shogeri

To meditate is to mimic sleep while being awake. That is you relax your mind, and your body while in a given position, allowing them to do the natural physiological processes they would normally do while you are in REM, and the other stages of sleep. That is as I have said before, and ladyj also states, it's about healing and pain control. Some people meditate to the point, where they can avoid falling asleep, but still be able to kick off the altered state of conscious that the brain goes into when we sleep. The metaphysical or spiritual people call this enlightenment or nirvana. When it comes to our bodies. It's about being physical. Any questions, please continue to ask.

Again, at least in America, I have heard both, 'he/she practices hung gar/wing chun', etc, and 'he's or she's hung har'... Whether it's right or wrong, it's how they do it. The point is made or understood.

We fight like we train, so we should train to fight. We should train with intent. That is, with constant follow through that annihilates the opponent, employing the different methods of complete Martial Art training. We should build upon the skillset of the relentless champion mindset. Fight to win, at any cost. Do whatever it takes. Go beyond limitations, and think outside expectations. Be fluid, relaxed, strong, and aware. Keep it simple, and effective. Make it quick, and efficient. The Martial Arts are not supposed to be a Hobby, Religion, or Sport...

"Learning how to fight, takes a lifetime commitment." So you are saying that if you stopped training right now, you would be just as good in 5, 10, or 20 years, without furthering yourself, or maintaining the skills you do have??? What if you only trained for 6 months or a year? What about your skills then after years of absence? -------------------------- "Unless you are fighting an unknown, within a given sport system you can study your opponent or competitor, and learn what it might take to defeat them. " You could always go to a previous fight and watch the other fighters... ------------------------------------ When I say 'how to fight', I mean having the necessary skills in which to consistently, efficiently, and effectively resolve physical confrontation at any given point in time. ----------------------------- In regards to wrestlers, I can take on the basic 'joe' and do well, without wrestling skills. That is because I don't try to wrestle them. If I attempted to wrestle, I would possibly lose. The same goes for if I only did boxing, etc. -------------------- Wrestling, as taught in schools, and learned on the street, is not fighting. It (like ground fighting) is part of a larger structure of combat strategy and tactics. My nephews,friends, and stepson are always trying to 'take me on' in wrestling... I oblige sometimes in order to humor them. However, I do not just wrestle. I throw in strikes, gouges, throws, sweeps, kicks, locks, and so on. All they continue to focus on is shooting in, and going for the takedown, and if they are quick enough, and strong enough, then they might get somewhere. Only one time did I just 'wrestle' one of my nephews. He was all muscle, and strong, but not as quick as I was. It doesn't take much to ignite the bursitis in my shoulders. He overpowered me, but didn't actually out-fight me. However, when it was finished he limped off, bruised and scratched and torn up. I was a bit sore, but that was it. I had to actually stop from doing things which would have permanently messed him up or injured him by just doing things as a wrestler would. I tell them now, that I don't play anymore. ----------------------- "We cannot narrow the term down by using webster definitions here and there. This doesn't do anyone justice. It is better to expand on our understanding of the Martial Arts, and not allow them to be limited in any way. " What I mean is that Martial Art is an individuals' interpretation and expression of what it means to build yourself into a better person employing many different facets of life relating to combat, physical achievement, betterment, and so on. It's the journey. And in theory, the apparent result (at any given point in time) or current destination should be that a person knows how to fight, and or defend their self in the best manner possible. Muay Thai, wrestling, boxing are methods of fighting that have been used for thousands of years. They have become sport based, due to the culture surrounding the system itself. Muay Thai is deeply rooted in philosophy and spirituality. That is, it is much more than just a sport. Just because a government says something is a sport, doesn't make it one to every single person in that culture, or outside of that culture. Everyone has their own opinion of this or that. I can take a brick, a notepad, a pencil, or a can of coke, or a coke tab, and make them have Martial characteristics. The same can be said for many sports, traditional Martial Arts, etc. I believe that the Martial Arts are not being taught as they should. I believe that there is no one way (method, or technique) to truly win a fight or do so time and time again. It takes an ongoing system of training to win, since one will fight like they train. I train privately, and differently than most instructors do. I train for effectiveness in action, not knowledge of technique. I train with intent. I consider myself different than most traditional Martial Art instructors in my area. That's all for now. Later!

