[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793541]Which other thread? The DL one? or one here?[/QUOTE]
he’s talking about the multiple attackers thread
where he said that going limp helps when getting elbowed in the face
which is pretty far from rational IMHO
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793541]Which other thread? The DL one? or one here?[/QUOTE]
The multiple attackers one. The one where they ignore my repeated statements that I had only said part of what I would do, but they take only that one part, excise the specifics and hold it up, as if that was the totality of what I said. None of them were interested in listening to the totality of my way. The thread is full of fallcious arguments and nosesnse from the other side.
[QUOTE=RonH;793545]The multiple attackers one. The one where they ignore my repeated statements that I had only said part of what I would do, but they take only that one part, excise the specifics and hold it up, as if that was the totality of what I said. None of them were interested in listening to the totality of my way. The thread is full of fallcious arguments and nosesnse from the other side.[/QUOTE]
dont mock us please oh lord
spare us
royal dragon can read it at his leasure
[QUOTE=RD’S Ass - 1A;793486]Un Stupid, I did not run, I RESTARTED the thread after it got locked. That too degraded into stupid mocking of what is really sheer commonsense.[/QUOTE]
The first thread got locked because of you and the next one became just as ridiculous again because of you! You couldn’t get what you wanted so you ran over here to cry about it.
[QUOTE=RonH;793498]This goes back to what I was talking about in the multiple attackers thread. The military style may not actually be used by a military, but it does have a certain ‘flare’, a feeling. A philosophy, characteristic of what ‘could’ be used by a military. [/QUOTE]
ahem…
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793503][ Somehow they missed it and decided to lynch me when they did not comprehend instead.[/QUOTE]
Its your ego that makes you want to believe that not agreeing with you means “did not comprehend”
[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.[/quote]Nah, it’s not a ridiculous stance. Krav Maga, and hybrid CQB styles that take a mix of aikido restraint techs, basic judo kuzushi and throws, BJJ for getting up/quick finishes on the ground, Thai/Chun/kickboxing for basic punch/kick combos, Kali for knifework and various unarmed strategies… that would be valid for the reuqirements of ‘the battlefield’. Xing Yi may have been a valid battelfield art 1000 years ago, as might various spear arts and whatever, but now, no. In a similar way to the way that people’s knowledge of and access to good SD methods and strategies have changed since the first suffragettes took up JJ, battlefield techs have changed.
And while of course you can use anything as a weapon, unless you practice with that thing in a realistic manner (inc all the mental side like stress training/animal day type stuff) it’s irrelevant. Conversely, of course most training that would be useful if your assault rifle is knocked out of your hands in a small room with two insurgents in it would be useful in any SD situation, it doesn’t follow that that is automatically a ‘battlefield situation’ per se. Battlefield situations are snipers, suicide bombers, checkpoints, covering fire, IEDs etc: the average GI doesn’t have time, nor does the Army have time money or resources to train everyone in hours of H2H combat stuff.
A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon.
No, a machinegun could be used as a club: are you really suggesting that a machinegun would be useful used like a bo/spear? And therefore, by extension that learning bo/spear arts would be more useful than any basic three hours of repetitive intensive training that might actually involve evasion and using the butt-end of a rifle as a club?
I’ve used classical jo and bo skills in very light contact free sparring many times. Worked fine. I’ve also used them in full contact free sparring with foam sticks (still packed a wallop enough to KO, but nothing fatal): got the **** beaten out of me. Sure, you can say I’m no good at classical stick if you like! But my experience against an untrained guy using basic aggression and what would be roughly equivalent to standard oldskool quarterstaff (lots of short range stuff, both ends, baseball bat kind of swings though both ended kind of stuff too, and again I’ll mention aggression in spades) would lead me to believe that in real life a lot of this stuff is ****, plain and simple.
[QUOTE=golden arhat;793460]
what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like
krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu[/QUOTE]This is my point exactly: look at kenjutsu. The moment kenjutsu left the battlefield and became a dojo discipline it lost most of its bite. There was no danger in the Tokugawa period, so guys who really did learn by practical battlefield experience like Miyamoto Musashi easily cleaned up the dojo ‘masters’. So now, while a Katori Shingen Yagyu Ryu master has some really impressive skills, and no doubt, give him a swordfight against say, anyone on this board, and you get diced, put him in Mosul or on backstreet slum, unarmed, anywhere in the world, and he’s toast.
[QUOTE=B-Rad;793484]I believe xingyi quan is one instance of a style that WAS used in the military, even fairly recently in the 20th century. There’s xingyi quan military training manuals and even xingyi bayonet techniques. :)[/QUOTE]OK, bayonet from spear: there’s one practical modern application for an old art. Then take Ueshiba, also a juukendo (bayonet) master, and renowned as ‘King of Bayonet’ on the battlefield, yet look at what aikido became!
