White Warlock

Hmm, after he stated you shouldn't question him, did he ever provide an answer to the question you never asked him? I could care less if someone had been training for a thousand years, if you ask a question, and they tell you not to question, they are misconstrueing your intent. I.e., you're not questioning his validity, your asking him a question. If he doesn't provide an answer through his training, it seems only logical that you would try to obtain an answer from an alternate source. When i instruct, i don't merely have them mimic my actions, i explain the underlying reasons behind it. If what i am presenting is a prelude or precursor to something else, i indicate such, and leave them to understand that i'm "getting to the point." With this, at this point i am not at all sure what it is u did, nor altogether confident that you are presenting 'exactly' what your instructor said. Just as he may have misperceptions, so may you. So here are my questions: 1. What additional answers were you seeking? 2. Why were you attempting to seek those additional answers? 3. Whom did you communicate to in your efforts to seek additional answers? 4. By your initial statements, you did present questions, and did obtain answers. What were the answers he provided that you later opted to seek additional answers to? 5. Did you realize that "seeking additional answers" can quite easily be construed as, "i don't believe you, let me ask someone else?" 6a. If you did realize this, then why is it that you did not believe him, or the answers he had provided? 6b. If you did not realize this, does his response somehow take on new meaning?

In a perfect world we would have the best reactions. Unfortunately, sometimes you're not in the best of moods, are distracted, or simply didn't expect to be treated that way from that person. In these cases, you're going to react in a manner that is clearly not the best. So, what do you do about it? Well, you develop a series of 'kneejerk' responses to the more common insults or phrases. In this way, no matter what your mindset, you'll be more likely to blurt out a good counter-response. If, however, the insult presented is with the intent of instigating a confrontation, then you need to determine whether what you say, or don't say, is going to further serve their purpose. It may be that you'll end up having to 'bypass' the repartee' and just go right into dispatching the threat, or that you could deescalate the situation without having to eat crow. Every situation is different, and you are not always a ship on smooth waters. Deal with it.

From Kronos: A Chronological History of the Martial Arts and Combative Sports, i present this excerpt: "About 1968: African American martial art practitioners begin developing Black Nationalist ("Afrikan") martial arts. Most of these practitioners, such as Moses Powell and James Cheatham, taught orthodox Asian or eclectic martial arts, but some, such as Dennis Newsome, instead started studying African heritage arts such as capoeira. In addition, a few practitioners such as Nganga Tolo-Naa (Ray Cooper) and Shaha Maasi (William Nichols) developed their own arts (in this case, Kupigana Ngumi, which includes techniques from karate, t’ai chi ch’uan, and Maung Gyi’s American Bando). African American street versions also developed. Known today by the generic term "Jailhouse Rock," influences on these street versions included Black Islam, rap music, popular dance and kung-fu movies."The alleged credentials of your instructor, being that he is not one of the co-founders, are not relevant to the discussion as to whether kupigana ngume's origins are that of Africa. What is relevant is the claims/comments presented by the co-founders, as well as their martial arts background. As well as i know, the founders of this art do not 'claim' the art to originate from Africa. Prior to the presentation of kupigana ngumi, neither had obtained formal training in any form of African martial art. A claim that 'all arts' originated from Africa could very well satisfy an assertion one could borrow from any style and thus call it Afrikan. However, i do not find this assertion to be grounded in sincerity. Violence is a fundamental aspect of mankind. We fight, we battle, for survival and for want. In this process, due to our ability to think, perceive, and our need to obtain the advantage, we expound upon our studies. We do something, find out it is effective, and hand down this information to those within our immediate circle of friends/family. These friends/family, in turn, learn more and continue with this gradual, evolutionary, development of the arts. It has little to do with regions, and almost everything to do with the nature of man. There are commonalities in the arts because there are commonalities in human anatomy and body mechanics. Physics, as well, is the same, and therefore if you start with the same base, your means to ends will undoubtedly have similarities. Essentially what i mean is, if your intent is to break the nose, and you've had ample opportunity to break noses, you'll learn similar ways to break a nose. These are the reasons for the similarities. A postulation that all martial art styles came from a single source is simply invalid. The arts were developed in different continents, different regions, and different cultures. The means to an end differs dependent upon cultural and regional influences, and it is the study of these various approaches that give insight into cultures, influences, and objectives. Thank you for your time.