JPerk, I have been practicing for over a quarter century myself...And I agree with your statement.

When taiji push hands or wing chun chi sao are done as competitive or sport, it is actually not what those 'skill training' methods are for. To me the top ranked master of Taijiquan (with emphasis on the quan part) does not push. They use pressure point fighting combined with taiji chin na, hao chuan, and various other centerline based fighting methods. It (Taijiquan) is a striking art. The best striking art master would more than likely beat the best grappler, who only knows how to grapple. However, the striking art practitioner must take precautions to avoid getting locked up with a grappler. Thus, they would have to avoid many throws, or locks, etc, even if they are integrated into their system. If they practice some type of flowing combat, then perhaps they stand a chance. However, if by chance the Taijiquan master goes down, and if their sensitivity to pressure (and qi) is so great, then they might have a chance against the best grappler. However, eventually, I believe the grappler would win, assuming their endurance holds up. Having practiced Okinawan Goju Ryu, I have realized that it has grappling in it, but it is Jujutsu based (Okinawan Tuite Jujutsu), and has influences from Chinese Kempo, which has Shui Chiao or Chin Na. Which are joint locking, strike-down, centerline, and throwing based systems. That is, 'standing grappling.' One has to compliment their training. In my view the average karateka, or kung fu practitioner would not hold up against a decent grappler who had good footwork, and avoided most strikes. I read over and over than BJJ students or practitioners must learn an effective striking art. Just as I have heard that those who practice striking arts, must learn bjj, or take roman-greco wrestling along with judo in order to compliment their training as well. No one method of fighting is THE method. Because it takes a lifetime to master either striking or ground fighting (not ground striking), it is really hard to say one way or the other. We can only theorize in regards to Masters. Since in my mind, all the great masters of the striking arts are fading fast or getting older, being replaced by those who do not fully grasp their system of Martial Art or methods of fighting. Or they simply see no need in going to the mat in order to prove what they do is sufficient in most cases. To me, most fights go to the ground because someone (one or both) do not know how to strike effectively. That is, fight dynamically, and effortlessly. It takes a certain set of skills and training to strike efficiently, just as it does to do Jujutsu, judo, and or BJJ, etc. However, if I had no skills, and I 'felt' the other person didn't either, then more than likely it would be a strike or two, and then a take down or strike down, followed by either grappling or banging their head on something, etc.

I agree that the western mindset should not try to explain qi using the methods it does. E=MC2 does make for a poor model. But again even 2=mc2 is just a theory, and yet it's an accepted way of looking at things. I say that it's a theory, since we cannot go back into time, nor can we go to the outreaches of the universe, and so on attempting to test such theory. To me, qi is broken down into functions, and yet the various forms of it collectively come together to be known as just 'qi'... The quote I used earlier was to perhaps bring out the point that qi (energy) and matter are somewhat related. I wouldn't want to go any further than that. To me there is a link between our conscious (and or subconscience mind), and that of the processes (qi movement, function, cultivation, and manipulation) in our body. I believe the 'Sleep Model' is one of the better ways in which we can at least understand the end result, along with some of the various meridian theories involving qi, etc.

A black belt is supposed to mean you can resolve a conflict with little or no effort, especially against one or two assailants. Does it mean absolute knowledge or experience? Not necessarily. Does it mean you are the master? No. Does it mean you worked for it. In some cases yes, and in some cases no.

Just take Judo, and then compliment it with the basic principles (entry techniques and rapid takedowns and submissions) of wrestling. Wrestlers do not always get on their back, whereas many judoka do.

