms of postural control between different body segments (I work w babies a lot, trust me on this)

taai
this was used an example given and shown on a TV station about naturual abiliites that we have when toddlers, so its a cognitive inherent thing not trained and young that we loose as we age , like the ability to see spirits when were young because our perception is not clouded

[Syn7]

like the ability to see spirits when were young because our perception is not clouded


I see ur point about inherent abilities, but I don't think the last part does your statement any justice.

Personally, I think babies are born with certain cognitive abilities that are dulled or removed over time through conditioning, but I do not think they are born with any sort of inherent rooting ability.

You can't prove that a baby lowers its arms in some inherent process to avoid being moved. That being said, I think they could learn it thru experience, whether they understand what they are doing or not. It's still cognitive, just on a deeper level.

That being said, I'm not even sold on the fact that they do resist that way for any reason other than the basic turtle womb thing that most people do when out of options and wanna be left alone. But then it's not something I have researched or put any time into.

[taai gihk yahn]

this was used an example given and shown on a TV station about naturual abiliites that we have when toddlers, so its a cognitive inherent thing not trained and young that we loose as we age ,
it's not a "natural ability", and it has nothing to do with cognition - it's simply a consequence of an incompletely developed postural system - infants / toddlers operate out of an "all or nothing" paradigm - meaning that when they are heavy, it's out of a "collapse" into their structure - this is NOT rooting, and has nothing to do with it at all; if I did the same thing while pushing w an opponent, if they have any ability they are going to drop me on my asz; rooting is a complex neuromuscular skill that requires first the ability to have dissociation between all body segments, but then to coordinate those dissociated parts synergistically; I know people like to think that we "lose" certain things when we move beyond childhood, but the fact is that in fact we gain ability, not lose it - we really start losing things only after young adulthood;


like the ability to see spirits when were young because our perception is not clouded
oh come on...:rolleyes:

[taai gihk yahn]

Personally, I think babies are born with certain cognitive abilities that are dulled or removed over time through conditioning,

nope; seriously, cognitive ability only increases; the stuff that some people think kids can "see" is the product of an immature, underdeveloped cortex that can't differentiate phenommena as effectively as an adult brain; so-called "conditioning" is a socially mediated construct, it may contextualize cognitive activity, but it doesn't "remove" any extra-sensory perceptual abilities

[EarthDragon]

Taai, are you saying you dont believe in spirits or other planes of exsistenace? or that children dont have a more open conscious about them.

[taai gihk yahn]

Taai, are you saying you dont believe in spirits or other planes of exsistenace? or that children dont have a more open conscious about them.

there can certainly be other planes of existence, but in the sense that theoretical physicists consider it, not your tree-hugging, granola-crunching types;

if by "spirits" u mean "other worldly" entities, ghosts, etc. - that's just absurd; the reason that people think kids are more sensitive to that sort of thing is because kids have more active imaginations, which makes sense that they would "see" things that are imaginary;

[Syn7]

nope; seriously, cognitive ability only increases; the stuff that some people think kids can "see" is the product of an immature, underdeveloped cortex that can't differentiate phenommena as effectively as an adult brain; so-called "conditioning" is a socially mediated construct, it may contextualize cognitive activity, but it doesn't "remove" any extra-sensory perceptual abilities

You don't think certain cognitive abilities are created in the womb and are later not used? I respect your opinion, so please, explain... I'm not talking about ghosts and stuff.

[taai gihk yahn]

You don't think certain cognitive abilities are created in the womb and are later not used? I respect your opinion, so please, explain... I'm not talking about ghosts and stuff.

infants relate to the world in a way that is completely open - meaning that they basically take in everything without any differentiation; this is probably indicative of the brain's need for raw data as relates to the world around it; over time, the cortex begins to sort out these things and hierarchically organize what's important and what's not; the power of the brain is not so much what it can take in, but what it can filter out without us having to think about doing so - like when you walk into a crowded room and focus on one person - think about how it would be if you weren't able to filter out all the extraneous visual and auditory input in order to be able to talk to that person; or walking down a crowded street, and having the sound of a bus half a block away seem as "important" as the voice of the person u r talking to; similarly with movement, certain 'primative" reflexes get inhibited by higher cortical centers, so that every time you hear a loud noise or tip your head back quicky you don't reflexively go into a startle response (aka the Moro reflex); kids OTOH have a harder time doing this, and that's why a kid can just get "overloaded" by being somewhere crowded and noisy that an adult can handle just fine;

we know this based not only on normal physiological study, but also what happens to people with dysfunctions of the cerntral nervous system - for example, after a stroke, they loose the reflex inhibition and therefore can't move with dissociated movement, but instead have mass reflexive recruitment of the entire side of the body, for example; or people with sensory processing who ca't screen out extraneous inputs and have to expend a great deal of energy to focus on one thing;

this is, btw, not the same as the social conditioning we undergo, which teaches us to react habitually instead of responding in a sensitive manner to what we encounter - this particular process, basically developing "beginner's mind", is what some people thin about in regards to how kids view the world - but it's very different, because again, kids function with a brain that's not fully developed - and while that can enable them to have certain "insights", in fact it's really how we adults interpret their utterances thourgh our own mind-generated projections that make them seem so profound and insightful - the kid OTOH is just blabbing away without any rhyme or reason, just saying whatever pops into their imagination - adults superimpose meaning onto these things, not the kids; and because adults are the ones who want to break out of the mundanity of their day-to-day lives, they use these sorts of things to justify their own fantasies, for example that kids "see" things because they haven't been conditioned - it's really projection of the most obvious sort...

so to ur original comment - sure there are cognitive states that r used in childhood but not in adulthood, but that's because they are no longer needed

[EarthDragon]

there can certainly be other planes of existence, but in the sense that theoretical physicists consider it, not your tree-hugging, granola-crunching types;

from a quantum psy POV these planes are Constant and happening simultaneously. So if energy cannot be destroyed then where does it go?
also do believe mediums Don't speak with spirits that have passed to the other side?
this is as absurd as saying ET don't exist and have never visited our planet.

don't want to venture off topic but trying to see where your coming from.

[Robinhood]

infants relate to the world in a way that is completely open - meaning that they basically take in everything without any differentiation; this is probably indicative of the brain's need for raw data as relates to the world around it; over time, the cortex begins to sort out these things and hierarchically organize what's important and what's not; the power of the brain is not so much what it can take in, but what it can filter out without us having to think about doing so - like when you walk into a crowded room and focus on one person - think about how it would be if you weren't able to filter out all the extraneous visual and auditory input in order to be able to talk to that person; or walking down a crowded street, and having the sound of a bus half a block away seem as "important" as the voice of the person u r talking to; similarly with movement, certain 'primative" reflexes get inhibited by higher cortical centers, so that every time you hear a loud noise or tip your head back quicky you don't reflexively go into a startle response (aka the Moro reflex); kids OTOH have a harder time doing this, and that's why a kid can just get "overloaded" by being somewhere crowded and noisy that an adult can handle just fine;

we know this based not only on normal physiological study, but also what happens to people with dysfunctions of the cerntral nervous system - for example, after a stroke, they loose the reflex inhibition and therefore can't move with dissociated movement, but instead have mass reflexive recruitment of the entire side of the body, for example; or people with sensory processing who ca't screen out extraneous inputs and have to expend a great deal of energy to focus on one thing;

this is, btw, not the same as the social conditioning we undergo, which teaches us to react habitually instead of responding in a sensitive manner to what we encounter - this particular process, basically developing "beginner's mind", is what some people thin about in regards to how kids view the world - but it's very different, because again, kids function with a brain that's not fully developed - and while that can enable them to have certain "insights", in fact it's really how we adults interpret their utterances thourgh our own mind-generated projections that make them seem so profound and insightful - the kid OTOH is just blabbing away without any rhyme or reason, just saying whatever pops into their imagination - adults superimpose meaning onto these things, not the kids; and because adults are the ones who want to break out of the mundanity of their day-to-day lives, they use these sorts of things to justify their own fantasies, for example that kids "see" things because they haven't been conditioned - it's really projection of the most obvious sort...

so to ur original comment - sure there are cognitive states that r used in childhood but not in adulthood, but that's because they are no longer needed

I think a better word for "filter", would be "block out" in your analysis , adults learn to or are taught to block off a lot of their senses so they can cope better, because having less input to process works better because people are taught to use their thinking mind to analyse everything instead of using their natural intuition full body computer which is way more powerful than the slow thinking mind.

