[Aksijaha]

Congrats Seraph.. you are the first newb in a bit to get their own thread.

Now quite apart from the squabbling with Mo (who is asked not to interject on this one so I can
figure out what the heck you are saying LOL)...

As I understand it... you are critiquing the effectiveness of some or all internal arts.. after some fashion.

Or at least requesting proof that they are effective in the form of video?

Please clarify this for me and tell me whether you believe this standard should also
apply to Baguazhang and Kali.

I'm going to ask Mo and Sprint to stay off this one (not because they are wrong to be talking....
but because I want your undivided attention on this thread


Let's see what you got.

[ChiBelly]

What do you mean by "internal?" Hahahahahahahahahahaha...!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

This post has been edited by ChiBelly: 22 June 2008 - 09:39 PM

[Aksijaha]

What do you mean by "internal?" Hahahahahahahahahahaha...!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Silence Foo!!!!!!

[Seraph]

I don't question the effectiveness of arts - that would be ridiculous. It's not arts that are innefective; it's people, or training methods.

I see it like this - a set of levels of demonstration of effectiveness:

1. Showing the technique, either on your own, or with a highly compliant partner.

2. Using the technique, possibly at full speed, but still, with a highly compliant and/or half hearted/much lower skilled/own student opponent.

3. Demonstrating the technique in a free fight environment against a serious, competent opponent offering real to maximum resistance and attempting to stop you with reasonable to full force and free technique.

4. Showing the technique in a competition or authentic fight situation. (Authentic fights, though, can be a bit shady too - because we've probably all had real fights against ridiculously drunk or under skilled opponents.)


Of course it is not beholden on anyone to do anything - of course. But let's face it, we see a great deal of demonstrations in the 1 and 2 category, from people who are claiming that these techniques would work in a 3 or 4 category situation.

Those people who make no claims about themselves are well out of any criticism - they don't have to prove anything at all, even if they criticise the fakery of others.

My over all point is simple - why is it that people are so, so eagre to show themselves in categories 1 and 2, but when it comes to categories three and four, you get this opening of the flood gates, where anyone asking for a category three and four is a despicable troll, lazy, disgusting, good for nothing, cheeky, no-nothing, shit talker?

Gee - excuse us, but the real question is why did you stop at number 2? One and two are just to teach or show the technique, not demonstrate it. It's only with 3 and 4 that we see whether all the theory works in practice.

What makes other arts' methods currently superior is that both in demonstration AND training, they go in to category 3 and are therefore capable of category 4.

By all means, I admit and wholly endorse the idea that the internet or youtube is not the be all and end all. All I'm asking is WHY those who put up category 1 and 2 demos never put up category three and four demos. If they don't, what are we supposed to do - just risk - or waste - our lives thinking that that stuff would work, and then spend years training it so WE can go on youtube with category 1 and 2 demos and slag off anyone who doubts we can do the extra category?

It's a no brainer. As for demos that are clearly intended to mislead - I don't care WHO they are, or how respected, or even how tough - their reputations aren't more important than my oath to speak truthfully - and they can like it or not - they shouldn't have done it, if they didn't want to be embarrassed by it later. And anyone who defends them - sit in the darkness and think about what you're doing is my advice. What kind of man would bear false witness for another like that?

[Aksijaha]

I don't question the effectiveness of arts - that would be ridiculous. It's not arts that are innefective; it's people, or training methods.

I see it like this - a set of levels of demonstration of effectiveness:

1. Showing the technique, either on your own, or with a highly compliant partner.

2. Using the technique, possibly at full speed, but still, with a highly compliant and/or half hearted/much lower skilled/own student opponent.

3. Demonstrating the technique in a free fight environment against a serious, competent opponent offering real to maximum resistance and attempting to stop you with reasonable to full force and free technique.

4. Showing the technique in a competition or authentic fight situation. (Authentic fights, though, can be a bit shady too - because we've probably all had real fights against ridiculously drunk or under skilled opponents.)

Where does initiative play in this schema? I.e. who pops off first and by how much?

It sounds as if all levels on your chart involve
1.) pre-notification and equal initiative
2.) mutual consent to interact.

Would you agree or disagree with the above characterization?

[Seraph]

Where does initiative play in this schema? I.e. who pops off first and by how much?