Obviously, one cannot practice Martial Arts without fighting, either in preparation for the inevitable or the most likely never going to occur incident. As I mentioned, fighting is an integrating piece of the Martial Art puzzle. Martial Art is the root. It contains within it, the philosophy of pugilism. Of which, when we expand our understanding of it, it then included conflict resolution. BJJ to me, is more of a method of fighting, than it is a system of Martial Arts. It is the marriage of judo (a method of sport fighting), with advanced wrestling (roman-greco) entry (shoot) techniques. Can it be made 'Martial'...yes. On the same note, I can make a pair of salad tongs Martial as well. Which means that many things, with a little effort, or modification can be used in a manner suited to the Martial Arts. The bad part about always thinking of things as sport, is that at some point, a person will have to retire. The philosophy of sport fighting (or single person sporting events) is that there is always someone better (younger, faster, stronger, etc), and at some point you might meet that person. You will age, and your skill, strength, and mindset will not be what it needs to be. Thus, more often than not, we find that sport champions tend to retire out of either knowing the possibility of being beaten, or by the simply fact that they do not have what it takes to maintain their current position. Martial Artists do not retire. I believe you are saying the same thing as I. It is understood that these methods (systems) of training are sport oriented based upon the venue by which they are exposed. Their names may not say sport, but the philosophy behind their training does. You basically finished my sentence (or line of thoguht) for me. I think of Muay Thai as not being a sport. It is more a way of life, a means of survival, and of preservation. It is the 'street' version of kickboxing and western boxing. It is a method of fighting as well. MT kind of exists by in a class by itself. If I am at war with someone I am attempting to protect something I cherish. War translates to conflict. Whether its internal or external. The Martial Arts are included in this way of looking at things. The Martial Arts include a wide range of worldviews and or philosophies. We cannot narrow the term down by using webster definitions here and there. This doesn't do anyone justice. It is better to expand on our understanding of the Martial Arts, and not allow them to be limited in any way. Just learning wrestling alone, doesn't teach someone how to fight. Just learning kata or techniques, doesn't' teach someone how to fight. Learning how to fight, takes a lifetime commitment. Unless you are fighting an unknown, within a given sport system you can study your opponent or competitor, and learn what it might take to defeat them. You cannot do this in a real life situation. Again, I agree with the statement that the Martial Arts are theoretically based, but done so, with thousands of years of actual experience behind them. The Sporting Arts have their place in society, as do the Martial Arts. In some places they overlap. Later!

What this is implying to me is that qi is a biophysical substance that supersedes matter, that is, it is on the verge of becoming matter in a different form. Qi does not necessarily follow the E=mc2 paradigm down to a 'T'. We use the model as guide, a tool. That's it. It's not absolute, but it does provide us with a starting point. The science behind the study of the Human Electro-magnetic {energy}field is rather new. We are still learning about our biolelectricity every day. So who knows what tomorrow will bring. I know that we are composed of major and minor (subtle) energy fields. There are many states of qi each relating to a given function or purpose: 1. Impulsing--the growth and development of the body, 2. Warming--the maintaining of appropriate body heat, 3. Defending--against stresses and pathogens, 4. Controlling--the Blood and Body fluids, 5. Transforming--metabolizing Qi, Blood and Body fluids These are five common understandings of the qi model. Our bodies have natural functions. During the sleep process, our brain does particular functions during the resting process. These are closely tied to the five processes I mention above. Thus on a subconscious level, our body already knows how to bring itself to a state of homoestasis. Rather, sleep seeks to balance of our energy, the functions in our body, and the mental processes of our mind. We study qi, and cultivate it in order to understand our body on a different level, one that places us in a constant state of healing and or balance. Does this mean we are manipulating it as one would when one attempts to turn lead into gold. No. We are guiding (yi leads qi)natural processes. Not creating new ones. If it was natural to turn lead into gold, in all likelihood we would have done so by now, by reproducing what we find naturally occuring in the universe, or on our earth. We are carbon based, along with water and oxygen. These are primary physical energy (chemical, bio-chemical) forms. We also have the energy we consume (food and air), and put off as waste, etc. In Traditional Chinese Medicine, we use the term qi (energy) to relate to the bio-energy (function) of the organ. However, it does necessarily follow the e=mc2 model: neither is it energy like fuel. Jing or essence, marks our potential for growth. Jing produces qi. Essential Qi or jingqi, is stored in the kidneys. When we are healthy we have excess qi or Shi. This means are healthy, and balanced. We move qi by understanding it, and cultivating it. This processes of moving it is called daoqi. When we 'feel; or experience this, it's called deqi. The more we study qi, or cultivate it, or understand it within ourselves the more we are able to have the experience of 'deqi'... In other words, it's best to think of qi as an ambiguous, dynamic, multi-faceted quality that precedes many of the processes within our body. In western science it seems that energy comes from matter, whereas with eastern science, energy comes first. Reductionism doesn't necessarily follow the qi model or the understanding of qi as most know it to be, since qi cannot be reduced down to any type of particle. Though qi doesn't follow the model of e=mc2, certainly it some levels one could say that qi=mc+conscious awareness and or understanding. That is, without an intuitive approach, we will fall short of understanding qi, its functions and or processes. Just throwing out some extra thoughts...

