ovine king

and despite what some people might argue, is a demonstration of body mechanics....

actually, i think it might be better that at least one of the mod team has little to no experience. that way, there would always be at least one (hopefully) impartial voice.

the typical kickboxer, if he sees you looking down, will throw a punch at you.

got what? i'm not taling about what the words mean, i'm talking about what the word sounds like. lau (the name) sounds exactly the same as the word for flow, the verb to leave (alone), the word for fake/false/dud, the verb to keep, part of the character pair that means fluent and many, many more 'words'. that is why when talking about lau gar kuen, you don't tend to leave out the 'gar' because it would sound and tecnically be'wrong'.

actually, i would say that MMA has become a style. go to any MMA gym in the uk and you would most probably see the same thing being trained.

err..... be a bit careful with that name. in all instances it SHOULD be called lau gar (kune kung fu). that name has the pronunciation as the chinese for fake/false/dud. and nope. lau isn't the same as lee but both are a bit hard to find a 'pure' school for. for the most part, lau gar seems to be taught in the uk parallel to kick-boxing (but this might just be the san shou of the bcmaa) where-as traditional lee gar seems to be non-existant in the uk. (incidentally, lau gar staff form is part of the hk hung kuen curriculum) there is another lee gar kung fu (feng shou) in the uk that is also taught along with tai chi and san shou (again because they participate in the bcmaa san shou tournements).

i) san soo is a style that was brought to america. the original name given to the style is (please correct me if i'm wrong) Tsoi Li Ho Fut Hung. the more i hear about this, the more i want to see it. unfortunately, it seems to be very rare in the UK. ii) san shou is in one instance, a sort of kickboxing. i see it as a rules-set for that kind of fighting environment, just as full 'muay thai rules' would be. it was originally devised as an environment that people from all (chinese) styles can participate in. in particular, it is the 'official' all-styles fighting format of the wushu associations around the world. because the san shou fighting is actually quite different to the styles' actual fighting methods, it has also become something that you train as a style/system by itself. i have done a bit of san shou rules fighting in my time and the place i did it teaches mainly tai chi. i am mainly a wing chun person and a few of the guys that also attend the san shou are european rules kick-boxers and also a few san shou only guys. we can all step into the ring together comfortably despite what we do in and out of the ring being different. it's quite a good mix of rules except i'm not allowed to forearm or elbow..... which is my official excuse for being the resident punch bag. iii) the characters for san shou means (literally) 'loose hands' and refers to loose/separate fighting techniques i.e simple punch/kick/block combinations and whatnot. taking wing chun as an example, the common tan-dar can be taken/taught as a simple 'loose hands' technique, as can nearly all of the techniques. if someone was to come to me asking to be taught a few things that might come in use, i would teach him/her in 'loose hands' way. if someone was to come to me asking to be taught wing chun, i would teach him/her the 'complete' way.

that sword isn't only for tai chi, y'know.....

i always say; check your hips.

another ancient thread dug up from the depths of the archives.... anyway. as the guy above said, thinking you know is bad. just as bad is knowing a little and thinking you know a lot. as is knowing a little but not being able to exercise that knowledge. simply knowing something, anything, no matter how big or small is, in terms of martial arts, if you ren't able to do that thing. on a basic level, everyone knows how to box. we all know what a cross is, what a jab is, an uppercut, a duck etc etc. we also, know how to do them (good or bad) and we also probably know the mechanics behind putting them all together to box but that doesn't mean we can actually box. knowing something isn't by any means enough.

right now i have this running around my head 24 hours a day.... This is the first day of my life I swear I was born right in the doorway I went out in the rain suddenly everything changed They're spreading blankets on the beach Yours is the first face that I saw I think I was blind before I met you Now I don’t know where I am I don’t know where I’ve been But I know where I want to go And so I thought I’d let you know That these things take forever I especially am slow But I realise that I need you And I wondered if I could come home Remember the time you drove all night Just to meet me in the morning And I thought it was strange you said everything changed You felt as if you had just woke up And you said “this is the first day of my life I’m glad I didn’t die before I met you But now I don’t care I could go anywhere with you And I’d probably be happy” So if you want to be with me With these things there’s no telling We just have to wait and see But I’d rather be working for a paycheck Then waiting to win the lottery Besides maybe this time is different I mean I really think you like me thank you bright eyes...... at least it's a decent song. at times i also get hit me baby one more time in my head, although i should add that it's the travis acoustic version and not the britney one....

not only have you dug up a topic that is about new years resolutions, (three month's ago) it is one from three years ago.

i think it would've been more interesting and maybe more worthwhile to have been around when all of them people were actually going through the process of devising their styles. that is, to be training WITH them as they were finding out new things instead of just being trained by them.

i agree with the sentiment but i don't to agree with the specifics. if you want to be capable of fighting in the streets then training how to fight is the best way to go. it doesn't have to be a modern mma style. better people than me have said that your abilities in real situations is based on HOW you train, not WHAT you train.

er.... you're kidding right? a bookshelf is probably the second most basic piece of furniture you can make. simple description. i) measure out sides, top and bottom and lengths for the actual shelves. ii) finger join the ends of the body. iii) attach backing of your choice iv) measure out where you want to shelves. v) fix brackets (or whatever method you've chosen) vi) put on the shelves. if the shelves are bowing under weight, you can add a length of wood under the shelf to give it more rigidity.

