Tai chi competitions and sparring

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Now TaiChiBob will chime in he can beat anybody and he does great applications ... down in Florida or wherever.

Neil: Do us both a favor and don't assume to speak for me.. i have never, and never will, claim i can beat anybody. but, yes, we do train extensively in applications and with mixed styles AND with Taiji principles.. I understand your complaint, but.. ride a different horse, man.. it's like the trendy thing to do, dis the Taiji guys.. C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

[neilhytholt]

Greetings..


Neil: Do us both a favor and don't assume to speak for me.. i have never, and never will, claim i can beat anybody. but, yes, we do train extensively in applications and with mixed styles AND with Taiji principles.. I understand your complaint, but.. ride a different horse, man.. it's like the trendy thing to do, dis the Taiji guys.. C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

I guess I just figure if I complain often enough and loudly enough that something will start being done about it out of sheer embarassment.

But I'm not going to go down South, or to Canada or to Ohio or wherever.

[neilhytholt]

Also, maybe somebody can explain why Seattle doesn't have any decent apps oriented taiji.

After checking out the local places it's all older guys doing who knows what ... definitely not MMA taiji.

You know, I think I've just been looking for the wrong thing. Of course, CMA especially taiji isn't going to be heavy apps oriented, especially around Seattle. The places around here that are apps based are MMA.

[Water-quan]

Don't even get me started on watered down Chinese communist non martial arts.

Well, I have had my fiar share to say on talou as well... thing is, one first has to sit down and say "what am I actually after in martial arts?" Problem there is that in every endevour, the driving force - the greatest ally, and also the greatest hold up is ego! Every ego needs... so a lot of the stuff in CMA that is about ego, and getting past ego, in my view, is increadibly wise, but that virtue has been corrupted in to a vice! When I think about it I feel sick for days on end!

Ego wants many things. Ego WANTS to feel that it is special. Ego WANTS martial arts as a status, to fill some percieved void. More the people want it for that reason, the more they grab on to surface - like lineage, form, respect-blindness - all the surface stuff... and the reason is that at that stage what they "want" is the ego-need - status - not real insight in to quan. I was exactly the same. Slowly, over the years, I realised, and then one day at a meal with other martial artists I understood - and I didn't actually "want" martial arts at all - and I realised how much I had "wanted" it - rather than wanted to understand it.

That being by the by, some people's objective is forms. I say good for them if they do wushu! I find it very beautiful. But whent hey say "this is martial arts" well, I feel sick for days on end! Like Wang XIang ZHai said - surface form, cheating the people. But he meant all forms, not just modern ones.

In terms of forms, modern wushu blows away all other forms as far as I am concerned. And if that is people's aim - and I can understand it, just as I can understand wanting to do free running or break dancing - then all power to them! What makes me want to lie down with a towel on my head is when they lecture me about martial arts, as if what they do makes them expert! Very funny!

[Water-quan]

PS, meant ot say that the getting over the ego thing in CMA is extremely profoundly wise in my view - but it's been corrupted in to false humility, slavish slavery, and using it as an excuse never to actually box! What it really is all about, in my view, is profound Taoist understanding that being aware of, and getting past, our ego needs is the gateway to deep understanding. Nothign about that syas that when you get that understanding you won't fight.... It might mean that you don't feel any need to - no ego issues bothering you in to it - but it doesn't meant htta you make a shameful excuse and cower!

[Water-quan]

Greetings..


C'mon down to Nick's tournament on Memorial Day weekend, that CMA tournament will have full-contact MMA events, arm-bars, chokes, body slams.. CMA gets the message, now we're doing something about it..

Be well..

I like the sound of that, taichi Bob!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Water-quan,

There is an idea that agression is wrong - people say, even in a fight you should be emotionless. I say that's all part of a nonsense thing. Agression is good and useful - that's why we have it. Peaceability and wisdom seem to have been corrupted to extend to an excuse, excusing CMA from actually being able to do what it is intended.

