Drunken Monkey

i could've sworn that warlock was just reminding us that before we use the ever popular 'physics' arguments, we should first know the correct terms to use and what they actually mean... not whether or not they are relevant.

hmm, i have never been told in any of my wing chun, or other kung fu classes that i should try to talk out of a fight... i have been told that yes, i should not go looking nor should i encourage a fight to happen but i should also be aware of the possibility of it happening and if it does, sod all rules. if i am being pushed into a fight i will treat the guy as an attacker that hasn't done anything yet. it does not mean that my mind is in a 'talk out of it' mode. if i ask them if they are sure they want to do this, i am not really trying to get them to back down but rather giving myself a little more time to calm myself and to judge the situation and environment. the act of saying it becomes my 'readying' procedure. y'know,a s i say it, i fix my structure in prep for something to happen. it also gives me a reason to get my hands up in a non-aggressive way (also for an 'instant' mun sau). on the other hand, you could just go out fists blazing at the first sign of agression... i think the crux of this topic is how ready you are when the poop hits the proverbial fan. i think you've confused the 'talking down' aspect of things with not wanting to fight.

hey, just cos i'm curious now, can everyone describe their horse stance? y'know, how you are positioned, how your structure is/works. stuff like that. it seems like most styles have a form of horse stance; i'll be good to see how eveyone does it. cheers. monkey.

just looked at the website and yeah, a lot of what they present is inaccurate... for a start, da-mo is NEVER refered to as 'sifu' and a lot of their use of terms is wrong. also, 'sheng hun' (or should it be 'shun gung') is not 'animal spirit'. it is/was about the summoning of spirits which then (kinda) 'possess' you, giving you mystic fighting abilities of the spirit. should point out that this has always been viewed as, well, for lack of a better term, 'bunk' by the majority of the 'proper' martial artists of the time (around the ching dynasty). so if this school does indeed teach you 'shun gung' then it is real and legit. unfortunately, what it teaches isn't...

oops, sorry. my wrong, you have mentioned it before.... i guess i just wasn't paying attention.

But over 200 views and only 20 some odd replies have you seen how many members there are here? how many of them post? and the ones that do, how many actually have anything good to say....? i wonder how many accounts that kid 'natural practice is the flamesong' set up, just so that he can talk to himself...? ooops, shouldn't mention that should i....?

...sigh... some people don't read posts properly.... they were NOT his analogies. also, originally, they were about mental approach but good ol' bruce butchered them to fit his 'teachings'. if you want to read chinese philosophy, go read confucius.

and they were also 'stolen' from confucius's books without credit..... and to an extent, taken out of context. (confucius was more about behaviour as opposed to physical qualities)

...which highlights one of the reasons why you need to have a 'live' instructor...

i know what you mean. toes pointing forward means you have to sit higher or else have broken ankles.... which is why i described how i was taught the 'sit in horse' should be done. i should add taht i have also done the lower, toes outward stance too but this was always taken to be an 'endurance' training thing. my sifu emphasised taht while it is good to be able to sit in for a long time, it shouldn't really be the main way of training it. this is going to sound odd but he kept saying that we should be able to sit in it for a long time, not because we train to sit in it for a long time, but because our stances/stepping/changing of stance/etc should make us strong enough to sit in it for a long time. the difference between sitting to train and sitting to test, i guess, if you see what i mean. hey, i'm curious now, Seven, you've mentioned several time before about your chinese style training. would i be rude to ask what style? (cos um, you seem a bit reluctant to go further most of the time...)

y'know, i saw ostrich steaks in my local sainsbury's....

so who owns and runs the place in okinawa?

