Science Vs Pseudoscience {Can you prove it?}

[Jimbo]

I'm not sure I'm going to say that anyone's being elitist, I just think they're overspecializing. What I mean is someone could be really great at push hands and when they display their form, everyone watching would agree that they have great fa-jing. But then they decide they want to fight a kick boxer under kick boxing rules and then they get beat up. That same kick boxer then decides he wants to fight a MMA fighter under MMA rules and gets beat up. That MMA guy fights a Judo guy under Judo rules and gets beat up. That Judo guy fights a BJJ guy under BJJ rules and gets beat up. That BJJ guy picks a fight at a bar and gets beat up. And then that bar fighter picks a fight with the push-hands guy and gets beat up. And on and on it goes.

By elitist, I mean that old attitude (that still exists in many today) of "Only our style or lineage has the REAL stuff and everybody else is doing it wrong. (or can't do it at all)."

Or like "If someone uses an elbow (or a knee) in a fight, he/she is definitely MT, because only MT knows how to use elbows and knees."

Or "Since 98% of fights go to the ground, BJJ is the most effective martial art in the world." How they arrived at that percentage is TOTALLY unscientific, but was a '90s marketing campaign not based on reality. But it worked, because I've seen people still parroting that. BJJ is a brilliant method of floor fighting (I trained in it for awhile). It works extremely well, especially in one-on-one social (and some asocial) violence situations. But there are too many variables in asocial violence to say "the most effective" across the board.

Or, "TKD practitioners are the best kickers in he world."

Or "Bajiquan is the most high-level MA, and its fa-jing is the most powerful. We only train for One Strike Kill; Compared to us, Tanglangquan (Mantis) is fast but has no power or stability. And southern styles are lower-level and inferior to northern styles." Believe it or not, I encountered several practitioners in Taiwan from a certain well-known CMA institute who spouted this and believed it.

"Only Taiji/Xingyi/Bagua develop internal power, and are superior to 'external' styles."

"Wing Chun, with its economy of motion, is the most efficient, and only effective, kung fu system."

This also goes for attitudes among different lineages within the same general styles/systems.

I'm not picking on these particular systems; I'm only presenting a few examples of what I've either been told personally, or heard/read being given. Such people are what I call MA elitists. It comes from being ensconced in one's own little world, usually without much or any real-world experience around actual violence, and buying into the idea of style superiority.

[David Jamieson]

Krishna is the living avatar of the pantheon.
Notably, he is Vishnu incarnate.

Buddha is not an avatar at all. He was simply a man who recognized the potential of everyone and anyone to become enlightened.

We apparently still are working on that.

[Jimbo]

Krishna is the living avatar of the pantheon.
Notably, he is Vishnu incarnate.

Buddha is not an avatar at all. He was simply a man who recognized the potential of everyone and anyone to become enlightened.

We apparently still are working on that.

We're ALL working towards that. If we were enlightened, we wouldn't need to be here in this lifetime.

[rett2]

But when it comes to Buddhism, the differences among the branches and followers are so different and contradictory that I can't figure out what defines Buddhism in China.

Perhaps a decent definition of the essentials would be as follows: You need legitimately ordained monastics who live by the Vinaya, and whose teaching and practice are founded on the Four Noble Truths and their elaborations; also, laypeople who support the monastics and turn to the monastics for guidance and teaching.

The more superficial differences in beliefs and practices, especially among laypeople, can be chalked up to culture.

[SteveLau]

Can I prove it? Well, all we need to do is to invite Bruce Lee (or similar level MA students) to face these monks, and I bet they will run away at speed 100 meters/ 9.90 sec. without teaching their secret techniques.




Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[wiz cool c]

By elitist, I mean that old attitude (that still exists in many today) of "Only our style or lineage has the REAL stuff and everybody else is doing it wrong. (or can't do it at all)."

I agree with most of what Jimbo is saying here. I say it like this I like Shaolin kung fu because I really think it is an intricate way to condition and train my body for attributes like balance, coordination, flexibility, building strength and stamina, I do not think it is a better fighting system than any other. How good a fighter someone is usually depends on the indivual and how hard they train along with in some cases natural gifts. The one's usually saying this style knows it all and others are all wrong don't have the real world experience in violence to be thinking this way, or medical training either. In the real world anyone can get knocked out stabbed etc. How anyone walks around calling themselves Master is beyond me. What if they slip on a banana peel, a Master should never slip but we all slip sometimes, I know I do once in a while after doing MA for 36 years. Also I know people like my older brother who has no MA training that would destroy a lot of these so called masters in a fight. THE ONLY SECRET IS SWEAT.

[wiz cool c]

Can I prove it? Well, all we need to do is to invite Bruce Lee (or similar level MA students) to face these monks, and I bet they will run away at speed 100 meters/ 9.90 sec. without teaching their secret techniques.




Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

That is true, to be fair though I also met some good young students that are humble, train hard, spar hard and are good fighters. It is usually the one's making money running a school in that area that has the inflated egos.