One can be aggressive without being emotional. The emotion of aggression can lead to disastrous consequences. Emotional aggression leads to actions that cause thoughtless mistakes, wastes energy and inflicts excessive damage. One may win the battle, but lose the war. In today’s world too much force lands one in jail and sued. The platitude, “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six!”, is foolishness. I would rather NOT be judged by 12 and NOT be carried by 6. A wise and judicious use of force absent of the emotion of aggression is of greater advantage. Actions are then guided by reason and not by feelings. The more equanimity in our emotions the less obstruction to our perception and the greater our ability to adapt as the situation requires.

In other words, prevailing is good, but that kind of says that prevailing is better than boxing theory and knowledge in a way. I, personally, am interestedin martial arts - in the actual fight and the science of fighting. I am, of course, interested in Sun Tzu and Taoism, I just see Taoism as a process of unfolding natural knowledge - and we can unfold it via martial arts, painting, forms - anything. All paths lead no where.

Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc. Winning our purpose is generally more easily accomplished without physical altercation. This is the teaching of Sun-tzu. With physical altercation comes a cost and many times the cost is greater than the benefit. If we perform actions based upon our feelings (aggression) rather than reason we are more likely to make erroneous decisions that work against us rather than benefit us. And this is NOT prevailing. Prevailing means not just winning the altercation, but ending up in a better position than we were to begin with or were likely to end up with!

With competitive fighting winning the fight is our purpose. With self-defense eliminating the threat while sustaining as little damage as possible and inflicting as little damage as possible is our purpose. In self-defense, fighting with its attending methods and strategies is merely a means to an end. That end being our safety and perhaps the safety of others. It is not always necessary to fight in this circumstance and in many cases, if not most cases, it is detrimental to fight. That is, the negative consequences frequently outweigh the benefits.

While competitive fighting can be fun, its purpose is to provide us with a result which is to win in personal combat with another person. This goal may be gained in a number of ways. Personal fitness and acquisition of skills is important, but so are strategy and tactics. If our purpose is to fight competitively our training is different than if our purpose is fitness or self-defense. In the modern world the time and effort spent training the body for self-defense purposes, is better spent learning to shoot a gun, use pepper spray, perceive danger, develop maturity, and learn effective social skills.

Somewhere on this board recently (in the main forum I think) someone provided a clip showing two men in a brief altercation. As they passed each other on a sidewalk one bumped the other. When the “bumpee” confronted the “bumper”, he struck him. (slapped his face or some such action.) The “bumper” pulled out a gun and emptied it into the “bumpee”! The end result was one man dead and the other in jail for life thanks to the emotion of aggression and a lot of immaturity. No amount of MA training would have saved the “bumpee”. On the other hand, some maturity and strategy and tactics would have been of benefit. The “bumpee” was expecting a duel; the “bumper” used a hammer to kill a bug. The “bumpee” paid the price for his foolish aggression. What is important is to prevail. Sometimes that means eating your pride and walking away. In REAL life this event is always a possibility. MA training is not necessary, nor does it necessarily train one for real life circumstances like this, in fact, it could just as easily be detrimental. One who is overly confident in his abilities is more likely to entertain foolish thoughts of fighting rather than avoiding any confrontation.

We should recognise the "CMA people don't fight" claim for what it largely is - an excuse. And we should ask, what would happen if they did fight.

I guess it depends upon ones purpose and needs. No one is faster than a bullet! In the above example a MMA would not have fared any better and would not have been any better prepared for the circumstance. This is because the shooter increased the stakes of the altercation before the victim had time to respond effectively. The victim expected a mano-a-mano duel and this is my point! The error many MM fall into is thinking in terms of a duel mano-a-mano in a fair and somewhat even fight! This is foolishness! While the victim was thinking in terms of a duel the shooter was thinking in terms of prevailing. The shooter did prevail in the battle, but he lost the war and now he is spending the rest of his life in prison. But the other man is dead. He lost the duel (the battle) AND the war. This is because he naively thought he was fighting a duel. REAL criminals don’t fight duels. They fight to win and that does not require hours and years of MM training, only diabolic strategy and tactics and in this case not even much shooting ability.

Well, fair enough on the last point, but on the first, that's a strategy for a different objective. If the objective is to avoid trouble, or put off enemies, then that's a strategy for that. If your strategy is, say, to be a good Western boxer, then it simply doesn't apply except in terms of psychological tactics. You have to train for what you want to learn.