[MightyB]

hey taai gihk yahn.

What do you think about the holographic principle?

[taai gihk yahn]

I think a better word for "filter", would be "block out" in your analysis , adults learn to or are taught to block off a lot of their senses so they can cope better, because having less input to process works better because people are taught to use their thinking mind to analyse everything instead of using their natural intuition full body computer which is way more powerful than the slow thinking mind.
not only is the above a rambling and borderline incoherent statement, it is filled with subjective qualifications that mean basically nothing; that said, I will attempt to make some sense of it;

the mature cortex is able to exert inhibitory control over other parts of the brain, enabling selective processing of sensory input; this is not learned or taught, it's just a consequence of normal neurological development; it is a very powerful evolutionary adaptation, because it facilitates higher order cognitive functions;

as far as your polemic regarding "thinking mind" versus "natural intuition" (both vague terms, but I'll try to work with them); first, let me ask you this: is it possible for the brain to develop something that isn't natural? critical analytic skills arose naturally over time, they are as natural a way of thinking as any other, and from an evolutionary stand point have been highly successful; yet you seem to idealize non-critical thinking (which makes sense given the miasma you wrote above) as being somehow preferable; can you explain how or why it is preferable, and also how it is "more powerful" and faster than the "thinking mind"?

furthermore I have no idea what u mean by "full body computer" - this term means nothing intrinsically; if u want to talk about peripheral versus centralized processing of sensory information, that's fine, but you need to be specific and accurate with your terms;

[taai gihk yahn]

hey taai gihk yahn.

What do you think about the holographic principle?

read about it a gagillion years ago, so not as facile with it now as then, beyond the idea that the "whole" can be delineated / divined based on any given smaller part, which has some relevance to connective tissue matrices in the body; what specifically were u referring to?

[taai gihk yahn]

from a quantum psy POV these planes are Constant and happening simultaneously. So if energy cannot be destroyed then where does it go?
also do believe mediums Don't speak with spirits that have passed to the other side?
this is as absurd as saying ET don't exist and have never visited our planet.

don't want to venture off topic but trying to see where your coming from.

what is "quantum psy"? do you mean quantum physics? if it is, well, the last time I checked, quantum physics doesn't deal with "planes" of anything, it deals with mechanics of our observable reality on basically a really really small scale; that said, i don't know what you mean by "planes" being constant and "happening simultaneously" and how that relates to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

as far as mediums, if you want to believe that people with borderline psychosis and a tenuous grasp on reality are talking to spirits, that's your purview, but I really can't be bothered to engage in discussion about something so patently ridiculous;

in regards to ET's: while it's probable that they exist, there is to date no clear indication that they have visited us at all, and indeed, in all likelihood, if they had, we wouldn't be here anymore

[Lucas]

hey taai gihk yahn.

What do you think about the holographic principle?

I know we have discussed the Holographic model on occasion here. I take it you have read Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe then? I did a quick search but did not see a thread title that matches, but I do know we have had some lengthy discussions on the holographic model and quantum theory in general. I just can't find the thread, and don't know if it exists any longer.

[taai gihk yahn]

I know we have discussed the Holographic model on occasion here. I take it you have read Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe then? I did a quick search but did not see a thread title that matches, but I do know we have had some lengthy discussions on the holographic model and quantum theory in general. I just can't find the thread, and don't know if it exists any longer.

yeah, that's the book I remember having - again, read it close to 20 years ago as part of some of my initial bodywork studies in osteopathic manual approach (specifically cranialsacral work); probably time to take another look at it, lol...

[Lucas]

Ya, it has been a handful of years since I last read that. It's a very facinating and entertaining read though.

[IronFist]

Guys, I said "tabata-style" training, not "tabata training."

I wouldn't recommend 20 second bursts or whatever Tabata training is as endurance training for fighters. Obviously that doesn't approximate a fight in the ring.

[IronFist]

Ironfist
you train MA and you seriously dont know what rooting is?




nonsense? have a person root to the ground then try to pick them up. try it before you call it nonsense.

It's nonsense and has nothing to do with fighting.

It's taught as a mental exercise to help kung fu people imagine using their whole body to generate power in strikes, rather than just using the shoulder muscles or whatever.

There are grappling techniques to give your opponent worse leverage and make yourself harder to pick up/move. Is that what you're talking about? It has nothing to do with qi or stance training or the pic that I posted. Just make yourself like a bag of sand.


babies do this naturally ask ANY mother, when thier baby wants to be picked up his raises his hands and is very light, when he doesn't he feels twice as heavy this is rooting

Coming soon: baby-style kung fu!

Learn the true art form from babies who haven't had their minds corrupted. Natural kung fu in its truest form!

Tantrum defense!

Toy throwing!

Uncontrollable giggling!

These techniques can be yours.


I can train a 14 year old girl to make it so you can't pick her up. It would take me ten seconds to show her how. Massive body builders wont stand a chance. Physics, not that deep. I'm not saying rooting is useless, I'm just saying your example can be abused. I would not consider the 14 year old girl with 10 seconds of physics instruction to be more immobile than a long time practitioner. I'm just sayin, a lot of so called rooted is basic mechanics and position rather than some long term training regiment creating some sort of special condition. IMO the training helps you keep your distribution within those areas while under pressure. I also think that this info helps your argument that rooting is indeed useful. Assuming you are realistic about what it is. It's simply how you distribute your mass. Nothing more. The real skill is being able to stay that way while being attacked for real, and that is where the training comes in. I think stance training helps you stabilize and does assist the rooting. But I don't feel it is directly useful for rooting in any other ways.

There's a vid of a petite woman doing that on YouTube. I tried to find it but I just got a bunch of "how to pick up women" results. It's been posted here before, though.

[wenshu]

It is very fortunate that you're never too busy training to come school us on all the things you don't practice.

[IronFist]

It is very fortunate that you're never too busy training to come school us on all the things you don't practice.

I could be an old man who walks with a cane. Why is it only TCMA people who think being a good fighter = being correct?

Besides, wouldn't the onus of proof be on the person who thinks "rooting" can be used in a fight or whatever? Show me this in application against a resisting opponent:

http://www.indianwingchunkungfu.com/one%20leg%20root.JPG

Those guys probably are actually pushing him, but that's just a stage/physics trick, not anything that has any relevance to combat. Fighting would look substantially different if it did. It would be a bunch of dudes standing there not moving and not getting taken down.

[bawang]

I could be an old man who walks with a cane. Why is it only TCMA people who think being a good fighter = being correct?

Besides, wouldn't the onus of proof be on the person who thinks "rooting" can be used in a fight or whatever? Show me this in application against a resisting opponent:

http://www.indianwingchunkungfu.com/one%20leg%20root.JPG

Those guys probably are actually pushing him, but that's just a stage/physics trick, not anything that has any relevance to combat. Fighting would look substantially different if it did. It would be a bunch of dudes standing there not moving and not getting taken down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZf4taeqht0

[Raipizo]

A lot of TCMA teachers claim their boxing skills are based on sword or spear principles, then fail to ever teach sword or spear. Why not teach those things first, or hand-in-hand with boxing? Why are learning weapons considered to be "black belt material"?

I don't think there is any pressure on CMA schools to teach ground skills any more than people would expect to learn those things from a boxing or muay thai school. If you like BJJ or submission wrestling, then I guess you are free to have a class in your gym if you are qualified.

