bagua sword

[Doug]

----------------------------------
Back to the topic, it seems to me that your stuck on the thick heavy king author style of blades. What about the French Fencing sword? Tuff and flexible. The sword might have bent somewhat, but not much. In particular because of the type of form he was doing. The character of the set was one of slicing more so than chopping, and being that the Ba-Gua Da Dao’s purpose is slicing; it should be thin at the end.
-----------------------------------


What is this "thick heavy king author style of blades"? Explain please. I am not "stuck" on "thick" blades. Please pay attention. I am and HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING real swords versus wushu blades. A REAL sword will have far more substance than a wushu imitation.

"What about the French Fencing sword? Tuff and flexible." Which era are you referring to? At any given point, you will notice that French swords are very different from Chinese swords. This comparison is off the topic and quite a stretch.


------------------------------------
I have a friend who knows the extremely rare Northern Wu Tai Chi style who is also a sword collector. This guy spends crazy money on antique swords and some of them from the 19th century were quite flexible. All he collects are Chinese swords. I don’t a lot about grading them, but I do know the difference between a fake and a real sword.
-------------------------------------


Apparently, you do not know the difference between a fake sword and an authentic one. I cannot recommend www.swordforum.com enough. Just read through it at least.

Where does your friend buy his swords? Can you get him to post pictures of them here? What do you mean by "quite flexible"?


-------------------------------
(Traditional Chinese dao and jian had a little flex but not like a European long sword would or the "spring steel" offered with Chinese weapons.)

The Da Dao is not like the traditional broadsword, if it were, it would be too heavy to use.
Take a look at these pictures:

http://www.chikungintl.com/images/DaoCompare.jpg

http://www.chikungintl.com/images/HaJinBao.jpg

Look at the size of the traditional on the left as opposed to the commercial on the right; now you tell me, should that broadsword be made proportionally the same? If it were, trying to train with it, with out being a master, would cause you to violate the principles of the Internal constantly, which would make the practice moot.
Look at the way Ha Jin Bao is sinking with the weight of the traditional, (and that’s a big dude. 6’5) you can’t see it in the picture, but it’s making him work. There were points in his demo that the blade disappeared. But that was after a build up.
-------------------------------


Those are large dao, yes.


---------------------------------
(3) there is no way to tell if it is combat worthy or not: we cannot go back in time to check, and without further information to support such a claim, how can it be answered?)

Again, are you saying that our Sifu lied to us? I trust his word. That’s all I need. I’ve known him too long to doubt him. But of course, you don’t know us and only have what we’re telling you. But like Novell told you before, " believe it or not, it’s you’re choice". Trying to prove it too you is a waste of time. The sword is in China so it can’t be presented to you for your scrutiny.
------------------------------


I do not think your teacher is lying (and I have no proof if he was), but that does not mean that your teacher is all-knowing about all things. This is not a cheap shot at your teacher but a remark about all people in general. We pass down the traditions we receive from other people, accurate or not. How do you account for the general misconceptions about Chinese martial systems? I never said you sifu lied; that is something you made up. Had the above information been supplied from the start, I could have added a caveat to avoid what you are proposing.

The only waste of time is that you are trying to argue with me about assumptions you are making. You should not have to present it to me for my scrutiny; it should be for yours. There is a difference between showing and telling.


---------------------------------
(As I stated earlier, opinion is one thing; proof is another. I asked another forumite here to post video of him using his dao, and he declined.)

Look guy,
We’ve been putting more up on our sites beyond the basics for sometime now. We don’t do clips at request. Are you paying for this? Why don’t you post one of your self-demonstrating your sword?
---------------------------------


It sounds like you and your friend in question have a lot in common: you both are pretty quick to anger and assumption. Instead of taking all of this as an observer, you are reacting to a unintentional, non-existent attack. Both of you guys need to step back and look at the screen. What am I saying? Am I really this nobody from nowhere who is trying to ruin your day? If you really believe your closing, "Peace," you would not be so quick to anger. Just say you cannot do it for reasons X, Y, and Z. There is not reason to be upset, guy.

If you really, really want, I could post some pictures as I go through the dao forms I know. But it will not accomplish a lot of anything because it is a photograph, not a moving picture.


-----------------------------------
We prefer the open hands, but weapons train certain attributes so we learned them. I learned them just for the purpose of teaching. Along the way I discovered some that I liked, which is the specialty weapons of Ba-Gua, the exception is the spear, my weapon of choice. But I digress.
You do a video. What’s your style anyway?
-----------------------------------


You do digress. To accurately teach how to use a weapon, you need to be knowledgeable in its usage AS WELL AS knowing the difference between a real sword and its properties and a fake sword and its properties. Do you make this distinction when you teach?

I practice a particular system; I don’t have my own style. I currently practice Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut. I have a couple of year’s worth of Chen Style Tai Chi. My philosophical and technical background is largely influenced by the first martial art I practiced for many years, Aikido. I also have some year’s worth of Naginata-do in there if it matters here.

Me put a video on the Internet? I would only do that if I thought what I could contribute to the martial art audience (European, Asian, African, American, South American, Middle Eastern, etc) would be beneficial. As it is, there are good demonstrations for Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut on the Internet, so I say nay. That MUST be the reason why you have a web site set up. You hope that what you have to say and show will be beneficial, not mundane material that is just a reiteration of what someone else said.


---------------------------------
(I am not saying one cannot use it as fast as in the last couple of video clips; I have not seen someone do that yet. And to believe that the dao is real with only an opinion, WITHOUT any other background, is a leap. There is nothing wrong with questioning the validity of a source when that source is in question.)

