Fighitng in the "old days"

[MightyB]

Here's a question.

Are the TCMA failings of the 20's and the 50's even relevant now?
Why are the same examples used over and over again?

Why are the same tactics and strategies used to diminish one line of martial arts over another?

Old man Wu and Chan Hak Fu were not fighters. That's plain to see.

So, does any of that apply to the here and now of your training? Most everyone here has seen boxing, wrestling, mma in some format or another.

If you know all these things are out there, why on earth would you continue doing Kung Fu if it was anything Like what Dave here says it is?

Do you not spar in your gwoon? Do you not do drills? Do you not use resistence training and do strength and stamina development?

Your school or club is legitimize as a fighting school if it consistently fronts fighters into venues. That's a simple thing to figure out and if you want that, you can fin places to go get that with ever more ease nowadays.

Now, what if you are interested in Ch'an? What if you are interested in teh sets and forms and qigongs? Then what does all the fighting matter to you?

If you are an older practictioner, I'm gonna say that I doubt you fight with any seriousness or intensity and probably do some sparring for the heck of it now and then, but likely don't go hard and full blast, because that's kind of dumb to do without a goal to do it for.

So what then? Why do people think Kung fu is originally about fighting? It's not.
I think some people want to make it that so they can continue to take shots at all teh esoteric stuff that goes on the side or so they can poke fun at the dramatic performance wu shu clubs (which by the way, most "fighters" cannot do what they do an vice versa)

Kung Fu is holistic development and cultivation of a human being. If you think it's juts martial art, then your understanding is limited at best from what I understand of it and that's literally dozen of years, several teachers, volumes of books and a lot of hitting an being hit. Probably a similar experience to many guys here.

I just don't go for this limited understanding pigeon holing of kung fu into some kind of glorified kickboxing status.

Kung Fu is for personal development on a lot fo other levels beyond physicality. If not, WTF are you doing meditating, go run some track. Put that sword down! What are you doing? You don't need that sword to fight etc etc etc.

Blanketing all kung fu under the viewpoint that "it's supposed to be for fighting" is limiting and limited in scope and that isn't what Kung Fu IS.

Kung fu (and all martial arts) is our golf. It's no different than a bunch of middle aged men playing softball. It doesn't have to mean anything and it doesn't mean anything. It's our way of hanging out. It's LARPING.

[David Jamieson]

Kung fu (and all martial arts) is our golf. It's no different than a bunch of middle aged men playing softball. It doesn't have to mean anything and it doesn't mean anything. It's our way of hanging out. It's LARPING.

Yes, here in this forum it is indeed that.

But I bet my Kung Fu practice looks different than yours and the next guys and vice versa and so on.

But on the other hand, in boxing club, one to the next the training is really really similar if not outright the same with slight modifications. This is because boxing is a standardized sport and that can be done.


Kung Fu is NOT sport and covers material that goes form the realm of creative anachronism to here and now ways to hurt someone to how to heal yourself through personal physical therapy etc etc.

If we were all boxers, would this be larping too?

I don't give something more validity because it is standardized. I just acknowledge that it is standardized.

[MightyB]

If we were all boxers, would this be larping too?

If it's for recreation, then yes - it's larping. Seriously, we're never going to have to use this stuff, so it is recreation. Even my Judo is just larping and I compete with that, but I t'ain't ever going to be a Jimmy Pedro or Ronda Rousey, so it's just me Larping away with a bunch of friends playing a game of "what if's".

This isn't a bad thing - it's liberating. Play how you want to play and f*ck everybody else thinks.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that if you train a MA how it was intended there MAY be a degree of LARP'ing in the the sense that you are indeed "playing a role".
When I did kenjutsu and did demos we would dress in traditional Japanese samurai attire and I always felt silly of course, but it was a cultural thing.
I never wear TMA clothing when I work out, why?
I think that if you play at doing MA instead of TRAINING MA, then you are seriously LARP'ing.

[David Jamieson]

If it's for recreation, then yes - it's larping. Seriously, we're never going to have to use this stuff, so it is recreation. Even my Judo is just larping and I compete with that, but I t'ain't ever going to be a Jimmy Pedro or Ronda Rousey, so it's just me Larping away with a bunch of friends playing a game of "what if's".

This isn't a bad thing - it's liberating. Play how you want to play and f*ck everybody else thinks.

I knocked a guy out and broke his arm for attempting to rape a friend of mine.
Does that count as using your art justifiably?


But yeah, seminars, sessions, meet ups, group touch and feel is all our kind of larping.

[MightyB]

But yeah, seminars, sessions, meet ups, group touch and feel is all our kind of larping.

yup... exactly. LARPING. Bring on the wenches!

[MightyB]

I knocked a guy out and broke his arm for attempting to rape a friend of mine.
Does that count as using your art justifiably?

The moves are still there if you look for them... but it really doesn't matter that much. In this same regard - someone pulling off a wicked aerial while flinging around a bit of tin foil is still doing kung fu. Someone standing pigeon toed and playing a game of paper rock scissors slap with a bud is still doing kung fu. Lion dancing is kung fu. Thinking deep thoughts about how you're massively going to be able to kick arse while standing post is kung fu. It's all kung fu. It's also LARPING.