Yes and what you want to learn has a purpose for you. What is important is not to confuse the ability to grow a flower with being a horticulturist. Being a MMA, or a CMA, or a boxer, or a fencer does not necessarily prepare one for a REAL WORLD altercation. Being a pankration athlete does not make one a warrior and being a warrior does not make one a pankration athlete.

My argument is that many of those who profess the superiority of MMA fall into the same errors they claim for CMA. They are not any more prepared for REAL life than they claim CMA’s are! They worry too much about the shortcomings of others rather than focusing on their own shortcomings. It is more advantageous to peer into our own weaknesses and to attempt to understand the truth of REAL LIFE altercation with REAL criminals than point out the flaws of others to no useful purpose. It is foolishness to point out the blindness of others when we do not perceive our own blindness.

I have a friend who is a world class tactical/combat shooter. Physically I can kick his a$$ in a second or two, but he wouldn't be foolish enough to challenge me according to my strength. He would challenging me according to his strength and apply it towards my weakness.

Therefore, we must accept that all feelings/beliefs we have of our own competence can only apply within the realm of our expertise. Outside our own expertise we can be defeated and/or humiliated just as easily as anyone else.

Well, could be - but tat assumes that boxing theory is about the surface - the techniques... what about that which authors the techniques, the intent, and the essence?

I think the above example of the shooting demonstrates my point effectively. Knowledge of the essence of boxing, its strategy and tactics does not prepare one for a gunfight. While the experienced boxer may feel confident in a duel, he is NOT prepared for the REAL world. His over confidence could be his undoing just as the “bumpee’s” over confidence was his undoing. If I expected an altercation with someone who I knew to be skilled in a particular method I would ensure I had an equalizer. I would fight to prevail, not to be fair. That means I would use devious and diabolical means to prevail, because prevailing is what is important; NOT winning within any preconceived set of rules. Rules are for competitions not the REAL world.

In the real world it is prevailing that matters. How we define prevailing depends upon the circumstance. In short, if I am alive, unharmed, and have suffered no legal or financial consequences, I have prevailed. If I am in jail rather than dead, I have prevailed. If I am in jail or have been sued needlessly due to my reckless actions, then I have not prevailed.

[spiralstair]

If I am 80 years old, with fluid, powerful movement derived from practicing T'ai Chi form, I have prevailed.

If I am 60 years old, with arthritic hands and shoulders from 'proving' my martial abilities over and over as a younger man, have I prevailed?

If I am 90 years old, with enough 'jing' to still respond like a man, cultivated by the 'non-martial' aspects of my T'ai Chi practice, I have prevailed.

If I am 70 years old, sitting down looking at my YouTube scrapbook of all my great real life applications, sitting down because my back doesn't really work so well standing, have I prevailed?

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.
Ali, "The Greatest", has he prevailed?

[Water-quan]

If I am 80 years old, with fluid, powerful movement derived from practicing T'ai Chi form, I have prevailed.

If I am 60 years old, with arthritic hands and shoulders from 'proving' my martial abilities over and over as a younger man, have I prevailed?

If I am 90 years old, with enough 'jing' to still respond like a man, cultivated by the 'non-martial' aspects of my T'ai Chi practice, I have prevailed.

If I am 70 years old, sitting down looking at my YouTube scrapbook of all my great real life applications, sitting down because my back doesn't really work so well standing, have I prevailed?

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.
Ali, "The Greatest", has he prevailed?

Well, I feel ill after reading that. Let the fakers go away and pretend to be great boxers with their good health.

[Knifefighter]

Show me all the happy, healthy 'old' fighters.

Gene Lebell, training hard and kicking @$$ for 50+ years and still going strong in his late 70's.

Helio Gracie, still giving the young guys fits on the mats at 86.

Dan Inostanto- 6 days per week of training and sparring, receiving his BJJ blackbelt at age 70.

