San Da Foundations

[sanjuro_ronin]

Bah !!
You both lack Chi !

[WinterPalm]

I guess I mean to say that I've sparred with people who train differently and have entirely different orientations and methodological basis' that support and drive their training.
Some people do use different concepts in their training that makes their solution unique.

For instance: I could do a hook type of parry ala mantis and follow with a foot hook or takedown, or I could do a smashing type of block ala tiger, and smash into the person with a shoulder into a takedown.

These techniques are not unique to these styles but they are played to a certain degree such that when someone fights, certain elements are produced and they could be mediocre or excellent regardless of background...just making it work.

Some things are easier than others to grasp off the bat but some principles take time to ingrain and make work within a totality of a system...which is why I wanted to ask about the foundations of San Sa/San Shou for people with or without a TCMA background and to what elements do they focus in terms of boxing, thai, etc?

[Oso]

Yeah, I vaguely remember Heinlein wrote something "about roads".... but, that was a rather long time ago. I was reading that stuff in grade school in the 50s(?)... perhaps short story?

In any case, Heinlein wrote mostly SF.....

OTOH... it seems likely that there IS "an analogy" "out there somewhere"........

"The Roads Must Roll" was a short story he wrote pretty early for one of the magazines (probably 'Astounding') but I don't think it was that one...i'm starting to think it might have been in one of the Lazarus stories...****, time for a reread

RAH was a 'SF' writer but he had a background in engineering and physics and many of his ideas became 'real'.

[bakxierboxer]

"The Roads Must Roll" was a short story he wrote pretty early for one of the magazines (probably 'Astounding') but I don't think it was that one...i'm starting to think it might have been in one of the Lazarus stories...****, time for a reread

JEEBERS!
You really ARE a Heinlein afficionado!
That was @1940....
The Lazarus stories.....

RAH was a 'SF' writer but he had a background in engineering and physics and many of his ideas became 'real'.

Also a Navy officer......
Decent SF ideas have have always had a certain (sometimes unsettling)
tendency to "do that".......
I haven't done much reading for some time now......
(re-reading seems even less likely)

[Oso]

right, 2nd short ever written and sold to John Campbell. I started my reread of "The Past Through Tomorrow" last night

...and apparently involved in that thing that went on in Philledelphia but there isn't much hard data on exactly what he and others did...I think Asimov was there as well.

but, yea, I've got a few of his books and even did my HS senior paper on him.

[MightyB]

Decent SF ideas have have always had a certain (sometimes unsettling)
tendency to "do that".......

Well, from a Daoist, Bhuddhist, Schroedenger perspective- reality is nothing more than a collective shared belief. The short of it is that if enough people truly believe something and are diligently persuing that belief- then it becomes true... now where's that darn Santa Clause- beyotch owes me a thing or two-

[Oso]

Well, from a Daoist, Bhuddhist, Schroedenger perspective- reality is nothing more than a collective shared belief. The short of it is that if enough people truly believe something and are diligently persuing that belief- then it becomes true... now where's that darn Santa Clause- beyotch owes me a thing or two-

Heinlein explores that thoroughly in his novel "The Number of the Beast" in which he stipulates that every time a writer creates a 'world' in a book, that world is indeed created in it's own universe. Our hero's then travel around the multi-verses aboard their sedan/spaceship and visit Oz, Barsoom and other fantastical places.

[David Jamieson]

I guess I mean to say that I've sparred with people who train differently and have entirely different orientations and methodological basis' that support and drive their training.
Some people do use different concepts in their training that makes their solution unique.

For instance: I could do a hook type of parry ala mantis and follow with a foot hook or take-down, or I could do a smashing type of block ala tiger, and smash into the person with a shoulder into a take-down.

These techniques are not unique to these styles but they are played to a certain degree such that when someone fights, certain elements are produced and they could be mediocre or excellent regardless of background...just making it work.

Some things are easier than others to grasp off the bat but some principles take time to ingrain and make work within a totality of a system...which is why I wanted to ask about the foundations of San Sa/San Shou for people with or without a TCMA background and to what elements do they focus in terms of boxing, thai, etc?

While the techniques aren't unique they are stylistic differences based on preference.

to oversimplify "ted has a great right hook but jimmy's jab is the rocker"

in cma, each tech is considered a "style" but in many peoples minds, a whole system is a "style". In truth, systems contain a lot of different styles of punching, kicking , throwing and on top of this, a system has attribute development methods etc etc.

when we are taking about sanda for a given system, we can expect to see all that is taught stylistically speaking to be shown in the sanda for that particular system.
For instance, the sanda in sifu wes's school is different from the sanda of sifu cliff's school even though they both teach shaolin kungfu. Now, when it comes to tournament sanda or san shou, then you are bound by the rules of the venue and it is here that you are unable to use the more orthodox and inherently dodgy stuff like throat attacks and so on.

ultimately, from this we can assess that if you are going to fight competitively in a given venue, then you want to train and familiarize yourself with what's allowed and drill the strengths inside of that framework.