I know he was joking and complimenting at the same time... I replied with honest, dry wit... LOL I also knew you would read this thread...

We did alot of conditioning in Okinawan Goju Ryu.

http://www.wongkk.com/ or http://www.shaolinkungfu.com/English/english_main.html One thing to note is that Kung Fu systems are based upon building or creating or molding the person over a long period of time. Many of them focus heavily on the internal strength or cultivation of qi, rather than just raw physical strength. On the other hand, many TKD (and karate) systems are taught in a factory or assembly line fashion. Northern style kung fu is practiced using very wide and open stances. Arms and legs are often full extended when they defend and attack with emphasis placed on fast leaps, turns, and high kicks, flying kicks and sweeping movements. --------------------------- I am not promoting the following, nor have I read either of them. I put them here for reference sake... If you need to work out on your own, you could also check out the book: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Kickboxing by Karon Karter, Guy Mezger. Or try the book: 64 Leg-Attack Methods of Shaolin Kung Fu by Wang Xinde ------------------------------ To me, if you want to employ kicks then do so based upon you own expectations and limitations. You add the dynamics {of your background} of kicking to that of any style, be it kung fu or karate. Do so wisely. The styles of kung fu that I have researched, practiced or witnessed each use a mix of different techniques including hands, elbows, knees, and legs, along with standing grappling. TKD is about many things, and in all respect should never have been, just about using the feet. The emphasis has been on legs, but it can just as easily be about something else. You make the style conform to you. You make it Martial. Good luck!

Cool beans! Great Job!

I believe that a person should have a certain skill set in which to full contact or to do any type of free fighting. These two situations should be closely scrutinized by the instructor.

Don't worry, Patrick has consulted with me many times. He is always watching, reading, and deleting... Nobody is perfect {especially me}, and every forum online (there are millions), does things differently. I am trying my best to always think before I type... I read the quote about the fire, and it didn't make sense to torch someone. Thus, the only thing left is the eternal flame within each of us. It has many uses, and is understood in many different ways.

This is an accepted method of communication in the western taught American or European martial art schools. I know of some Asian schools that cannot pronounce American words either. It's all part of the human experience or condition. Once a person is corrected linguistically, the communication becomes clear and concise.

