Drunken Monkey

you don't need to include the character's entire backstory into the actual book BUT it has to be there. you have to know it or else you're gonna be making things up as you go along and before you know it, you've just written another incoherent mess. "she has demons of sorts. She's alone. She delivers final justice without trials, and it bothers her. And she's starting to fall for, of all people, a corporate computer geek (who is actually pretty cool). Just how good she is is revealed as the story goes along" these are things you have to address. why is she alone? why does she 'deliver final justice'? how do they meet? what is the computer geek like? what is it about him that she likes? what kind of attraction is it? what do you mean by good? it's starting to sound like she is the kind of invincible judge type charcter "little fly fly" was talking about and those things you wrote were just nifty sound-bites..... incidentally, i have a little story/film script i'm kinda writing for my own amusement. in my story we have a boring spy-guy. not the hollywood, one man army guy but a more realistic button tapping, paperwork, spends more time at a desk but does at times participate on field missions (surveilance, bodyguard, covert information gathering). he's quite comfortable in his job and he's quite good at it and more importantly, he really likes it. he doesn't have many friends because of an overprotective upbringing. as a result, he doesn't/hasn't kept contact with his old school/uni friends. at his job, he doesn't really socialise with his colleagues either and because of his type of job, he doesn't/can't talk to many people outside of the job either. his life is routine. get up, shower, breakfast, get on the tube, get to work, sign in, work, go home/dinner, sleep. the basic premise of the story is that he bumps into someone from his old life, as it were, a girl taht he used to be really good friends with but as things progressed, they lost contact. this girl is also someone he had feelings for. as they get to know each other again, he finds himself falling back into that deep pit and it eventually leads to interfering with his work. it's the usual old life/new life meet and fall apart. he has to choose between something he has grown to love (his work) and someone he has never stopped loving (the girl). the old 'honest spy?' story is in there somewhere. boring? maybe but i didn't want to do another generic action hero story....

i don't buy the 'hidden in dance' story. at the time, anything that could act as a device for identity for the slaves was banned, the various parties involved having decided that divide and conquer was better than giving them a reason to unite. this meant that everything that came from their homelands was forbidden/repressed and this would include any dance of any sort. it doesn't make sense to hide the fighting art in a dance. another story i've read is that part of capoeria came from a type of ritual dance that was done and was absorbed into the ritual/practice of what was to become capoeria but from what i gather, there isn't much proof of this. the actual origins/history of capoeria isn't very well documented. what we know today as capoeria was only really developed in the past 100 years or so (regional was devised/refined/developed in the 1930s by Mestre Bimba)

ok. so the charcters move like they might use a real martial art (albeit badly). so what? what does that mean? is it important?

i looked in the mirror and spotted a dictionary on the table behind me.....

no. all games, as a reference to what martial arts is, are bad. to paraphrase funakoshi. looking like it means nothing. if you think that games show good martial arts, then i'm gonna assume you're not more than 14 years old..... but feh, free country. believe what you want to.

......i don't get it. him not really knowing what he is doing, clocks you with good hits.... shouldn't you, the more advanced student be stopping him from doing this, as opposed to relying on him to pull his punches? something i tell everyone i spar/drill/practice with. if i get hit, it's my fault.

the roda is the game of capoeria. the roda is like fighting but isn't. some of it is practice, some of it is ritual, some of it is drill, some of it is competition, and some of it is purely a game. sometimes, it is a combination of the above or it might flow from one to another. but do you really think, if the guy wants to hit you, he couldn't? the large hand movements are something of a new thing. if you look at angola, everything is more compact and tidy. that said, some of the hand movements are there to aid in mobility i.e give you balance and 'prepare' you for moving in any direction be it dropping into negativa or switching sides to au or role or any combinations thereof. also, it's interesting to point out, that if you look beyond what the hands are doing, you'll see that a lot of the time, the arm movement is used to bring the elbow into a position, relative to the direction of movement, to cover the head. if you think capoeria is just about kicks: galopante, godeme, cutevelada and a few more.....