If I were to run a gongfu school open to the public, I would offer the following skills in a concise, three year syllabus, to be taught side-by-side:

Sanda
Spear sparring
Weightifting

After a student became proficient in these, if there was interest, forms, qigong, exotic weapons, etc, would be taught.

Yeah this does make sense, school I'm going to be joining does weapons right along with hand stuff. I guess some places save it for black belts for the $$, or possibly they think black belts would have more control/ be safer with the weapons than lower ranks.

[Raipizo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZf4taeqht0

Just gonna say that is pretty cool, if it's not staged. Too bad he didn't try to pick him up instead of just pushing in a single direction.

[wenshu]

I could be an old man who walks with a cane. Why is it only TCMA people who think being a good fighter = being correct?

Who said anything about being a good fighter?

[bawang]

Just gonna say that is pretty cool, if it's not staged. Too bad he didn't try to pick him up instead of just pushing in a single direction.

look at his muscles

[Frost]

Guys, I said "tabata-style" training, not "tabata training."

I wouldn't recommend 20 second bursts or whatever Tabata training is as endurance training for fighters. Obviously that doesn't approximate a fight in the ring.

so you couldn't find any papers to back you up so you have changed your story now then

Ok im game what did you mean by tabata style training then? i mean if you mean intervals why not just say that you must have had a specific goal in mind when you mentione dtabatas so please share it with us

Oh and wheres the information backing up your theory that distance running isnt any good for MMA, still waiting for that........................

[Syn7]

what is "quantum psy"? do you mean quantum physics? if it is, well, the last time I checked, quantum physics doesn't deal with "planes" of anything, it deals with mechanics of our observable reality on basically a really really small scale; that said, i don't know what you mean by "planes" being constant and "happening simultaneously" and how that relates to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

as far as mediums, if you want to believe that people with borderline psychosis and a tenuous grasp on reality are talking to spirits, that's your purview, but I really can't be bothered to engage in discussion about something so patently ridiculous;

in regards to ET's: while it's probable that they exist, there is to date no clear indication that they have visited us at all, and indeed, in all likelihood, if they had, we wouldn't be here anymore


Well, some of the unification theories in play most definitely talk about other dimensions such as the 11 in m-theory and then there's the whole membrane thing. It's physics philosophy though. What is meant by plane in this context, exactly? Like a different plane of existence is what really? That's so vague.

I think he's referring to the many worlds interpretation. The wavefunction collapse deniers. It's an interesting idea. But those aren't concurrent planes, those are universes. If people want to explore the Everett interpretation they should learn and understand the basics of quantum superposition first. No question. Even as a layman.

As far as holographic principle goes, the math is really tough on that one.

[EarthDragon]

Taai,
how can you be so open minded about some things yet so closed to others. I enjoy your posts, but keep an open mind, people also thought the world was flat at one time

yes I was speaking about quantum physics, and yes I am studying courses now and have been for a few years crazy stuff however so I am fully aware of what we discovering, but your right that can go down a bunny trail and derail the thread.


in regards to ET's: while it's probable that they exist, there is to date no clear indication that they have visited us at all, and indeed, in all likelihood, if they had, we wouldn't be here anymore


The myans had binary code carved into stone in their temples. the pyramids, macchu picu etc etc. these are ET influenced no other explanation exists that holds an validity.
and why would be be gone? many bio-geneticists are now bele3iving we have ET DNA. hence the mutation to ****sepian, where do the think the answer of the missing link comes from? do some research you will be suproised what you will find

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets be clear about a few things in regards to science.
1) It is applicable solely to the observable universe and limited to our ability to grasp what we are observing.
2) It is a self-correcting and noting is "written in stone".
Those are the limitations of science.
THAT said, unless one can PROVE something in a observable AND repeatable manner, science can not and should not view it as anything other than speculation.
Of course we MUST keep an open mind.
The science of today is not the science of 500 years ago and will NOT be the science of 500 years from now.
Science is discovering new things every day, ex:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/

A good scientist does NOT take speculation as possibility, much less fact BUT a good scientist also MUSt keep an open mind.

[Robinhood]

not only is the above a rambling and borderline incoherent statement, it is filled with subjective qualifications that mean basically nothing; that said, I will attempt to make some sense of it;

the mature cortex is able to exert inhibitory control over other parts of the brain, enabling selective processing of sensory input; this is not learned or taught, it's just a consequence of normal neurological development; it is a very powerful evolutionary adaptation, because it facilitates higher order cognitive functions;

as far as your polemic regarding "thinking mind" versus "natural intuition" (both vague terms, but I'll try to work with them); first, let me ask you this: is it possible for the brain to develop something that isn't natural? critical analytic skills arose naturally over time, they are as natural a way of thinking as any other, and from an evolutionary stand point have been highly successful; yet you seem to idealize non-critical thinking (which makes sense given the miasma you wrote above) as being somehow preferable; can you explain how or why it is preferable, and also how it is "more powerful" and faster than the "thinking mind"?

furthermore I have no idea what u mean by "full body computer" - this term means nothing intrinsically; if u want to talk about peripheral versus centralized processing of sensory information, that's fine, but you need to be specific and accurate with your terms;

Have you read a book called "The Field" ?, it will shed more light on my post.

[taai gihk yahn]

Have you read a book called "The Field" ?, it will shed more light on my post.

no, I haven't; and you know what? I'm not going to, because I really don't have the interest - you can't just reference (or semi-reference - no author, publication date, etc.) an entire book as a way to clarify your own incoherent musings - that's like saying "Rominz! Vykingz! Fire! D3ad peepuls!" and when I sat WTF r u on about, you say, "Oh, just go read Gibbon's book to shed more light on my post." :rolleyes:

I could also easily send you towards volumes of texts: OTOH, I prefer to write in a coherent and precise manner to make my points on their own merits; if you want to have a rational discussion, you may consider doing the same (e.g. - if you use terms like "thinking mind", "natural intuition" and "full body computer", define what you mean by them, in terms of how the physiology is organizing itself around those particular terms, or how from a functional perspective examples of how they differentiate in terms of human experience; otherwise, you're nowhere;

[David Jamieson]

"matter changes, energy is never lost"

The energy is dissipated into everything else.
Similar to the concept of transformation chi.

For instance, you eat protein, it is transformed to fat muscle etc and the energy is maintained through dispersal into you.

Or even better, burn a piece of wood. the matter becomes altered and the energy is released as heat and light which dissipates the further away from the matter source which is transforming into it.

Just wanted to drop that in response to "where does the energy go"

It dissipates. :)

in regards to upward/downward/forward and retreating forces. They all can negate each other through equalizing application. A person how pushes you is using forward force, To negate that, upward force is used in the examples shown by multiples pushing on a tai chi guy.

To make everyone pushing fall, downward force applied quickly throws the first in the line off balance and the rest follow as they don't have time to end their force projection. It is indeed simple applied physics.

[taai gihk yahn]

Taai,
how can you be so open minded about some things yet so closed to others. I enjoy your posts, but keep an open mind, people also thought the world was flat at one time
actually, I have an incredibly open mind, because my world view is grounded in skepticism; meaning that I will change my opinion about anything, given VALID evidence; meaning that I don't just go for any old thing that I am told, be it from generally accepted knowledge to the more "out there" stuff that you bring up (and FYI, about 10 to 15 years ago I actually did look into all of this sort of thing and even was more prone to buying it at one time than you may think; fortunately, I wised up and realized it's pretty much all hokum);

for example, the whole thing about everyone thinking the earth was flat for ever and ever until suddenly there was this great realization about it ("OMG - I actually didn't fall off the edge!"): go do some homework on that - the idea of a round earth has been well accepted and documented for a looong time - just because Medieval Church leaders pushed a geo-centric agenda for a while doesn't mean everyone else did; it's also a horrible example to use, because whereas the evidence for a spherical earth was ALWAYS overwhelming, even from the outset, the "evidence" for what u propose is minimal and in most cases, based on pre-seection (see below, where I rant on and on about scientific method, lol)


yes I was speaking about quantum physics, and yes I am studying courses now and have been for a few years crazy stuff however so I am fully aware of what we discovering,
"courses" - u mean like college-level quantum physics in an actual classroom with an actual physicist, etc.? oh, I am a mite dubious of that...as far as what is being "discovered" - I am guessing that you haven't been following what the LHC has been up to at CERN, or what the latest few findings from Hubble have been?(that's real research - not conjecture on how the Dance of Shiva is actually an allegory for how quarks and muons distribute in a particle collider, lol)


but your right that can go down a bunny trail and derail the thread.
please, this whole forum is one big derailment at this point...


