Science Vs Pseudoscience {Can you prove it?}

[wiz cool c]

Science Vs Pseudoscience {Can you prove it?}

Every once in a while I will meet a new instructor here for one reason or another. This time it was to learn a set of techniques from this under thirty year old Shaolin {Monk}? This teacher travels the world teaching. Ok so we [my wife and I} travel to his home town three hour bus ride, then with the teacher and his father another two hours in the car. As usual he spent most of the time telling me how everything I learned up to this point is all wrong and how he knows all the secrets. Me being the humble guy I am nod my head and add the occasional “yeah o really”.

Now this has happened about twenty times since I have lived in the Songshan Shaolin Mountains. Every teacher swearing they have the secrets and all other know nothing. Some of these teachers are well known. Few are humble unfortunately almost none are real Buddhist in my opinion.

Ok back to the story. I go to bed in a bad mood after listing to a guy almost half my age with a decade less of MA experience rant about how I know nothing even though he doesn’t know my Shifu and never saw me do so much as a single technique. At one point he says, when you meditate do you walk for thirty minutes first, I begin to answer he cuts me off midsentence to say “no all wrong”. I once had a teacher from Tagou do this to me when he asked me my teacher’s name and I open my mouth to answer before I say his name he cuts me off and says” he doesn’t know real kung fu”. Interesting maybe he can read minds.

The next day we are out at five am hoping I can learn the set and be on my way, when the games begin. I knew they were coming but with a slight twist. I thought he would do the old {let me see you do a form} stop me mid-way and then tell me how the qi wasn’t in my toe and it’s all wrong. Instead he wants me to show him a qin na technique. He says { you said you studied qin na, do a technique and grabs my lapel. At this point in a split second I have to decide feed his ego some more or put up or shut. So instead of going along with his game, counter my technique he knows is coming and then go on about how great he is and I know nothing. I tested him. Instead of grabbing the gripping hand I knocked it off with a forearm block, stepped in with a forearm strike to the side of his neck following up with an elbow to his chin. The forearm block I used power, the forearm to the neck I made contact but didn’t use a lot of power. The elbow I placed in front of his jaw.

Now he tells me no wrong [this is in Chinese of course he doesn’t speak English]. I say{ I hit you how is that wrong;] He says if I fell down it would be right. I say Yeah because I didn’t use power;} I then start to loss it when he insist I let him grab me again to prove his point. I step back gain distance and begin to lose my temper shouting I am here to learn….. not play your games. I walked away and left, let him loss face.

My point in all this is can you prove it? He ranted for maybe three hours in the day and a half I knew him about all these secret qi points how everything I learned was wrong. How great he was bla blab la, yet when I didn’t react to his grab as expected he was taken by surprise he did nothing to defend it. Will a bad guy in the street attack you the way you tell him to? He should have been able to counter maybe even levitate with all the mystical theories and knowledge he has. There are two ways to prove all the mystical theories work. One their teacher and teacher’s teacher lived to be 150, or they are out winning ufc/mma or other fighting competitions. If not it is Pseudoscience. If you like it and it makes you happy fine, just don’t be a ***** about it or you might have to one day prove what you say is real.

[robertdreeben]

Your story just goes to show that specific human personality types will ubiquously replicate themselves anywhere you go and in any country. There will always be pompous, arrogant, narcissistically entitled Kung Fu dilettantes spewing their doctrine to all that will listen. Real authentic martial arts come from the heart of a humble human being passing on their skills and knowledge with sincerity and love. And not necessarily to be found in the country of origin, although it is magical to visit the birth place of any art.

That's a day and a half of your life with this dick that you will never get back. But...such is the state that we often endure in our quest for learning as Kung Fu guys and gals.

I am of the belief that anything can work or not work under pressure. It depends on the parties involved and the moment. Even an untrained individual can be a hero. A firearm may or may not stop an enraged individual bent on your demise. As a field LEO for many years I can assist to this. The judging standard is statistically how often and consistantly will your product work over a period of time and by how many? One of my Sifu's once said "If you want to know how good a teacher is then look at his students".