....for crying out loud.... kid, it's a game. while the character's movements might be based on a martial art of some sort, i highly doubt that anything you see in a game is going to be representative of the real art.

a change, yes but that change is in fact, i would argue, going back to the traditional. that's why i'm not too keen about discussions of traditional/evolution/modern. i would say that in most cases, the change that is need, isn't an evolution but a move back to the original. the problem is that ****michal caine mode activated*** not a lot of people know that. they see what it has become and assume that was what it was always like. i think that needs to be addressed somehow before any 'evolution' is considered.

martial arts is still a petty small scene. maybe not small, but certainly not mainstream. i see the occasional flyer for judo clubs and jujutsu (not that many bjj places) on church hall boards and sports halls but from observations, most of these are aimed towards the childrens market. i wouldn't say that the grappling arts are anywhere near the majority of the practiced arts. there's quite a (relatively) large judo scene but that seems to more geared towards sport type competition (if that means anything). here, especially in my necks of the woods, boxing and more-so these days, thai-boxing seem to be by far the more popular. boxing is kinda part of the old 'traditional' life here and the kick-boxing/thai boxing seems to be an evolution of that.

the problem i have with this kinda of discussion is that what we are practicing today is nothing like what the 'traditional'/original version of things. i'll use shotokan as an example. does shotokan need to be 'evolved'? maybe. my point is, how qualified are you to say that it needs to be? do you think that what you do in your shotokan dojo is anything like what funakoshi and his first gen students did back then? i guess i'm trying to say that what we call traditional is in all likeliness, not very close to what actually was traditionally done. hmm, i also guess that's what a lot of you are saying already......

........just wanna chime in and add my forever worthless tupence. angela and myself are in the uk. in the uk, you are as likely to come across someone who has any ounce of wrestling skills as you are likely to come across an effective wing chun guy...... or something like that.... my point is, we don't have anything that even resembles the wrestling culture that you guys do in the US. i'm not sure how widespread the highschool wrestling programs are or popular they are but i do know the only wrestling the people here know about, is either the US pro wrestling or the even less believeable uk pro wrestling.....

learning to use a weapon isn't just about learning how to use a weapon, just like learning how to fight isn't just about learning how to punch and kick.

"But IN MANY CASES, one pays for lessons, ranking, supplies, another makes money" so you're saing that this isn't always the case? doesn't that mean that the statement isn't that valid?

read. that's why god gave us eyes.

well, i'm up the loxford end. i get the barking news as well. lovely........

did you see the videos of that guy being chased around outside his house by a guy shooting at him in green lane? as for shootings in ilford. you really should have a look in the local papers more often. have to remember that they don't tend to tell us until it reaches the courts.

"developed majority of them on the battle field or in preperation for the battlefield" again, i've said this before.... not quite. fighting maybe but not many things we do today were developed for 'battlefield'. the things for actual warfare are very different to the martial arts we train in today. the other thing i don't lke about use of the term 'battlefied' developed is that it romanticises the martial arts. ****mr miyagi mode engaged**** "fighting fighting same same....."

i am not afraid of the guy who is spinning and twirling his staff. i am afraid of the guy who has it in a good grip and position.

so.... if none of those styles existed beforehand, what would jkd look like? i mean, if jkd had started from a clean slate, with no possible reference to any existing martial art, would it contain in it's core teachings (from legit guys like dan inosanto and his students) chi sau/rolling hands, silat, kali and escrima drills? would it train in grappling as seen in modern jutistu/bjj? there is a world of difference between cross-training, training in multiple styles, jkd training and copying moves from lots of books and websites and calling it jkd. on a principles perspective, from my knowledge/experience. wing chun, jkd and kempo are all forms of the same. the only difference is that they refererence a different set of core movements. i have taken movements not taught in wing chun and used them is sparring. i have flowed from wing chun to chin na to a take down + hold/submission (arm bar if you must know....) is that jkd? nope. "When you think, "I know Karate/TKD/JKD/Wing Chun/Whatever and I can handle myself in a fight", you immeditaely limit your options and opportunities in that altercation to only what you have learned in whatever particular art or style you subscribe to." not quite. by that rationale, i can say that by carrying a gun with knowledge and experience in using it, you are you limiting yourself to only using your gun in all situations. this kind of view i find very common. you have this view and are imposing it on us. you assume that because i practice wing chun, i can only do those things in a situation. that assumes that if something i haven't come across in my training turns up i would not know how to deal with it. that isn't a problem in style, that is a problem in training. that was what bruce lee was saying when he said that traditional styles/methods were too rigid and fixed. he was talking about training. think about it. a style is a dead thing. doesn't matter if you do it in a traditional class or a jkd class, that thing is the same. the difference is what you do with it. some wing chun shools only do rolling hands. some places gear up and scrap. a lot do something in between. all use the same style/tools. i've mentioned this before but once, when asked about what JKD really was, bruce lee answered "pak sau and hip". if jkd was about no style and no technique, why did he sum it up as a fundental (conceptual) technique from a traditional martial art?

