White Warlock

you all?

I disagree. While they may not be used for large-scale warfare anymore, they are not obsolete. Each weapon provides training in a 'basic' concept. These concepts translate to household and street items, such as kitchen knives, broom sticks, ropes, chains, car antennas, hubcaps, trash can lids, 2x4's, golf clubs, keys, t-shirts, towels (insert shower-scene), etc. The argument posed by many is that the martial arts, as a whole, are obsolete, but this is a gross misconception. While guns have their uses, they are a mechanical extremity that holds many limitations, not the least of which is... you can't take them 'anywhere,' especially nowadays. One of the scenes where many fights occur is at dance bars or at the parking lot of dance bars, usually while you're heading back to your car. Since many of these bars nowadays prevent people from entering with any metal objects larger than their keys, your crutch will need to stay in the car. This also means, you'll be unarmed as you walk back to your car. And, there are many other type-scenes where a gun just isn't going to be feasible to carry. Yet, we go beyond that. Even if you were to carry a gun, most victim-crimes are sudden. Predators generally wait for easy prey, so things like muggings usually happen without warning and while you are 'unprepared.' In such a case, being able to pull out your gun from your concealed holster, grip it properly, unsafety it, aim at center-mass, and shoot... whilst in the middle of an assault, is not very likely to be effective. More likely, you'll be waking up in the hospital... or not at all. Especially if the mugger succeeds in wrestling that lethal weapon out of your hand (because you opted to rely on the power of a gun, rather than the power of yourself, and thus never took sufficient training in the 'so-called obsolete' martial arts). Also, the gun only provides you with two options. One is to threaten, the other is to apply lethal force. The former could get you as much as 3 years in jail (assault with a deadly weapon AND use of a firearm to commit a crime, making it harder to plea bargain), while the latter could get you life in prison. Interesting supposition, but i disagree. Systemization and formalization actually occurred with most, if not all, of the martial arts due to the need to train large units, armies if you will. It is still the practice of the U.S. Army, and other military organizations, to train recruits in unarmed combat, stick fighting, and the use of the bayonet. More advanced training is available, for those who specialize. As to the meditation, that is 'religion-based.' You'll find that many systems do not apply meditation to their art, including many modern ones. Indeed, fencing does not include meditation. Actually, it is an art. It is as much an art as biology is a science. In fact, soldiers train in fields of psychology and sociology, yet both of those are 'arts.' I believe you are mispresenting what an art is, confusing it with that of sculpting, photography, finger painting, or charcoal drawing and assuming it needs to produce some form of 'aesthetically appealing end-product.' No, it doesn't, and now i'm not sure if we agree on some point or not. But, shooting... is an art.

I am not a Bruce Lee fan, nor have i spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing his movies. To me, they're just movies, and in those movies, he was just a martial arts actor. Call it blasphemy, but hey... how many people do you see idolizing Steven Seagal? As many? Less? I wonder if they're going to idolize him 30+ years after his death, and yet he's an 8th degree black belt in aikido AND a successful actor. I do find it interesting though. People have a tendency to hang on Bruce Lee's every word, and yet they've blown off the words of most every other martial artist. The tangent completed, i just wanted to note that Chuck Norris practiced tang soo do, not karate. I seriously doubt the movie you're referring to incorrectly portrayed him as employing karate, but... it's always possible. I mean, those 'were' odd times.

you have change for a $20?

Movies presented a good and a bad. They pushed out all this magic and mystique about the arts, including all the hokey stuff, because it makes for good cinematic action and intrigue. By doing this, they gave many people a mass of false information... and also, unrealistic expectations. On the flip side, they've succeeded in making martial arts one of the biggest, if not the biggest, theatre draw. That, in turn, means plenty more people are now interested in keeping these arts alive AND able to afford doing so.

and could you make it to go?