This is not an opinion! Our Sifu told us so. That’s it.
------------------------------------


I know this is difficult to understand, but it IS an opinion. Your sifu is not a god as mine is not. They are real people who make real mistakes. If you choose to believe someone, admit that it is your opinion that your sifu is correct. But do not blindly believe someone JUST BECAUSE he or she said so. That is committing the fallacy about historical inaccuracy you detail below. Being that I said this, you will probably "hear" that I am poking fun at your teacher. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is going by what he knows. Since I don’t know anything about your teacher beyond this thread, you could be a helpful party and direct me toward a good source aobut him. If anything, I am giving you advice.


--------------------------------------
(It also described a famous Bagua practitioner who was known as the "whirlwind of death" with blood splattering everywhere when he used his Bagua dao during the Boxer Rebellion. If this really happened, no one talks about it or has printed it anywhere. One would think this would have made a historical note in the many texts available on the Boxer Rebellion.)

The person being spoken of is Xing-I/Ba-Gua master Li Cung Yi. Let me ask you this, what do you know about Southeast Asia during WWII? Do you how the term "Leatherneck" came into being? And if you don’t, why don’t you know about it? Some of the most incredible personal battles in history have not been documented because, for some unknown reason, the one doing the unheard of is on the losing side.
Do you know how much truth has been omitted from history? It’s almost to the point that the majority of the planet is living and believing a complete lie. I don’t follow or perpetrate myths, nor do I believe in everything written or not written. The fact that it’s not in a book does not make it not so.
----------------------------------------


I agree with much that you say here. It easily goes with what I have been saying in this thread all along. In fact, you are proof that your own statements are true. So when you say "I don’t follow or perpetrate myths," you are actually in contradiction of your own statement with regard to knowledge of Chinese weaponry.

[Doug]

----------------------------------------
(Something with mythic proportions as truth is taking a mythic jump into a void. Such things should be sought after and studied, not developed and, then, kept secret or forgotten.)

I agree, but what does that have to do with what we’re talking about? There has been no myth pushing on our part. It’s been said that the skill level of the old masters is not as we’ve been told, I disagree, I seen too much in our time and know that they don’t compare to the guys of yesteryear. So it depends on you.
----------------------------------------


Well, if you re-read your statements about Chinese weaponry and do some research on the subject (as I said, searching www.swordforum.com is a step in the right direction because there are a lot of knowledgeable people there), you will find that you are perpetuating myths. I brought it up because it is such an easy thing to do (pass along legend as truth). My statement has everything to do with this online conversation.

And you say "I seen too much in our time and know that they don’t compare to the guys of yesteryear. So it depends on you." Well, if you can share your experiences and life events, I would appreciate it. Do you go into this in other threads? Could you point them out for me? I would be interested in reading them. In a way, it depends on YOU if YOU know things that others do not. I think there is a worthy audience here. Do you wish to share your experiences?


------------------------------------------
(To question is to make a stronger connections with one's very sense of the world and his relation to it. To question is to be alive within one's traditions.)

I totally agree.
-----------------------------------------


If you believe this, why are you bent out of shape about what you think I said when I never said "it"?


------------------------------------------
(O.K. Thanks. If possible, could you compare the flex of the "real" one you have with that of the commercial version? You wouldn't, by chance, be able to post video of yourself with your prize version, would you?)

These pictures were taken about 3yrs ago and the quality is not that good (the comparison).
The better shot is with Ha Jin Bao.
I’ve never video taped myself with the Da Dao, and while I do plan to do one, with all that’s on my plate at this time with the tournament and all, it won’t be soon, besides it will be for sale. We give too much info as it is. And I’m not giving away what I worked so hard for to Internet warriors that want to seem like their good. Not saying that you are one of these, but I don’t know that either. Hope you can understand this.
-------------------------------------------


It is obvious you question my background, which is fine and expected. I will probably never meet you in person, so what is wrong with this wonderment? However, if you think about it, everyone here is an "Internet warrior." It is only part of the aspect of living in the current age.

"We give too much info as it is. And I’m not giving away what I worked so hard for" is also expected to an extent. Quite frankly, I keep quiet about what I know as much as possible UNLESS I find someone who I think could benefit from what I have to offer. This is rare, you know. But the Internet is a different place. I can understand your point about not wanting to "share your secrets." But this is not a time in history when the fear of one style stealing from another or a phony trying to steal your art is enough to hold back teaching. I never asked for secrets; I asked for details, primary sources, links, or (if possible) a demonstration (if it was available). There is no need for negative arguments when none have been offered.


--------------------------
Peace
---------------------------


May this be true even at junctures of disagreement.

Doug M

[Stranger]

Being that I am not a CMA practitioner, it is hard to recognize how these clips would play out in combat. Mind you I am not doubting a thing, just confused. Would it be possible to see any footage of a Chinese fencing/sword fighting tournament ( a la David Bond Chan's tournies)? Cutting practice? Applications? I think it might be easier to understand outside of the context of principle based form work that seems to be on the clips posted so far.

Thanks in advance.

[The Willow Sword]

I have been reading the rather long winded posts by every one and id like to say something.

I know a bit about swords (REAL SWORDS) im not talking about your drop cast steel or the light springy wushu steel or some of the weapons that we use in practice and forms.