"you can train so that you don't have to fight" i've always seen this as a badly worded. i tend to think of it as: training so you know how NOT to fight or maybe even training to not fight. (unless you HAVE to....) using bad general examples (which you all know i hate...) a untrained fighter gets into a fight (opponent doesn't matter for this). he flails wildly, without real control with only a general idea of what he has to do (hit the bugger.....) during this exchange, he gets hurt and he might hurt himself. the whole thing is much 'messier' than it needs to be. some training later. he gets into a fight. he knows more about how to control his movements and the possible results. still gets hurt but at least now he is more comfortable with it and emerged as an eventual 'winner'. more training. now he can fight. he gets into a situation. he knows how to effectively defend and control himself and the other guy. he doesn't get hurt. other guy doesn't really get hurt. other guy realises the futility of his actions and pulls out a gun....... anyway. during his last dying breaths as his life flashes before his eyes, he sees that in his training, he learnt what can be done and how much damage we really can do to each other. he realises that if any old joe decides to have a go at him, they might get hurt. but hang on, if he can do all this, so can the next guy.... and what of other things..... like guns..... .....hmmmm..... best to not fight. but oops. too late now.

......but......... to train the martial art to it's 'best' you have to train as if you are going to be attacked. i would argue that even if you don't give a drunken monkey's about self defence, you should be training as if you are. to paraphrase agent kujan: a block isn't a block if it doesn't work. if you train and your techniques don't work then you aren't training properly. sure you can train for pefection of movement but i believe that the movement is perfect, or beginning to get to that stage when it works. looking right doesn't make it right. there's that old discussion about people mistaking the snap of the gi for sign of power. sorry. really messy but hopefully y'all understand what i mean..... "......doing it for a whole heap more reasons than self-defence" well, that's the thing. i'm not saying that self defence is the main reason or the only reason or even if it's a reason at all. i'm just saying that part of martial arts training is self defence. y'know, it is something that is intrinsically part of it. if you remove that element then i don't think it is a martial art anymore (think chinese national wushu....)

as bruce lee said; there is a difference between having 'no way' a dn having no 'way'. so, who do you train with?

"But every time one pays for lessons, ranking, supplies, another makes money." can you say this with 100% certainty?

give me some time with part3. still trying to decide what bits to go on to..... but seeing as there's an immediate question here. in chinese there is "chung sing" (centre/middle line) and "mo gee sing" (mother/son line). it's not strictly a wing chun thing as it's in all chinese syles that i know off. the centre line is about dividing gates and visualising targets/entry/receiving. the mother line is more about structure, movement, facing and how you generally move. as for what william cheung and what he calls the 'blind side'. when he talks in chinese, he still talks about inside/outside gates. the central plane is to do with facing. you generaly work along the plane. some places describe this plane as simply the plane that join yours and your opponent's centrelines/motherlines. in most cases this is sufficient but it tends to lack an element of the direction you face/point. simple example (which is going to be mentioned in the next post....). there is a principle that goes 'everything points to the centre'. the motherline just makes it easier to visualise. on a deeper level it also draws a distiction between entering and striking. i.e you enter using the centreline as a guide and strike using the motherline (or what happens to the motehrline) as a guide.