And truer words were never said. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/www_MyEmoticons_com__thumbs_up.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/www_MyEmoticons_com__thumbs_up.gif

Originally, martial arts referred to Asian fighting systems. But this classification is old and has since been revised... except in the dictionaries you rummaged through. Indeed, i'm somewhat disappointed that Princeton University still uses "oriental" to refer to Asian. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/fighting02.gif Mirriam-Webster, 2005 - Function: noun : any of several arts of combat and self-defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport.Brittanica Online, 2005- any of various fighting sports or skills, mainly of East Asian origin, such as kung fu, judo, karate, and kendo.The catch here is, the use of the title, "martial art" is for that of laymen. It is a catch-all phrase presented as a means to bring about a certain 'thought' in the mind of a recipient or reader. It is not a steadfast rule of order, but a generalization. We who actually practice the arts, can define it any way we dang well feel like.

I had an itch, and have decided to add a little more here. Since my last discussions here on these boards, about san soo (tsoi li ho fut hung ga), choi li fut, and sanshou, i've since taken the time to do a little research, visiting choi li fut schools, doing a little hands-on, watching a few demos, and playing around with sanshou spars. To expound on some things i mentioned earlier: Sanshou, translated from Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese, i don't know), means "freeform fighting." At present, it is the sport competition end of many Chinese kung fu systems. Notably, choi li fut. Tsoi li ho fut hung ga, was dubbed "san soo" by Jimmy Woo's students. Originally, it also referred to "freeform fighting." It was said that Jimmy Woo would call what was normally practiced in the class, "san soo" or something similar (he had a heavy accent), and since it dominated the teaching in the classroom, it was adopted as the new name for the system (being a helluva lot easier to remember, and also easier to advertise). Its origins show to be very similar to that of choi li fut. Choi li fut was founded in 1836 by Chan Heung, who had a strong base in hung gar (founded by Shoalin disciple Hung Hei Gung) and was a disciple of Li Yao San (progenitor of li gar kung fu), and who later studied under Choi Fook, a Shoalin master of northern kung fu styles. From what i've experienced, choi li fut and san soo (tsoi li ho fut hung ga) clearly have similar foundations. In Jimmy Woo's earlier teachings, he did not provide forms. This was added later, and the forms do not look much like the choi li fut forms. Ignoring this, i found the philosophies and focus just a tad too much alike. I.e., the approach. However, the great differences in the two come in the classroom: Choi li fut is, as i indicated earlier, very much into forms and in focusing on perfection of the forms. Application and actual physical contact with a partner are minimal. For my personal taste, too much emphasis is placed on forms, and not nearly enough on 'application,' which is probably why san soo caught my attention. San soo is, by contrast, no forms (at least traditionally) and almost all actual physical contact and 'non-resistance' application. I emphasize 'non-resistance,' because i consider this to be a both good and bad thing. It allows for the actual application of techniques on a human being, but without the added effect of the human being posing 'normal' resistance or defense. The practice is ALL freeform fighting, but without the resisting opponent... until the later stages. At the later stages, and depending on the school, resistance is brought into the training. Mid to high ranking students put on body protection and go at it, in much a similar as that of "sanshou." But, with one big difference. I found the san soo practitioners 'better able' to apply what they've practiced... than what i've witnessed of the choi li fut practitioners who transitioned to sanshou. The finishing aspects of the san soo system are clearly evident when they put on the sparring equipment, and their finality is much more apparent than what i've witnessed of the choi li fut practitioners. Also, in my somewhat brief experience in the sparring arena with the sanshou-branched choi li fut practitioners, i noted they were relying more on 'street-basics' than they were on choi li fut techniques. I.e., what they've studied simply wasn't ingrained, like it was for san soo practitioners. I can attribute that to the 'way' san soo practices, as opposed to the way choi li fut is 'traditionally' practiced. Like i mentioned earlier, san soo 'always' works out with a live opponent. This 'comfort' in manipulating the human body helps tremendously, even if the opponent isn't resisting. The tactile nature of san soo's practices help acclimate the practitioners to the shape and form of the human body, and all its wierd mechanics and anatomical anomalies. After these examinations, i've come to appreciate Jimmy Woo's approach, although also recognize that 'more' transitioning to resisting opponents is needed. The leap from 'non-resistance' to 'full-resistance' is just too big a leap, and some critical elements are being lost in the transition. Still, it's a far lessor leap than that required of the 'traditionally-trained' sanshou choi li fut practitioners... which is to go from 'forms' to 'full-resistance.'