[Water-quan]

Hi Water-quan,

One can be aggressive without being emotional. The emotion of aggression can lead to disastrous consequences. Emotional aggression leads to actions that cause thoughtless mistakes, wastes energy and inflicts excessive damage. One may win the battle, but lose the war. In today’s world too much force lands one in jail and sued. The platitude, “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six!”, is foolishness. I would rather NOT be judged by 12 and NOT be carried by 6. A wise and judicious use of force absent of the emotion of aggression is of greater advantage. Actions are then guided by reason and not by feelings. The more equanimity in our emotions the less obstruction to our perception and the greater our ability to adapt as the situation requires.

Well, that is a noble idea, i suppose, but doesn't bear much relation to reality. Often, when people haven't had a fight, they assume that when it comes to an actual fight that nature will take its course and they will explode with natural agression.... but it often doesn't happen like that, and it is dangerous that people don't know. Fear can totally supress one's agression - it's a natural ape response to being chastised, due to evoloutionary reasons of ape trouping behaviour.

Agression that makes one totally lose control is one thing - but a certain ampunt of agression is very good - it overcomes fear, and makes a person hard to handle.

Agression is good! A fighter needs it, and in, say, Western boxing, everyone can tell the boxer who hasn't got it.

Point being that 1, agression is a necessary means of overcoming fear, and two, the virtue of controlled, channelled agression is corrupted by people in to meaning that CMA is nothing to do with fighting because fighting is too agressive.

Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc.

Well then that's your thing. And all power to you for it. What you have to consider is if it is necessary for you to tell other people what their primary goal should be?? My primary goal is boxing theory, not projecting the illusion of being great so that no one will fight with me.

All paths lead no where - we are both interested in different things... yours is for you, mine's for me. But those who aren'tinterested in boxing theory aren't really part of the debate, and trying be part of the debate only holds back those who are.

Winning our purpose is generally more easily accomplished without physical altercation. This is the teaching of Sun-tzu.

Sun Tzu fought wars - real wars, where people died.

With physical altercation comes a cost and many times the cost is greater than the benefit.

Hmmm.. but "benefit" here means only what you consider to be benefit, Scott. You can't judge for me what is to my benefit. See, CMA has these huge barriers to overcome - like people actively working to make it less effective for its primary purpose of being a martial art - actively putting down the drive to make it an effective martial art again. I'm sorry, but I see what you say not as wrong, but in the wrong place... Your thing is projecting strength to avoid trouble. I don't want to project anything - I just want to promote genuine boxing theory that is actually useable.

[Water-quan]

If we perform actions based upon our feelings (aggression) rather than reason we are more likely to make erroneous decisions that work against us rather than benefit us. And this is NOT prevailing. Prevailing means not just winning the altercation, but ending up in a better position than we were to begin with or were likely to end up with!

Well, that's so much words in my view, but not much more. Agression has many layers to it. many a bullied child turns the tables when he finds his agression. Prevailing "means" one thing for you and another for me. Only ego makes us impose our own aims on to others.

The virtue of controlled agression has been distorted in to the vice of cowardice.

With competitive fighting winning the fight is our purpose. With self-defense eliminating the threat while sustaining as little damage as possible and inflicting as little damage as possible is our purpose. In self-defense, fighting with its attending methods and strategies is merely a means to an end. That end being our safety and perhaps the safety of others. It is not always necessary to fight in this circumstance and in many cases, if not most cases, it is detrimental to fight. That is, the negative consequences frequently outweigh the benefits.

Well, self defence has many aspects, and in that case, your words on prevailing come in to play. But "quan" has a deeper core, and the true search for quan is a search for Tao - opening doorways, learning overcoming ego barriers, flase perceptions, delving to the heart of something - self defence is only a side issue compared to that.

But again, that side issue should not be allowed to overwhelm in to a vice that strangles the beautiful quest to unfold personal insight and expression of the nature of quan.

While competitive fighting can be fun, its purpose is to provide us with a result which is to win in personal combat with another person. This goal may be gained in a number of ways. Personal fitness and acquisition of skills is important, but so are strategy and tactics. If our purpose is to fight competitively our training is different than if our purpose is fitness or self-defense. In the modern world the time and effort spent training the body for self-defense purposes, is better spent learning to shoot a gun, use pepper spray, perceive danger, develop maturity, and learn effective social skills.

