siufeifei

Yes, just as it easy to say This shows a lack of understanding of what the centreline is in chinese martial arts and what Wing Chun does or doesn't do with it. For your information, the centreline is very much adhered to in boxing. The only difference is how they regard it. When you see a boxer taking control of the centre of the ring and his oppenent circling, then both shifting and re-adjusting to face each other is a clear demonstration of centreline principles. When you see a boxer jab to probe then bring that hand back to cover whilst he crosses with his other hand, that is centreline principles. The only reason they appear to favour a roundline approach is because of the gloves and because of the nature of the sport. If the gloves were not there, the staright line path down the centre would be more open as a target. In this case, his jabs are more likely to actually hit the head or jaw instead of the other boxer's forearm or elbow. Thave different systems of punching and moving but both wing chun and boxing follow very similar principles.

In most cases, it is easier to teach someone to do something as a set technique before teaching why it works.

Not all Chinese people have martial arts background. I think in mainland china there is some wushu training as part of their sports activities but nothing too serious. Chance are, the owners have that air about them because they are in their environment, especially if they are taking control from the kitchen as most Chinese restuarant owners do. My suggestion? Don't go starting conversation with an ulterior motive. People are not stupid and if you are overtly probing then they will most probably not open up. Instead just be natural and talk about normal things. Sooner or later something will turn up naturally in conversation.

Here's something I don't understand. Yes it is true that the things you mention are often seen in wushu demonstrations and performances but why do you insist that because they PERFORM in this manner, they will fight in this manner? I have seen time and time again, the Chinese Martial Arts student, or even any Traditional Martial Arts student say that they don't fight like how they train in the forms so why do you insist that the wushu guys WILL fight like how they perform? IF there was a fight between an average sport wushu practioner and an average kung fu practitioner I think I would put my money on the wushu guy because in general, wushu people train much harder then the average kung fu guy. Wushu gives you better overall strength, agility, speed, flexibility and to an extent better endurance and higher pain tolerance. The only thing lacking in modern wushu training is the emphasis on workable fighting techniques but I would argue that this is a lot easier to teach and learn than it is to achieve the other aspects I associated with wushu above.

Have any of you watched European Kickboxing matches? Those guys have no trouble throwing super quick and accurate kicks above the waist. Also remember that this is in a match when both fighters are expecting these but they still get through. You have to remember that the usual kick people imagine when talking about high kicks are the roundhouse type. How-ever, a lot of people train to chamber their kick as high as they can and shoot straight out. It is very quick and give you very little to block as it shoots straight towards you very much like how a punch does. If you train to kick high and you're comfortable with how you kick and are confident in your, hopefullly tested, abilities then why not? Use what you know to be your best and most trusted techniques. Don't not use them just because someone who can't tells you to.

I'm not sure what I think about these two lines. First of all, it is only natural that if Bruce Lee turned up today at a JKD Concepts school that he would have to retrain. After all, he has missed 30 odd years of training. Bruce Lee didn't believe in martial arts stadning still. At it's core, this is one of the fundemental ideas behind JKD, to NOT STAND STILL. If no evolution takes place, then what different is it to the Traditional martial arts training methods that he spoke out against so much? I don't think this would be the case. The core of JKD as Bruce lee taught was based on his experience on Wing Chun, with emphasis on the sticky hands aspects and some of the loose hand techniques. These are things that still feature highly, if not more, in Dan Inosanto's teaching with its co-working of similar aspects from other styles. I really don't like how you wrote this. What Bruce Lee taught was what JKD was at that point in time. Yes, you could say that Dan Inosanto's version is different and might not be what Bruce Lee's version would've evolved into but i can guarantee you that if Bruce were alive, his JKD wouldn't be like what it was 30 years ago. Now I can understand why it is good to keep a record of what JKD was at the time of his death but to call that version real and all else modified version and hence imply that it is fake, is wrong.