REAL swords are relatively light and tempered such that they will be able to chop through most weapons out there.
with the exception of the scottish claymore(which is a tad on the heavy side) swords were made as light and as strong as possible so that when you did go in to combat you could attack and slash and stab as quickly as possible. i have a real jian blade, it wasnt cheap, it is light and razor sharp and tough and could run you through in a second. practice weapons were either made too light (for show) or heavier than normal(to develope muscle control so that when you DID put a real weapon in your hand, you moved it like lightning,,,but back in the old days you practiced with real weapons, its not like today)

These forms, like the bagua dao and the jian and the deer horns authentically represent the movements of bagua, the 8 triagrams and the way in which your focus comes from within and spirals outward. The forms may not necessarily show the exact way that a REAL fight with these weapons are done,,because in REALITY,,weapons combat is not this long winded choreography.
in the first encounter someone gets cut and killed in three moves or less,,and the combat is very close,,not far away and not dodge and play. these forms are for generating spirit,chi, and maintaining fitness and health etc etc. and yes you are doing certain combat aspects.
i have posted this link before but here is what REAL SWORDS are.
www.angelsword.com

peace,,TWS

[Paul_E]

Doug, while your posts are very eloquent it only seems reasonable that one would ask of you what you have asked of them. That is, posting clips of yourself. Also, I find it interesting that someone who does not currently practice and has no admitted history of practicing a certain style could argue on something that he knows nothing about. It is true that a sword's quality should be able to be debated regardless of how it it is used I think the point is that its quality is linked to the style that it is used in.

You did say that at a certain time in Chinese history, only nobles, military leaders, and elites were allowed to carry swords so wouldn't it make sense that they would be custom made? At any rate one would not expect an experienced martial artitst to train with just any commoner's sword but as I do not know history on that account, what one expects is irrelevant.

I don't really have a problem with your arguments but I'm getting tired of having people accuse Maoshan and Novell of being quick to anger everytime they challenge what someone says. So what if they use direct and strong language? It seems to me that all they are doing is making their feelings as clear as possible on the internet. I doubt they take any of that stuff that seriously anyway, it's just arguing, so stop getting offended evertime someone takes you out of your comfort zone. Not everyone is going to argue like it's 4:00 tea time.

Paul

[RAF]

http://www.cctv.com/english/tc/sanji07.html

CCTV 9 on Kungfu

Swords are classified as double-blade weapons. They can be further divided into single and double swords, long and short swords.

A sword is made up of a sword tip, sword edge, flat of blade, hand guard, handle, sword head and sword tassel. Usually the length of a sword is about 3 Chi (approximately 1m), but it should be based on the user's stature.

The principle is that the length of the sword is supposed to be equal to the length from the practitioner's hand to his or her eyebrow. Some sword practitioners get special swords made to suit their various needs.'

The use of the sword can be traced back to as early as the Yin Shang period [1700-1100BC].

At the beginning of the Qin Dynasty [248BC], the sword became very popular, but the shape of the sword was quite different then. Qin swords were made of bronze.Bronze swords are shorter and heavier than modern swords.

Bronze swords became the prevailing weapon at that time mainly because they were better for thrusting and cutting.

The very first records of fencing date back to the Spring and Autumn Period, and to a lady named Yuenu.

She learned the 'Yuenu Sword 'form by herself.This was a very prestigious sword form, and she was even called upon to train the king's army.

Aside from Yuenu, there are many ther famous fencers or swordsmen throughout the history of China.

During the Warring States Period, the long sword prevailed in the state of Chu because it was very effective in battles. Qin, the most powerful state in the Warring States, was strongly challenged by the Chu's long sword.

In the Spring and Autumn Period, however, spears, halberds, and daggers were widely used on battle fields.

Although swords were still used as short weapons, they were no longer popular in actual combats. The main purpose of swords changed at that time from fighting to decorating.

Swords have always been considered sacred and holy, mainly because Chinese people tend to associate swords with religion, sacrificing and power.

Therefore, Chinese people believe that swords are the symbol of sanctity, and are closely related to one's social status.
(continued)

Click on [knowing more] to finish the article.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Paul_E
Doug, while your posts are very eloquent it only seems reasonable that one would ask of you what you have asked of them. That is, posting clips of yourself.

Please refer to my previous three-part post about posting video clips. I make it quite clear why I would not do this. If you want to see me that badly, Paul, come see me. If you are not willing to come see me, what are you trying to prove?

Originally posted by Paul_E
Also, I find it interesting that someone who does not currently practice and has no admitted history of practicing a certain style could argue on something that he knows nothing about. It is true that a sword's quality should be able to be debated regardless of how it it is used I think the point is that its quality is linked to the style that it is used in.

You do not pay attention, Paul. If you can identify what I am talking about, please feel free to post again ABOUT THE TOPIC. I find it interesting that you are also taking unnecessary offense to my posts. If you spent more time adjusting your knowledge base on historical accounts rather than folklore, you would not have to waste your time by starting frivolous arguements.

Originally posted by Paul_E
You did say that at a certain time in Chinese history, only nobles, military leaders, and elites were allowed to carry swords so wouldn't it make sense that they would be custom made? At any rate one would not expect an experienced martial artitst to train with just any commoner's sword but as I do not know history on that account, what one expects is irrelevant.

In terms of what eBay may want to dictate what a Chinese sword is, swords were standardized. And I do not know where you get the idea that "one would not expect an experienced martial artitst to train with just any commoner's sword." Martial artists were not the elite in society, Paul. They were mostly members of the lower class. They would use ANY weapon they could. Where do you get your information? You would do yourself a favor by checking out the sources I already listed in previous posts.