Living a healthy happy life into very old age is definitely an indicator that you're doing something right...or have super awesome genetics.

[wiz cool c]

robertdreeben

It taught me a valuable lesson actually. I am about to move back to the states and run my own school after doing MA for 36 years, 12 of those in China. Even with all this experience I still just see myself as a guy who trains in martial arts. A Shifu ok maybe a master, that term to me is ridiculous. This arrogant young man defiantly sees himself as a master and has some decent credentials. Still when push comes to shove and he wanted to play games I out smarted him and out maneuvered him. So like in the Last Dragon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVhiIisH30

[Jimbo]

wiz cool c:

Unfortunately, I've encountered people like that in various MA. But for some reason, I've noticed that it seems particularly common in CMA. Prior to CMA, I trained in JMA, KMA, 'modern, Americanized' MA, kickboxing, and some FMA. And later, I also trained BJJ for a short while (admittedly, only a year). I've met great people in all, of course, but I've also met arrogant, smug people in many arts. However, I've encountered the most by far in CMA.

No matter how long I've trained, I've always felt like just a practitioner, nothing more. I'll never put myself above another person. But I also will not discount my own experience, or allow someone to belittle me, or try to twist my words to use against me, either. There are many passive-aggressive types who believe they can get away with belittling others to make themselves look or feel bigger than they are, and count on the belief that the person will not call them out on it. For some reason, this very type seems especially prevalent in CMA. I'm not certain why that is, although I do have a theory that I won't discuss here.

I've also experienced more instances of dishonesty from some CMAists than in any other MA category (i.e., trying or willing to 'screw you over').

If this sounds like I'm dumping on CMA, well, I'm not. I'm merely speaking a truth. If I didn't love the CMA I've studied or experienced their true worth, I would have dropped it long ago. It's exactly BECAUSE I love it that I wish it weren't so. I've had great teachers and met many good friends through CMA. But one cannot deny the fact that there are also many arrogant, passive-aggressive and con-man types in the arts as well, who care nothing about uplifting others, their arts, or even themselves, for that matter. As I said, I love and respect the MA, just not all the people in them.

[wiz cool c]

Some good points there Jimbo. Thanks for sharing. I also have some theories on why so many insecure people in the CMA, but since you wont go there I wont either. Anyway thanks for the feedback.

[Gweilo_Fist]

... unfortunately almost none are real Buddhist in my opinion.

Just out of curiosity, how did you come to that conclusion? I enjoy studying and examining world religions, but in my experience, I’ve found Buddhism in China to be very difficult to define. Just interested to hear your experience and opinion on that.

[wiz cool c]

Politics, greed, corruption, all of the above. Still some great Kung Fu Students training all day everyday and living simple healthy lives up in the mountains.

[Gweilo_Fist]

Politics, greed, corruption, all of the above. Still some great Kung Fu Students training all day everyday and living simple healthy lives up in the mountains.

This is in no way an attempt to challenge you or your claim, but for me to gain a better understanding of Buddhism in China. In my experience in China, the term "Buddhist" has become so vague that it's almost meaningless. The definition varies greatly depending on the individual you're speaking to. Lay Chinese Buddhists see worship in various deities as a source of great fortune (typically financial desires, though not necessarily greed). The Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists seem to be very much active in politics. The vast majority of Buddhist Temples throughout mainland China (including the Shaolin Temple) are massive tourist traps. Some believe there are many gods. Some believe there are no gods. I have no idea what orthodox Buddhism in China is or whether that concept even exists.

[GeneChing]

While I generally agree with this discussion, I do have a bone to pick with it. I've always had issues with any martial arts claim to being 'scientific'. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and a misuse of the term. You can't make predictions in the martial arts, which is a cornerstone of science. If you could, you might make a tidy fortune betting on MMA fights nowadays. While there are certainly some scientific experiments involving the martial arts (heck, my PhD thesis was martial, even though I never finished it :o), to bandy about the term 'science' in the context of martial arts betrays a pop culture notion of what science really is.