The myans had binary code carved into stone in their temples.
and the I Ching is also a form of binary code - did aliens write that too?!? (Yep they did - I seen 'em!)
dude - there is something intrinsic to human nature that likes to dichotomize our experience of the world: day/night, good/evil, alive / dead, here/there, me /you - i could go on and on; given that predisposition, is it any surprise that we would, in various civilizations and various times, codify this in different ways? also, what the Mayans may have actually meant by the "code" may have been totally different than what we are projecting backwards onto it;


the pyramids, macchu picu etc etc. these are ET influenced no other explanation exists that holds an validity.
really? I think that the entire field of archaeology may disagree on that point; I think what you mean to say is that "no other explanation by people who are a) lacking in expertise or b) have a conspiracy theory agenda can find"


and why would be be gone? many bio-geneticists are now bele3iving we have ET DNA. hence the mutation to ****sepian, where do the think the answer of the missing link comes from? do some research you will be suproised what you will find
this is all pseudo-science; the "missing link", for example, is, from the perspective of current trends in evolutionary biology, a contrivance - there is no "missing link", evolution is a much more complex process than that (e.g. - go read up on punctuated equilibrium - just one well supported theory that obviates the need for a missing link);
as far as thee "biogeneticists" believing we have alien DNA - I'd luv to see some actual, valid research supporting this - for example, first off, what are they comparing human DNA to that supports this assertion - i mean, they would need to have a validated sample of alien DNA in order to compare human DNA to, right?

go do some actual research in vaid publications (you know, documented sources, peer reviewed, etc.) - YOU might be surprised...

look, I know you are trying to broaden your mind, but clearly you've never had any formal training in scientific method; all this pseudo-science is predicated on looking for the exceptions as proof of something - the vast majority of reliable evidence is basically rejected for cherry-picked outliers (many of which are wrongly interpreted anyway) that support what one is looking to prove; that is not scientific method ! scientific method poses a hypothesis and runs experiments on that hypothesis to see whether or not that hypothesis can be disproved - that's right, scientists are actualy looking to DISPROVE what they assert - if the experimental data disproves their hypothesis, then they move on; if the data doesn't disprove but seems to support, this still does not equal proof (again, this is classic scientific method here), it merely supports the validity of the original hypothesis; do this over and over and reproduce the same results under similar conditions across a range of researchers, and you start to develop a theory of "x"; consistent evidence will result in a stronger theory; but guess what? even the strongest theory can be found asking if new evidence comes to light - for example, the latest research (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/) strongly challenges the cosmological principle theory (a well-accepted and important theory that proposes that at a large enough scale, the universe is generally ****genous in its distribution of matter); so now, with new evidence, new research needs must be conducted; to me, this is the epitome of "open mindedness"; so the argument "science does't know everything" is basically a straw man - it never claims to "know" everything, it is constantly open to revision, and for the time being, scientific method has yielded the most consistent and reliable results of any epistimological system to date;

pseudo-science, OTOH, starts with a pre-conceived notion that something exists (e.g. - alien pyramid builders), usually something that is fringe in nature, and then goes looking for whatever "evidence" it can find to support that, ignoring all the evidence that doesn't;

here's a great example:

http://vejprty.com/abylet1.jpg

do you see the helicopter, airplane, etc. carved into this Egyptian temple? basically hieroglyphic PROOF that the ancient Egyptians had / saw "flying machines", right? I mean, it's CARVED INTO THE ROCK for pity's sake, man - how could it be anything other than "the Truth™"?!

well, for starters, do you know what a palimpsest is? aside from that, there is one other little red flag - in the whole body of Egyptian hieroglyphic evidence, this is the only example of this sort of thing (troubling to some, but to others, it actually reinforces their "theories", lol); so while on face value, you can say one, thing, when you dig a little deeper in a rather mundance, common sense sort of way, you get a much more reasonable explanation;

the reality is this: reality is, in a certain sense, dull; the ruing law isn't that some alien conspiracy is governing world affairs, but rather some called "regression to the mean"; look it up; but people want an out from their mundance existences, and so create things to support this desire; and this is why you have all kinds of circuitous and "interesting" explanations for things that probably weren't that exciting to begin with;

another analogy would be that if we come across some strange-looking horse-like hoof prints, but they are distorted somewhat, so as to look "alien"; in order to identify the animal that made them, scientific method would look at the obvious: is this path a horse trail? are there stables nearby? did it rain lightly last night to distort the prints so they look "alien"? the investigator comes in with an open mind and as little preconception as possible; whereas pseudo-science would first off start by claiming them a priori as proof of "alien horses", because the investigator is looking for alien horses, and will only focus on what "evidence" seems to support his preconceived belief in their existence;

In closing, I can only reiterate that it is one strong aspect of human-nature to find the extraordinary when in fact it's just a reflection of the mundane; to "support' my contention, I leave you with this:


AND HOW KEEN WAS THE VISION OF SIR LAUNFAL?

Man’s earliest pastime, I suppose,
Was to play with his fingers and his toes.
Then later, wearying of himself,
He devised the monster and the elf,
Enlivening his existence drab
With Blunderbore and Puck and Mab.

A modern man, in modern Maryland,
I boast my private gate to fairyland,
My kaleidoscope, my cornucopia,
My own philosopher’s stone, myopia.

Except when rationalized by lenses,
My world is not what other men’s is;
Unless I have my glasses on,
The postman is a leprechaun,
I can wish on either of two new moons,
Billboards are graven with mystic runes,
Shirts hung to dry are ragtag gypsies,
Mud puddles loom like Mississipsies,
And billiard balls resemble plums,
And street lamps are chrysanthemums.
If my vision were twenty-twenty,
I should miss miracles a-plenty.
- Ogden Nash

[taai gihk yahn]

"matter changes, energy is never lost"

The energy is dissipated into everything else.
Similar to the concept of transformation chi.

For instance, you eat protein, it is transformed to fat muscle etc and the energy is maintained through dispersal into you.

Or even better, burn a piece of wood. the matter becomes altered and the energy is released as heat and light which dissipates the further away from the matter source which is transforming into it.

Just wanted to drop that in response to "where does the energy go"

It dissipates. :)

sounds suspiciously like the Second Law of Thermodynamics - what are you, some kind of Satan-lover?

[IronFist]

so you couldn't find any papers to back you up so you have changed your story now then

Ok im game what did you mean by tabata style training then? i mean if you mean intervals why not just say that you must have had a specific goal in mind when you mentione dtabatas so please share it with us


"Tabata style" = alternating high intensity with low intensity. The first time I ever heard about that concept was in reference to Tabata training (actual Tabata training) so I associated them together in my head. Again, obviously I didn't mean 20 second bursts for MMA fighters, but if you feel so strongly the need to think I was wrong, you're welcome to think I did.



Oh and wheres the information backing up your theory that distance running isnt any good for MMA, still waiting for that........................

I told you I'm looking for it. Settle down. It's the same one sanjuro_ronin said he read, so go hound him in the meantime.

IIRC (and it was years ago), it said distance running sucked and interval training was better. I said "tabata-style" when I should have said "interval" because "Tabata" specifically refers to 20 second bursts or whatever but I don't think that's what the article was referring to. Unfortunately, I don't even remember where I read it, or who it was by, although now that sanjuro mentioned it, it may have been related to Evander Holyfield.