Originally posted by Paul_E
I don't really have a problem with your arguments but I'm getting tired of having people accuse Maoshan and Novell of being quick to anger everytime they challenge what someone says. So what if they use direct and strong language? It seems to me that all they are doing is making their feelings as clear as possible on the internet. I doubt they take any of that stuff that seriously anyway, it's just arguing, so stop getting offended evertime someone takes you out of your comfort zone. Not everyone is going to argue like it's 4:00 tea time.Paul

Actually, your statements show that you do have a problem with my arguments. You are also taking the previous gentlemen's arguments as your own. If these gentlemen are unable to address people without starting their own fires, then whose problem is it? Do you know that there are ways of addressing people without coming across as ridiculous as that (or as you are)? I find that one's own advice works best if one represents it, so when you say "stop getting offended evertime someone takes you out of your comfort zone," you need to keep yourself in check.

By the way, please tell me how people argue "like it's 4:00 tea time" because I have no idea how that happens.

Doug M

[Paul_E]

Alright Doug, where should I start? Since I have nothing better to do and you asked so kindly I will try to stay on topic or at least give my own account of what happened. It was an exhaustive search trying to find wholes in your passive aggressive typing style but I'll try.

I think I'll take it page by page.

On page 1 , resource, pics, and text about
ba gua sword were requested. Links were posted and blacktaoist posted a video clip. Now you said nothing about the skill of the practitioner but the quality of the sword. You stated your opinion, claiming that this does more harm than education. To support this claim you stated that ba gua daos are heavier (though from the forum link you posted, you have neither seen nor used one in real life) and would not move that way. You then claimed that because (as you assume from second hand information) it was not a real dao it would not be characteristic of real bagua dao usage, which you have no knowledge of. By the way, you stated this claim to a (by all accounts) real ba gua practitioner.

Then when, blacktaoist (in your opinion) took offense to your words, you took offense to his (perceived) taking offense. You then described how you make demonstrations look more real, which is funny because most demonstrations are devoid of any "real" intention, they're just that demonstrations, for educational purposes only. Therefore, short of taking a real, sharp edged antique and going on a killing spree, I fail to see how your example is any realer than his.

On to page 2.

blacktaoist attempted to make some clarifications. He stated that he was not upset. You once again, took offense to his (apparent) indignation and then ,of all things, told him what he was feeling, accusing him of being confrontational. You then tried to restate your point, but instead of stopping there, you (again) accused blacktaoist of overreacting. You then said that he suffered from (what you believe) is negative aggression. You then referred to the weapon while ignoring the most important point, which is the practitioner who makes the weapon. In particular, ba gua uses the weapon a certain way. As you know, in chinese martial arts we are taught that the weapon is supposed to become an extension of the practioner so what is most important (in my opinion) is not what weapon is used but what body method is used. As you so kindly pointed out, martial arts experts were commomers, taking any weapon they could find, so what do you think is more important, the skill of the guy or what he is using? You then go on to claim using a wushu weapon is an inaccurate way of demostrating the art. Which is an opinion and was not supported by fact. Is a form an accurate way of demonstrating a martial when it does not involve using a technique on someone? Well, maybe if it has a real weapon in it right...? What I really had a problem with, is the fact that you tried to act like your opinion was correct and should serve as a basis for ending the discussion.

You then solidify my suspicion that you are missing the point of the new direction of the thread which was how a weapon effectively demostrates an art. The style in question is ba gua. When novel asked you if you knew any ba gua dao, which was being demostrated in the clip, you tried to dissociate the weapon from the user. You took it "out of context", which you seem to be so fond of. As if someone trying to do ba gua dao using hung gar movements is still doing ba gua dao because it's a "real" one.

Then in your passive aggressive style, you accepted blacktaoist's explanation of his feelings while hinting that you knew otherwise.

I have no problems with your initial discussion with Maoshan (hooray).

Actually, blacktaoist pretty much sums things up nicely in his next post to you. And you rise to the occasion with another passive-aggressive response. Well done.

Page 3
blacktaoist posts a clip on the previous page. After some discussion you ask for some context. When it is given you then bring up your old friend "opinion". Since it is a video you rightly suggest that since he was not there we can never be sure if it's real or not. Now I am all for scepticism but your inconsistency starts to appear here. You go on to say that you talked to another bagua man and that he uses a 4.5 pound dao and finds it difficult to accept the video, as you do. I went to that link you so kindly posted by the way. This man was kind enough to post pictures of his dao and he even gave dimensions. I will not bring him into this. Instead, I will point out that you saw these pictures in a post that was made on an internet forum as were the dimensions. Because it was made "in context" you had no problem believing the post of someone you have never met (at least you have not state otherwise). So where is the scepticism? Do you put it aside when you need something to back up your claim? So sad....You then try to justify your remarks by saying that you are only commenting on the tool, not the user, as if in this case, the user does not matter in a martial arts demonstration, when in fact he does. Just ask your self this question. When you are judging a martial artist's performance are you watching the way his body moves or are you watching his weapon only?

Maoshan, then makes a response to your inquiries. You try to stay on point by saying that what you are addressing is the realness of the sword not the practioner. That is fine and I understand your appeal for a common ground. However, when Maoshan brings up the point about your Ba gua reference and the weight of his dao you say that you were not talking about the speed of usage. But your exact words were "I talked to another Bagua practitioner about this clip, and he also finds the realness of the sword questionable. He uses a 4.5 pound Bagua Dao for his practice and finds similar difficulty with the clip as I did." While this seems like a clear statement at first one again has to ask why the weight of the sword is brought up. One would not be off in assuming that this bagua man had a problem with the demonstrator's manipulation of the sword. You rightly clarified your intention and for that I salute you.

