Re: Re: Re: Not Flaming Or Being A Troll
Quote:
Originally posted by anton
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I saw Kung Lek's post as giving the definition of "a principle" ... that is if you looked up "fighting principle" in some hypothetical "Kung fu dictionary" you would see something like Kung Lek's post. His post was also in response to your not providing any description of the specific fighting principles of your art. He gave some generic examples, nothing specific to Shou Shu. It still remains for you to answer the people who asked you what some of the principles behind your art are.[/B]
Anton has leapt upon the correct like a wild mongoose and is worrying its neck unmercifully.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Flaming Or Being A Troll
Quote:
Originally posted by FatherDog
Anton has leapt upon the correct like a wild mongoose and is worrying its neck unmercifully.
Yes, but is he doing it with the correct principles according to how a mongoose fights? ;) :D
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Flaming Or Being A Troll
Quote:
Originally posted by joedoe
Yes, but is he doing it with the correct principles according to how a mongoose fights? ;) :D
No, a mongoose would evade that question. I'm gonna say he attacked it directly with a foward centerline shift like a bear.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Flaming Or Being A Troll
Quote:
Originally posted by Shou Shu Blue
But as i read this i feel as though i was just attacked in the verbage of your response. As not being a black belt or teacher in my art i cant give complete information. I can say that what Keng Luk posted is pretty much wide range on the principles of animals in MA.
I am sorry if you feel you have been attacked, I understand that such feelings may arise as this thread is essentially about people questioning your chosen art (given the history of such threads I must say this one is progressing in a relatively civil manner, and I commend you on your self-control). I haven't questioned the validity of your art thus far, my post was simply directed at what I thought was an inconsistent interpretation on your part. A post directed at "manner" rather than "matter" if you will. Given the above explanation however, I stand corrected - it appears we both share the same view of the meaning and scope of Kung Lek's post.
Now where does everyone stand regarding fighting principles? I would summarise it in the following way:
Everyone agrees that animal influences can determine the fighting principles of a martial art. Most people (?) agree that there is quite a wide scope of ways in which a given animal may be interpreted from one system (ie. the "snake style" of one system may be quite different to that of another).
Quote:
Those Famous Martial Arts are Famous because alot of the instructors of the arts formed Associations and linked them back to the various contries they came from, as well as commercialized them.
Well, many of the family styles don't have a large Association in the West. Most first became known within the province where they originated, and later may have spread to the rest of China (a small number became popular in the West in the second half of the 20th century- WC, CLF, HG, etc...). Very few authentic "secret" systems exist. Their opening up has been a gradual process. Most family or clan systems first began to teach "outsiders" within their own villages or provinces, later as students moved around and opened their own schools systems spread throughout China/HK however until at least the 1950's the passing on of this knowledge to non-Chinese was virtually unheard of. This is probably the cause of the suspicion (whether valid or not) in the minds of some people experienced in CMA, when they hear of a system so secret that its name and/or the region in China where it is/was practiced are unknown. This is particularly the case if a system can trace its roots to famous places of origin (Shaolin, Wudan etc) or to influential Triads. Again this is not an attack on you or your style, just an observation and an explanation of the reason for some of the perceived dubiousness of your system's (and others') history, which you may encounter here and elsewhere.
I will find out about principles
Alrighty all i have recieved a little more diffenative info.
Da Shifu Lou Chin Sponsored Da Shifu Sr to go to china ( of course we have established this already), But when he was accepted they didnt know he was american. He went to Tin Sin (reporters spelling) only thing that looks like that in China is Tianjin Shi (pronunciation is a killer for the english language.) In the first six months he was looked through and over by his fellow students and Teachers. They didnt respect him until after the first honorable combat. Didnt say exactly how he did just that he gained more respect from them. Remember WWII time frame as well as late 40's and 50's era.
Da Shifu Sr called the style the Manderin Style. he goes on to say that Shou Shu is the ways of the beast. Because it has all seven beasts (animals) it can be called Shou Shu. If a style only has tiger then it is called by that name, or Tiger and Mongoose it would be called by those names. But since Da Shifu Sr had learned all Seven he was able to Call the art Shou Shu.
I will post more as i get more. www.mooreskarate.com looks like its up and will running in dec this yr.
Yes i will find out about principles cause i cant remember and i want to know for sure that im saying the correct information.
Salute,
Shou Shu Blue