[IronFist]

Taai,
how can you be so open minded about some things yet so closed to others. I enjoy your posts, but keep an open mind, people also thought the world was flat at one time

yes I was speaking about quantum physics, and yes I am studying courses now and have been for a few years crazy stuff however so I am fully aware of what we discovering, but your right that can go down a bunny trail and derail the thread.




The myans had binary code carved into stone in their temples. the pyramids, macchu picu etc etc. these are ET influenced no other explanation exists that holds an validity.
and why would be be gone? many bio-geneticists are now bele3iving we have ET DNA. hence the mutation to ****sepian, where do the think the answer of the missing link comes from? do some research you will be suproised what you will find

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6JMgFu89prs/UMaF18Ed-2I/AAAAAAAANVE/TJrUBhVfIfY/s1600/Ancient-Aliens-Giorgio-Tsoukalo-hair.jpg

[LaRoux]

sounds suspiciously like the Second Law of Thermodynamics - what are you, some kind of Satan-lover?

I believe it's the Law of Conservation of Energy (energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change forms, and can flow from one place to another), which is part of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

[taai gihk yahn]

I believe it's the Law of Conservation of Energy (energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change forms, and can flow from one place to another), which is part of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

true, he was - but he was also describing things like protein being broken down and wood being burnt: higher to lower organization / entropy: hence, Second Law

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://philleticia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d764753ef0133ed87a2e0970b-800wi

[Syn7]

Taai,
how can you be so open minded about some things yet so closed to others. I enjoy your posts, but keep an open mind, people also thought the world was flat at one time

yes I was speaking about quantum physics, and yes I am studying courses now and have been for a few years crazy stuff however so I am fully aware of what we discovering, but your right that can go down a bunny trail and derail the thread.




The myans had binary code carved into stone in their temples. the pyramids, macchu picu etc etc. these are ET influenced no other explanation exists that holds an validity.
and why would be be gone? many bio-geneticists are now bele3iving we have ET DNA. hence the mutation to ****sepian, where do the think the answer of the missing link comes from? do some research you will be suproised what you will find

You do realize that binary is a very natural and obvious path for any critical thinker to take. Dichotomy is EVERYWHERE!

What classes are you taking? What school? So if you are studying quantum mechanics a imagine you have newtonian down then, yes?

I realize you are curious, but I have to suggest you move backwards for awhile. Better yet, go start back at "a force is a push or a pull" and move on from there. I'm not trying to be offensive, but from the perspective of anyone who actually has a working knowledge in this field, your arguments hold very little weight. HistoryTV and other stations like that are purposely putting out misinformation because it's getting them paid. Don't let the TV dumb down your perspective. I doubt you would pass the assessment for a first year physics program. The knowledge found in grade 10 science texts blows most of what you said right out of the water. If you truly are interested in the truth of it, I suggest you take some big steps back. This is not a field that is easily understandable to the layman and there is SO much room for misinterpretation. If you really don't want to do all that, at least go read books from authors like Brian Greene who put considerable effort into making the info as easy for the layman to understand as possible. Or reasonable, anyways.

[Kellen Bassette]

unless one can PROVE something in a observable AND repeatable manner, science can not and should not view it as anything other than speculation.


Real science is as rare today as real TCMA.

[Syn7]

Real science is as rare today as real TCMA.

Not true. Big money takes the .002% and makes it seem like everyone is split. While I agree that grant funds affect research negatively in many cases, it's not fair to say it isn't still honest science most of the time.

I am surrounded by science everyday. Engineering, it's like math but with explosions!!!! :D

[Shaolindynasty]

Someone has obviously been watching too much history channel lol

Anyway, it should be obvious that modern sport science is more effective than older (pre midern era) methods of physical training be the eastern or western in origin. With that said there tends to be alot of trend following in american fitness industry. The industry tends to follow trends to the point of contradiction which is not always based in science but rather potential profits. Just because its the most recent trend doesn't always mean its the best method likewise just because its old or traditional doesnt mean its better than a new method. I think its important to use critical thinking in how you judge training methods based on your own needs and goals.

Also stance training has been used as some i feel incorrectly as syrength trainong when actually what you are doing is trainong a specific body structure to be used in conjunction with hand techs later. Static stance training was important early in my training but i no longet do regular static training but instead favor moving exercises meant to train me to maintain those structures while fighting. In terms of development in the specific skull sets of ypur system static stance training may or may not be important depending on your goals and needs.

Now feel free to go back to disscusions about aliens ghosts and chi power lol

[Shaolindynasty]

Sorry for spelling errors i typed that with a phone

[taai gihk yahn]

You do realize that binary is a very natural and obvious path for any critical thinker to take. Dichotomy is EVERYWHERE!

What classes are you taking? What school? So if you are studying quantum mechanics a imagine you have newtonian down then, yes?

I realize you are curious, but I have to suggest you move backwards for awhile. Better yet, go start back at "a force is a push or a pull" and move on from there. I'm not trying to be offensive, but from the perspective of anyone who actually has a working knowledge in this field, your arguments hold very little weight. HistoryTV and other stations like that are purposely putting out misinformation because it's getting them paid. Don't let the TV dumb down your perspective. I doubt you would pass the assessment for a first year physics program. The knowledge found in grade 10 science texts blows most of what you said right out of the water. If you truly are interested in the truth of it, I suggest you take some big steps back. This is not a field that is easily understandable to the layman and there is SO much room for misinterpretation. If you really don't want to do all that, at least go read books from authors like Brian Greene who put considerable effort into making the info as easy for the layman to understand as possible. Or reasonable, anyways.


THANK you...



Real science is as rare today as real TCMA.

and further proof of the reality of dichotomy: an intelligent post followed by one equally as stupid - it all balances out!

[LaRoux]

The myans had binary code carved into stone in their temples. the pyramids, macchu picu etc etc. these are ET influenced no other explanation exists that holds an validity.
and why would be be gone?

How in the heck would a binary number system lead to the conclusion that it would be ET influenced.

If anything, an octal, decimal, or hexadecimal system would be more advanced.

[EarthDragon]

thousands of 1 and 0 carved in binary code on the temple, whatch the documentary. netflix. its incredible film

[Syn7]

How in the heck would a binary number system lead to the conclusion that it would be ET influenced.

If anything, an octal, decimal, or hexadecimal system would be more advanced.

Isn't it obvious? Egyptians invented machine code So that they could use Alien hardware to allign their gear with the cosmos! You don't really think starshafts are possible for mere humans do you? :p

[Syn7]

thousands of 1 and 0 carved in binary code on the temple, whatch the documentary. netflix. its incredible film

Name it please. I can't promise you that I will watch it, but if I do I will be happy to come back and give my perspective.

Which temple? actual ones and zeros? Taoist philosophy is a great example of how dichotomy is used in older cultures. Solid line, broken line. That be binary, my friend. :)

[LaRoux]

thousands of 1 and 0 carved in binary code on the temple, whatch the documentary. netflix. its incredible film

And how would that provide evidence of ET influence rather that the lists of decimal numbers found other places such as the Egyptian hieroglyphs, or the Cretan hieroglyphs?

[Syn7]

and further proof of the reality of dichotomy: an intelligent post followed by one equally as stupid - it all balances out!

Kellen seems like a smart guy. I'm curious as to his explanation. Is it politically influenced? Does he work in any scientific field etc etc. I don't wanna **** on him without giving him a chance to explain. Maybe he's just put off by the climate argument or something.

That being said, if you get your info in the context of democrat vs republican, you have a great chance of being mislead. And, my god, please please please take shows like finding bigfoot and ancient aliens with a grain of salt.


"I heard a knock!!!"

"OMG, that was a squatch forsure!"