[lkfmdc]

Are the TCMA failings of the 20's and the 50's even relevant now?
Why are the same examples used over and over again?

Of course they are. History always has a direct relationship to present.

Why are the same examples used? Because they are good examples. Munich taught us about appeasement. Vietnam taught us about entering ill defined wars with questionable justifications. Etc etc etc

Old man Wu and Chan Hak Fu were not fighters. That's plain to see.

If it was so "plain to see" why was an article published last year that tried to justify the whole thing and tried to paint it as some high level kung fu that we just couldn't see clearly (being low level peasants and all)

And the fact it was a recent article goes back to your assertion that somehow the past doesn't matter nor has impact upon the present...

If you know all these things are out there, why on earth would you continue doing Kung Fu if it was anything Like what Dave here says it is?

People go to fortune tellers and mystics and have their "charts read"... People travel to PI to have fake "mystic healers" pull chicken guts out of their sleeves and announce that they've healed people ... people fall for and believe in all sorts of crap that on the surface they should never fall for

So what then? Why do people think Kung fu is originally about fighting?

Because it is. You can post, jump, hold your breath, whatever as much and as long as you like, but you can't really re-write history. Kung Fu was about fighting.

I just don't go for this limited understanding pigeon holing of kung fu into some kind of glorified kickboxing status.

There you go! I knew you couldn't resist... except, of course, that in reality is IS just "glorified kickboxing"... kung fu is just kicks and punches like every other martial art

Frankly when two forum members asked me (repeatedly) to return to the forum, my only temptation was to watch you writh in pain at my posts... so thanks for that

[Robinhood]

Art doesn't matter when a grandma with a .38 makes it a moot point!

It will matter after Obama takes away everyone's guns , !

[Kellen Bassette]

In October 1928 three Chinese generals, Zhang Zhi Jiang (张之江), Li Lie Jun (李烈鈞) and Li Jing Lin (李景林) organized the first public full contact competition in China.

This is almost definitely not the first public lei tai event in Chinese history.

[Frost]

This is almost definitely not the first public lei tai event in Chinese history.

it was the first sanctioned by the government and nationwide i believe, and some people still seem not to be able to learn from histories mistakes lol

And the same examples are used over and over because
1) they all have a common theme and a still relevant one
2) there aren't that many other examples to use (which should be a red flag right there)

[David Jamieson]

Of course they are. History always has a direct relationship to present.

Nevertheless more context is required than using the same example which is quite literally one of the worst examples.

Why are the same examples used? Because they are good examples. Munich taught us about appeasement. Vietnam taught us about entering ill defined wars with questionable justifications. Etc etc etc

Why not use something like say Mike Patterson's Lei Tai vids then? Are they not also good examples of what TCMA looks like or what goes on with it when it is used in that capacity?

If it was so "plain to see" why was an article published last year that tried to justify the whole thing and tried to paint it as some high level kung fu that we just couldn't see clearly (being low level peasants and all)

Fools will be fools and will attempt to justify foolish things. That doesn't paint all people as ignorant becasue on person stands up and displays his ignorance loud and proud.

And the fact it was a recent article goes back to your assertion that somehow the past doesn't matter nor has impact upon the present...

I understand the connectivity of events through time, results, symptoms and outcomes. I am pointing out that the same examples are used and they are not the whole scope of it and not the best examples and in fact only support a negative outlook on the whole through their continued use. That's my assertion.

People go to fortune tellers and mystics and have their "charts read"... People travel to PI to have fake "mystic healers" pull chicken guts out of their sleeves and announce that they've healed people ... people fall for and believe in all sorts of crap that on the surface they should never fall for

People pray to invisible sky creatures. yes, people do silly things and cling to imaginary BS. That is something we all do in some way shape or form whether it is a false construct we keep or a viewpoint we express. Is a myth better if more people get behind it? Is it more real or valid because more individual support it or does the inherent reality outweigh the viewpoints of the faithful?

Because it is. You can post, jump, hold your breath, whatever as much and as long as you like, but you can't really re-write history. Kung Fu was about fighting.

No, no it's not. Kung Fu is Time and effort. Originally in context to a lot of people who do martial arts, it has different start points. Military, religious, medical etc. Kung Fu is personal cultivation with an eye towards understanding that sh1t happens and the superior man prepares himself. if Kung Fu was only about fighting then it would be wrong to say Steven Hawking has Kung Fu in theoretical mathematics. Which he does an which anyone who understands the phrase or words "Kung Fu" would get. Fighting and training to fight is part of the Martial Arts Kung Fu. Kung Fu fighters, should exactly be what you are speaking of. But not all who do Kung Fu are fighters and many train for health, personal growth, insight etc etc etc. I wouldn't limit my understanding of Kung Fu down to something that is a segment fo the spirit of the concept IE: fighting.