It can be answered. The problem is, the answers presented tend to offend one group or another. As to evidence of its existence, you have to realize that the 'present' definition of chi falls between the cracks of evidentiary examination. I.e., the appropriate approach is to examine whether chi can be disproven. In order to do this, one must first clarify and quantify what constitutes chi, define measureable parameters. Then, one must test these parameters. If it is not possible to clarify, not possible to quantify, not possible to set measureable parameters, or not possible to test, then it is not possible to prove or disprove. Essentially, it becomes an issue of 'belief.' Part of the problem with chi, as it stands today, is that it is mostly a belief system. Either people believe it is the basis for what happens in certain situations, or they do not. However, to give greater scrutiny to this subject, i refer to an earlier post i presented: Because most everyone has forgotten what chi meant, it has become a catch-all... a filler for all our suspicions and dreams. We feel a breeze against our skin and it must be chi. We feel empowered and it must be chi. We sense someone nearby and it must be chi. We have an urge to go to the bathroom... and it must be chi. It is not a catch-all, or at least it wasn't initially intended to be perceived as such. The whole 'feel' and 'sense' approach to discussing chi does not give insight, nor does it present anything tangible, therefore we should start from the beginning and examine the 'initial' definition of chi, and how the concept was birthed: The Chinese character for chi, or qi, stands for air. This is not something to be taken lightly. It is, in fact, the basis for the belief associated with chi. It was initially believed that air, wind, the flow of air, was a force... a universal force. It was known that we inhaled and exhaled, and in the process we consumed and released this... chi. It was noted that when we exhale chi in just the right manner, we create sounds... some of which allow us to generate more power (kiai, etc). The biomechanical understanding of this was missing, and thus it was attributed to the chi... this universal force that can somehow be channeled, or directed, to influence others and strengthen our own actions. The belief went so far as to present that the words we express are empowered by chi, and thus we can develop a stronger persona of ourselves, influence others, merely by gaining a better control of this chi... this air. Physical manifestations were attributed to chi, in such things as 'hyperventilation' and 'hypoventilation' being examples of bad chi. Such physical manifestations encouraged a flue of 'presumptions' that chi somehow influenced the entire body. Diseases, often obtained via the air (chi), were attributed to bad chi... both within individuals and in regions or areas (aspects of feng shui). Essentially, lack of knowledge played a strong role in the development of later perceptions on chi and how it influences the individual and their environment. A huge interference with the understanding of chi comes from our Western preconceptions birthed from medieval occultism. It has, essentially, tainted our understanding and thus presented this wholey false perception that chi can be 'summoned' or 'invoked,' or that objects can somehow attract/direct the flow of chi. Because of its foreign roots, and the problems associated with attempting to describe intangible 'concepts' through the fallacies associated with language differentiations, chi is unfortunately relegated to an ubiquitious metaphor for magic. To further complicate this, in our more modern struggles to cope with the clash of science and 'belief,' our foreign perceptions of chi have gained the forms of energy or of a being, like electricity or a god. Chi, or qi, was initially conceived as a descriptor for those intangible influences. It was air, wind, the noxious gases released by volcanoes, the bad breath of an unscrupulous businessman. In time it began to merge with the religions, imparting a 'basis' for all that is unknown, untouchable. These are the roots. Where you take them from here... is up to you.I wish also to present the below article. It is a disturbing article to read for some qigong proponents, but i think it is important nonetheless and request people read the 'entire' article with an open mind. It is an article written about the efforts of Sima Nan, a journalist and economist that is very well respected in the journalism community. This man spent many years heavily involved in the 'formal' study of qigong, with is father and grandfather also being practitioners of qigong. http://www.csicop.org/sb/9903/sima-nan.html