It's entertaining in a sadistic laughing at retards kind of way. But please do some research to confirm what is being said. Real research, not just finding another that agrees. Use the scientific method properly. Hypothesize, predict, test, analyze, conclude realistically.

[Robinhood]

no, I haven't; and you know what? I'm not going to, because I really don't have the interest - you can't just reference (or semi-reference - no author, publication date, etc.) an entire book as a way to clarify your own incoherent musings - that's like saying "Rominz! Vykingz! Fire! D3ad peepuls!" and when I sat WTF r u on about, you say, "Oh, just go read Gibbon's book to shed more light on my post." :rolleyes:

I could also easily send you towards volumes of texts: OTOH, I prefer to write in a coherent and precise manner to make my points on their own merits; if you want to have a rational discussion, you may consider doing the same (e.g. - if you use terms like "thinking mind", "natural intuition" and "full body computer", define what you mean by them, in terms of how the physiology is organizing itself around those particular terms, or how from a functional perspective examples of how they differentiate in terms of human experience; otherwise, you're nowhere;

I don't have the time to explain complicated or common sense terms to you, if you do not have the time or the insentive to learn something which involves reading more than a paragraph , just say so.

"The Field", easy to look up, harder to read and underdtand.

[EarthDragon]

syn and others,
it was called breaking the Myan code its on netflix. I just feel there too much pointing towards ET visits.

I started digging QS years ago when I read what the bleep down rabbit hole. so yes it in interest im a beginner for sure but it interests me to now end. any other suggestions along with syn brain green on what to read or watch would be appreciated. its fascinating stuff, even scratching the surface.

[MightyB]

Is it just me, or did this thread take a weird turn?
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5035184272048455&pid=1.7&w=119&h=155&c=7&rs=1

[EarthDragon]

ill take the blame on that one sorry to derail. back on TMCA

[jdhowland]

Is it just me, or did this thread take a weird turn?
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5035184272048455&pid=1.7&w=119&h=155&c=7&rs=1

That's OK. Weird is good.

It's why we're here.

[Syn7]

syn and others,
it was called breaking the Myan code its on netflix. I just feel there too much pointing towards ET visits.

I started digging QS years ago when I read what the bleep down rabbit hole. so yes it in interest im a beginner for sure but it interests me to now end. any other suggestions along with syn brain green on what to read or watch would be appreciated. its fascinating stuff, even scratching the surface.

Start with Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Get it in, know it all. Read companion guides to help you along if you need help. There are many. You'll prolly find like 10 different ones at chapters or wherever. Just ask.

http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Norton-Critical-Editions-Isaac/dp/0393959023

Try that.

[taai gihk yahn]

I don't have the time to explain complicated or common sense terms to you, if you do not have the time or the insentive to learn something which involves reading more than a paragraph , just say so.

"The Field", easy to look up, harder to read and underdtand.

golly gee, I wish I did have the "insentive" to look up those complicated or common sense terms - it is amazing how I got through grad school reading just that one paragraph though...but then maybe I would be able to "underdtand" things good like you who are smrat man:rolleyes:

lol - nice try; your trolling needs work though;

[taai gihk yahn]

How in the heck would a binary number system lead to the conclusion that it would be ET influenced.

If anything, an octal, decimal, or hexadecimal system would be more advanced.
I believe that the Babylonians used a base-6 counting system (or base 60 - whatever); and don't be fooled by the fact that all of those tablets were basically about granary accounting - clearly the hand of ET can be felt here as well...


thousands of 1 and 0 carved in binary code on the temple, whatch the documentary. netflix. its incredible film
ok, whatever; I give up;

[-N-]

ok, whatever; I give up;

Candidate for best sig ever :D

[Syn7]

I vote yes!

[EarthDragon]

so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Real science is as rare today as real TCMA.

That's rather insulting.
It is insulting for those people that mapped the Genome, those people that every day are one step closer to cures for diseases, insulting for those that discover new worlds and species, insulting for those that advance technology, in short it is insulting to those that give you everything you take for granted as "needs".

[Kellen Bassette]

Not true. Big money takes the .002% and makes it seem like everyone is split. While I agree that grant funds affect research negatively in many cases, it's not fair to say it isn't still honest science most of the time.

I am surrounded by science everyday. Engineering, it's like math but with explosions!!!! :D

The reason I say that is more about the way things are presented in media and pop culture. It irritates me to no end when someone has a theory; and the news sites and pseudo/documentary shows spin it as fact. They always take this, "we used to think, but now we know for sure," approach.

15 years ago the general consensus was different, now it's still an unproven theory but we are certain beyond any doubt??? I would have no problem with those people if they would say, "the general consensus is changing/changed to support these new theories," or "we have good reason to believe,"...but it's never presented that way.

Theories are still just theories.

[Kellen Bassette]

and further proof of the reality of dichotomy: an intelligent post followed by one equally as stupid - it all balances out!

It's necessary for there to be balance in the world. :D

[Kellen Bassette]

LOL....wow...I just read though and seen how many people took offense at my one line. Guess I should have explained myself better. I think real science is awesome. Science, however, requires measuring, observing and testing.

I didn't mean to insinuate science is dead/useless or anything like that, by any means. I also wasn't addressing that towards sport science which I also think is cool...although not my area of expertise, so i would have to sift through tons of bull crap to differentiate between the trends, sales pitches, real science and psuedo/science. Something I intend to learn more about when I get the time.

I just have disdain for theories being passed off as hard fact and psuedo/science being presented in the same light as undeniable truths. I have no problem with new theories or psuedo/science either. We need to keep open minds and think outside the box. I just don't like it when one is dishonestly presented as the other.

I was actually taking aim at media and pop culture, not the real scientific community. Sometimes I take for granted people will understand where I'm coming from.

[omarthefish]

so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?

Yes.

Check out the I Ching. Maybe you've heard of it?

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code#History_of_Binary_Code


Binary numbers were first described in Chandashutram written by Pingala in 100 BC. Binary Code was first introduced by the English mathematician and philosopher Eugene Paul Curtis during the 17th century.[citation needed] Curtis was trying to find a system that converts logic’s verbal statements into a pure mathematical one. After his ideas were ignored, he came across a classic Chinese text called ‘I Ching’ or ‘Book of Changes’, which used a type of binary code. The book had confirmed his theory that life could be simplified or reduced down to a series of straightforward propositions. He created a system consisting of rows of zeros and ones. During this time period, Curtis had not yet found a use for this system.

Emphasis mine.

This parallel between ancient thinking on the duality of nature is so well known by modern scientists that scientific giant Niels Bohr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr)paid an homage to the idea in his coat of arms:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Coat_of_Arms_of_Niels_Bohr.svg/400px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Niels_Bohr.svg.png

[David Jamieson]

The thing about being human is that we forget and we are terrible at keeping accurate records within the consciousness of all. Thus, our greatest knowledge becomes esoterica of a sort.

We don't know how we came about in this form we are in.
So, there is a lot of room for opinion at this point and it is perfectly acceptable to assume we were created through gene manipulation carried out by what we might have thought were gods.

Equally as valid is die offs that rapidly evolved us.

Equally as valid is just about any other idea that reaches back into the mysts of time and can explain what we are and how we got here. So far, that is not actually know for sure. :p

[MightyB]

I love lamp.

