How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it’s techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?
How many people think you shouldn’t take an argument you are losing over at Dragonslist and try to repost it here in the hopes of a more satisfying outcome?
How many people think I am doing this because the people on KFM are more educated in the arts than the wannabs on Dragon’s List, and would provide a much more stimulating conversation?
Try linking to the original topic tooo…Bright boy!
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793433]How many people think I am doing this because the people on KFM are more educated in the arts than the wannabs on Dragon’s List, and would provide a much more stimulating conversation?[/QUOTE]
No one. Your problem where you originally posted this desperate plea for affirmation is that there were too many people with real knowledge, experience, and sense to see through your little drama.
How many other sites are you gonna hit in your futile attempt at saving your wounded pride?
Go Fuck Yourself
That answers that!
Military weapon techniques eh?
Like Gun Fu? 
Also note that I have no idea what Dragonslist is, so I’m glad that RD posted this here 
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793431]How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it’s techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?[/QUOTE]
The latter makes more sense to me. I think it’s parallel would be between Krabi Krabong and Muay Thai/Boran. The art begins as Krabi Krabong, which is basically broadsword fighting, and ends as Muay Thai/Boran when the swordsman gets disarmed and uses empty hands.
The only difference is, Krabi Krabong is still taught as a combat art, only with sticks; and Muay Thai/Boran involves regular heavy-contact.
Although, when I hear “military art” in CMA, I tend to get skeptical. For instance, RD, I think Ancestor’s Fist is a fantastic art. But I wouldn’t necessarily consider it “military”, b/c the military has changed so much in the last, oh, 1,000 years that it’s techniques are rendered obsolete in a military setting.
But unlike Unkokusai, I don’t think they’re useless and a waste of time.
i suppose it depends
i mean a military style could be more weapons based
but the chines have a long tradition of hero and ancestor worship
so say a style is created by a famous general
alot of the empty handed forms could have stuff in them which is purely to honour that person
style for styles sake
alot like that move in shaolin u know the one in every issue of kfm where its a monk standing on one leg the other held up still bent the left arm resting on it also bent and in a fist and the other hand held above as if holding a trident or something
doesnt have much practical application but its still there to honour one hero or another
[QUOTE=Shaolin Wookie;793445]The latter makes more sense to me. I think it’s parallel would be between Krabi Krabong and Muay Thai/Boran. The art begins as Krabi Krabong, which is basically broadsword fighting, and ends as Muay Thai/Boran when the swordsman gets disarmed and uses empty hands.
The only difference is, Krabi Krabong is still taught as a combat art, only with sticks; and Muay Thai/Boran involves regular heavy-contact.
Although, when I hear “military art” in CMA, I tend to get skeptical. For instance, RD, I think Ancestor’s Fist is a fantastic art. But I wouldn’t necessarily consider it “military”, b/c the military has changed so much in the last, oh, 1,000 years that it’s techniques are rendered obsolete in a military setting.
But unlike Unkokusai, I don’t think they’re useless and a waste of time.[/QUOTE]
it isnt taught with sticks
still a cool art
Originally Posted by RD’S Alias - 1A
How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it’s techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?
Im glad you posted here as I no longer go on Dragon’s List.
Since Ive been doing Eskrima, I feel that learning weapons first has been beneficial to my timing & distance so I would go with the second one
For instance introducing weapons early on in training such as such as dan dao, dagger as soon as some one have learned their stances & footwork would be more beneficial as long as the teacher knows how to use the weaons…
For instance because the use of weapons & armour it makes perfect sense that chin na & shuai jiao were preferred techniques used by the Chinese armies for empty hand combat.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793431]How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?[/quote]
This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.
Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it’s techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?
A large part of ‘military styles’ should be weapons because soldiers are likely to go into the field with some kind of weapon that’s specifically designed as a weapon. A gun, a blade. Some styles teach people to use any object as a weapon, even if it isn’t specifically designed as one. A mini mag flashlight can be used as a very short stick for stick fighting, for instance.
If you are stuck in the field for an extended period of time, you’ll run out of ammo, but still have your weapon. A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon. If there’s body armor plates on the arms or legs, your arms or legs can be used as clubs, too. Use your helmet as a club or keep it on for headbutts. If the soldier is issued steel toed boots, those are a weapon, too, in the field, like a mini club on your feet.
Against others in the field that are likely to have body armor on, it’s better to have a weapon than not and to use it than opting for an empty handed technique, when considering you are trying to field people that normally don’t have any kind of martial art or weapons training beforehand. Those that do are an added bonus, but they aren’t always the norm.
[QUOTE=RonH;793459]This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.
A large part of ‘military styles’ should be weapons because soldiers are likely to go into the field with some kind of weapon that’s specifically designed as a weapon. A gun, a blade. Some styles teach people to use any object as a weapon, even if it isn’t specifically designed as one. A mini mag flashlight can be used as a very short stick for stick fighting, for instance.