BUT, once again that inconsistency reveals itself. You basically claim that because of the poor picture quality and our inability to travel through time we cannot accept the realness of the dao. And yet you would believe the post of another forum member who could have gotten his pictures from anywhere and made up the dimensions. Once again, not knocking him, just your usage of him. You ask for video proof of a real dao in usage when in face the only real way to find out is to meet in person. But just because the bagua man provided some "background" it is more acceptable than what blacktaoist gave you, despite his attempts to clarify things.

You then claim that because there is no documentation that Li Cun Yi did what he did during the boxer rebellion it should not be accepted as fact. I am fine with that, but just because history books do not speak of something to assume that they did not occur is not so fine. By all accounts, Cheng ting hua (another ba gua man), was killed during the boxer rebellion by german soldiers. It wasn't written down (as far as I know), but people generally accept that it happened.

You then go on to say that using a fake weapon to demonstrate ba gua is unnappealing to you (irrelevant) and does not represent real weapon usage). Once again, until I see you on TV going on a killing spree, in my opinion your demostration of weapon usage with a "real" weapon is not what you say it is, it's "decontextualized" if you will.
l

[Paul_E]

On the whole, your next responses to Maoshan are acceptable, but then you come out with this "Just explain your perspective to the best of your typing ability for an online forum." I could of course be taking this the wrong way, haha, but it seems to me like you veil your insults in clever statements like these. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In response to Maoshan's remark you ask if he believes that wushu weapons can be used as real weapons...where's my killing spree ******?

You then make your knowledgeable claims about swords which I regretfully cannot comment on. Hopefully they are accurate.

At last, page 4.

For the most part, it's great. And I'm glad. Accept for a little comment "We pass down the traditions we receive from other people, accurate or not.." Now remind me what you did with the information you received from the ba gua man, acccurate or not. I guess in this case he would be the weapon and you the user? Whatever.

Then there's this "You should not have to present it to me for my scrutiny; it should be for yours. There is a difference between showing and telling." This is a funny claim considering the face that you asked him to present his weapons for your scrutiny. So I guess he can show, but only you can tell, right?

And this "It sounds like you and your friend in question have a lot in common: you both are pretty quick to anger and assumption. Instead of taking all of this as an observer, you are reacting to a unintentional, non-existent attack." You are an amazing empath. I did not know that one could deduce someone's emotions from something as impersonal as an internet forum. Not to mention, once again, the fact that you took bagua man at his word and assumed that what he said is true. I guess you only need one corroborating story to get what you need right?

"If you really, really want, I could post some pictures as I go through the dao forms I know. But it will not accomplish a lot of anything because it is a photograph, not a moving picture." One could take this two ways. They're actually kind of related. The first way is that you want us to see what someone moving with a real dao looks like. The second is that you want us to see what someone who knows HOW to move with a dao moves like. In my opinion only the first is relevant to the new direction of the thread which is, how a martial artist moves in a weapon form, which is arguably not dictated by the quality of the weapon. Notice I said arguably, which means that I believe this is up for debate, which is what we are doing and you seem to be fighting tooth and nail against, judging by the anger you perceive we faceless paragraphs are emitting somehow. I'll get to that though.

"You do digress. To accurately teach how to use a weapon, you need to be knowledgeable in its usage AS WELL AS knowing the difference between a real sword and its properties and a fake sword and its properties. Do you make this distinction when you teach?" To this I can only add "KILLING SPREE!!!!!!!!!"

"You hope that what you have to say and show will be beneficial, not mundane material that is just a reiteration of what someone else said."
You probably hoped what you got from the bagua man was beneficial, and maybe it was, but it also seemed to be a "reiteration of what someone else said." OK, I was reaching with that one....getting tired.

"I know this is difficult to understand, but it IS an opinion. Your sifu is not a god as mine is not. They are real people who make real mistakes. If you choose to believe someone, admit that it is your opinion that your sifu is correct. But do not blindly believe someone JUST BECAUSE he or she said so. That is committing the fallacy about historical inaccuracy you detail below. Being that I said this, you will probably "hear" that I am poking fun at your teacher. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is going by what he knows. Since I don’t know anything about your teacher beyond this thread, you could be a helpful party and direct me toward a good source aobut him. If anything, I am giving you advice. " Who's blindly (bagua man) believing (bagua man) who? Oh, but he gave you some background. My bad.

"I agree with much that you say here. It easily goes with what I have been saying in this thread all along. In fact, you are proof that your own statements are true. So when you say "I don’t follow or perpetrate myths," you are actually in contradiction of your own statement with regard to knowledge of Chinese weaponry."

I'm too tired for this one.

(To question is to make a stronger connections with one's very sense of the world and his relation to it. To question is to be alive within one's traditions.)

I totally agree.
-----------------------------------------


If you believe this, why are you bent out of shape about what you think I said when I never said "it"?

This part is interesting because you accept what bagua man said over the net and then used it to give yourself an advantagious relation to the rest of the world. Sorry to keep bringing him up but you weilded that info so well at a crucial moment.

It is obvious you question my background, which is fine and expected. I will probably never meet you in person, so what is wrong with this wonderment? However, if you think about it, everyone here is an "Internet warrior." It is only part of the aspect of living in the current age.

Agreed. But if everyone is an internet warrior then why do you perceive a challenge as anger? It's just a debate, right?

[Paul_E]

Now we come to your response to me.

"Please refer to my previous three-part post about posting video clips. I make it quite clear why I would not do this. If you want to see me that badly, Paul, come see me. If you are not willing to come see me, what are you trying to prove? "

I have done so. You admittedly have nothing to offer on the subject other than hearsay, which you use to question (apparently) real practitioners. Also, I made one statement asking you to reciprocate what these people have done and suddenly I want to see you badly? No, I think you're the one overreacting. Judging by your internet persona I don't think I want to meet you. Maybe you're just having a bad week. What am I trying to prove? Well I think I just proved what your words were hinting at-mainly that you don't like it when people challenge your statements. You think they're angry just because they don't like what you've said over the internet. And you have as a result revealed your passive-aggressive super powers.