The vast majority of Buddhist Temples throughout mainland China (including the Shaolin Temple) are massive tourist traps. I visited the Vatican last August. By comparison, Shaolin Temple isn't even in the ballgame when it comes to massive tourist trap religious sites.

Anyway, these are my little pet peeves. Carry on.

[Gweilo_Fist]

I visited the Vatican last August. By comparison, Shaolin Temple isn't even in the ballgame when it comes to massive tourist trap religious sites.


Oh, I do not doubt your claim for a second. I wholly acknowledge that no religion is innocent of this practice. Having said that, my goal was not to discredit Buddhism, but rather to define it.

For example, despite the fact that the Vatican is a huge tourist trap, you can examine all of the denominations and branches of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) and even the offshoot branches like Mormonism, Jehovah's witness, etc. and despite all their different interpretations, you can still find a recognizable common theology that identifies them all under the Christian umbrella (E.G., The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for our sins, the Bible, baptism, etc.)

Islam is the same thing. Sunni, Shia, Sufism are different branches of Islam but they all share the same theology of Allah, Muhammad, and the Quran.

But when it comes to Buddhism, the differences among the branches and followers are so different and contradictory that I can't figure out what defines Buddhism in China.

[GeneChing]

But when it comes to Buddhism, the differences among the branches and followers are so different and contradictory that I can't figure out what defines Buddhism in China. I feel ya. My flippant response would be that Daoism is even less defined. Such is the nature of a shamanic tradition. But I'd also argue that it was the influence of Daoism upon Buddhism that spawned Zen (or Chan if we're being strictly Chinese). Buddhism doesn't quite definitively formalize until it leaves India and China. You might say the Tibetan is defined, but that's so dependent upon the influence of their local pantheon of gods which mated with Buddhism; it's a completely unique take on the tradition. Once Buddhism and Zen gets to Japan, it gets super formal. Such is Japan, right?

[wiz cool c]

In response to what is Buddhism and what is Chinese Buddhism, I can only respond with my own experience. Personally I have practiced and believed in Hinduism for the past 30 years. In Hinduism all the major religious are real and were sent down by the same Supreme person. They vary according to the time and mentality of the people they were sent down to guild. For example if a university professor has to for some reason say substitute a fifth grade class he will teach the students appropriately according to their level. Buddha came at a time when people were turning their backs on the Hindu Vedic scriptures, opening many slaughter houses and going in that direction. Now according to the Hindu belief Buddha was a partial incarnation of the big guy. He purposely camouflaged religion and one of his main goals was to give faithless people faith. The reason being if they had faith in buddha they were actually have faith in god indirectly.

As far as the Chan Buddhism goes the best representative and example I have seen comes from my main Shifu. He is not a famous or rich teacher, does not promote himself to be the best master on the planet, but is a practicing Buddhist. He is always helping people, even when they offer little in return,he is patient ,tolerant and friendly, not hot headed and abrupt. He eats simple food and doesn't indulge in any vices that I know of.

I know a girl that studies Buddhism in Taiwan and trains at Shaolin from time to time. She mentioned the Chan Buddhism isn't so much about studying scriptures as it is about meditation and experiencing a kind of emptiness or evenness. This evenness is very apparent in my Shifu in his day to day life. .

[David Jamieson]

What did you learn most from this relationship with the guy who you got mad at?

[GeneChing]

I know a girl that studies Buddhism in Taiwan and trains at Shaolin from time to time. She mentioned the Chan Buddhism isn't so much about studying scriptures as it is about meditation and experiencing a kind of emptiness or evenness. This evenness is very apparent in my Shifu in his day to day life. .
That's such a slippery slope. Sure Tamo preached enlightenment through chan, not necessarily derived from the sutras, but this easily falls into the same mindtrap as Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?4858-Jeet-Kune-Do) and the denial of the 'classical mess'. Without that historical foundation, you can just make up anything and call it 'Buddhism'. It becomes more shamanic in nature, more like Daoism actually. It's also a rookie mistake as any serious practitioner knows.