There you go! I knew you couldn't resist... except, of course, that in reality is IS just "glorified kickboxing"... kung fu is just kicks and punches like every other martial art

Frankly when two forum members asked me (repeatedly) to return to the forum, my only temptation was to watch you writh in pain at my posts... so thanks for that

You think far too much of yourself Dave. lol. If only you could have that kind of power over someone. That is a strange desire, but I leave you with it. If I recall correctly, you are the one prone to storming off the forum when people disagree with you or you are unable to articulate your point beyond making brash statements such as you do in your efforts to proselytize your viewpoint of martial arts, which I don't really share with you in many respects.

[lkfmdc]

Fools will be fools and will attempt to justify foolish things.

Indeed David Jamieson, indeed......

Kung Fu is personal cultivation... blah blah blah

General Qi Jiguang (1528-1587) - “New Book of Effective Discipline” (1561) and “Actual Record of Training” (1571).

Kung Fu for COMBAT, no personal cultivation, no claims of Buddhist or Daoist origin, none of the clap trap and BS we see today

You can post for 1000 years but it will NOT change the FACT that kung fu was a fighting art and exclusively a fighting art for MOST of it's history. Only in recent history did peple attempt to wrap it in the cultivation cow dung and connect it to spiritual practices....

You think far too much of yourself Dave.

I simply know the fact that I post irritates you and that no matter what you can't resist trying to tear it down and that as long as I post you will continue to counter post....

Consider the fact that I provide FACTS to advance my artuments while you continue ot just voice your OPINIONS with no substantiation.....

[David Jamieson]

Indeed David Jamieson, indeed......

ok.

General Qi Jiguang (1528-1587) - “New Book of Effective Discipline” (1561) and “Actual Record of Training” (1571).

A general and his viewpoint on martial arts. Nice, but not the whole subject.

Kung Fu for COMBAT, no personal cultivation, no claims of Buddhist or Daoist origin, none of the clap trap and BS we see today

you've seem to already sold yourself the idea that personal cultivation is not a worthwhile effort and so you call it BS and rail hard against it in the area of Chinese Martial Arts, which oddly has a tradition of personal cultivation built in.

You can post for 1000 years but it will NOT change the FACT that kung fu was a fighting art and exclusively a fighting art for MOST of it's history. Only in recent history did people attempt to wrap it in the cultivation cow dung and connect it to spiritual practices....

In context to Shaolin martial arts, you are wrong Dave. You want to dismiss all the rest that goes with it because you've dismissed it from your life it would seem. To that end, you think you know it all and persistently build a wall around yourself to any critique of that viewpoint. this is why you get angry and storm off and it's why you think others are stupid for not sharing your view, even though your view is your own and anyone would recognize it for what it is. IE: opinion.

I simply know the fact that I post irritates you and that no matter what you can't resist trying to tear it down and that as long as I post you will continue to counter post....

Again, you wish you were so important in this regards, but I will tell you what is odd about you from my viewpoint. It's this. When Chan Tai San was still alive you never uttered a word of any of this. When he passed, you jumped to market yourself as his student etc etc and all the while failing to clearly articulate and making yourself appear to abandon and cling to his teachings all at the same time. You have effectively created the chaotic dross you surround yourself with. That is odd, but, I really don't care much about you outside of what you post here Dave. That you think that people take that much time out of their lives to give you consideration is your own narcissism. That's your issue and not mine, so I hope that's clear to you. Your existence is irrelevant to me outside of the context of this forum. I think that despite your education in Chinese martial arts, you're diminishment of same through your rants is odd. That's all.

Consider the fact that I provide FACTS to advance my artuments while you continue ot just voice your OPINIONS with no substantiation.....

You don't though Dave. You use blinders to block out that which contradicts you and only hold up that which you can manipulate into your story.

I talk about Dao Yin, Dhayan, Ch'an and Zen being part and parcel to Kung Fu overall and you go off on tangents about generals.

Facts my ass Dave. You support yourself through a manipulative monologue that excludes a lot of facts that you don't want to address, deal with or make admissions of your incorrect opinion about the whole.

So, I guess it's your sloppy and belligerent approach that is odd as well. You aren't entirely wrong, you just lose sight of the big picture in favour of pushing your agenda which in turn is what floats your boat. That's cool, but it isn't the facts an it isn't the truth of it all and it is your opinion based on what you've decided to pull out of the cherry tree.

there's far better educated folk on the subject than you, and it's not hard to find dozens of works that refute what you have to say about Kung Fu being "only" fighting.

[lkfmdc]

A general and his viewpoint on martial arts. Nice, but not the whole subject.

I could bury you and the forum in sources... this is just one glaring example and famous one that many other martial artist in China have cited...

Again, you spread your OPINIONS yet never offer concrete evidence

When Chan Tai San was still alive you never uttered a word of any of this. When he passed, you jumped to market yourself as his student etc etc

You bloated wind bag... talking about things you were never around for and have no idea about

You are 100% WRONG... ask Chris or Mike about it. Or read articles I wrote when CTS was alive and well....

It's amazing how you can put your foot in your mouth, actling like you have some idea what you are talking about, despite the facts smaking you in the face.

I am not the only one amazed that Gene let's a biased belligerent hillbilly with strong tendency to rant and go on personal vendettas "moderate"... it's pretty sad and major reason this place is the stink hole it is