"You do not pay attention, Paul. If you can identify what I am talking about, please feel free to post again ABOUT THE TOPIC. I find it interesting that you are also taking unnecessary offense to my posts. If you spent more time adjusting your knowledge base on historical accounts rather than folklore, you would not have to waste your time by starting frivolous arguements."

Well, I may have gotten off topic, but I definitely addressed what you said. I take offense to people who take offense to what they perceive as other people's taking offense. And I found the majority of your comments annoying. Maybe they were fake, flexible comments though, so I probably shouldn't take them as the real you.

"In terms of what eBay may want to dictate what a Chinese sword is, swords were standardized. And I do not know where you get the idea that "one would not expect an experienced martial artitst to train with just any commoner's sword." Martial artists were not the elite in society, Paul. They were mostly members of the lower class. They would use ANY weapon they could. Where do you get your information? You would do yourself a favor by checking out the sources I already listed in previous posts."

I guess I can't win them all. Oh well. But I do have one comment. As I already remarked, you really like to take the available info you have and accept it as the truth so that you can use it in your passive-aggressive arsenal. I'm not saying that we should discount all historical books, writings, etc. but I am sure that like the rest of us you were not there either, as you love to point out. As they say, your feces stinks too.

"Actually, your statements show that you do have a problem with my arguments. You are also taking the previous gentlemen's arguments as your own. If these gentlemen are unable to address people without starting their own fires, then whose problem is it? Do you know that there are ways of addressing people without coming across as ridiculous as that (or as you are)? I find that one's own advice works best if one represents it, so when you say "stop getting offended evertime someone takes you out of your comfort zone," you need to keep yourself in check. "

Hell yes, I have a problem with your "arguments". I'm glad you're admitting that they are just that-arguments. Not facts. You're taking a step in the right direction. You're not the only person who has called Maoshan and blacktaoist over the internet. I'm not defending them. They can do that themselves. It's you who refuses to accept what they are telling you about themselves, which regardless of their knowldef of weapons, would seem to be a subject they know much more about than you. This is more of an esthetic plea. Stop calling them angry when they object to what you say. It's really annoying. Tell them they were wrong and move on. You will be the first successful internet profiler/psychiatrist I suppose. As you like to say, get a clue. The world will not accept all of your "historical" arguments from outside sources as immediately true.

Lastly, this "By the way, please tell me how people argue "like it's 4:00 tea time" because I have no idea how that happens."

As I have said in this long, long, long, post, you seem to have a problem with people who don't respond the way you think they should. The reference to 4:00 tea was meant to show how your very unexpressive responses reminds me of a very uptight 4:00 tea in England, with everyone very polite, not stepping on anyone's toes. I bet you that these people are discussing current events and have very strong opinions on them but keep them bottled up. You APPEAR to want everyone to be like this, very neat, tidy. Hey this is a discussion forum and people discuss things in different styles. Plus, it's an internet forum, you can say whatever you want and never reveal your true feelings. There's really not much more one can say on this other than lighten up.

Actually, this refers back to your comment about me taking my own advice and keeping myself in check. First, this is very inside my comfort zone. I find debating to be one of the most exhilirating parts of life. One can learn alot about oneself. Second, why the hell should I keep myself in check on an internet forum? Are you going to verbally woop my ass? Just because I said something you didn't agree with in a debate? In fact, I want you to verbally abuse me so I can come back harder (As I hopefully did in this post). Bring it on baby.

Most of this is my opinion, by the way.

Pau

[Rurouni Kenshi]

hmmmm

wouldnt it be better to post some video instead of argument?
well, i would prefer....

[Doug]

Paul,

If you want to consider yourself a good debator, that is fine. However, you get so much mixed up that the main thing going for you is pathos (possibly bathos). I posted long threads because the other gentlemen were mostly addressing the topic. While you have silly comments throughout, the passive-aggressive thing is funny because what you call passive-aggressive is really an attempt to keep things clearer, not generalized. As you ended your last bit, though, you make it clear you want to fight, whereas I am explaining myself as well as addressing what I am being accused of.

You then claimed that because (as you assume from second hand information) it was not a real dao it would not be characteristic of real bagua dao usage, which you have no knowledge of.

If by second hand you mean the video, then everyone makes assumptions from what they see. As you should know, everyone sees something different. Do not try to make it seem like I am the only one making determinations here.

Then when, blacktaoist (in your opinion) took offense to your words, you took offense to his (perceived) taking offense.

Look at the language. If other people have a problem with the gentleman's language, the problem is obvious. A person will change for the culture, not the reverse.

You then described how you make demonstrations look more real, which is funny because most demonstrations are devoid of any "real" intention, they're just that demonstrations, for educational purposes only. Therefore, short of taking a real, sharp edged antique and going on a killing spree, I fail to see how your example is any realer than his.

If you take a demonstartion that way, then it is somewhat empty. That is your choice. But there is a point I am making outside of that personal choice, which you should grasp by now.

You then referred to the weapon while ignoring the most important point, which is the practitioner who makes the weapon.

I do not neglect this. The user makes the usage; but the user also makes the TOY, which is my point. If you think toys are o.k. for demonstrations, more playtime to you.

You then go on to claim using a wushu weapon is an inaccurate way of demostrating the art. Which is an opinion and was not supported by fact. Is a form an accurate way of demonstrating a martial when it does not involve using a technique on someone? Well, maybe if it has a real weapon in it right...? What I really had a problem with, is the fact that you tried to act like your opinion was correct and should serve as a basis for ending the discussion.