[Gweilo_Fist]

In Hinduism all the major religious are real and were sent down by the same Supreme person. They vary according to the time and mentality of the people they were sent down to guild. For example if a university professor has to for some reason say substitute a fifth grade class he will teach the students appropriately according to their level. Buddha came at a time when people were turning their backs on the Hindu Vedic scriptures, opening many slaughter houses and going in that direction. Now according to the Hindu belief Buddha was a partial incarnation of the big guy. He purposely camouflaged religion and one of his main goals was to give faithless people faith. The reason being if they had faith in buddha they were actually have faith in god indirectly.

That's the Bhagavad-Gita, correct?
In the Gita, doesn't Krishna also say that, even though everyone who worships other deities/religions are indirectly worshipping Krishna, they're all still doomed to fail because they're not worshiping Krishna directly? I've always found that part to be confusing about the Gita. It professes all religions are legitimate while at the same time it claims exclusivity to truth.

[Gweilo_Fist]

I feel ya. My flippant response would be that Daoism is even less defined. Such is the nature of a shamanic tradition. But I'd also argue that it was the influence of Daoism upon Buddhism that spawned Zen (or Chan if we're being strictly Chinese). Buddhism doesn't quite definitively formalize until it leaves India and China. You might say the Tibetan is defined, but that's so dependent upon the influence of their local pantheon of gods which mated with Buddhism; it's a completely unique take on the tradition. Once Buddhism and Zen gets to Japan, it gets super formal. Such is Japan, right?

Would you say that a lot of the complexities regarding Buddhism in China is rooted in the fact that, even before Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people were trying to wipe out their own traditional culture to make room for "progress" or "modernization", but now the country is scrambling to try and bring back and revitalize a religion they in some ways had forgotten.

[wiz cool c]

That's the Bhagavad-Gita, correct?
In the Gita, doesn't Krishna also say that, even though everyone who worships other deities/religions are indirectly worshipping Krishna, they're all still doomed to fail because they're not worshiping Krishna directly? I've always found that part to be confusing about the Gita. It professes all religions are legitimate while at the same time it claims exclusivity to truth.

They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.

[Gweilo_Fist]

They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.

Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.

[GeneChing]

Would you say that a lot of the complexities regarding Buddhism in China is rooted in the fact that, even before Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people were trying to wipe out their own traditional culture to make room for "progress" or "modernization", but now the country is scrambling to try and bring back and revitalize a religion they in some ways had forgotten.
No, I think you would say that. :p
Okay, fine, sure. Each dynasty, including the Cult Rev, sought to tear down the previous establishment by its cultural roots. And then they realize that one of China's greatest treasures are those roots. China has one of the longest well-recorded histories of any nation. Only India is on par with China. But I do think the CR is a significant factor. Buddhism under the Chicoms is a tricky thing.


They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.
Almost every ancient scripture boasts truth exclusivity. What I've always respected about the Gita is its context within the Mahabharata. That is such an amazing epic, so rich with metaphor, and then here's this one chapter of it that becomes a major religious text.


Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.
Ah, go for it guys. It's not like we get nearly that many posts here like back a decade ago, so it's nice to see some posts that aren't mine just copying&pasting news or the random spam we've been getting recently (those get re-hyperlinked to MartialArtsMart (https://www.martialartsmart.com/index.html), if you haven't noticed).

Maybe start another thread somewhere as this one has gone wildly off topic (nothing wrong with that - off topic (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?20-Off-Topic) is fun too). We provide this forum so you can discuss stuff (respectfully, like you say) and it's a different quality of discussion than social media. Facebook isn't an easily searchable database. Here we can summon up a post from 2001 (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?1323-Taiji-Legacy-in-Plano-TX-2nd-weekend-in-june) if we like. So please, have at it.

[mengfei]

Isn't Buddha one of Krishna's ten avatars?

[Gweilo_Fist]

Isn't Buddha one of Krishna's ten avatars?