Having said all that:

1- develop your physical strength and endurance
2 - develop the necessary attributes to succeed in the chosen venue
3- have the cajones to go out and lose one

Those three points are the important part. the rest is just blah blah blah

[bakxierboxer]

right, 2nd short ever written and sold to John Campbell. I started my reread of "The Past Through Tomorrow" last night

NICE! (if you've got the time/inclination)

...and apparently involved in that thing that went on in Philledelphia but there isn't much hard data on exactly what he and others did...I think Asimov was there as well.

Nothing at all like the 1993 film "Philadelphia"....

but, yea, I've got a few of his books and even did my HS senior paper on him.

I've probably got a few in paperback...
Never did a paper on him, but (in an effort to make an end-run around the "accepted list of authors") asked if I could do a college paper on Henry Miller.... only to be apprised of the fact that Miller was the Prof's "favorite author".... and she'd "be looking forward to it".....

Other "interesting" SF authors: Harry Harrison (Deathworld, Stainless Steel Rat, Bill the Galactic Hero, etc), Gordon R ****son (Childe/Dorsai series), etc.

[bakxierboxer]

Well, from a Daoist, Bhuddhist, Schroedenger perspective- reality is nothing more than a collective shared belief. The short of it is that if enough people truly believe something and are diligently persuing that belief- then it becomes true... now where's that darn Santa Clause- beyotch owes me a thing or two-

You talking about "Schrödinger's cat"?
http://www.answers.com/Schr%C3%B6din...hnology&gwp=16

Scru that "Santa beyotch"..... first prove that the dad-blamed cat
is even in the box in the first place!

[David Jamieson]

in Ch'an, it is enough to simply "be".

as for the cat, there never was a resolution to that idea and it neither proves nor disproves anything about reality.

perception and reality are not the same. reality is a construct of the mind, perception is how that construct is applied.

The illusion is so strong and of a greater size than our own ability to comprehend. It extends to the ends of the universe if there are an ends. In the form we exist in, it is not possible to comprehend because we do not have the sense to perceive those aspects that are key to the whole construct.

so, simply being is the way to be.

that and making fun of people on the internet.

[bakxierboxer]

in Ch'an, it is enough to simply "be".

So long as you don't make a big deal out of it.

as for the cat, there never was a resolution to that idea and it neither proves nor disproves anything about reality.

Typically, the cat, being a cat.... could care less..... and may have the better of us all....... "Ch'an-ically speaking".

perception and reality are not the same. reality is a construct of the mind, perception is how that construct is applied.

That sounds a bit backwards.... the mind "constructs" its version of reality based on the perceptions supplied by our genetically endowed equippage.
This "reality" is, naturally (or not) seen thru a prism (darkly or not) according to whatever predilections the viewer has acquired in the course of their existence.

The illusion is so strong and of a greater size than our own ability to comprehend.

Or willingness.

It extends to the ends of the universe if there are an ends. In the form we exist in, it is not possible to comprehend because we do not have the sense to perceive those aspects that are key to the whole construct.

Comprehension does not necessarily mean understanding.
In some respects, simple "inclusion"/"acceptance" is "enough".

so, simply being is the way to be.

Kind of "take it as it comes"?

that and making fun of people on the internet.

Sometimes incomprehensible.

[SanShou Guru]

We train our fighters how they are built to fight. We have been training people in San Shou and Sanda longer then any other school in the US (1990-present) and the one constant is everyone is good at different things. If you restrict yourself to a style that does not match your skill set then you are wasting your time and will be fodder for the more balanced fighters.

As far as training or fighting in very traditional forms i.e. fight in a mantis stance, drunken style, eagle or some such and you will get crushed by a freestyle full time fighter. Trust me. Our students have had more than 300 fights and have never, ever lost to a traditional stylist. That being said Hsing-I basics came in very handy in developing my route but I do not punch in the Hsing-I traditional form. Not practical against any well trained fighter.

[Lucas]

Our students have had more than 300 fights and have never, ever lost to a traditional stylist.

Thats interesting.

I would like to see the comparison by other fighters/coaches that follow this same method.

Ross, this is the same for you, no?

[diego]

Well, from a Daoist, Bhuddhist, Schroedenger perspective- reality is nothing more than a collective shared belief. The short of it is that if enough people truly believe something and are diligently persuing that belief- then it becomes true... now where's that darn Santa Clause- beyotch owes me a thing or two-

a few months ago I was pondering how monkey became man and copied the birds and then took it to that next level of leaving the planet which no species does...

I started getting the idea that maybe it's self fullfilled prophecy or some thing...Man for a long time has had this idea of a greater being out side of him and he has always yearned to move freely like the birds...every culture of man had these ideas...after thousands of years of these ideas, Man achieves the magic behind those ideas of flight and touching heavan.

either it's like you say or aliens taught Man to fly...it's just too much of a weird fluke