When you start taking this the wrong way, you end with that assumption. However, wushu blades are inaccurate; did Qing-era martial artists use wushu stuff to perform or work out with? How about the Ming martial men? It is a modern conception, not a traditional one. THAT IS FACT.

When novel asked you if you knew any ba gua dao, which was being demostrated in the clip, you tried to dissociate the weapon from the user.

Nope.

Now I am all for scepticism but your inconsistency starts to appear here. You go on to say that you talked to another bagua man and that he uses a 4.5 pound dao and finds it difficult to accept the video, as you do. I went to that link you so kindly posted by the way. This man was kind enough to post pictures of his dao and he even gave dimensions. I will not bring him into this. Instead, I will point out that you saw these pictures in a post that was made on an internet forum as were the dimensions. Because it was made "in context" you had no problem believing the post of someone you have never met (at least you have not state otherwise). So where is the scepticism? Do you put it aside when you need something to back up your claim? So sad....

This is a faulty analogy. One person presents much more evidence to support his evidence while another source has evidence that is not nearly as clear. I am surprised that so you three guys are taking so much offense here. Your last sentence does not make sense the way it is stated, but if you are assuming that one should accept something like this as a matter of faith...well, I got three magic beans that will grow into a beanstalk if you give me all of your money. Again, assumptions are being made on your part.

You then try to justify your remarks by saying that you are only commenting on the tool, not the user, as if in this case, the user does not matter in a martial arts demonstration, when in fact he does.

I never said that. You are promoting imagined statements.

You basically claim that because of the poor picture quality and our inability to travel through time we cannot accept the realness of the dao. And yet you would believe the post of another forum member who could have gotten his pictures from anywhere and made up the dimensions. Once again, not knocking him, just your usage of him. You ask for video proof of a real dao in usage when in face the only real way to find out is to meet in person. But just because the bagua man provided some "background" it is more acceptable than what blacktaoist gave you, despite his attempts to clarify things.

Are you sure you were thinking straight when you typed this? Clear evidence versus unclear evidence--hmmmm. Are you sure you are up for debate? Because, based on this, everytihng you say in reference to this other person is in question.

You then claim that because there is no documentation that Li Cun Yi did what he did [...] By all accounts, Cheng ting hua (another ba gua man), was killed during the boxer rebellion by german soldiers. It wasn't written down (as far as I know), but people generally accept that it happened.

I agreed about the history thing. By the way, in reference to Ching Ting Hua--Ba Gua: Hidden Knowledge in the Taoist Internal martial Art by John Bracy and Liu Xing-han. There are otehr references, but that is the one fresh to me at the moment.

You then go on to say that using a fake weapon to demonstrate ba gua is unnappealing to you (irrelevant) and does not represent real weapon usage). Once again, until I see you on TV going on a killing spree, in my opinion your demostration of weapon usage with a "real" weapon is not what you say it is, it's "decontextualized" if you will.

It is not irrelevant; it is the point I have made again and again. Focus on that, not the other stuff. Debate that point with me, not take cheap, amateur shots at me. BUT if you only play with toys, you will only be good at using toys. So while many Chinese martial artists are good with their hands, they are not good with their weapons IF they rely on the wushu stuff. The heavier material is, well, o.k., but it does not capture the "feel" of the real stuff. And it is the "real" stuff that was in use. What I advocate is closer accuracy to weapon use (because not everyone will have an old, traditional sword or weapon). I did not explicitly state this before, but it is implied.

On the whole, your next responses to Maoshan are acceptable, but then you come out with this "Just explain your perspective to the best of your typing ability for an online forum." I could of course be taking this the wrong way, haha, but it seems to me like you veil your insults in clever statements like these. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is why clarity is important in online forums (I have stated that several times already). While you are committing the very errors you are accusing me of, you also make a hasty generalization. I say one should be as clear as possible to avoid nonsense like that here. It is as simple as that.

You then make your knowledgeable claims about swords which I regretfully cannot comment on. Hopefully they are accurate.

Yeah, me too. By the way, do not investigate the sources I provided. I still have three magic beans to sell you, and I am TELLING you that they are real. Go for it!

Now remind me what you did with the information you received from the ba gua man, acccurate or not. I guess in this case he would be the weapon and you the user? Whatever.

You got it right. Whatever.

This is a funny claim considering the face that you asked him to present his weapons for your scrutiny. So I guess he can show, but only you can tell, right?

I never said this. Did you major in hasty generalization in school?

You are an amazing empath. I did not know that one could deduce someone's emotions from something as impersonal as an internet forum. [...] I guess you only need one corroborating story to get what you need right?

What is an "empath"?

Given the uncertainty involved with online language, one should be as clear as possible. If one gives the impression of being offended, one will show it in one's language. Therefore, if the gentlemen in question were not offended or angry, it would show in their language. As stated, if others also have a problem with X and Y, how do you propose to address the situation? From this point on, I will take their comments lightly and casually if that will make you happy. So where does the serious side to language (the part or parts that will coincide with purposeful, academic--yes, that exists here too--progress) take shape? If the way one forms his words in a medium are shaped to be aggressive, resentful, hasty, or generalized, how should everyone else understand him? At some point, language should be taken seriously.

[Doug]

One could take this two ways. They're actually kind of related. The first way is that you want us to see what someone moving with a real dao looks like. The second is that you want us to see what someone who knows HOW to move with a dao moves like.