If I am correct (which I rarely am, lol), some in the Hindu religion view Buddha as one of Krishna's avatars, while Buddhists themselves seem to reject this claim. What I find interesting about claiming Buddha to be one of Krishna's avatars, is that in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna calls for devotees to achieve absolute Krishna consciousness and devotion in order to reach enlightenment/salvation/etc. Why that is interesting is because, Buddhism was created in part as a rejection to the Vedas (which the Bhagavad-Gita is part of) and is therefore a rejection of Krishna consciousness. So to say that Buddha is one of Krishna's avatars and that all religions were created to indirectly worship Krishna is to say that Krishna created Buddhism as a means for his creation (humans) to reject him, which completely goes against his call for humans to reach total Krishna consciousness. So the logical conclusion is that either, Buddha is not a Krishna avatar or Krishna is intentionally misleading others away.

And just for clarity, I am not speaking as a follower of Hinduism or Buddhism. This is just my personal observation.

[wiz cool c]

Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.

Sure Gweilo_Fist

[Gweilo_Fist]

Sure Gweilo_Fist

I can't tell if that's a sarcastic "sure" based on my response to Mengfei or a sincere "sure". Oh, how we lose so much nuance with text. Why isn't there a sarcastic font for these situations! haha

[mengfei]

If I am correct (which I rarely am, lol), some in the Hindu religion view Buddha as one of Krishna's avatars, while Buddhists themselves seem to reject this claim. What I find interesting about claiming Buddha to be one of Krishna's avatars, is that in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna calls for devotees to achieve absolute Krishna consciousness and devotion in order to reach enlightenment/salvation/etc. Why that is interesting is because, Buddhism was created in part as a rejection to the Vedas (which the Bhagavad-Gita is part of) and is therefore a rejection of Krishna consciousness. So to say that Buddha is one of Krishna's avatars and that all religions were created to indirectly worship Krishna is to say that Krishna created Buddhism as a means for his creation (humans) to reject him, which completely goes against his call for humans to reach total Krishna consciousness. So the logical conclusion is that either, Buddha is not a Krishna avatar or Krishna is intentionally misleading others away.

And just for clarity, I am not speaking as a follower of Hinduism or Buddhism. This is just my personal observation.


Thank you for your reply! Happy to read your thoughts! Well, my wife is Hindu and I was brought up with loose Buddha teachings mixed in with some Taoist. I think in Japan the Shinto is heavily mixed in with Buddhism although that is way off topic! My wife the other night had mentioned after we watched some movie, I believe I have watched more Indian films than Chinese lol. Love Akshay Kumar films, now way way off! She had mentioned about Buddha being one of Krishna's avatars. I feel like you are thinking though as to me that really does not make sense.

I believe at one time, many Hindu's born in a lower caste, started converting to Buddha. I have not read the Gita but I agree that being one avatar and Buddha's teachings do not seem to go together! I cannot think that Krishna would intentionally mislead others away. Might be some Hindu's decided to grab Buddha and throw him in the mix. I am sure my wife would disagree, ha!

[Kellen Bassette]

While I generally agree with this discussion, I do have a bone to pick with it. I've always had issues with any martial arts claim to being 'scientific'. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and a misuse of the term. You can't make predictions in the martial arts, which is a cornerstone of science. If you could, you might make a tidy fortune betting on MMA fights nowadays. While there are certainly some scientific experiments involving the martial arts (heck, my PhD thesis was martial, even though I never finished it :o), to bandy about the term 'science' in the context of martial arts betrays a pop culture notion of what science really is.


Yeah, "scientific" martial arts even gets used as a selling point, but by definition they aren't science. As someone that trains Gong Fu and Muay Thai, it irritates me when MT fans call it the "science of 8 limbs," instead of the art, or claim that is scientific, unlike other styles....it demonstrates zero understanding of traditional, (and modern) culture of the art. Some practitioners are more pragmatic than others, some systems have higher ratios of pragmatic practitioners than others...I think that's more accurate terminology than scientific/psuedoscientific.

