paolung

i'm going to start with the assumption that you have been doing said exercises and drills for a while, judging by your 'belt' ranking. are you allowing yourself a recovery period? getting enough rest between workouts? also, check your form... if you do exercises incorrectly, they can do more harm than good. have you talked with your sifu regarding these pains? perhaps your sifu could point you in the right direction. when you say "push yourself to the limit", realize that there are limits for a reason. of course there are times when you can exceed these and push yourself very hard, but one has to build up to this point. pushing yourself to the limit daily and not allowing adequate rest, diet, form, etc. will not build you up but rather break you down...

the information i have says Bruce Lee was 5'7 1/2", not 5"10"

there are several different subsets of tong long... the most common one, and usually the one folks refer to when they say "praying mantis system" is 7 star praying mantis. this is the one originally said it be formulated by Wong Long back in the day. there are a few others as well, such as 8 step praying mantis, and six harmony style, which are branches of the original 7 star system as far as i know. which systems were you wanting to know about, and what information were you seeking?

Texas also has a "good samaritan law".

i would have to say the literally INCREDIBLE depth of the system. my god, i am constantly amazed at how, like my sifu loves to say, "the rabbit hole gets deeper..."

i do not consider yoga a form of gungfu. in fact, i have heard that practicing both can be deterimental to both. usually one suffices and provides some cross benefits of the other. the reasoning behind the person's opinion about not doing both was that they produce different kinds of bodies and strengths (and weaknesses). essentially they were saying the kind of body that yoga promotes is not idea for some of the gungfu ideals. i haven't really thought about this hard enough to say one way or the other, and i don't really know enough about yoga personally to make a judgement, but this guy had done both for years. he said once he stopped yoga, his MA improved significantly. maybe that's just his experience though.

hmm... i think one reason you don't hear about folks coming from MMA to traditional as much is that *GENERALLY SPEAKING* the MMA proponents are going to be more outspoken about what they don't like. this comes from a difference in attitude, as well as expectations, in my experience. alot of MMA folks are there to "be the best fighter they can be" or "be effective" or "kick azz" or whatnot, whereas the traditionalists may be more geared towards an art that is more well-rounded (in this instance meaning having health benefits, and i don't just mean cardio or muscular), philosophy, medicinal, etc. IN ADDITION to the fighting skills. so you aren't gonna see as many traditionalists spouting off about how they hated MMA because they aren't really looking for "ultimate fighting" to begin with, and have a bigger picture in mind. you also have to factor in the competition/ego thing. i may step on a few toes here, but just keep in mind this is my opinion. you will often see MMA folks throw tournaments, UFC/Pride style matches, etc. in fact, MMA was essentially vindicated through these type of events, because it's what was developed to help win them. many MMA types have the "prove it in the ring" attitude, and compete heavily against each other to see who's stuff is "best". many traditionalists, by contrast, don't really care. we aren't there to compete with each other, we're there to compete with ourselves. do we spar? sure. do we fight? sometimes. however, it's rarely for 'bragging rights' about who's style was superior, but much more commonly to test skills and improve our "game" as it were. don't get me wrong, i'm not bashing MMA, and I know there are many practitioners out there who have the same goals of bettering themselves and learning viable skills as many of the so-called traditionalists... just as there are many egotistical "traditionalists" out there who are all about being "superior" to others. i guess what i'm getting at here is that i think the MMA convert (was trad, switched to MMA) is going to be more vocal about how much they think the trad. stuff didn't work for them. the trad convert (was MMA, switched to trad) isn't gonna be as vocal about it, because the focus isn't on "what kicks the most arse" (as with MMA it often is) but rather on other things, and their trad. peers aren't really gonna be as concerned in general with how much they think MMA sucked or whatnot. what do you guys think?

depending on venue (Pride has less rules than UFC generally speaking), the "forbidden" techniques can include no striking to the back of the head, no small joint manipulations, no pressure point techniques, etc. to name a few

budo taijutsu if i remember correctly is the modernized unarmed combat methods of the ninja, at least from the bunjinkan point of view. the bunjinkan is purportedly the only "true" lineage of ninjitsu left on the planet, and is headed by masaki hatsumi, a pretty famous guy in the ninja circles.

i don't announce to anyone that i practice MA, and i certainly wouldn't announce to anyone i fought in a streetfight. it's not like any streetfighter would necessarily give you time to announce it in the first place "and in this corner..... practicing martial arts for years, it's Pao Lung... in the other corner"... nope, just not gonna happen. but my close friends do know.

just curious, but how do you know your moves work on the street? have you specifically tested them there?