But what is your future like? What has happened to the world since today? What is the culture like? What new technology? What is society like? What is government like? Answering those questions will help you no-end in developing not just your main charcter but also every other character that will feature in your story. Once you have established the world in which she lives in, you can then start to create her back history. Where was she born, what was the circumstances of her birth, what were her family like her education and basically everything else that makes a character. Typical examples would be the grungy, dirty, Bladrunner type futures where everything is almost the same except darker and more grotty and more corrupt. Your character could then be someone who was born in the lower or higher levels of society but for some reason she climbed or fell from her position. Following some events she came into the emplyment/possession of some kind of agency that sees potential for her skills. Now that you have a simple outline you can construct stories. For example, if she was from the lowere levels of society then she would've had to learnt to survive rough streets and gangs etc etc. He fighting style would then be a little unorthodox, simple but effective, precise but a little messy. On the other hand, if she was of the higher levels of society then maybe she did learn from a "Master" of martial arts. This does mean that you have to decide what has happened to the martial arts in the past three hundred years. IF she has learnt a traditional art then maybe here's where you can input a little flaw into her. Maybe she can fight using her martial art but she doesn't have experience in making it work effectively. This would mean that as she progresses, her skills improve. It brings a level of intereaction between her and her enviroment and situations that makes it a bit more interesting inste4ad of "she kills them all..... again....with her bare hands..... and a cotton bud...... quickly...... yawn......"

How accurate? Do you mean that when the character performs the moves, they look like the real thing? It looks exactly like how it is done in the forms from which they come from? I would say if that was the case, then it isn't accurate at all. These games can't be accurate. Even if the characters can imitate the moves exactly as they are done in reality, you can be guarenteed that their execution against the opponent is going to be flawed because there is no room for minute adjustments in the important things such as angles and distance that occurs in real life.

I'd have to say that if you don't know about it now, you aren't going to be able to realistically write about the fighting style of the character, no matter how much research you are going to do in the future. Why do you need to have a fixed style? Why does she have to have a grade or rank? I think if you choose to name her style then you are a)limited by that style(s) b) stepping into cliche territory c) risking writing about something you do not know about. The end result is that either people will ask questions that you don't or can't answer, or just laugh at what you have written for lack of credible realism. One thing i want to point out. I have a passionate hatred towards the modern fantasy type books where the hero/ine is an almost perfect, invincible and can survive and conquer all single handedly in spite of being totally outnumbered etc. etc. Boring Boring Boring.

I think i can name the book from which you got that.

I think that the best thing might be to go and look for stunt training first, then go into specifics like maybe a martial art or maybe even gymnastics. If flashy moves is all that you are after, why not go and train in something that specifically trains your agility and flexibility and acrobatic skills?

And here i think the most appropriate response would be to quote the inimitable Mr Homer Simpson.

Is that proper punk or the commercialised/pop version that you have in the United States?

I've been wondering that too. Maybe it's because it means he can pretend to know more than he does by making you answer the questions for him. He can then pick at your response, making himself appear even more knowledgeable and thus negating the need for him to actually have to say anything of merit. Of course, the simple reason could just be that he doesn't actually know, which i guess is the same as above but without the pretentiousness.

I know of a Southern Mantis school in Wembley somewhere. That's Westish London. Not much help. Sorry. Not my side of town.

London's pretty big. Whereabouts are you?

The narrator was the photographer but the words were Algren's. That way, you got to see things that Algren wasn't party to. However, i would say that the main story teller was still the Algren character. It just happend to be that his words were being read by the photographer.

And don't forget to pivot slightly when you make the block/parry/grab thing. It helps you get out of the immediate path of the incoming strike as well as help in the follow up. Of course your style might do things differently, so please don't take my words as solid method.

i think you should be more afraid of the people who THINK they are black belts. Besides, belts don't mean a whole lot anyway. I mean, how scared are you of them five year old black belts?

i think both camps are bad. I can't stand people who hero worship nor can i stand people who have nothing but bad things to say, often with no actual proof, about people. Then there are people whose logic goes like this: "I don't like the gracies so i don't like BJJ".

This is one of the reasons that i hate the idea of "boxercise" and similar clases. Why put the effort into exercising with boxing/kickboxing type moves when you can put the same amount of effort into proper boxing/kickboxing where you get a better work out and learn to fight.

I think that the one thing that everyone agrees on is that you can never tell what is going to happen in a fight. The very fact that you have put down a list of factors suggests that it is possible to predict what will happen, which just isn't true. It is possible for a grappler to beat a stand up fighter, just as it is true that a grappler can beat a stand up fighter.