[Jimbo]

There are definite parallels between religions and martial arts, or at least how they are approached by many of their followers. At some point for many people, the "-ism" or the -anity" and the rituals, politics and exclusivity around them become more important than what the original purpose was intended to be. With MA, the sect is the style/system/lineage. "My style(s) {or lineage} is the only path to the truth, and everyone outside of it is ignorant." The MA, or at least the school and/or the organization it belongs to if any, becomes a type of cult.

This can happen in ALL MAs, including MMA and the base systems that comprise it. Which is why I rarely discuss MA at all anymore, and I never discuss religion. I long ago ceased following any organized religion, anyway, and only classify myself now as 'spiritual but not religious'. Some religious people roll their eyes at that, but IMO, true spirituality must be a deeply personal thing based on personal experience. What is 'best' is what's best for you personally, and that will be different for each individual. I'm pretty much in the same place with my MA. It is VERY difficult for people who are fully indoctrinated and emotionally invested in a particular belief system to see beyond it.

[MightyB]

At some point for many people, the "-ism" or the -anity" and the rituals, politics and exclusivity around them become more important than what the original purpose was intended to be. With MA, the sect is the style/system/lineage. "My style(s) {or lineage} is the only path to the truth, and everyone outside of it is ignorant." The MA, or at least the school and/or the organization it belongs to if any, becomes a type of cult.

I've been playing with building a Matrix, or categorical system to describe this phenomena and how it happens. It goes something like this; There are 4 types of combat. 1) The first being the "bully fight". This is what most people believe is da' streets, but really it's just a couple of egos huffing, puffing and posturing. Maybe punches are thrown. Most people grow out of this crap. 2) Sports fighting. This is fighting based on a specific rule set. Good fighters understand and utilize the rules to their advantage. 3) Sudden violence. This is the real da' streets. It's rare, and there are relatively few ways to prepare for it - but the military uses realistic scenarios. I think there are some martial artists coming close to this, for example the Spear System, or maybe Fit to Fight. But you can only do so much preparation. Key attributes would be good protective gear because in order to train this correctly, you'd have to make the scenarios as realistic as possible like blind-side a person, shove them into a wall and hit them with a baseball bat. See if any style can defend against that scenario :rolleyes: and the final 4) ritualized combat which is pretty much any traditional martial art. It's similar to sport based in that there are rules and etiquette.

A person can be really good in number 4) but be terrible at 2) and 3).

I think a key to success is understanding which category you are training in. So if you're training 4) and want to participate in something that falls in 2), then you should minimize 4) and train 2). If you're training 4) and want to include 3), then invest in high quality protective gear so you can really go at it and see what works in different scenarios.

[GeneChing]

Yeah, "scientific" martial arts even gets used as a selling point, but by definition they aren't science. As someone that trains Gong Fu and Muay Thai, it irritates me when MT fans call it the "science of 8 limbs," instead of the art, or claim that is scientific, unlike other styles....it demonstrates zero understanding of traditional, (and modern) culture of the art. Some practitioners are more pragmatic than others, some systems have higher ratios of pragmatic practitioners than others...I think that's more accurate terminology than scientific/psuedoscientific.

It's reaffirming to hear someone else on the same page with me on this. It's been a sticking point for me for years. I was trained as a scientist in grad school and TAed courses like Experimental Psych on the university level, so I had to be very conversant in the scientific method. It's taken me decades to unlearn APA format. When martial artists make 'scientific' claims, it really just demonstrates their illiteracy. But then again, in today's world, ironically, so many dispute science, predominantly as some sort of foe to religion. Clearly pop culture, and reciprocally martial arts culture, really don't understand what science is.