Well, go do that then. You do that and don't bother one jot about others with different objectives. I don't.

Somewhere on this board recently (in the main forum I think) someone provided a clip showing two men in a brief altercation. As they passed each other on a sidewalk one bumped the other. When the “bumpee” confronted the “bumper”, he struck him. (slapped his face or some such action.) The “bumper” pulled out a gun and emptied it into the “bumpee”! The end result was one man dead and the other in jail for life thanks to the emotion of aggression and a lot of immaturity.

Well, there arw a million ways to make people feel bad about being who they are - human beings - all thenew age nonsense we have to put up with makes me feel ill. Agression is a part of us, and as such it has its place and deserves some honour for what it contributes to the whole.

Key to what you say is immaturity. Immaturity makes all of our emotions difficult to use, with difficult results. With maturity comes the skill to use all of our gifts - including agression, which is one of our most valuable attributes.

No amount of MA training would have saved the “bumpee”. On the other hand, some maturity and strategy and tactics would have been of benefit. The “bumpee” was expecting a duel; the “bumper” used a hammer to kill a bug. The “bumpee” paid the price for his foolish aggression. What is important is to prevail. Sometimes that means eating your pride and walking away. In REAL life this event is always a possibility. MA training is not necessary, nor does it necessarily train one for real life circumstances like this, in fact, it could just as easily be detrimental. One who is overly confident in his abilities is more likely to entertain foolish thoughts of fighting rather than avoiding any confrontation.

Well, one can just as easily say that if someone dropped a nuclear weapon on the shooter then having a gun wouldn't avail them much either.

Yes and what you want to learn has a purpose for you. What is important is not to confuse the ability to grow a flower with being a horticulturist. Being a MMA, or a CMA, or a boxer, or a fencer does not necessarily prepare one for a REAL WORLD altercation. Being a pankration athlete does not make one a warrior and being a warrior does not make one a pankration athlete.

Well, I am a warrior, so I don't care about those others.

My argument is that many of those who profess the superiority of MMA fall into the same errors they claim for CMA. They are not any more prepared for REAL life than they claim CMA’s are! They worry too much about the shortcomings of others rather than focusing on their own shortcomings.

Well, that may be true, but seeing shortcomings is useful - but so is seeing benefits. MMA is not superior. As for REAL life - MMA int he ring is real - trainign on your own is real... real is whatever you are doing. Not every fight involves a gun, and if you are going to have knowledge, best to have the best, most useful knowledge.

It is more advantageous to peer into our own weaknesses and to attempt to understand the truth of REAL LIFE altercation with REAL criminals than point out the flaws of others to no useful purpose. It is foolishness to point out the blindness of others when we do not perceive our own blindness.

Well, Scott, I have heard words like that before, but there's no way to say it without it applying to you as well - here you are, pointing out the deficencies in others!

Scott, it is ten times harder to be honest abpout ourselves than about others - and one of the ways we learn to be honest with ourselves is by practicing critical thinking "against" others, and then, if we have the courage and insight, applying it to ourselves. That's not an easy process - so, I would say let people follow the path of that asit unfolds for them - it's not an easy thing to do.

Asessing the merits or lack thereof of various styles is no great sin, Scott - you're over-reacting in my view. Critical assessment is good - the world could do with more of it, on every level.

I think the above example of the shooting demonstrates my point effectively. Knowledge of the essence of boxing, its strategy and tactics does not prepare one for a gunfight. While the experienced boxer may feel confident in a duel, he is NOT prepared for the REAL world. His over confidence could be his undoing just as the “bumpee’s” over confidence was his undoing. If I expected an altercation with someone who I knew to be skilled in a particular method I would ensure I had an equalizer. I would fight to prevail, not to be fair. That means I would use devious and diabolical means to prevail, because prevailing is what is important; NOT winning within any preconceived set of rules. Rules are for competitions not the REAL world.

Well, winning is irrelevent in the case of searching for knowledge. I have had many competitions with others where they have taught me something by getting me with a technique.

Other than that, I'm afraid people don't usually give you a warning that they will attack you, giving you a chance to get an equiliser ready. If you are saying that what matters to you is to win, so if you were fighting a boxer int he training hall you would iron bar him over the head because that is more "real" then we are in to very different things.