It sounds as if all levels on your chart involve
1.) pre-notification and equal initiative
2.) mutual consent to interact.

Would you agree or disagree with the above characterization?

Well, Im not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean, there's no creeping up on kung fu experts to attack them and see if they can really do it - well, there are SOME limits, lol.

All methods have some problems, but actually getting the gloves on and actually doign a few rounds, during which you succesfully demonstrate the effectiveness of what you claim is in your art, is what average karate, muay thai, BJJ, MMA, san da, boxing actually do all the time. Not top level, but average church hall club level. Seems like taiji and so called "internal" arts rely more on claiming magic powers, and insulting people who do fight training as "thugs", than they do on actually training.

Not that I'm saying the average health based or private practioner need do anything. Just, when people go public with their status of "expert" or "master" - when they decide that they just can't hold it in any longer, and they simply MUST get all that glory and kudos of being seen as an expert.... well as those claims roll out, they should damn well roll out the proof. And the best proof is just to show you can do it, in a realistic demonstration, with a realistic, non compliant, skilled opponent.

Is it my imagination..... or are the average Chinese martial artist in the West the worst martial artists of all? The very worst. And the average so called "internal" artist the very worst of all of those?

Believe me, I love Chinese martial arts. It's not out of hate for it that I say that, it's out of some despair and great sadness. Every lie kills it off a little more.

This post has been edited by Seraph: 23 June 2008 - 10:21 PM

[Aksijaha]

Believe me, I love Chinese martial arts. It's not out of hate for it that I say that, it's out of some despair and great sadness. Every lie kills it off a little more.

I can see that you have a love/hate thing going on with gongfu bro. Fortunately.. I've been where you're at.
So I can both empathize and help you resolve this issue you have.

First off.. I'd like to urge you to set aside this nagging urge you may be feeling to assume I'm just
another lying idiot in silk pajamas trying to convince you that "gongfu is t3h deadly". I'm not.

What I am is an CMA/FMA instructor with a school that is partnered with one of the finest fighting MMA gyms
in my state. I train combat sports 3-5 times per week. And I am also, to the core, a gongfu man.
So I understand both sides, and I've got some ways to clarify that may help you resolve your
longing for "CMA that work", and the very valid perception that they just don't seem to, based on the
standards of easily available evident proof.

I'm doing this because
1.) I empathize .. i've been where you are at
2.) The anger you display is not good for you. I also empathize with anger. BTDT
3.) I've seen you do shili (youtube).. and there is serious potential there, given your evident mental gifts...
4.) I am an Admin here.. and our EF mission is to raise the level and awareness of CMA on this planet.
Part of that is sometimes doing a gentle intervention and pointing out some alternate points of view
to a promising newcomer who has been .. er.. less that harmonious.. shall we say

Now also.. for me to do this.. you have to try.. VERY HARD.. to listen with open ears and not snap
back into "free-fall arguement mode" OK?

Now.. lets get started with some analysis shall we?

[Aksijaha]

Where does initiative play in this schema? I.e. who pops off first and by how much?

It sounds as if all levels on your chart involve
1.) pre-notification and equal initiative
2.) mutual consent to interact.

Would you agree or disagree with the above characterization?

Well, Im not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean, there's no creeping up on kung fu experts to attack them and see if they can really do it - well, there are SOME limits, lol.

All methods have some problems, but actually getting the gloves on and actually doign a few rounds, during which you succesfully demonstrate the effectiveness of what you claim is in your art, is what average karate, muay thai, BJJ, MMA, san da, boxing actually do all the time. Not top level, but average church hall club level. Seems like taiji and so called "internal" arts rely more on claiming magic powers, and insulting people who do fight training as "thugs", than they do on actually training.

Ok. "I'm not quite sure what you mean".

One of the critical aspects of true combat is initiative, who has it, and by how much.
In this respect most forms of consensual fighting, such as sparring and match fighting, are remarkably
similar. The difference in initiative.. while not completely identical (no two nervous systems are the
same after all).. is typically extremely close. There is a "mutual decision to close" involved.
Often tiny tiny amounts of initiative are sufficient to end or considerably influence a match.
Which is the idea behind "timing" or "counterpunching" someone. Coaches spend immense
amounts of time watching video of their fighter's prospective opponents.. looking for
patterns or favored combos by that fighter. This results in a tiny bit of initiative.. which is
often enough to decide a fight, even among carefully matched competitors.