Combat is an engagement or battle It also implies to contend against, to fight or struggle. The term "combat" typically refers to armed combat between soldiers during warfare. But also references the strategic action taking place between two opposing forces. Whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any physical conflict, including boxing or wrestling matches, along with sport fighting or tournaments. ----------------------- Martial implies being warlike, or having characteristics of military strategies or tactics. Thus, we could say that traditionally the Martial Arts ARE combative. Rather, any system that claims to be such, should have its roots in such or lead the student to that end, and not just be about fighting. Fighting is nothing more than when two or more people are placed into a situation of physical, emotional or intellectual conflict. Violence is a deliberate, unsanctioned action of that causes physical or emotional injury or death. Just because someone is aggressive doesn't necessarily meant they are going to be violent. An intelligent, assertive, proactive person can be just as violent as the next. The Martial Arts are, or should be about doing those things that aid a person in self-preservation, or preserving the quality of life that they have come to know, and or expect to have. The Martial Arts are not about violence. They are not exclusively about fighting. They are about learning and cultivating the strategies, tactics, skill, and fortitude in which to engage, if or when necessary, any and all opposing forces that seek to disrupt an individuals' (or groups') way of life. There are two ways in which to approach what makes a system Martial or combative. A system can be Martial, but not be taught as Martial, or the system is inherently not Martial in the first place. Thus we could say: Any Martial Art system that no longer has within it, the philosophy of training a person to be 'martial', is not in all practicality, a true Martial Art system. Any Martial Art system that is not implemented or practiced as being 'Martial', is again, not a true Martial Art. Self-defense or preservation is a natural response to conflict or violence. Both violence and self-defense can be aggressive. Self-preservation is also within the frameset of 'fight or flight'. The premise or philosophy of self-preservation should be within, and or taught within a system of Martial Arts. A system can be traditional, or not. It can be Martial or it can not. Most systems are. Those that are not, usually state somewhere that they are sport or dance or competition oriented. A Martial Art system can be based upon technique (kata, kumite, bunkai) or principle (footwork, handwork, bodywork, strategy, positioning, drills). It can also be a combination of both technique and principle. Many instructors like to change the focus to be that of fighting principles rather than traditional technique or the instruction of such. They like to call this combative or fighting arts. However, this is just using a catch phrase to market themselves to a different audience. One that usually wants quicker results. There is nothing wrong with this, unless they are implying that traditional Martial Art systems are not combative. My last point, is that if an instructor does not teach the student the philosophy of what it means to be 'martial', then in all truth, they are not doing anyone justice by calling what they do, a Martial Art. To be a Martial Artist is to live the Martial Way. Thus, one cannot just point a finger at a person, and say that they are not a Martial Artist, without first coming to know that person on a level that truly demonstrates who they are as in individual. ----------------- My point to this post is to clarify some thoughts, and share some ideas about these topics, and to discuss them further with those who participate on this forum.

kudos kzshin...lol

Advanced Jiujutsu practitioners do go to the ground. Rather many techniques are built around submission (that is locking or trapping up to and including a break in the structure of the body) holds. BJJ is just that. If effective striking (close in hand to hand combat) is not taught along with it {BJJ}, nor standing grappling (throws, strike-downs, etc), then the theory of multiple opponents will not hold. Ground fighting, including grappling, is just part of the picture in regards to MA. It should not pitted against the striking arts, or vice versa. I would love to see what the standard syllabus is for BJJ. This way, we could see just what carries over into other systems within CMA.

I would already know if a student was ready. A test is more for the student than it is for me. However, I do use test times as a means by which to critique, and to finalize any thoughts about their ability to progress further. Mostly it comes down to their ability to fight well, dynamically, and as expected.

The poll questions are kind of weak. ---------------- Speed, balance, position, and timing. There are others, but those are the most crucial. The other's are flexibility, endurance, agility, mental prowess, and technical skill. You can have all the strength in the world, and if you cannot get there first, it will more than likely be for nothing, especially if someone of equal or greater caliber comes along. Or just someone luckier. The true test of strength is not necessarily related to mass or velocity. Rather strength is (or should be) measured when one takes into consideration, all of these things we speak of. Thus when we say one person in a combative situation is stronger than another, we do not mean to imply physical or muscular size or ability to use such (excel in). Rather we say that collectively that person is a stronger fighter than the other.

I am in agreement to it, and was posting in order to advance some of my own thoughts on this thread.

Ovine, That sounds about as close to historically correct as it comes. I know this, having studies asian history and philosophy and culture through my university days, and for some time thereafter as well.