[Jimbo]

I've been playing with building a Matrix, or categorical system to describe this phenomena and how it happens. It goes something like this; There are 4 types of combat. 1) The first being the "bully fight". This is what most people believe is da' streets, but really it's just a couple of egos huffing, puffing and posturing. Maybe punches are thrown. Most people grow out of this crap. 2) Sports fighting. This is fighting based on a specific rule set. Good fighters understand and utilize the rules to their advantage. 3) Sudden violence. This is the real da' streets. It's rare, and there are relatively few ways to prepare for it - but the military uses realistic scenarios. I think there are some martial artists coming close to this, for example the Spear System, or maybe Fit to Fight. But you can only do so much preparation. Key attributes would be good protective gear because in order to train this correctly, you'd have to make the scenarios as realistic as possible like blind-side a person, shove them into a wall and hit them with a baseball bat. See if any style can defend against that scenario :rolleyes: and the final 4) ritualized combat which is pretty much any traditional martial art. It's similar to sport based in that there are rules and etiquette.

A person can be really good in number 4) but be terrible at 2) and 3).

I think a key to success is understanding which category you are training in. So if you're training 4) and want to participate in something that falls in 2), then you should minimize 4) and train 2). If you're training 4) and want to include 3), then invest in high quality protective gear so you can really go at it and see what works in different scenarios.

Nice post.

Your categories 1 & 3 are often referred to as 'social violence' and 'asocial violence'. Social violence is like a bullying situation, or most commonly, (usually male) jockeying for status/dominance within a social circle. And of course, asocial violence is criminal/predatory, and far more serious, although serious injury or death can potentially result in a scenario in either category. Many MAists and MA sport fighters fail to distinguish between social and asocial violence situations.

The big problem with the "MA style/lineage elitist" mentality is that it's completely divorced from reality. One's style/system/lineage is not what will save you, but how you've trained what you have, and that you've modified and made it, or aspects of it, work under pressure. I needn't go into details on that, as it's pretty self-explanatory. Most MA elitists (in CMA and in any other MA category) seem unaware that the outside world doesn't care about their styles, except perhaps MMA/BJJ/MT, and most of the elitist attitudes for the latter category seem to come from 'nut riders'.

[MightyB]

Your categories 1 & 3 are often referred to as 'social violence' and 'asocial violence'. Social violence is like a bullying situation, or most commonly, (usually male) jockeying for status/dominance within a social circle. And of course, asocial violence is criminal/predatory, and far more serious, although serious injury or death can potentially result in a scenario in either category. Many MAists and MA sport fighters fail to distinguish between social and asocial violence situations.


Now I know what I should call categories 1 & 3 ;)

I think when you see people modify their training to accommodate different types of pressure it's because they're more aware of different types of fighting and they are adjusting to where they want to be effective.

I'm not sure I'm going to say that anyone's being elitist, I just think they're overspecializing. What I mean is someone could be really great at push hands and when they display their form, everyone watching would agree that they have great fa-jing. But then they decide they want to fight a kick boxer under kick boxing rules and then they get beat up. That same kick boxer then decides he wants to fight a MMA fighter under MMA rules and gets beat up. That MMA guy fights a Judo guy under Judo rules and gets beat up. That Judo guy fights a BJJ guy under BJJ rules and gets beat up. That BJJ guy picks a fight at a bar and gets beat up. And then that bar fighter picks a fight with the push-hands guy and gets beat up. And on and on it goes.

[Jimbo]

I'm not sure I'm going to say that anyone's being elitist, I just think they're overspecializing. What I mean is someone could be really great at push hands and when they display their form, everyone watching would agree that they have great fa-jing. But then they decide they want to fight a kick boxer under kick boxing rules and then they get beat up. That same kick boxer then decides he wants to fight a MMA fighter under MMA rules and gets beat up. That MMA guy fights a Judo guy under Judo rules and gets beat up. That Judo guy fights a BJJ guy under BJJ rules and gets beat up. That BJJ guy picks a fight at a bar and gets beat up. And then that bar fighter picks a fight with the push-hands guy and gets beat up. And on and on it goes.

By elitist, I mean that old attitude (that still exists in many today) of "Only our style or lineage has the REAL stuff and everybody else is doing it wrong. (or can't do it at all)."

Or like "If someone uses an elbow (or a knee) in a fight, he/she is definitely MT, because only MT knows how to use elbows and knees."