Well, you have two conclusions, but there are more. For one, it could mean that a picture does not move, so all that you will see is me in a posture with a sword. The question asked was for me to put video of myself online. Currently, I have no video, and I already stated why I am against this.

Notice I said arguably, which means that I believe this is up for debate, which is what we are doing and you seem to be fighting tooth and nail against, judging by the anger you perceive we faceless paragraphs are emitting somehow.

You are a paragraph? No!

Since I know you have a mind (as wella s the other forumites here), I should hope you would want to phrase your words more carefully. Is that too much to ask? That way, these things would likely be reduced by half.

Who's blindly (bagua man) believing (bagua man) who? Oh, but he gave you some background. My bad.

Yes, your bad.

Agreed. But if everyone is an internet warrior then why do you perceive a challenge as anger? It's just a debate, right?

Refer to the language from the gentlemen in question. As stated, I will not take their comments seriously anymore.

You admittedly have nothing to offer on the subject other than hearsay, which you use to question (apparently) real practitioners.

Spoken like a truly non-aggressive, informed statement.

What am I trying to prove? Well I think I just proved what your words were hinting at-mainly that you don't like it when people challenge your statements. You think they're angry just because they don't like what you've said over the internet. And you have as a result revealed your passive-aggressive super powers.

Thanks for the super powers. I never thought I had them, but since you told me I do, I believe you!

When you are more mature, you may look back at this and see that challenge is fine but accusations are not. Disagreement that is coupled with serious assumptions and faulty logic are bad wherever one is. If evidence or clarity is too much to ask for, how else can things be taken seriously here? Or should I just take it for granted that providing more detailed answers is just too much to ask for?

I take offense to people who take offense to what they perceive as other people's taking offense. And I found the majority of your comments annoying. Maybe they were fake, flexible comments though, so I probably shouldn't take them as the real you.

These are non-aggressive comments, right, Paul?

As to the first part, welcome to the real world of miscommunication or otherewise known as online discussion (thus, my point about clarity).

As I already remarked, you really like to take the available info you have and accept it as the truth so that you can use it in your passive-aggressive arsenal.

Did you get your hasty generalization diploma (and minor in passive-aggressive mastery) from a recognized institution?

Taking information--reputable information--and using it to support fact is the work of academics, scholars, and, well, EVERYONE. If you look at your statement, the gentlemen in question are guilty of that as well as you. Your twisting of structure does not work here.

I'm not saying that we should discount all historical books, writings, etc. but I am sure that like the rest of us you were not there either, as you love to point out. As they say, your feces stinks too.

Well, I have held and used the real weapons, so my "feces" goes down the toilet while my study stays in the rightful place of investigation and research. So I am bringing the past into the present. I am not an expert (I never claimed that), but I certainly have a different perspective on the matter at hand. What are you doing to further accuracy in Chinese martial arts?

By the way, why are you smelling my feces, Paul?

You're taking a step in the right direction. You're not the only person who has called Maoshan and blacktaoist over the internet. I'm not defending them. They can do that themselves.

Funny thing, your statement--your objective here IS to defend them.

It's you who refuses to accept what they are telling you about themselves, which regardless of their knowldef of weapons, would seem to be a subject they know much more about than you. This is more of an esthetic plea. Stop calling them angry when they object to what you say. It's really annoying. Tell them they were wrong and move on.

Yeah, you got it. I am the bad guy here, not the one who jumped the Bagua Dao by thinking I was attacking his posting a video clip. But you are not defending them. That much is clear, my good, objective observer.

The world will not accept all of your "historical" arguments from outside sources as immediately true.

Um, the last time I checked, there were more people here, reading information for their own knowledge base, than just you three guys. If you do not want to accept them, argue those points with me, not this expanded, "non-aggressive" argument.

You APPEAR to want everyone to be like this, very neat, tidy. Hey this is a discussion forum and people discuss things in different styles. Plus, it's an internet forum, you can say whatever you want and never reveal your true feelings. There's really not much more one can say on this other than lighten up.

Style is one thing, and negative assumptions, accusations, and implications are another. We are not, for instance, "playing the dozens" here; that would be style. The reactionary language is representative of bad attitudes. Anyway, clarity of language (specifc details and "filled-in blanks" in ideas) is not a bad thing to ask for.

In fact, I want you to verbally abuse me so I can come back harder (As I hopefully did in this post). Bring it on baby.

HA! I will address the topic with you, not the side conversations anymore.

Most of this is my opinion, by the way.

Correction: All of this is your opinion.

Doug M

[Doug]

Originally posted by Rurouni Kenshi
hmmmm

wouldnt it be better to post some video instead of argument?
well, i would prefer....

Mr. Kenshi,

Sorry about this. You are right. I would send this stuff over private message, but I find that things such as this argument are dealt with out in the open on this forum (now don't any of you get mad about that!). I prefer the private message though.

Doug M

[Paul_E]

Himura-san, sorry man, I don't have any clips or pictures but I will post something on topic which I should have done in the first place. If it has already not been suggested then you could check out the emptyflower forum. There are many ba gua practitioners and one (I think either Matthew or G) has an icon with Xie Pei Qi holding a big ass ba gua dao in a seated posture. You can ask him where he got the picture and if he has any further info. Also, jarek syzmanski has a website called china from inside.com which does not have info on the bagua dao as far as I know, but he does alot of research on cima and would be a valuable resource. He also has a message board. You could ask people on both these sites for web references. Lastly, you could check yahoo groups. I know of at least 4 bagua oriented groups that you could join - blactaoist's, maoshan's, chengshi, and bagua. Some of the people in these groups seem to have access to video equipment and may be willing to post some clips. Hope this helps.

Paul