If you are stuck in the field for an extended period of time, you’ll run out of ammo, but still have your weapon. A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon. If there’s body armor plates on the arms or legs, your arms or legs can be used as clubs, too. Use your helmet as a club or keep it on for headbutts. If the soldier is issued steel toed boots, those are a weapon, too, in the field, like a mini club on your feet.
Against others in the field that are likely to have body armor on, it’s better to have a weapon than not and to use it than opting for an empty handed technique, when considering you are trying to field people that normally don’t have any kind of martial art or weapons training beforehand. Those that do are an added bonus, but they aren’t always the norm.[/QUOTE]
alot of what are called military styles
are not in fact military styles
they are simply created by people in the military
for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei
sunbin quan -general sun bin (tho it may be just based on the principles of his book sun bin bing fa)
etc etc
what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like
krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu
How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that… I know some who might laugh at certain styles being labeled military styles, when they clearly aren’t though. A lot of people seem to like to label there stuff “military” when it hasn’t had anything to do with the military for a couple hundred years, or its connections to the military are through an ancient semi-mythical patron.
When I was thinking military styles I was originally thinking ancient Chinese stuff, but bringing in the modern was a good idea, especially those that practice them.
I know in ancient China like the beginning of the Sung dynasty forms were kind of a new thing, and I don’t think they were too common outside of Shaolin. I know that the few sets that are from China’s Military back then seem to be a mix of weapon, and empty hand techniques in one form. I think later they sort of seperated into either emptyhand, or Weapons sets. What I am wondering is if they are ALL weapons sets, and some have additional empty hand techniques in them? that would make more sense to me, as empty hand skills (although needed) would be secondary to weapons.
[I]How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.[/I]
Reply]
This is the stance the Dragon’s list people have. They are making fun of me becasue I say the Military stuff would have a lot of weapons techniques, and what they are deming “Fluff” are actually weapons techniques being done without the weapon in hand so they have no obvious empty hand application.
This is the stance the Dragon’s list people have. They are making fun of me becasue I say the Military stuff would have a lot of weapons techniques, and what they are deming “Fluff” are actually weapons techniques being done without the weapon in hand so they have no obvious empty hand application.
Got any examples?
[I]alot of what are called military styles
are not in fact military styles
they are simply created by people in the military
for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei
sunbin quan -general sun bin (tho it may be just based on the principles of his book sun bin bing fa)
etc etc
what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like
krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu[/I]
Reply]
I think this is also a valid point. A lot of what is now refered to as military styles are really just Village Long Fist. They may have started out as military styles, but they are not so any longer.
Also, when I refer to military styles, or Body Guard styles, I mean arts that were actually used in the military. Not just developed by a General. My style is an example.
There are to major branches. Most people consider the Tai Tzu Hong Quan to have come from the military, and if you look at it it’s built on common military styles of the time, like Tong Bei, Cha Fist CuoJiao etc.. Tai Tzu Chang Chuan on the other hand was the Emperor’s personal fighting style. Yes, he ovbiously developed it during his time as a Military General, and it is also built on the military arts of the time, but I doubt anyone outside of his closest people knew it, so it’s not really a military art. The Hong was wide spread, along with all the other various arts the military did at the time.
How many here feel that labling an art a “Military” style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that… I know some who might laugh at certain styles being labeled military styles, when they clearly aren’t though. A lot of people seem to like to label there stuff “military” when it hasn’t had anything to do with the military for a couple hundred years, or its connections to the military are through an ancient semi-mythical patron.
Reply]
The knobs over at Dragon’s list are doing just that, especially one in particular. Then they say there is something wrong with me for not believing what they say and holding the position that I hold. The whole conversation just got Childish and infantile, so I brought it over here to discuss with people who actually know what they are talking about.
Ok, royal******* is completely misrepresenting the brief exchange he had over on Dragonslist before running over here to cry about it. It was not really about actual military training, technique, or weapons at all in the way that most would expect upon hearing the topic. What happened was that he started to go down the “my art is cool because the super duper secret body gaurds of emperor Flintstone II used it about, about a million years ago, and, and, they had the nine foot dragon’s tongue halberd that could cut down 100 men in a single blow, and…”
That sort of thing, and someone simply called him on it and he got all misty and had to run and tell y’all about it.
COLOR=“Red”]alot like that move in shaolin u know the one in every issue of kfm where its a monk standing on one leg the other held up still bent the left arm resting on it also bent and in a fist and the other hand held above as if holding a trident or something[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Reply]
I allways thought that was wrapping a guys head in your arms and pulling them into a knee strike. Like if you came at him from behind and started a head lock, but instead pulled him backwards so his spine went into your knee. The raised hand is chambered for a followup strike to the face.