ugh, old question. Bear with me here, as i've answered this quite a few times on this board already. San soo, the name given to, "tsoi i ho fut hung ga" is a Chinese style in and of itself, allegedly derived from similar roots as choy li fut. (Reader's Digest) San shou is not as much a style, but a form of practice, where the goal is to utilize some aspects of Chinese systems in a 'sport' competition setting. San shou was the Chinese' response to muay thai. (Reader's Digest) Some links of previous discussions on it: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7214 http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=12371 http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=12274 http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=14195

Bruce Lee was both an actor and a martial artist. Actors have to be popular, or they don't get casted. He was making movies primarily for Chinese audiences, and there is a long-standing animosity between the Chinese and Japanese. Part of this has to do with the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WW2, but it reaches further back. Anyway, it seems pretty pointless to get into 'why' Bruce Lee said it, or anything else. At face value, what he presents sounds intriguing. After further analysis, there's some truth to it, even if it is far too generalized. However, all things have their respective applications, under a given system. Look, Bruce Lee was young. Younger than me at the time of his death, and younger still when he was interviewed and made those 'pompous' statements. He was playing a role, and he was doing it well. It was getting him tickets at the box office and earning him starring roles in movies. You can't take 'everything' he said at face value. In fact, i find far more truth in his writings, where ego and show are not being expressed, than i do for those times he puts on the mask, and speaks to the press.

Well, i used to be a dog owner, does that count? *picks teeth with tailbone*

What do you mean by that?

Long sentence. hehe... It seems we're on the issue here of semantics. What you refer to as "untested," i and many others refer to as "test-tube." We get the semantics down, and i think you'll find we agree. Hehe, go click on my intro hotlink. i think you'll find we're of similar thoughts. In my opinion, you're not wrong... just jaded. Seriously though, yes... experienced. Here we play with semantics again, but i call it conditioned. Anything can work at half-speed, most things can work at 3/4 speed, but hardly anything works at full speed. If you're not conditioned to know what works, and what doesn't, you're going to get hurt out there.

Ugh!

Well, i don't drink. I feel better that way. I don't deal with the problems associated with even one drink, and i get to look down on others for their drinking. Seriously though, no i don't drink, but i don't because i really don't much care for the effects of alcohol on my body (loss of some motor control), for the hardships it presents to my digestive system, and because i've witnessed too many hurt themselves, or others, with this drug... or with this drug as 'the excuse.' If you drink, drink responsibly. If it bothers you, or you feel 'less' because you drink, then don't drink... because you're associating your self-esteem to alcohol intake. Do what makes you feel better about yourself (which is different that what makes you feel better), avoid those things that attack your self-esteem. Pretty simple really. One special request: If you drink, don't drive. I've been run over as a pedestrian and as a motorcyclist, and struck a few times while sitting in my car at red lights. In all cases, it was due to alcohol intoxication. They were at fault, and i suffered immeasureable damage because of it. I also went to too many funerals of friends because of it. Alcohol is dangerous, because it impedes your ability to make sound judgements... while at the same time impeding your motor control. A lethal combination... with a very bitter aftertaste.