[QUOTE=RonH;793498]This goes back to what I was talking about in the multiple attackers thread. The military style may not actually be used by a military, but it does have a certain ‘flare’, a feeling…[/quote]I suspect that in most real situations that feeling is followed quickly by the feeling of blood trickling out of your face, **** trickling down your leg and a bruises all over your body. You’re talking ‘military mind’ as a discipline? Any aggression training would be more relevant.
Learning how to run through and use very tall grasses and mud to their advantage, for instance.
I don’t remember these skills being part of Xing Yi, Kenjutsu or Aikido curricula. I’ve met some Welsh ninja type people :eek: (‘Pathfinders’) who practised this kind of stuff a lot of always practised outside… but again, it’s pretty off the scale of standard kwoon/dojo fare.
Whether the empty hand beig used is using an armed application/methodology is irrelevent. A thrust to the throat with a spear or with the middle and forefinger together as one is still a thrust. Most power still comes from the hips, legs and feet working together, as they propel the instrument into the soft tissue where blood likes to congregate.
It’s not irrelevant at all. On the contrary if you think using a spear thrust is the same as using a spear-hand thrust I think you’re sadly deluded. Sure, the power generation is similar. There the similarity ends. It sounds like you come from some art that overstresses power over and above any of the other factors involved in fighting. The timing, distancing, speed, leverage, lethality, penetration and countless other factors are radically different with a spear from with a spear-hand.
Let’s get back to the original question:[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]No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of ‘it’s how you practice, not what you practice’!?
Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it’s techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?
Irrelevant… but must we go back to the chant of ‘it’s how you practice, not what you practice’!?
The question is providing only two fairly pointless and not even mutually exclusive alternatives, plsu a fairly arbitrary classification of ‘military arts’ in the first place.
Oh for ****s sake, just read a couple of other things and didn’t realise that RonH is the village idiot round here… and to think I answered him seriously :mad:
[QUOTE=unkokusai;793579]The first thread got locked because of you and the next one became just as ridiculous again because of you! You couldn’t get what you wanted so you ran over here to cry about it.[/QUOTE]
see now what seems rediculous to me is not that he brought it here
its that ur acting like he’s done something childish
he posted it there it didnt work out so well
so he brought it over here to see what us guys had to say and how our opinions varied etc
whats wrong with that at all?
[QUOTE=Mr Punch;793605]Oh for ****s sake, just read a couple of other things and didn’t realise that RonH is the village idiot round here… and to think I answered him seriously :mad:[/QUOTE]
you obviously didn’t read any of my public service announcements warning against just such activity…
incidenty, it’s funny how many people have arrived at that same perspective independently - I think I should start a “realization” quote thread…
Old time (koryu for those that habla bujutsu) military arts have certain things that COULD be useful nowadays, but the vast majority have already been assimilated into modern sport arts.
kenjutsu is, like mentioned before, a fine example of what can happen to a combat art when it becomes a sport, Kendo, BUT the issue was when they changed from a real sword, even the bokken ( or bokuto if you prefer) to a shinai.
You can’t handle a sword unless you use a sword.
BUT, most high level Kendoka DO train with real swords too.
Current military H2H systems are fine for their purpose, to instill a “fighting spirit” and some basic survival skills on the battlefield, that are not designed to make anyone into a “fighting machine”.
[QUOTE=Mr Punch;793603]Nah, it’s not a ridiculous stance. Krav Maga, and hybrid CQB styles that take a mix of aikido restraint techs, basic judo kuzushi and throws, BJJ for getting up/quick finishes on the ground, Thai/Chun/kickboxing for basic punch/kick combos, Kali for knifework and various unarmed strategies… that would be valid for the reuqirements of ‘the battlefield’. Xing Yi may have been a valid battelfield art 1000 years ago, as might various spear arts and whatever, but now, no. In a similar way to the way that people’s knowledge of and access to good SD methods and strategies have changed since the first suffragettes took up JJ, battlefield techs have changed.[/quote]
The problem lies in the blanket statements without trying to learn what the style and the moves are about. The thing is the stance says that, if something is called a ‘military style’, it must have fluff. This is without any other evidence provided. No demos, no descriptions, no underlying principles. It’s a rush to judgement because of unfair treatment. If fluff is found, analysis on what the fluff is and why those that teach it don’t feel it’s fluff is the next step. This stance does no in depth analysis. That is where logic is thrown out the window.
