Emei89

It wasn't to conceal it from themselves, does that make any sense at all no think alittle bit. It was to conceal it from thier enemies who would be spying on thier techniques from different schools. I think this whole forum us proof that people from different schools always fight on whose is better. So other school would want to see the techniques of the other so schools would conceal them. Many courtesies or salutations have hidden techniques, and that what i meant by dance. dance may have been the wrong word but it was late. As per saying how i know nothing about chinese martial arts i ask what makes you much morequalified than i?

duh of course they didn't. It was supposed to be a secret. When you do forms that are just long combonations they were created like that becuase when people would practice in the opne they wanted to conceal thier technique so they disguised as sort of a dance. And yes what we do now is probably more modernized but that mostly becuase over the years they changed it to perfect it,

I just spent two hours straight practicing Twin Dragon. Does anyone else here know it?

Kung Fu is 3000 years oold but orignally it was only for imperial soldiers. It was brought to the public until about 1500 years later. Dude the bible is 3000 years old and in Egypt they had fighting. It's not as farfetch'd as you assume.

Thats awesome. What MA do you study?

Doea anyone here know chi gung breathing and any iron body? (i.e. iron fist, iron leg, etc...)

from what i've heard and seen it's actually pretty hard to counter and looks very strong. one thing i've noticed is that alot of it seems to take place in a horse stance (which makes sense if you think about the way a praying mantis stands) and alot of extended hand play. supposedly it's very similiar to snake style which i'm currently learning on the side. so very strong finger hits to vital points and sometimes hitting with your entire body if it's supposed to be that similiar. by whole body i mean literally not as in punch with your whole body. like tackling almost. did i mention you used your body?

So you mean you put together a set or combo? Something like that?

Yeah somone else mentioned how style was generally new to Karate somewhere else on the sight it might've been you. You're very lucky to have an oppurtunity to travel to something like that. In 2-3 years i'll be going to china to study with people from all over. What you were saying about Ju-Jitsu is interesting. I've heard that before, that Karate, Ju-Jitsu, and one other thing it MIGHT be judo but thats really like throwing right? It's kind of different on Gung Fu though becuase in different animal styles for example you really fight pretty different. Even your strategy for approaching your enemy is different. Then again as you said multiple styles in Karate is generally new so I guess it will take more time to develop. I mean Gung Fu is about 3000 years old.

Jules thats ridiculous! I wish my school had full contact. What do you mean you had to creat your own system though?

I'm not completly sure about black belt. I know that you have to go through a 6 hour boot camp with the sifu but i'm not sure who you fight. I know to become an instructor you have to fight all the others and eventually the sifu.

Ya know i was just watching return of the dragon in which Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris (who IS trey) have the final showdown and what i saw was that while Chuck's moves were very power yet seperated Bruce's were almosty equally as powerful but more flowing. It looked as though Chuck was cutting and pasting moves,so to speak, to form a combo, while Bruce seemed to link them naturally. Now that may simply be ability, but in other instances i've viewed karate it seemed that way. No doubt even though Bruce won in the end he still got his * kicked around. Does anyone remember what movie Chuck Norris fought David Carradine?

But people can learn so much from eachother. I think it's almost ignorant to learn only one method. When you're a juror in court, you must take in all sides of the argument and then decide for yourself which parts are important and what is the truth. If people only see one "side" or style, it is almost impossible to CORRECTLY determine for themselves what is right. You can take the word of your sifu or sensei or whoever your master is which makes sense becuase AS a master they have more experoence then you. But if someone tells you swimming is fun are you content to take thier word for it? Would you not try it yourself? I simply feel that people become to relyant on even one VERSION of a style from thier master who they themselves are changing becuase they've made it thiers and teach it as THEY understand it. But how can you understand anything when you practically know nothing?

C'mon people. Read then vote. Anyone? Please? (I'm lonely.....)

I often see alot of arguing between MAists about who's style is better or more effective, but even if one is better that doesn't garauntee that the person with the more effective style can beat the one with the lesser if the lesser is simply a better fighter. I think that people should stop catagorizing themselves as belonging to a particular style as a way to measure oneself against another. Sure it is a useful way to keep that system alive and to feel out what the other persons fighting might be like, but it is useless to compare schools if you are a poor fighter. I think we should erase the title of style to our different schools and all just call ourselves MAistss. Then, whenever describing a particular technique be able to say "This fighter used a strike from the Crane school." etc... This would also make people have to know alittle bit more about verious techniques, encouraging people to learn more and more MAs, developing more well-rounded students leaving room for only one comparison -- Who is simply a better fighter.

Let this blow your mind (as we are talking about the Bodhidarma and jesus) -- There is significant evidence that says that in the time period left out in the bible, Jesus studied in India. They have similiar healing techniques in Budhist monasteries to those described about Jesus' although there isn't that much detail about his procedure in the bible since it is referred as the power of god.

Your right in saying that my statement was a generalization but to say that what you see now makes you think that it didn't derive from white crane style or any other style is wierd. Obviously it wouldn't look now as it did when it was first being formed becuase if it did it would probably just be refered to as white crane or whatever style it did genrate from. Karate has evolved into it's own style and I'm giving it that credit, having never infact called it "merely" a derivitive and am not mocking it as a cheap, and muscle-bound imitation of gung fu as you seem to think I am. "Okinawan karate is not like what you say at all, Emei89." You could be right as I have only seen the exterior dimensions of Karate and do not know the inner philosophies having barely studied it myself and having been only a witness in a majority of my encouters with it. As I stated these are simply things I have observed and heard from students of both presuasions.

(next page)

The most apparent difference i've noticed between gung fu and karate is that gung fu is based on a principle that bruce lee put as moving like bamboo. A tree branch that stays stiff breaks easier in the wind than bamboo which moves with it. Karate opposes force with force while gung fu teaches to move WITH the opponent. Yin cannot be without Yang. When the opponent expands you contract and vice versa. Karate was derived from the white crane style of gung fu, so it more a subsection then a seperate thing to compare. But thats mostly what i have to say.