Do you agree that the above characterization is accurate or would you disagree with this point?

[Aksijaha]

One of the critical aspects of true combat is initiative, who has it, and by how much.
In this respect most forms of consensual fighting, such as sparring and match fighting, are remarkably
similar. The difference in initiative.. while not completely identical (no two nervous systems are the
same after all).. is typically extremely close. There is a "mutual decision to close" involved.
Often tiny tiny amounts of initiative are sufficient to end or considerably influence a match.
Which is the idea behind "timing" or "counterpunching" someone. Coaches spend immense
amounts of time watching video of their fighter's prospective opponents.. looking for
patterns or favored combos by that fighter. This results in a tiny bit of initiative.. which is
often enough to decide a fight, even among carefully matched competitors.

Do you agree that the above characterization is accurate or would you disagree with this point?

OK Wuji Rob... now YOU are in the hot seat... would you call the above characterization correct
or incorrect?

[yun]

Generally speaking, a method is effective if it accomplishes the goal. It's basically as simple as that. Efficiency is accomplishing the goal with the least resources.

Martial artists tend to have either multiple, ambiguous, or unrealistic goals that makes finding an effective plan difficult. Maybe I shouldn't limit this to martial artists.

[Mut]

so what is the goal then Yun? I think this is a big question as there seem to be a few different goals out there for different people.

for me number 1 goal: effectiveness for SD and fighting.

goal 2: self understanding and development.

goal 3: physical fitness and health.

I believes goals 2 and 3 are byproducts of goal one. I don't think goal one is necessarily a byproduct of goals 2 and 3

This post has been edited by Mut: 30 June 2008 - 09:18 AM

[WujiRob]

First of all, I like the last posts of yun and Mut (although my goals may be somewhat different, I'm not sure how to exactly phrase and priotize them).

Secondly,

OK Wuji Rob... now YOU are in the hot seat... would you call the above characterization correct
or incorrect?

Bwhaha, thanks, I guess?! I feel honoured and at the same time screwed, hehe. But I asked for it, so I'll give it a try, although I'm sure I won't be such a good "sparring partner" as Seraph.

First of all, clearly you have spent much more time thinking on these subjects than I have. That is to say, I have hardly spent any time thinking on them... However, it is an interesting approach. Makes me think of the "short fuse" I used to have (or actually, still have, but only recently did I find out that I just tried to deal with this by burying it under a thick layer of "appropriate/social behaviour"). Anyway, being (and always having been) a somewhat average height and somewhat skinny guy, I have been able knock some guys down while being caught in a "blind fury/seeing blood-red before my eyes" kind of state of mind. I'm sure that this partially had to do with "taking initiative" (and 100% of pure focus and intent, I suppose).

Anyway, you ask for initiative in consensual fighting. I suppose I could agree. In that sense I suppose that the situation is not that different from non-consensual fighting, with the difference that 100% vs 0% initiative will generally end the fight really quickly. I'm generally a "held-back" type of person, which I always felt puts me into a disadvantageous position (i.e., not willing to fight vs. willing to fight, will generally end in the wiling guy winning because of his intention/commitment/intent/...?).

PS: Reading the above, I suppose may qualify me as "passive aggressive"? Obviously, I don't feel that is correct, but I'm sure that "denial" just fits the picture perfectly

[johnrieber]

actually, i think that post could open this thread into a discussion of the difference between the way that internal martial arts train shen/intention, and the way that external arts get there.

i'm an old guy. my body doesn't roll the way it rolled ten or twenty years ago. but i can do stuff with it now that i couldn't do then, and 'move' it in response to an opponent in a way i couldn't, then. i have messed-up joints now that i didn't have then. but i respond to an opponent in a much faster and more economical way. and at least half of the time, in a way that unbalances them mentally before they have a chance to figure out how the situation has changed on a physical level.

just my two cents.

This post has been edited by johnrieber: 10 July 2008 - 04:12 PM

[Ron Panunto]

Well Seraph, can I assume that you don't have any respect for Kongjin demo's where the puppet students dance around?

[Aksijaha]

Ron,
Seraph is no longer among us.

He hurt my feelings so I had to make the bad man go away. ::lol::

[Ron Panunto]

Ron,
Seraph is no longer among us.

May god rest his soul.