what kind of actors? i have friends who in their spare time make short films/fight scenes....... granted that some of the choreography is er... 'stolen' but still, everytime they make another short film, their camera work gets better. i also know people who do the occasional bit part role in some biggish movies. one of them had a fight with jet li in one of them and another friend actually had lines (woohoo!) in spygame (he's the chinese guard who screams something out in cantonese like "don't let him get away")

.....which brings us nicely to the actual use of the term "master" in martial arts. as far as i know, sensei, sifu and whatever other titles are used, DO NOT MEAN master; they mean (something along the lines of) teacher.

yes.... but it is longfist in 'style'. it does have short bridge principles in it's framework. i have trained with choy li fut guys before (trained with, not trained in) and i remember having an attack come in towards me, then it twisting and turning into an under bridge type strike. the long swing was to create the bridge and once contact was made he pressed in and turned the punch. it was almost like a very quick and very temporary trap before strike; trapping being a classic sign of short-bridge work. i have seen similar things in hung kuen where you have a long lunging type strike used as a bridging technique then once that bridge is made, you close the gap using whatever stance and then turn to elbows and whatever to break balance and structures, again, typical of short bridge work.

errr.... interesting but.... i) the first theory he presents is based on alexander the great as being the one who brought forth wrestling to the world. this is taken as a begining of martial arts in china but there are accounts of organised fighting and training in china way before his appearance on the planet not to mention that the link of china to jujutsu isn't 'proved'. ii) the second theory is based on that fellow you mentioned as being the one who brought chinese martial arts to japan. as it was mentioned in one of the links i gave earlier, ACTUAL historic documents points to jujutsu systems being practiced long before he was around. iii) the third theory is based on the mongolian type of wrestling which is called jiaoli (in that document) which he says is considered by some as the precusor to sumo in japan. however, the sumo/jujutsu link is just as tenuous as the china/jujutsu link (so maybe this is a better place to find a 'beginning' of jujutsu) iv) the last theory is again based on Chen Yuan Bin which has already been dealt with by the link i gave.

now this is purely me thinking logically so DON'T take it as fact..... i) the 'short fist/bridge styles' tend to be based around the southern part of the country, in particular around canton (don't forget that hung gar and choy li fut both have short bridge principles in them....). ii) the styles that are most associated with 'long fist/bridge' are typically, the older styles. iii) the newer styles tend to have a connection with the anti ching movement. iv) the anti ching movement was based (in the later years) mainly in the canton region of china. it seems to me, that the 'short fist' styles are likely to have come about because it is like a natural progression of the older styles and in part due to the anti ching movement (which had to deal with older fighting styles). anyone add/subtract from this line of thinking?

err.... which easter? the one about the crucifiction and ressurection of jesus christ hence bringing on salvation for mankind? or the pagen celebration for the return of a female goddess, spring, new life and new beginnings?

.....the wanting to or not wanting to fight isn't always a spirituality thing. in most cases, it is down to the question of mentality and maturity. as sevenstar keeps saying, he goes somewhere else for spirituality BUT that doesn't mean that part of his fight/not fight mentality/principles/whatnot isn't because of his training. mentality does not equal spirituality. my martial arts training has taught me that fighting has consequences. that has nothing to do with any spiritual aspect. fighting/not fighting isn't and never was part of the decision to go into training properly. i didn't do it for the love of the art (how can you love something you are only just beginning in?) and i didn't do it because of any outside influence. i did it because i wanted to. however..... that doesn't mean that i wasn't aware of what it is to take on a martial art. at the end of the day, i knew that somewhere along the lines, it'd involve hitting someone and getting hit in return. it's like football. you don't go beacuse you like kicking a ball. you do it because you like football. just like kicking a ball doesn't always=football hitting/beating people up doesn't always=martial art.

honest answer? mostly it's cos i thought it would be cool to learn something like that. pretty much the same reason why i learnt other things like close-up card magic tricks, diablo 'juggling', proper cocktail making (although i've yet to actually study and take a mixology test) and a whole host of other little things. i think mixed into that would be that i thoguht it would be fun and that i'd enjoy it. underlying all that is a personal sense that i should.

actually...... while the chinese styles don't generally have a lot of ground work, they do tend to have a lot of ways of clearing yourself some space and getting youself up, especially in the older styles. there is/was a sub-set within styles simply (translated) called tumbling. if you take the core of the style as being the fighting (hand/feet) and forms: the grabs, locks, throws as being chin-na. the going to the ground and getting back up is the tumbling. the structure and movement is the stance/footwork. because the last three things i mention above are actually quite general and are almost the same no matter the style, they aren't generally taught under the same of the host style. so while i might've learnt some tumbling, chin-na and classical stances in my wing chun, it isn't technically part of the wing chun BUT it is still an important part of the training (martial study).

i've never liked the thing about a kata being fight against imaginary opponents. i've always taken taht to be refering to your mentality when doing a form i.e don't play, take it seriously. why can't any sequence of drills be a kata?