In Park's defense

[LapisCircle]

I was just talking about Park Bok Nam with a guy here where I go to school. He had been going to see him and I asked him what he was like. He said he was little and fast, focused primarily on striking methods and joint destruction and was a staunch promoter of basics. I got to thinking about that and veiwed some of his tapes. In all fairness to Park, what he is doing is actualy I feel benefical, he is steeping his people and people interested in bagua, in the basics, hard, what you will fall back on basics. It was said he didn't do anything special, well, manybe he feels nobody but his top of the top guys are ready for anything but the basics. Anybody agree?

[count]

I'll bet the recent attacks on Park here have sold hundreds of videos for him. I borrowed one to look at and I would say that appears true about the emphasis on basics, (a good thing) and maybe you are correct about only his "top of the top" getting much more. He must have hundreds of students either directly or indirectly so the need for such a systemized approach is probably necessary. And probably difficult for more than the top few to advance very quickly. Leave it to a Korean to come up with such a systemized approach to martial training, even with a system like bagua. I just hope the next level isn't "sport bagua".

[Ford Prefect]

There is a reason why his 2 books are called "The Fundementals of Pa Kua Chang" I understand that because of the name, it can be quite confusing that he only show fundementals in his book and video...

[Ky-Fi]

I don't know anything about Park or Bagua in general, for that matter. But, as the student of a teacher who has written CMA books, I've come to some conclusions.

If you write a book about CMA, you'd better be prepared for people to stand in line for the chance to sh*t on you.

If you write about the aspects and traditions of the art that everyone agrees with, then you're accused of "just being a translator of other people's work"

If you bring a different, individual understanding to some of the well-known aspects that's different from the mainstream, then you're accused of "a poor understanding", or just being "wrong".

If you try to expand the art and bring in aspects to it that nobody else is doing, then you're not teaching "the true art".

If you just show the basics, you're accused of not knowing the advanced stuff, and if you show the advanced stuff then critics doubt that you really understand it or can actually do it.

And of course, everyone who attacks a published master claims that their attack has nothing to do with any personal resentment or animosity, but only stems from a pure desire to promote the "true" art.

Maybe that's true, maybe it ain't.

Of course, no one is right about everything, nobody knows it all, and no one is above criticism. If writers are falsifying things like their lineage, training time, awards or personal abilities, then they should be called on that. But really, nobody who writes an in-depth book about CMA is going to be the world's greatest master on every single aspect they're writing about.

But IMO, if you REALLY want to know the truth about a writer of a serious CMA book, then you should personally meet with the writer, open up a page of his book and ask him to demonstrate--then you can get an accurate assessment of whether his writing stems from solely from theory, or from practice and ability as well.

[Ray Pina]

Well said.

You are making too much sense to be posting here. Not only are your comments hard to refute, but you take no offensive position opening room for pages of back and forth nonsense.

[Walter Joyce]

For a different perspective....

When you write any book that purports to disseminate knowledge, you open yourself to criticism and examination. That is how scientific knowledge is established, medical knowledge, legal knowledge, etc. Its known in its formal shape as "peer review" and in its general shape as criticism. Hell, even movies and restaurants are subject to it.

Some of the criticism is legitimate, some of it is not. It goes with the territory, regardless of the discipline you are writing about or performing in. If someone doesn't want to be subjected to it, they shouldn't publish, or put themselves out as an expert.

There is nothing wrong with challenging anyone or anything that claims to be an authority on any topic. If their knowledge is genuine, it will stand up to the process.

The method you recommend for challenging a martial artists written work sounds good on paper, but is not always practical, for several reasons. Their availability, their proximity, whether or not they would allow such a discussion, and other reasons that don't appear at a quick glance. Also, in advanced qigong or neigong, how is the novice seeking to determine credibility able to judge whether the practice is being done properly, or will have the intended effects?

Your loyalty to your instructor is admirable, but I believe it may coloring your judgment on this issue.

[Ky-Fi]

Some of the criticism is legitimate, some of it is not. It goes with the territory, regardless of the discipline you are writing about or performing in. If someone doesn't want to be subjected to it, they shouldn't publish, or put themselves out as an expert.

I agree completely---indeed the point of my post was to clarify this reality.


There is nothing wrong with challenging anyone or anything that claims to be an authority on any topic. If their knowledge is genuine, it will stand up to the process.

Again, no argument whatsoever.