In the real world it is prevailing that matters. How we define prevailing depends upon the circumstance. In short, if I am alive, unharmed, and have suffered no legal or financial consequences, I have prevailed. If I am in jail rather than dead, I have prevailed. If I am in jail or have been sued needlessly due to my reckless actions, then I have not prevailed.

Well, there's more to life than beating people up.

[Scott R. Brown]

Gene Lebell, training hard and kicking @$$ for 50+ years and still going strong in his late 70's.

Helio Gracie, still giving the young guys fits on the mats at 86.

Dan Inostanto- 6 days per week of training and sparring, receiving his BJJ blackbelt at age 70.

3 examples out of thousands does not demonstrate a trend towards a healthy later life.

If you want a good example of health into his aged years Jack LaLanne would be a better example and he never fought anyone!

[Water-quan]

People have different reasons for training. Pretending to myselfto be a great boxer whilst never actually putting on the gloves ? - I'd rather die at 20 than live to a hundred in that case.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Water-quan,

Well, that is a noble idea, i suppose, but doesn't bear much relation to reality. Often, when people haven't had a fight, they assume that when it comes to an actual fight that nature will take its course and they will explode with natural agression.... but it often doesn't happen like that, and it is dangerous that people don't know. Fear can totally supress one's agression - it's a natural ape response to being chastised, due to evoloutionary reasons of ape trouping behaviour.

Agression that makes one totally lose control is one thing - but a certain ampunt of agression is very good - it overcomes fear, and makes a person hard to handle.

Agression is good! A fighter needs it, and in, say, Western boxing, everyone can tell the boxer who hasn't got it.

Point being that 1, agression is a necessary means of overcoming fear, and two, the virtue of controlled, channelled agression is corrupted by people in to meaning that CMA is nothing to do with fighting because fighting is too agressive.

If you mean by aggression “focused intention” then I agree with you. However, you don’t seem to have much knowledge regarding the masters of Japanese combat during the Shogunate. I would refer you to the manuals written by Musashi, Yagyu and Takuan in particular. Emotional detachment is considered essential for mastery. If one has a personal emotional attachment to winning or losing they fragment their mind/intention and become subject to fatal errors. Winning is to be an objective goal not beclouded by emotion attachment. The inclusion of visible aggressive emotion is merely a mask used to intimidate the adversary, but does not affect ones own internal equanimity. If your purpose is mastery of martial activities I recommend in-depth research on verified masters and the application of their teaching into your own training. These are the lessons of those who were verifiable masters who fought in life and death combat and were not merely MA athletes.

On the other hand, uncontrollable aggression/fear is a great compensation for lack of skill. It can turn a mediocre fighter into a dangerous adversary for even the most skilled of fighters. However, this is not the optimal condition to find oneself in when one needs to defend their self or others.

Yes! I am saying that prevailing/winning our purpose is more important than boxing theory, etc.

Well then that's your thing. And all power to you for it. What you have to consider is if it is necessary for you to tell other people what their primary goal should be?? My primary goal is boxing theory, not projecting the illusion of being great so that no one will fight with me.

All paths lead no where - we are both interested in different things... yours is for you, mine's for me. But those who aren'tinterested in boxing theory aren't really part of the debate, and trying be part of the debate only holds back those who are.

You have misunderstood my comment and taken it out of context. It is not my intention to presume what your goals should be for you. I have drawn a distinction between the goals of a professional athlete and REAL life and death altercations. The lessons of boxing and MA do not directly apply to the REAL world where diabolical means are used to prevail. The criticisms you apply to CMA also apply to professional athletes who believe they are prepared for REAL world encounters with REAL criminals. Your intention to learn and apply boxing principles is laudable; it does not prepare you for REAL life encounters (other than the simplistic duels that many consider to be the REAL world) anymore than the CMA you feel the need to criticize. REAL criminals use diabolical and unexpected tactics in order to prevail. They do not care about the consequences to themselves.

Sun Tzu fought wars - real wars, where people died.