And while of course you can use anything as a weapon, unless you practice with that thing in a realistic manner (inc all the mental side like stress training/animal day type stuff) it’s irrelevant.
Sometimes, it isn’t required. Using items as a club is often an instinctive action, which works a lot of the time. The principles of using a club are easily adapted to many situations.
Conversely, of course most training that would be useful if your assault rifle is knocked out of your hands in a small room with two insurgents in it would be useful in any SD situation, it doesn’t follow that that is automatically a ‘battlefield situation’ per se. Battlefield situations are snipers, suicide bombers, checkpoints, covering fire, IEDs etc: the average GI doesn’t have time, nor does the Army have time money or resources to train everyone in hours of H2H combat stuff.
Exactly.
No, a machinegun could be used as a club: are you really suggesting that a machinegun would be useful used like a bo/spear? And therefore, by extension that learning bo/spear arts would be more useful than any basic three hours of repetitive intensive training that might actually involve evasion and using the butt-end of a rifle as a club?
Most of the volume of many machine guns are spear/bo staff like in shape. Some have a top handle, there’s the trigger/trigger handle, a magazine. That’s the only extra parts to make it not spear/bo shaped. The emission end and the shoulder butt can be gripped much like one can with a spear/bo staff. There are, however, other forms. The P90 has the clip laying horizontal and not sticking out of the bottom, its overal length is much shorter than say an M-16. Carbines are shorter, but still have the rifle-like features. Some guns are very blocky for most of their volume, but have a narrow barrel sticking out of the front.
In many cases, when out of ammo, using it as a spear/bo staff can work in close quarters fighting. It’s just a lot of the deep stances that you see in forms done with spears/bo staffs usually aren’t gonna work, since you’re elbow-to-elbow or closer in CQF.
I’m not saying more useful. I’m saying it’d be a good suppliment. Not a replacement.
I’ve used classical jo and bo skills in very light contact free sparring many times. Worked fine. I’ve also used them in full contact free sparring with foam sticks (still packed a wallop enough to KO, but nothing fatal): got the **** beaten out of me. Sure, you can say I’m no good at classical stick if you like!
Or you can say that the other guys were just better.
But my experience against an untrained guy using basic aggression and what would be roughly equivalent to standard oldskool quarterstaff (lots of short range stuff, both ends, baseball bat kind of swings though both ended kind of stuff too, and again I’ll mention aggression in spades) would lead me to believe that in real life a lot of this stuff is ****, plain and simple.
For an example, if against an opponent in a small room, you’re both out of ammo and he decides to drop his gun and pull out a knife. Your forward hand moves from cupping the front end of your rifle to gripping over top and your rear hand grips over top the butt. He thrusts the knife forward, the blade on the thumb end of his hand. You raise your rifle, deflecting his thurst up and pushing his arm away. You bring the rifle back down and towards you, swinging the butt end into his solar plexis.
Whether he has armor there or not doesn’t matter. If he doesn’t, he’s hit. If not, you’ve at least unbalanced him some. Now, you take your once forward hand and bring it back to the hand on the butt of the rifle. You raise it a little and swing it down and to the outside of one of his knees hard. He goes down and you kick the knife away if you can and pummel him with the rifle, like it was a club.
In this example, the rifle is used like a bo staff and a club.
For an alternative, when he thrusts forward with his knife, you step to the side and push his knife arm the opposite way. Letting your forward hand slid over the top of the rifle, you thrust your back hand forward, using the end of the barrle like a spear and jab hard at his throat, assuming there’s no armor there.
He’s hurting and you use your rifle like a club in the previous example. That’s how you can use it as a spear. There’s no slicing happening, unless you have a bayonet on the end, but you do have a hard, metal point for jabbing very soft and sensitive tissue.
I suspect that in most real situations that feeling is followed quickly by the feeling of blood trickling out of your face, **** trickling down your leg and a bruises all over your body. You’re talking ‘military mind’ as a discipline? Any aggression training would be more relevant.
The feeling I was talking about is the way things are done, the underlying mindset of the principles the style uses. When it comes to ‘military styles’, a ‘military mindset’-aggression training is a vaild avenue to study and use. I have no problem with this thinking or this type of training. I’ve done it myself. I know the benefits of judicial application and control of agression during fighting.
I don’t remember these skills being part of Xing Yi, Kenjutsu or Aikido curricula. I’ve met some Welsh ninja type people :eek: (‘Pathfinders’) who practised this kind of stuff a lot of always practised outside… but again, it’s pretty off the scale of standard kwoon/dojo fare.
Unless you trained in areas where there are tall grasses and mud, it’s unlikely that your teachers would have prepared you specifically for such a thing. Government militaries are teaches, though, that will train you for this sort of thing because of the potential assignments in areas with tall grasses and mud, even if there isn’t any close by to the training camp.