The method you recommend for challenging a martial artists written work sounds good on paper, but is not always practical, for several reasons. Their availability, their proximity, whether or not they would allow such a discussion, and other reasons that don't appear at a quick glance.

Again, I certainly agree that that is an aspect of the state of CMA today. Because actually making the effort to cross hands with someone can be "impractical" and require some effort and risk, many people find it preferable to eliminate the element of physical testing from the list of criteria necessary to form their conclusions.

[Walter Joyce]

To clarify, you did make some good points. Just offering the other side of the argument.

[HuangKaiVun]

Park "does the basics" and yet people feel he "doesn't do anything special"?

Heck, baguazhang IS about the basics.

Sounds VERY special to me, especially since I've seen Park in pictures and he is truly a great master of Baguazhang.

[jafc]

The difference between "peer review" and many of the criticisms leveled against Park Bok Nam revolve around what is criticized.

Peer review is professional not personal. It is unacceptable to say "Dr. so-and-so is a complete idiot with questionable teachers, incompetent students and a poor grasp of science." It is acceptable to say "We have been unable to duplicate Dr. so-and-so's findings and our experience gives contrary results" The critique is centered on the methods and work not the author, his ability or the students.

What are the problems with Park's methods, what are the benefits. Do the exercises in the book add anything to the experienced ba gua practitioner's training. Do they take anything away? Do the methods train basics and fundamentals? Do they help put the inexperienced person in a position to better understand the art? Have you met Mr. Park, worked out with him? How did that experience compare with your previous ones?

This would be a good peer review.

[HuangKaiVun]

Yes, it would be a great peer review.

On the other hand, I as a martial artist can SEE how skilled Park Bok Nam is even in a static photo.

No review, positive or negative, will convince me that Park or his teacher Lu Shiu Tien don't know what they're doing.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally posted by jafc

It is unacceptable to say "Dr. so-and-so is a complete idiot with questionable teachers, incompetent students and a poor grasp of science." It is acceptable to say "We have been unable to duplicate Dr. so-and-so's findings and our experience gives contrary results" The critique is centered on the methods and work not the author, his ability or the students.

I can't say it better than that----that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

I can give a concrete example of that, too. A couple years ago on this forum, I had a debate with the daughter of a well-known Taiji teacher. I didn't agree with the pattern of breathing that this teacher taught in regards to the Taiji form. In a respectful and friendly manner, I described my understanding of the theory, what I had been taught, and my own personal physical experience and examples. She responded with her solid argument in favor of her father's method. I didn't change her opinion, and she didn't change mine, but it was a completely friendly discussion. Just because I didn't agree with her father's take on one aspect of the art didn't mean that I dismissed and denigrated his lifetime's effort of postively promoting CMA---particularly since I had very little first hand experience with the whole scope of his teaching.

[Walter Joyce]

"On the other hand, I as a martial artist can SEE how skilled Park Bok Nam is even in a static photo"

Interesting, your skill level must be very high. How do you square this ability with the following thought:

Posture creates the structure for martial arts, but movement is the heart of it.

Or the idea that there are martial artists appearance offers no clue to their skill?

Or martial artists who can execute form beautifully, but can't fight?

Yes, your powers of perception must be awesome if you can SEE that much from a photo.

I used to gaze at photos of Wong Shu Jin the famous hsig I and ba gua master for clues as to how to practice wuji, then I found out he intentionally refused to have his picture taken while actually training.

On another point, my comments as to peer reveiw had less to do with Park than they did with the risks inherent with publishing or establishing yourself as an authority.

I'm not sure if I need to improve my writing, making my points clearer, or if there is some way I can prevent what I write from being taken out of context.

[HuangKaiVun]

Wang Shu Jin and Park Bok Nam both have all the right muscles in the right places.

They also have excellent concentration and breath control. Plus, they cannot hide their focus on detail.

Notice how they always keep themselves covered in a way that they can move in and out of their postures - even in a standing meditative position? That's the sign of a fighter who successfully uses his martial art in freeflow combat.

There are Baguazhang guys that do their static postures more flowery than either of these guys do. But remember -

"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that jing" (HKV 2002)

[jafc]

Mr. Joyce,

Your sarcasm is addressing HuangKaiVun is as obvious as it is inappropriate. HuangKaiVun's ability to analyze still photographs of masters is not the subject of this debate.

My last post raised some questions regarding a way to begin intelligently discussing Mr. Park's Bagua. Clearly, you have some thoughts and opinions on this topic. Perhaps you would like to begin the discussion by answering those questions and we can take it from there