Every setting, incident, and opponent is different. Competitions have rules and environmental limitations that define what is practical and what is not. A watered-down street alley is not a good place for kicking. One with glass all about the floor is not a good place to groundfight. The stated incident, whether it be a friendly spar or a heart-wrenching hostage situation, makes the needs far more important than the wants. In this case, the want is to use both kicks and punches, which may not be an appropriate approach to resolving the incident. Last, the opponent's strengths need to be countered or avoided and his weaknesses to be exploited. The best means to deal with a confrontation is to not be rigid in your approach. If this didn't respond appropriately to your question, then perhaps you need to clarify your question. I.e., what are you asking?

It is one of the three major Okinawan schools, the other two being goju-ryu and shorin-ryu. It is a very 'hard' style, in that you will be presented with a great emphasis on conditioning. Do not be intimidated by how much the masters can withstand. In time, you will be able to achieve similar results.

No, just had a big job to do in the desert that would have given me the money i needed for a trip. It fell through, so back to the grind i go.

Well, my desert task fell through, so i'm here to give suffrage to all you n00blets. At least for a little while before thrust through a ventilation system.

It would be great to believe that one system covers all eventualities, or even that a thousand systems would cover all eventualities, but such is simply not the case. The ultimate goals we should all be striving for is a concrete understanding of what we know, along with a firm confidence. It's the best we can do, for when an incident happens, where we will need our skills the most, it very likely will fall at the very worst moment and while our guard is down. That is because a criminal will wait for you to present that window of opportunity, and not just walk up to you for a challenge match. So, if you spread yourself out too thin and fail to embed the training you've undergone, all the thousands of techniques you've learned will amount to absolutely nothing. This, in and of itself, is the greatest argument for maintaining a vigilant study in one particular art. A base, a foundation, your lifeline.

Hehe, you wouldn't believe how many times i've heard that same line from doctors.

I think that if you were close enough to headbutt him, then you were too close and should have acted sooner. But yes, a headbutt is an effective means to disorient your opponent, assuming you hit the appropriate targets and don't celebrate afterwards. Your advantage is only a moment, and thus you must act quickly to exploit it. btw, there are other things about that encounter that bother me, but i'll leave others to query you to death on it.

It is clear and evident that you can only learn so much on your own, and that in order to truly master an art you must learn work with an existing master. However, the capture of knowledge, insight, and style presented by various masters is beneficial to anyone who is already well practiced in the arts. By examination of what they did, we can gain insight into aspects of their approach that could very well help us to make leaps in our understandings, as well as ensure the arts don't morph so badly as to be unrecognizable from it's origins. Indeed, there are already some minor efforts in capturing the masters and grandmasters of some karate systems, and what i've seen of these videos gives great insight that could be very helpful to a master aspiring to greater ends. After all, if we don't attempt to capture this... and the master dies, what use is it to want to study with him face-to-face? The goal here should be to archive as much as 'humanly' possible, considering the mediums we presently have available. How could that possibly be construed as a bad endeavor?

The solution is to grab the board and repeatedly bang it over your skull until your skull has gone a bit soft and you can press it in a little. I.e., just because your hand is so far away from your brain doesn't make it any less a part of you. Treat it, and yourself, with love and respect.

If, during training, you collect disabilities, then your training regimen is counterproductive. You are becoming less able to survive a conflict, not more able. The goal is to make advances in your training, not to be macho or impress your friends with your bravado. You cannot readily do that if you spend half your time in convalescence, or lose organs and limbs. If you practice with real weapons, then do so with utmost consideration for your safety and the safety of your training partner (see this article). If you practice with fake weapons, you must still do so with utmost consideration for your safety and the safety of your training partner.

I would like to add that Hu Ren Qianzai Long, a poster on another forum, also indicates that this system is a neo-African style. His post, which provides a cursory listing of actual African and neo-African arts, is very informative and on topic. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12661