Or "Since 98% of fights go to the ground, BJJ is the most effective martial art in the world." How they arrived at that percentage is TOTALLY unscientific, but was a '90s marketing campaign not based on reality. But it worked, because I've seen people still parroting that. BJJ is a brilliant method of floor fighting (I trained in it for awhile). It works extremely well, especially in one-on-one social (and some asocial) violence situations. But there are too many variables in asocial violence to say "the most effective" across the board.

Or, "TKD practitioners are the best kickers in he world."

Or "Bajiquan is the most high-level MA, and its fa-jing is the most powerful. We only train for One Strike Kill; Compared to us, Tanglangquan (Mantis) is fast but has no power or stability. And southern styles are lower-level and inferior to northern styles." Believe it or not, I encountered several practitioners in Taiwan from a certain well-known CMA institute who spouted this and believed it.

"Only Taiji/Xingyi/Bagua develop internal power, and are superior to 'external' styles."

"Wing Chun, with its economy of motion, is the most efficient, and only effective, kung fu system."

This also goes for attitudes among different lineages within the same general styles/systems.

I'm not picking on these particular systems; I'm only presenting a few examples of what I've either been told personally, or heard/read being given. Such people are what I call MA elitists. It comes from being ensconced in one's own little world, usually without much or any real-world experience around actual violence, and buying into the idea of style superiority.

[David Jamieson]

Krishna is the living avatar of the pantheon.
Notably, he is Vishnu incarnate.

Buddha is not an avatar at all. He was simply a man who recognized the potential of everyone and anyone to become enlightened.

We apparently still are working on that. :)

[Jimbo]

Krishna is the living avatar of the pantheon.
Notably, he is Vishnu incarnate.

Buddha is not an avatar at all. He was simply a man who recognized the potential of everyone and anyone to become enlightened.

We apparently still are working on that. :)

We're ALL working towards that. If we were enlightened, we wouldn't need to be here in this lifetime.

[rett2]

But when it comes to Buddhism, the differences among the branches and followers are so different and contradictory that I can't figure out what defines Buddhism in China.

Perhaps a decent definition of the essentials would be as follows: You need legitimately ordained monastics who live by the Vinaya, and whose teaching and practice are founded on the Four Noble Truths and their elaborations; also, laypeople who support the monastics and turn to the monastics for guidance and teaching.

The more superficial differences in beliefs and practices, especially among laypeople, can be chalked up to culture.

[SteveLau]

Can I prove it? Well, all we need to do is to invite Bruce Lee (or similar level MA students) to face these monks, and I bet they will run away at speed 100 meters/ 9.90 sec. without teaching their secret techniques.




Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[wiz cool c]

By elitist, I mean that old attitude (that still exists in many today) of "Only our style or lineage has the REAL stuff and everybody else is doing it wrong. (or can't do it at all)."

I agree with most of what Jimbo is saying here. I say it like this I like Shaolin kung fu because I really think it is an intricate way to condition and train my body for attributes like balance, coordination, flexibility, building strength and stamina, I do not think it is a better fighting system than any other. How good a fighter someone is usually depends on the indivual and how hard they train along with in some cases natural gifts. The one's usually saying this style knows it all and others are all wrong don't have the real world experience in violence to be thinking this way, or medical training either. In the real world anyone can get knocked out stabbed etc. How anyone walks around calling themselves Master is beyond me. What if they slip on a banana peel, a Master should never slip but we all slip sometimes, I know I do once in a while after doing MA for 36 years. Also I know people like my older brother who has no MA training that would destroy a lot of these so called masters in a fight. THE ONLY SECRET IS SWEAT.

[wiz cool c]

Can I prove it? Well, all we need to do is to invite Bruce Lee (or similar level MA students) to face these monks, and I bet they will run away at speed 100 meters/ 9.90 sec. without teaching their secret techniques.




Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

That is true, to be fair though I also met some good young students that are humble, train hard, spar hard and are good fighters. It is usually the one's making money running a school in that area that has the inflated egos.