I am talking about REAL fights where people die as in the shooting circumstance I mentioned in my previous post! Being a good boxer, MA, or professional MA does not ensure one will survive a REAL encounter. It is only a benefit when one engages in a duel, not a REAL encounter with a REAL bad guy! REAL bad guys won’t meet you on fair mano-a-mano terms. Their purpose is to prevail over you not to look good or try out their boxing or MA skills.

Hmmm.. but "benefit" here means only what you consider to be benefit, Scott. You can't judge for me what is to my benefit. See, CMA has these huge barriers to overcome - like people actively working to make it less effective for its primary purpose of being a martial art - actively putting down the drive to make it an effective martial art again. I'm sorry, but I see what you say not as wrong, but in the wrong place... Your thing is projecting strength to avoid trouble. I don't want to project anything - I just want to promote genuine boxing theory that is actually useable.

No, I did not and do not presume to determine what may be of personal benefit for anyone. I am speaking about survival in REAL world encounters. In these circumstances our purpose is to survive with as few negative effects as possible; negative effects, for civilized people, includes but is not limited to: physical injury, financial loss and social and legal consequences. This does not commonly apply to socio-paths and these are the ones that seek to prevail no matter what the consequence.

Projecting strength is not always an optimal tactic; sometimes projecting harmlessness is more prudent. Knowing when, where and how to project presence is as valuable a skill as any other in REAL world encounters as well as within the professional arena. Posturing prior to fights both in the REAL world and in the professional area is a psychological tactic for the purpose of attacking the confidence of ones opponent. If you are not interested in learning to project your presence and intent, whether for aggression or harmlessness, then you are limiting your effectiveness.

As an aside, when engaging in a professional fight one presumably wants to avoid needless injury and this is a benefit as well.

Well, that's so much words in my view, but not much more. Agression has many layers to it. many a bullied child turns the tables when he finds his agression. Prevailing "means" one thing for you and another for me. Only ego makes us impose our own aims on to others.

The virtue of controlled agression has been distorted in to the vice of cowardice.

Once again you misunderstand the point. If you have no insight into the workings of your own mind and possess a limited understanding of psychology then you cannot understand the point.

Emotions cloud judgment. It is that simple. When one reacts emotionally to any circumstance their mind is beclouded and subject to making errors in judgment. This is a fact of life. An objective emotional state provides the benefit of clearer perception. Clear perception provides for better decision making allowing one to choose the optimal response to a threat. This is a fact of life and not an opinion that I am forcing on you. If you do not understand this about yourself and human psychology you will find it advantageous, regarding your personal goals, to educate yourself and apply this information in order to optimize the opportunity for you to achieve your goals.

I would say that it is your ego that is interfering with your understanding. I have not imposed an aim here. I am providing information that is backed up by real world events, examples, and people to demonstrate the validity of my points. These are not merely my opinions they are the opinions and teachings of well established MA masters and masters of Tao with real life experiences, not the ramblings of MA athletes.

Well, self defence has many aspects, and in that case, your words on prevailing come in to play. But "quan" has a deeper core, and the true search for quan is a search for Tao - opening doorways, learning overcoming ego barriers, flase perceptions, delving to the heart of something - self defence is only a side issue compared to that.

But again, that side issue should not be allowed to overwhelm in to a vice that strangles the beautiful quest to unfold personal insight and expression of the nature of quan.

Now it appears that you are imposing your definition of the “deeper core of quan” on others. There is no requirement for the study of quan to include a “search for Tao”. However, I do believe, and it has been demonstrated historically, that any activity may facilitate an understanding the principles of Tao. Your points here are the same ones I have been making. According to your comments it appears your understanding is still rudimentary on these matters however. Your time would be better spent watching over your own ego rather than becoming preoccupied with your perception of the ego of others.

I would refer you to the Zen master Shoju, who defeated numerous sword masters all attacking him at once. Shoju had no MA training. His skill was a clear unobstructed perception of Tao. He projected neither aggression nor vulnerability. His manner was devoid of emotional attachment which allowed him to respond spontaneously and instantaneously to attacks. Not one swordsman touched him while he rapped each one on the head with his fan. Soju was a teacher of Hakuin a very well-known Japanese Zen master himself who had a similar encounter as well.