[wenshu]

http://hindsightsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Brick_yelling.jpg

[taai gihk yahn]

Theories are still just theories.
no, and this is the common mistake everyone makes - presenting theories in a diminutive light, as if their validity was always hanging by a thread; a theory is developed only after a hypothesis has been tested to such a degree of reproducibility that a theory can be derived as valid and reliable; this does not mean it's immutable, but the evidence supporting it is relatively strong; so to say a theory is "just' a theory characterizes it in a light that is at best disingenuous and at worst deceptive


so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?
please, PLEASE just stop it - u just make urself seem less informed with every post; first off, computer language has been around for at least 60 years; every heard of Alan Turing?; second of all, as I mentioned earlier, the concept of a binary code has existed since at least early China, and probably before - all binary is is a system of "yes / no"; in modern computing it's at a scale of markedly greater complexity than before, but as a concept it's been around a long time; even in the west it's been utiized waaay before computers via Leibnitz in the mid-17th century (almost 300 years) ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number_system
now you can argue that "aliens" were the ones who came and created it millions of years ago, but the problem with that is that there is no evidence to support this; you can conjecture whatever you like, but if you can't support the conjecture in a reasonable manner, then there's really nothing to it;

[EarthDragon]

Omar great post. thank you

Taai,
that's why I ask questions, I don't everything about everything, so therefore I inquire to those whom know more. your posts shed a lot of light on questions I had so thank you for that. Im structural specialist/engineer I don't expect hardly anyone to know about hydrostatic pressure and expansive soils. so if one asks I inform.

[Robinhood]

golly gee, I wish I did have the "insentive" to look up those complicated or common sense terms - it is amazing how I got through grad school reading just that one paragraph though...but then maybe I would be able to "underdtand" things good like you who are smrat man:rolleyes:

lol - nice try; your trolling needs work though;

LOL, It sounds like you are one of those guys that that remembers a lot of trivial details but has no real life common sense or experience of real applications of those details, only what you tried to remember from a book.

Take a look at the movie "Good Will Hunting" , you remind me of the guy in the bar that thought he knew everything. ( do I have to explain that to you too, or maybe the movie came out while you were grad school)

If someone hit you from behind, you would still say no one hit you because you did not see it, even though everyone else could see it.

Some things you can't learn in grad school, like common sense.

[EarthDragon]

lets not throws insults lets discuss MA

[Bacon]

lets not throws insults lets discuss MA

Agreed. Nothing constructive comes from simply insulting one another. Construct an argument and examine that of the others in the discussion, propose counter arguments or agree.

Look ED we found sme common ground!

[IronFist]

so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?

You can count on your fingers in binary up to 1023.

But if you're a 3 fingered alien you can only count to 63.

[Syn7]

so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?

Machine code, 30 years old? You should look up Lady Ada Lovelace.

But yeah, not only have humans been using binary systems for a long LONG time, it's EVERYWHERE in nature.

[LaRoux]

so you guys are saying that 2000K years ago they were using binary code to count? when we just stared using it for computers language 30 years ago?

2000K? Since that would be 2 million years ago, I doubt binary code was around back then.

The first record of binary code being developed was in India about 7,000 years ago.

[Kellen Bassette]

no, and this is the common mistake everyone makes - presenting theories in a diminutive light, as if their validity was always hanging by a thread; a theory is developed only after a hypothesis has been tested to such a degree of reproducibility that a theory can be derived as valid and reliable; this does not mean it's immutable, but the evidence supporting it is relatively strong; so to say a theory is "just' a theory characterizes it in a light that is at best disingenuous and at worst deceptive



That depends who is putting the theory out. All theories are certainly not created equal. Somethings are unprovable but basically accepted as fact...there's plenty of great theories, new and old; but there's also no shortage of garbage being thrown around constantly.

I just feel like sometimes media doesn't distinguish between real science and junk science.

[Syn7]

Omar great post. thank you

Taai,
that's why I ask questions, I don't everything about everything, so therefore I inquire to those whom know more. your posts shed a lot of light on questions I had so thank you for that. Im structural specialist/engineer I don't expect hardly anyone to know about hydrostatic pressure and expansive soils. so if one asks I inform.

If you learned fluid mechanics you should already know the answers to your questions. I don't understand. The math can be VERY complex and a fundamental understanding of physics is required. If you have a fundamental understanding, then you should already own Principia and know it well. What am I missing here?

[Syn7]

That depends who is putting the theory out. All theories are certainly not created equal. Somethings are unprovable but basically accepted as fact...there's plenty of great theories, new and old; but there's also no shortage of garbage being thrown around constantly.

I just feel like sometimes media doesn't distinguish between real science and junk science.

You should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk


While I agree that junk science gets in the way of people understanding real science, junk science isn't science at all.

Also you need to understand that the media isn't the best source for scientific information, period.

[Kellen Bassette]

You should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk


While I agree that junk science gets in the way of people understanding real science, junk science isn't science at all.

Also you need to understand that the media isn't the best source for scientific information, period.

Great video...the stuff he was talking about is what I have a beef with...and your right it's not science. I feel like the media isn't a good source for any information half the time.

[Syn7]

Ben Goldacre has a whole series called bad science. You should google that.

And anyone that turns on CNN for hard facts is an idiot anyways. Sad that this is the majority, but such is life. Each one teach one. Turn off the TV! Read real books, not magazines etc etc....

[IronFist]

Anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616144114/

[Syn7]

Anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616144114/

No I haven't seen that. But I totally get the psychology behind it. It's interesting how legitimate and illegitimate can merge into the same ideas. The best bull**** is always partially true.

Like, yes, the CDC does have stockpiles of rubbermaid style coffins. But that doesn't mean the gubment is tryna kill us all. I dunno bout you, but if there was a massive pandemic, I would be very grateful that the government had a method of dealing the the sheer amount of dead bodies.

[taai gihk yahn]

LOL, It sounds like you are one of those guys that that remembers a lot of trivial details but has no real life common sense or experience of real applications of those details, only what you tried to remember from a book.

Take a look at the movie "Good Will Hunting" , you remind me of the guy in the bar that thought he knew everything. ( do I have to explain that to you too, or maybe the movie came out while you were grad school)

If someone hit you from behind, you would still say no one hit you because you did not see it, even though everyone else could see it.

Some things you can't learn in grad school, like common sense.

ah, my dear very young padawan, thy Troll Fu is most lacking; your initial tactic of "irrational inverse observation" (that I have no real knowledge of what I speak, despite that clearly I do) in order to insult my pride to get a rise out of me, resulting in the internet equivalent of "you don't know me, you don't know me!" is amateurish at best - you need to visit Master Takeshi for some remediation! as for your second tactic of "edumakashun don't gives u smrats for real life stuff" is just worn so threadbare that I feel embarrassed for you that you even used it; <sigh> ah well, so it goes...

[taai gihk yahn]

Taai,
that's why I ask questions, I don't everything about everything, so therefore I inquire to those whom know more.
really? because this initial post on your part here


from a quantum psy POV these planes are Constant and happening simultaneously. So if energy cannot be destroyed then where does it go?
also do believe mediums Don't speak with spirits that have passed to the other side?
this is as absurd as saying ET don't exist and have never visited our planet.
.

seems an awful lot like you making definitive statements as opposed to asking anything: you seem to be thoroughly convinced regarding your take on quantum physics, that mediums speak with spirits and ET's exist and have visited the planet; doesn't seem like a whole lot of asking questions there;


Im structural specialist/engineer I don't expect hardly anyone to know about hydrostatic pressure and expansive soils. so if one asks I inform.
I find it surprising that you're an engineer, a job which doubtlessly requires a great deal of precision and critical analysis of a given issue, and yet you seem to essentially eschew rational thinking when it comes to these other areas of knowledge; I mean, didn't you have to study a great deal of physics for your training? I don't quite get it...



If you learned fluid mechanics you should already know the answers to your questions. I don't understand. The math can be VERY complex and a fundamental understanding of physics is required. If you have a fundamental understanding, then you should already own Principia and know it well. What am I missing here?
right; exactly what I was thinking...

[EarthDragon]

Taai,
its the internet brother, I come here to talk MA and have fun. and i travel out here pretty light, I don't delve to seriously out here like some, and I dont like typing alot as a matter of fact I hate it, so my posts are usually short.

I m not serious on FB either again ts an outlet for fun.

and don't find it surprising I do it every day. M.OF. I am currently working on lifting a house with 42 piles 35 feet in the ground and my company is replacing all the basement walls while I have the house suspended and lived in. really cool project for me. hopefully no cracking will occur. LOL


Bacon
I am sure we have lot in common outside our views on MA.