One of the many... I'm aware of this. I just consider it pointless. It's like Taco Bell's 'cheese' quesadilla, being that the word, "quesa" in quesadilla means cheese. So, it's like saying cheese cheese dilla, just as Jun Fan JKD is like saying Bruce Lee's Bruce Lee system. And no, it's not a knock on you, just on the selling ploy of some of these schools. Nothing stays 'pure,' no matter how hard one tries. I disagree... and agree. It is being taught as a philosophy, within a style. Many places merge Jun Fan do with the philosophy presented in JKD. They also grab many of Bruce Lee's insights and 'wrap it around' the name of JKD, when it was never intended to be that way. In my opinion, that once again falls under the idea that they 'simplify' it all... for commercial purposes. I mean, can you imagine how much of a pain is it to explain to every friggin person who walks in the door that JKD is not a system? No, most instructors just gave up. Instead those students that are diligent eventually learn to understand the difference... just as many kung fu schools used to advertise as 'karate,' because it was much easier than trying to educate every 'short-timing' curiouser about wushu / kung fu, and Chinese history as it pertains to the martial arts. Well, i felt it prudent to indicate what it is about, since you were purporting it incorrectly in your query. I mean, without a proper base to initiate a conversation, you're not going to get a proper analysis, and thus not a proper set of results to your queries.

Agreed.

thanks fm, and yes... your father's story is similar. Trade.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/fire_devil.gif

In a perfect world. Unfortunately, we're not in a perfect world, and as KT also indicates, not all martial art practitioners are instilled with the idea of 'non-violence' as a better means to living. Also, European systems (boxing, wrestling, savate, etc) do not instill such chivalric concepts as found in Japanese or 'some' Chinese systems. Other than the part below, i agree with KempoTiger's assertions. I wouldn't. I think it's important to bring forward, at this time, that almost all 'experienced' street fighters (as if such a thing truly existed. In actuality, their opportunists, not experienced) do have training, usually in boxing and/or wrestling. Also, many ex-footballers received cross-training in wrestling. So, in most cases we're not really talking about street fighters, as much as we are talking about unrestrained amateur boxers/wrestlers. As to this 'untested,' i suppose i have a slight issue with all these 'addendums' to your suppositions. I mean, what exactly is 'untested,' and what makes you think there are that many serious 15 year veteran martial artists that haven't even 'tried' any of what they know? I mean, that's 5,500 days! I would say you would be hard-pressed to find any 15 year veteran martial artist, that's serious about his studies, who would not have spent at least a portion of those 5,500 days 'testing' the effectiveness of his/her techniques (then again, there are the posers). I am of the impression you are referring to something altogether different, which is the 'urban legends' that surround most bars, where some guys brag about themselves, or their friends, having beat-up some black belt. I can say, from personal experience, there are plenty of fools who 'claim' to have belts as a means to 'scare away' prospective bullies. Unfortunately, when such a claim doesn't work, they get the tar beat out of them, and then these guys get fun little bragging rights. The thing here is, most of those claimants are false. There are very few 'legitimate' martial artists who would 'toss up' their black belt as a means to intimidate their opponent from entering conflict. Urban legends rule this issue... it is false in most cases, either because the stories are totally contrived, the persons involved are truly not black belts, or the circumstances are not entirely as presented (sucker-punched, etc). Opportunists abound, and while i've found many 'legitimate' black belts that an ex-boxer or ex-wrestler could take out, i don't feel that a person without any formal training would have much of a chance... without sucker-punching them. My thoughts.

Bah! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/fighting71.gif

KempoTiger is correct. Inexperienced fighters can take a very long time to end a fight. An experienced fighter fighting an inexperienced fighter, can end the fight quickly. An experienced fighter fighting an experienced fighter, can take a very long time to end a fight. In conflict, there are no guarantees, so endurance-building isn't such a bad thing... if your opponent ends up being 'close' to your skill level. It can give you the extra edge you need to win the confrontation. But, just to clear things up here... conditioning isn't merely about endurance. Conditioning is about learning how to take a punch (and not flinch), how to deliver a punch (and not flinch), how to handle the 'chaos' associated with a confrontation (because things in real life aren't so picture-perfect as practice sessions would have you believe), etc. It's about conditioning yourself so that you 'can' deal with an actual confrontation, rather than merely 'go through the motions.' s'okay mtb, i knew what you meant. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/www_MyEmoticons_com__wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/www_MyEmoticons_com__cryingwithlaug.gif http://www.latexmaskcentral.com/images/hartwellpics/cousin_it01thumb.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/www_MyEmoticons_com__surprised.gif