Krav Maga was designed to teach people how to fight effectively in a short amount of time. that being said, the only major "downside" that I see, is that it is fairly one-dimensional. i'm not aware of any goal of krav maga OTHER than teaching you how to fight. essentially it's not a martial art persay, but more of a self-defense and fighting system, and little more. not that there's anything wrong with learning how to fight, i'm just saying that it's relatively simple in that regard (whereas some systems offer that and more, KM is essentially "get in shape and fight"). another downside, which isn't really KM's fault, is that it's the latest big fad in "learn effective self defense, get in shape, kick butt!" etc etc in other words, it hasn't been around long. time will tell in the long run when all the dust settles. i have heard that it is excellent for instilling the 'fighting instinct' and 'agressive' mindset that TJS speaks of, however. i have also heard that much of the KM state-side has been watered down. i can verify neither of these statements.

i searched my town high and low for the system and sifu that fit me (and there are many schools here), and came up short. there were only 2 options that i would consider, and neither "clicked" just the way i wanted to. eventually i was introduced to my current sifu by a different guy i had just met, who was unsatisfied with his system and wanted a new one. he invited my current sifu to town for a few days, and while he was visiting, i was introduced. ironically we had talked before (briefly) but had lost touch. we kept in touch this time, and now my sifu is between 500-600 miles away, but i visit him as often as possible. to answer your question, i had many options, but i feel i chose the best one.

no, your theory still doesn't work in China. firstly, allow me to debunk the traditional story you presented... bodhidarma, while he did come to china and teach some of the monks some exercises to maintain health, did not "invent" gungfu. think about this... do you really believe that no one in china knew how to fight hand-to-hand before some guy from india came over and taught some healthy stretches and exercises? does that make sense? not at all. perhaps he was the beginning of shaolin monk gungfu, in a very loose roundabout sort of way (like you surmised), but he certainly wasn't the beginning of gungfu or hand-to-hand fighting systems in China. look at shuai chiao for example..possibly the oldest chinese system (yes, pre-dating the shaolin temples)... how do you explain this? this is a completely separate system... not to mention the wudang/taoist systems which were developed COMPLETELY independently of shaolin/buddhist influences, and stand on their own separately. what about taiji? bagua? again, more entire systems with little to no similiarities to shaolin chuan fa. there is much more to Chinese martial arts than Shaolin my friend. regarding your last post, about Americans (and western countries) don't have their own martial arts systems...what about Kenpo? sure, it was developed with chinese and japanese influences, but Ed Parker added many of his own principles to it. Kajukenbo? from hawaii. savate? french, and developed competely independent from other systems. even western fencing has it's own flavor and is virtually nothing like kendo or other oriental swordplay. there are several examples of how western countries developed their own martial systems independently from the east or other areas.

no "belt", hung kuen system

no offense, but when your theory is applied to china... it completely falls apart, unless i'm misunderstanding it. consider that china has at the very least hundreds of systems of gungfu... these are certainly not all the same and many are not even related. "gungfu" is not a distinct "style" of martial arts, contrary to what many think... any more than 'karate' is a distinct style (you have american kenpo, shotokan, isshin-rhu, etc). even in the many sub-variants of a general system (such as the varying types of jiu-jitsu), you have quite a diverse set of options, so i don't really see your theory in practice...

i'd pick jackie chan or jet li if i wanted to learn how to act in wushu movies.

while i think that style has some impact, it is the person and training that makes them competent on the street, moreso than the system they use.

yeah he deserved to be slapped for some of those, but let's not forget he ALSO played in Big Trouble in Little China, which IMO redeems him completely

hey kick_azz , not a master no... just an exceptional sifu... won't settle for less. there are tons of schools in the town i live in, but none of em measure up IMO... but i understand i have very high standards. to put in perspective, HIS sifu (my sigung) lives on the other side of the planet... literally.

my yearly fee as of right now is $100. while many of you may think this is a steal, keep in mind my sifu is almost 600 miles away and i'm going up there approximately twice a month on average. this is a good $100/mo in gas alone

only one? hmm... John Ashcroft. no wait, Dubya. only one?

my understanding is that they are 'required learning'. simlilar to if you go to college for a degree, you have x number of "electives" you can take, and then the "required" courses. compulsory forms are the "required" ones. as Jerry said, if you don't learn those, it's not "official" wushu as defined by the official wushu body.

what is it about TKD that makes you feel it does not provide these qualities you seek? not a flame, just wondering what you want that is "different" than what you are currently studying.

in a nutshell, no. Pacificshore summed it up pretty well. You can learn the external patterns you see on video, and that's about it. Not to mention you won't have a sifu/sensei to ask questions from, be corrected by, etc as WhiteDragonD pointed out. There is no substitute for direct transmission. put it this way- have you ever even HEARD of a competent martial artist who taught themselves thru video?