However, the context I said it in was farmers and civilians using what tools they had on hand to defend themselves, as well as using the terrain around them to help get the upper hand on outside invaders.
It’s not irrelevant at all. On the contrary if you think using a spear thrust is the same as using a spear-hand thrust I think you’re sadly deluded.
You treat the limb as if it was the weapon itself. That’s how saying only weapons forms without any empty hand stuff means there is no empty hand work is bupkis.
Sure, the power generation is similar. There the similarity ends. It sounds like you come from some art that overstresses power over and above any of the other factors involved in fighting. The timing, distancing, speed, leverage, lethality, penetration and countless other factors are radically different with a spear from with a spear-hand.
I come from the art of taijiquan. There are 2 primary subgroups, for lack of a better word. There’s the pacifist taijiquan user and the fighter taijiquan user. I come from the latter.
Let’s get back to the original question:No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of ‘it’s how you practice, not what you practice’!?
No. If your point is to attack hair by trying to tickle it, it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to win a fight.
Irrelevant… but must we go back to the chant of ‘it’s how you practice, not what you practice’!?
No, because it’s how you practice with correct applications. Trying to tickle hair isn’t gonna do it.
The question is providing only two fairly pointless and not even mutually exclusive alternatives, plsu a fairly arbitrary classification of ‘military arts’ in the first place.
And the arbitrary classification flies in the face of deductive reasoning and is unfair.
No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of ‘it’s how you practice, not what you practice’!?
Reply]
I think my point on DL was more along these lines. I’d like to add though that you have to have a teacher who KNOWS what the apps are for, and how they are used in order to practice them correctly.
The blanket statement that any art labled a Military or bodyguard art Must be full of fluff is just ignorant. And when you look at an art saying it’s mostly fluff, especially if it was a military art or body guard descended, then I think it makes more sense that you have not been taught what those moves are for, or how to apply them, than the moves themselves are just fluff.
I think the problem comes from schools who teach form, after form, after form, and only teach a few apps from each form before moving on.
In the Old days, you were not taught the form persay, but you learned one technique from it, and how to use it realistically. Then you learned the next technique and so on. It could take you a couple of years to learn one form that way, but you would be able to fight with every technique, and you knew what everything is for.
If you have been learning a new form every few months, all you have time for is to just survey some of the uses of some of it’s techniques. This means that like 80-90% of your form is non functional to YOU because you were never taught the function. This makes it Appear to be full of fluff, when it is actually rich on applicable technique.
eagle claw was created from a general, but over the time i think it has become what most kung fu has become a performance based thing to preserve a style.
the true military aspect of kung fu i feel has been almost totally lost. very few people still know it.
i mean hand to hand combat has always been the same. punches are punches, kicks are kicks, but there are so many technological advances in military you probably wouldn’t even meet in Hand to hand anymore.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793730]I think my point on DL was more along these lines. I’d like to add though that you have to have a teacher who KNOWS what the apps are for, and how they are used in order to practice them correctly.[/QUOTE]
RD
any teacher can deliver applications in a classroom environment. its the guys who can actually use them that are impressive. just cause you know an application doesnt mean you are a lethal killer.
[I]eagle claw was created from a general, but over the time i think it has become what most kung fu has become a performance based thing to preserve a style.
the true military aspect of kung fu i feel has been almost totally lost. very few people still know it[/I]
Reply]
Then the style has also been lost.
any teacher can deliver applications in a classroom environment. its the guys who can actually use them that are impressive. just cause you know an application doesnt mean you are a lethal killer.
Reply]
Not if they don’t know them. A forms teacher who does not know the apps can’t teach them to his students. THAT is all too common in CMA.
LOL!! Dragon’s List is editing my posts now…
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793743][I][COLOR=“Red”]
Then the style has also been lost.
[/QUOTE]
just about all of them have been.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;793744]LOL!! Dragon’s List is editing my posts now…[/QUOTE]
How so? 
just about all of them have been.
Reply]
I don’t know if I would go that far. I think there are plenty of styles that still produce good fighters. I would like to believe that at least one line of each style still has it.
I know South Mantis guys are tough, as well as many North mantis guys. There are a lot of Bagua Taiji and Hsing I guys who still have the goods.
But there are also lines that are just full of forms fairies who couldn’t explain a usable app for anything.
I think that is really what the MMA movement is about. Learning what techniques are workable, and sticking to them. They hold the stuff not understood on the sidelines, or disguard them, not because they are useless, but becasue the use is not known (Which may be one an the same by some perspectives).