[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;772727]
Most versions of Xiao Hong Quan I have seen look pretty much the same. I have seen variants of Tai Tzu Chang Quan as well
[/QUOTE]
You still need to learn how to use the quote function, and for future reference, if you haven’t read the soruce material and can’t cite it, don’t try and use it in your argument…
TCMA needs to get into modernity…NO MORE MYTHS!!!
Reply]
No, I think it needs to DROP the modern way of teaching, and go back to it’s roots when it was a functional fighting method. The new way from the last 50-70 years or so have proven to be ineffective at training fighters. It’s time to go back to the way it was taught when it was relied apon, and actually worked as designed.
To do this, forms need to be put back and not taught until the student can really fight with it’s contents. Only THEN, as the last step should they be taught. Even then, only so the student has a summary and maintenance practice to codify that portion of the system.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;772725]2. Please CITE this “scholarly research” … having a master’s degree, I can go look up the article and see what merit this “research” has [/QUOTE]
Do you need a master’s degree to look up an article, or were you just looking for an excuse to mention that you have a master’s degree?
[QUOTE=unkokusai;772730]Do you need a master’s degree to look up an article, or were you just looking for an excuse to mention that you have a master’s degree?[/QUOTE]
Because there are TONS of “articles” that aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, an article that cites a martial arts book whose content is based upon what their teacher taught them, no footnotes, etc
I couldn’t look up the article because RD didn’t mention the title, or the author or identify it in ANY WAY… now his lame response is to ask Sal what articles he’s read…
IE “I know a guy who says he’s read some research, that claims to say XYZ”
Oh I know what you’re saying, I’m just giving you a hard time for the completely gratuitous reference to your master’s degree.
[SIZE=“2”]I couldn’t look up the article because RD didn’t mention the title, or the author or identify it in ANY WAY… now his lame response is to ask Sal what articles he’s read…[/SIZE]
Reply]
Actually, Sal probably would have written the artical…
[SIZE=“2”]
IE “I know a guy who says he’s read some research, that claims to say XYZ”[/SIZE]
Reply]
In this case that is what has occurred…except the guy is the one who DID the research…
The man is a virtual walking encyclopedia of martial arts, historical research…with the documentation to back it up. You asked for the source, I gave it to you. If you are genuinely interested in learning, talking to me is pointless, you have to go to the researcher himself.
Sal is a great guy, and more than willing to share with anyone honestly interested in learning the real history behind the evolution of the Chinese martial arts. And he’s easy to find, just PM him.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;772735]
talking to me is pointless
[/QUOTE]
ah, yes, I can see your point now :rolleyes:
Gee Ross, who pee’d in Ur Cornflakes today?
Would you please learn to use the dal-gurn quote function? Its not that hard!
In a community plagued with mis-information, myths and outright lies, I despise attempts to hold up this ridiculous PC construction with fake pseudo research… I’ve seen stuff that is downright silly, like I said, a book where the guy writes something with no supportn and then that book is cited as a “footnote”
there, I wrote it on this internet forum, now I full expect to see a paper where
"KING KONG BECAME PRESIDENT AFTER GEORGE W BUSH WAS KILLED BY AN ASSASSIN IN 2002 (Ezine.kungfumagazine.com July 24, 2007)
In a community plagued with mis-information, myths and outright lies, I despise attempts to hold up this ridiculous PC construction with fake pseudo research… I’ve seen stuff that is downright silly, like I said, a book where the guy writes something with no supportn and then that book is cited as a “footnote”
Reply]
How do you know it’s fake Pseudo research?
Really Ross, The sum of all I said was that Some forms have been preserved, and others not.
Why are you being such an a$s today? Aren’t you Gett’n it enough?
[SIZE=“3”]Would you please learn to use the dal-gurn quote function? Its not that hard![/SIZE]
Reply]
OK.
Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?
Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?
Reply]
No, I am too stubborn.
Progress and preservation . Well I think that progress and preservation are both equally important . Progression is the way to preserve what it is that you already have or else you would not be able to preserve it ,correct??
Now do you not preserve the teachings of your masters Sifu Parella??
I mean think about it, how could you not have your school and your students practicing and promoting your art if you were not preserving it and how have you preserved it??? Through progression.
If you were just always progressing and just taking what the flavor of the month was and leaving what it is that you have already learned behind ,then eventually what you have now will not be what you had before and so you could not claim to possess or teach it. Correct??
The arts are always evolving ,adding to, and taking way, just like recipes.
However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there.
Get my meaning??
Just in case you do not, I am refering to Groundfighting in CMA.
However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there
Reply]
To add to that, just because ONE chef alters the recipe, does not mean they all do, or did. Some things really do get preserved pretty intact, and others get radically altered untill they are something new, and no longer what they were.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;772752]Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?
Reply]
No, I am too stubborn.[/QUOTE]
That’s what stupid people tell themselves to try and make their stupidity something they can be proud of.
[QUOTE=tattooedpunk;772753] However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there.[/QUOTE]
LOL! You just keep getting better and better as your inner LARPer expresses itself!
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;772729]TCMA needs to get into modernity…NO MORE MYTHS!!!
Reply]
No, I think it needs to DROP the modern way of teaching, and go back to it’s roots when it was a functional fighting method. The new way from the last 50-70 years or so have proven to be ineffective at training fighters. It’s time to go back to the way it was taught when it was relied apon, and actually worked as designed.
To do this, forms need to be put back and not taught until the student can really fight with it’s contents. Only THEN, as the last step should they be taught. Even then, only so the student has a summary and maintenance practice to codify that portion of the system.[/QUOTE]
And how do YOU know what was happening 50-70 years ago? How do you know what the ‘roots’ were?
What if 90% of all the stories about training back then were untrue? Myths, legends…
I’ll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn’t have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today. I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty…