Re: Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…
Originally posted by Knifefighter
How often does a WC student practice biting his training partner or sticking his fingers into his eyes?
Well, we used to do it all the time in the Gulag, Knife. Now-a-days I just practice that sort of thing in the basement with the kids.
Good. Them damn kids need some get-right.
BTW, for all those concerned, TMA suxors, and will get you mauled/killed/sodomized in the ring/on teh street. Only MMA will prepare thee! Thou hast been forwarned! Hark! The Conceptual Angels of Lee approacheth! Revert Your Eyes, Lest Ye See the TRUTH of fighting, in that proper training utilizing forms does not exist in so-called TMA martial schools! Attend them and be forever banished to the realm of internet-wussies! Make ready the path!!!111!!one!!11
. . .
No, it is the traditional which matters. The art, the culture, the heritage, the forms! Without this, you shall not know the TRUTH, in that training makes the difference! Without the FORMS, we shall perish! Indeed, it is the complete and total domination of our skills which keeps us from teh ring! We are teh deadly!!!111!11!1
. . .
Sorry. For a minute there, I was channeling the spirit of who-gives-a-fuck.
Eat, sleep, train, get the fuck over it.
Originally posted by Kung Lek
the Chinese were in a state of high civilization while europeans were still living in caves and scavenging other preators kills.
I guess that depends on what you mean by “European.” But the classics of the western intellectual tradition are relatively contemporary with the chinese classics – Socrates is a within a century of Lao Tzu, for example.
Originally posted by SimonM
And taijiquan propperly applied is a martial art. Those methodologies do exist. I agree. My complaint is that many times they are not used.
Certainly. Let me put it this way: you identified a problem in the current discourse concerning martial arts; we agree on this. You recommended a three-part classification scheme as a solution to this problem and a way of creating a new discourse; we disagree on this. I think your classification scheme is essentially what already dominates the old discourse and creates the problem to begin with.
What is stopping a taijiquan stylist from engaging in sparring and conditioning exercises? To the extent that anything is (and this really is merely an extent, as there are plenty of practitioners who don’t find themselves so prohibited), it’s the identification of taijiquan as a cultivation art rather than a sportive or combat art. I don’t see how reinforcing that identification is going to make things better.
The exact same thing can be said regarding “What is stopping a BJJ stylist from self-cultivation?” and so on.
Originally posted by Kung Lek
[B]boxing as we know it now probably can be said to have it’s foundations laid with the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
these were penned in and around 1866 I believe.
as a codified system of fighting, Hung Kuen outdates modern boxing. Believe me, what they called boxing before the good Marquis was absolutely nothing like we see today.
Wrestling is myriad in shape and form and style. It predates probably any and all martial arts and exists in every culture.
Western wrestling as we see it now a la WWE does NOT predate Hung Kuen.
just sayin 
p.s Hung Kuen is related to if not spawned from Shaolin Temple boxing methods. Which were notable in the Tang dynasty.(618-907) so it’s prety much a stretch to say there was any wetsren martial arts that were codified and in existance that even approached teh complexity of CHinese martial arts of both Buddhist and Taoist origins, or even teh Confucian based wu de(martial ethic) etc etc. It’s kinda silly to say that carte blanche western martial arts have an older or better heritage than the Chinese martial arts.
the Chinese were in a state of high civilization while europeans were still living in caves and scavenging other preators kills.
It’s not rocket science to understand this guys. For pete’s sae you have the internet right at your finger tips and I’m sure you all know what Google is and ca likely understand how to cross reference sources.:rolleyes: [/B]
being ‘related to’ is not the same thing though. i dont know much about hung gar but i was mainly referring to the style populated by Won Fei Hung. anyway few things stay unchanged for thousands of years. so of course boxing wouldn’t be an exception. everyone here knows the greeks had pancratium tournaments. since no one has any training manuals though no one can comment on it. no, boxing was never as codified and complex as any chinese art. it still isn’t really. mainly comprised of really good training and conditioning methods and some basic principles. i think boxing was better before the marquis rules personally.
lol and you know i wasn’t talking about pro wrasslin. there was ‘codified’ wrestling in the middle ages. ****her back i do not know. no doubt wrestling is the great grandfather of all martial arts. kids are literally born knowing how. there is no denying that no one can touch china on the share amount of recorded information they have on their martial arts. its woven into their culture. even the oldest recorded kung fu style is gasp wrestling… go figure. no one claims that western arts are better but im sure alot of people are interested in ancient arts besides the ones from asia. unfortunately there just isn’t any written records out there. and the rest of the world was just fine before china was even a thought.
Lemme put it this way then Chris. Chinese civilization is the longest unbroken line of civilization existing on the planet today.
There is no time of quiesence in their history. It is continual from beginning until today.
The same cannot be said for any western civilization whether it had a peak in a timeline contemporary with the Chinese or not.
Also, I use the term “related” to as an eye to all the other arts of Shaolin that have been nurtured there and began there.
In truth, Hung Kuen “is” Shaolin Kungfu. It’s foundational form of Taming the Tiger is direct Shaolin Kungfu and in one shape or another under one name or another, it’s basics are used in all Shaolin kungfu if not the tie in between all lines of Kungfu from teh buddhist traditions.
all shaolin kungfu contains those same basics as all Hung kungfu, or any other family or branch.
just sayin…again 
“Combat focussed forms of martial arts include Wing Chun, Iaido, and Choy Lay Fut. These concentrate on combat in a no-rules environment; survival in a life-or-death situation is what they aim towards.”
On the surface, to the unaware, this makes sense. But what about the kid the other day who said when all was said and done he’d just biel ji me in the throat with his fingers. I said, “Oh yea. Let me taste a little bit of your power” and held out my open palm. I’d let that kid poke me in the eye with the finger power he has, or actually doesn’t have. Not to mention he couldn’t find my throat in a real fight with a 10X scope.
Simon, I understand what you are trying to do and it is comendable, but in the end distinctions are pointless … everyone knows what they are capable of inside. Everyone follows the way that fits them.
Everything else is just people trying to convince other people what they are capable of.
Originally posted by Kung Lek
Lemme put it this way then Chris. Chinese civilization is the longest unbroken line of civilization existing on the planet today.
This is true relatively speaking, but it’s not because “the Chinese were in a state of high civilization while europeans were still living in caves and scavenging other preators kills,” but rather because other cultures have had a higher degree of geographical and political movement.
(How do we categorize martial arts then?
I think it should be through a concentration on the intended goal of the martial art. Now any given martial artist may be interested in all three of these areas of concentration; it’s just that certain styles of Martial Arts are suited to certain concentration areas.
I would create three major areas of concentration:
1: Athletic competition
2: Combat
3: Self Cultivation / Health)
so what are you selling or marketing ? what need is there to do anything?
If people can not figure out what and why they are doing something then its their problem they will remain confused, always looking to others for answers to why things are not as they want them to be instead of what they are.
There is no fixing this 
Many people watch others playing taiji in the park, and then criticize the practice based on their own ideas and views, the people practicing are doing what they feel is correct and understand its use, whats the problem?
None them, for the most part seem inclined to come to the internet and complain or make snide remarks about others practice, the don¡¯t need to they understand it 
(The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.)
lao tse
Greetings..
In my experience i see two distinctions in Taiji.. Taiji QiGong, the feel-good health cultivating exercise that is most visible today.. and Taijiquan, a true internal martial art.. different strokes for different folks.. each serves a purpose, no problem.. it is only our egos that manifest problems, one needing to be superior to another.. a combination of the two best serves the long-term disciple.. a devastating self-defense and enhanced health benefits, i don’t see a problem, here.. perhaps labeling such as i have mentioned would satisfy those that feel the “hippy-dippy” types are killing the art.. disregarding the fact that there many of those “types” that are proficient martial artists..
Be well..
There is still distinction.
Qi Gong existed for health along with traditional Chinese medicine over 5000 years. The first document is the Yellow Emperor Nei Jing.
Daoists theories of cultivating Qi in the field of elixer (Dan Tian) are for living longer and not getting illness.
Martial arts apps and cultivation of Qi Gong are beyond or more than that.
And yes what people see are meditation and moves.
In short, there is still distinction.
Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…
Originally posted by SimonM
[B]
Self-Cultivation and health focussed forms of martial arts include Taiji, Aikido and Xingyi. They recognise that martial arts provide an opportunity for personal improvement. However as self-cultivation often includes at least an element of pacifism these arts have often been removed from their martial roots. The stories of grandmothers killing home-invaders because they did tai chi in the park on fridays are just that - stories. This is not to say that there are no masters of Taiji or Aikido or Xingyi who can use the martial applications of their forms - there most certainly are - just that many practicioners learn the forms empty of all martial content and are quite happy with that.
[/B]
Originally posted by SimonM
Continuing from that when I gave examples of each three I was not saying that each of theses arts are just of that “type” so much as I was saying that each of these arts tends to have it’s primary goal in line with the category I was discussing.
I’m shocked to see that the general impression of Hsing-i is that it is an art for self cultivation that is at all removed from its martial roots.
I dont have a problem with trying to come up with different classifications that better represent the ma community but this misconception about the even general practice of Hsing-i is disturbing.
As an art that advocates less forms and less techniques and drilling them over and over for combat effectiveness how did it earn this new reputation. Is it because of health only oriented people trying to learn it because it is considered one of the big three “internals?” You need to consider the person(s) you are seeing before labeling the art.
Historically and even today Hsing-i is practiced mostly as a combat oriented art with self cultivation second to that and competition third.
Ok, ok, I’ll take back the comment about Hsing Yi. Geez, didn’t mean to insult anyone.
Very good point Palmer; I was thinking the same thing but didn’t want to get into it.