[taai gihk yahn]

Taai,
its the internet brother, I come here to talk MA and have fun. and i travel out here pretty light, I don't delve to seriously out here like some, and I dont like typing alot as a matter of fact I hate it, so my posts are usually short.

I m not serious on FB either again ts an outlet for fun.

and don't find it surprising I do it every day. M.OF. I am currently working on lifting a house with 42 piles 35 feet in the ground and my company is replacing all the basement walls while I have the house suspended and lived in. really cool project for me. hopefully no cracking will occur. LOL
frankly, I find that sort of thing fascinating and impressive, FWIW

[Syn7]

I am currently working on lifting a house with 42 piles 35 feet in the ground and my company is replacing all the basement walls while I have the house suspended and lived in. really cool project for me. hopefully no cracking will occur.

So then you aren't actually an engineer then, you just work with a company that employs engineers, correct?

[Drake]

A lot of people call themselves engineers, but never actually learned what the word means.

An actual engineer went through four years+ of some of the most difficult mathematics and physics courses around. The Army, for example, considers a lower GPA from a STEM degree much more valuable than one in, say, liberal arts or social sciences. Not saying the arts have no value, but they certainly are much easier to earn a degree in, and maintain a high GPA.

[EarthDragon]

So then you aren't actually an engineer then, you just work with a company that employs engineers, correct?

yes me and 2 others but what we do depends on the scope of work. I estimate do the calculations and inspections measrement etc etc I have a colleague to do up the drawings depending on he work. we have installers and tech etc etc but we all do structural work as well as drainag.
e

[Syn7]

A lot of people call themselves engineers, but never actually learned what the word means.

An actual engineer went through four years+ of some of the most difficult mathematics and physics courses around. The Army, for example, considers a lower GPA from a STEM degree much more valuable than one in, say, liberal arts or social sciences. Not saying the arts have no value, but they certainly are much easier to earn a degree in, and maintain a high GPA.

I'm doing it now. I wouldn't call it the most difficult math and physics work, but it's not easy. It also kind of depends where you go with it, engineer is a broad term.

[Syn7]

yes me and 2 others but what we do depends on the scope of work. I estimate do the calculations and inspections measrement etc etc I have a colleague to do up the drawings depending on he work. we have installers and tech etc etc but we all do structural work as well as drainag.
e

So then you are a skilled laborer, not an engineer. Can you break down fluid mechanics to a layman? Or do you just know how to use it in relation to your specific job?

[YouKnowWho]

engineer is a broad term.

The word "engineer" is an honorable title. People prefer to call themselves "software engineer" instead of "computer programmer".

[jdhowland]

MightyB;1206684]
Stop with the bullsh!t and start talking about what works in TCMA.

What works?

Strengthening and conditioning exercises.

Body toughening.

Speed and agility drills.

Concepts and tactics.




What could we ad to bring the TCMA tradition into the modern paradigm?

Firearms training.

We have better equipment than old school resourses. Let's take advantage of it.
When I started in TCMA my teachers had only punching bags and boxing gloves. Now we can safely spar with more power than was possible a few decades ago.



What seems archaic in a modern context but still is appealing to you?

Lion dancing
the multitude of forms
exotic weaponry

As above. Plus the comeraderie of belonging to a traditional network as opposed to training at some school or other for a limited time--an intangible asset, but one that appeals to me.



Now ask yourself about what you are doing for your martial experience.

Trying to build a good corps of training partners and teachers willing to share, regardless of "style." About to go a quarter million into debt for a permanent home for our efforts.

[Syn7]

The word "engineer" is an honorable title. People prefer to call themselves "software engineer" instead of "computer programmer".

A software engineer is a legit engineer.

The original engineers were those who maintained and operated military engines back in the 1300's. The term has broadened since, ofcourse. The current definition is basically the application of scientific and economic principles in order to design build and maintain structures, systems, machines, etc...

[YouKnowWho]

What sorks in TCMA?

- "train" by parter drill.
- 'test" by spar/wrestle.
- "enhance" by equipment.
- "polish" by solo drill.


What could we ad to bring the TCMA tradition into the modern paradigm?

The ability to handle the following situation:

- Your opponent gets behind you.
- Both of his hands surround your waist.
- He pulls you back down with his body weight.
- His back is on the ground. Your back is on his chest.
- His legs wraps around your waist.
- His arms chokes on your neck.

[MightyB]

The ability to handle the following situation:

- Your opponent gets behind you.
- Both of his hands surround your waist.
- He pulls you back down with his body weight.
- His back is on the ground. Your back is on his chest.
- His legs wraps around your waist.
- His arms chokes on your neck.

Here's one way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deuGeiPexWY&list=UUnKut2uvb0Tcwq2BVdi8eTA&index=28

[Drake]

The word "engineer" is an honorable title. People prefer to call themselves "software engineer" instead of "computer programmer".

Not the same.

[SoCo KungFu]

The thing about being human is that we forget and we are terrible at keeping accurate records within the consciousness of all. Thus, our greatest knowledge becomes esoterica of a sort.

We don't know how we came about in this form we are in.
So, there is a lot of room for opinion at this point and it is perfectly acceptable to assume we were created through gene manipulation carried out by what we might have thought were gods.

Equally as valid is die offs that rapidly evolved us.

Equally as valid is just about any other idea that reaches back into the mysts of time and can explain what we are and how we got here. So far, that is not actually know for sure. :p

Define form. If by form, you mean species, then we actually have a fairly good idea of how our current species came to be. If by form you mean, anatomical structure, then again, we have a rather good idea from embryology, developmental biology, genetics and proteomics.

There actually, is not a lot of room for opinion. Even if there were an absence of the evidence we DO have, you still would not be logically allowed to suppose any random idea. You need proof for a claim. And there is no proof of ET visits to our planet, let alone that they played with our nucleotides. Nor is there evidence of any of the other superstitious explanations of our origin.

Luckily, we do have evidence of some things. We have an understanding of the physical laws of nature. We have an understanding of how genetic mutations can be introduced into an individual and into a population. And we have an understanding as to how such mutations can either be swiftly wiped out, persist, or even take over as the dominant genotype. Because of this, not all "opinions" are equal. There is evidence against many, and evidence granting greater likelihood to some vs others among those which are not disproven.

[Syn7]

You do realize that theory in science is different than theory as in an "abstract thought"?


Ummm. Yes and no. There is a TON of abstract thought in theoretical physics. Where you draw the line is debatable. But one thing is clear, theoretical physics does cross that line.

[EarthDragon]

syn
no certified structural engineer. I don't do any labor. But yes I work with commercial and residential sinking building houses, hydrostatic pressure fractures, shearing fractures, soil and plasticity expansive soils etc etc. we use piles, push piers, helical piers and carbon fiber to resolve and arrest further sinking movement.

[Syn7]

syn
no certified structural engineer. I don't do any labor. But yes I work with commercial and residential sinking building houses, hydrostatic pressure fractures, shearing fractures, soil and plasticity expansive soils etc etc. we use piles, push piers, helical piers and carbon fiber to resolve and arrest further sinking movement.

Yeah yeah, I'm just saying there is a huge difference between knowing how and knowing why. You don't need to build your own indy car to be a champion driver. Applying physics and understanding physics are two different things.

An electrician, plumber, welder etc etc, all skilled labor. Trust me, you're skilled labor. You may not like the word, but it's the right word. Not to be confused with unskilled labor. Whether you get dirty or not.

[EarthDragon]

An electrician, plumber, welder etc etc, all skilled labor. Trust me, you're skilled labor. You may not like the word, but it's the right word. Not to be confused with unskilled labor. Whether you get dirty or not.

Oh now I understand what you meant. I use the laborer term for the crews that do the work I draw, design and propose. so it threw me off , I always tell people the only reason I went to college was so I didn't have to do labor.

[EarthDragon]

7258
lol thought this was funny