i take it you are talking about horse as in the one for training, as opposed to the one seen forms... just remember that you can ease much of the 'pressure' by sitting on structure as opposed to relying on muscles. for a start, i'm not sure if you should even be anywhere near 90 degrees (thighs parallel to the ground?) if your thighs are parallel to the ground then taht means you are using your back muscles to keep your back straight (which it should be...) and your feet are not parallel (which they should be...). let's try this again. it might help if i describe how i have always been taught to sit in horse. i) feet are parallel and pointing forward ii) feet are flat on the floor iii) hip is tucked/rolled underneath the spine iv) spine is straight v) the knees are bent naturally (you measure out the distance approx t twice shoulder width or you open four times) vi) you should be sitting on structure vii) you should be mobile (i.e can switch from this to any other stance easily and quickly as well as step) i have seen people do the rediculously low horse stance where they are almost crouching except with their feet further apart. it might hurt like crazy to do this but it is a useless stance because you cannot move from it. remember, just cos it hurts, doesn't mean it's good. some common problems. feet aren't pointing forward. if you 'force' your feet to point forward, you will feel tension on the inside of your thighs. if you then sit higher, this pressure will decrease. there is a point where, if you press your feet into the ground, there will be very little pain. now, at this point, instead of your muscles getting tired cos they are holding you up, you will be getting tired cos you are trying to hold together a 'proper' body structure. you should also be more mobile like this because you aren't working as hard. also, you will probably be sitting higher than you are used to.... i can't really go into too much detail as the more i say, the more complex it will seem.

hate to ask what might be a daft question but what significance does having a school in okinawa have?

um, i always thought that bruce lee did use weights...

well, i ask cos some guys here are purely thinking about hitting a specific target when they say 'accuracy'. my point being, that i'm pretty sure if we are talking about accuracy in executing a technique, most people would put that at the top in order of importance....

um, i would say that it is more like kick-boxing with a different set of rules. it's been widely accepted by the chinese martial arts organisations as the prefered format for sports competition. i should point out that it isn't an art per se, but more like a side activity where everyone can train for and take part. finally, yeah, i kinda do kick-boxing san shou rules except where i play, we don't have mats, so we don't go into the big throws as much (but normal take downs are still allowed). just so you know, even with big 12oz gloves on, trapping+stealing+pinning still works....

i wouldn't say shotokan is a watered down style. i see it as 'restructured for a different purpose'. as such, it's emphasis has shifted but the core techniques are still there. it might not teach you to kill your opponent as the original arts from which it was derived from did but i'm pretty sure the basic idea of 'not get hit, hit back' is still there.

just wanna throw up a little question. when you say accuracy, are you talking about accuracy of 'hitting a target' or accuracy in 'executing a technique' (which should result in hitting the target anyway...)?

*edited a typo* should i be pointing out that in the chinese meaning of things, "chi" has nothing to do with aura....? i have a couple of question. what are you studying, Smokey? and on what do you base the initial statement of the thread on?

well, my three little lines was a general thing, to give an idea of how i expect people to treat me and how i treat people. (and notice that i do say that 'i can'...) i do not shout at you, threaten you or hit you. just i expect you to not shout, threaten or hit me. i still say taht if a person has crossed any of those boundaries then i think they should be aware of the consequences. (bare in mind that hitting back does not taking her head off with an uppercut....) like i said, i just wanted to throw this whole thing up for debate..... something else just came to mind. i am a small guy. probably smaller than the female agressor (or maybe the same size). what if it were me in that situation? (assuming that i am one to stand up to confrontations as the male was/is) i'm sure that cos i was smaller, she'd be more inclined to strike at me (or actually, maybe not...). would i be right in hitting back? (assuming that i didn't have x years of kung fu training under my hat..... hmm, does that make a difference?)

um, yeah.... they guy who taught me was a very old fashioned kinda guy. his idea was not to build up what i could do slowly but to set a high target straight away and keep moving that target further and further away. also, the longer you sit in a horse stance, the more your body (or you) will find a way where it is comfortable. the thing is, a lot of people (beginners) actually don't realise that their horse is wrong; they hurt after two minutes cos they are relying on muscle to 'sit' and not 'sitting' on structure. this is something that you have to find yourself and the longer you are in the stance, the quicker you will find your 'correct' position/structure. same with the weights. after a while you will naturally rely on elbow position and structure to take most of the weight. again, something that you can only feel to know what is correct.

women know that if they can get you to hit them in a fight, then they have you by the * don't worry, i think everyone will agree with you on this. thanks for the response. i was expecting this one to die quietly. anyway. all very valid points. yes, there is a difference between hitting and defending. the thing is, even if you block, lock and push/throw/control, you are then still an 'aggressor' of sorts (not to mention that she'd just come back at you when you release her) please bare in mind that what i have said was in relation to the big brother house situation. he had no way to leave. another little question? who's wrong in the house situation? the girl for baiting? or the guy for getting caught?

is there ever a case for hitting a woman? i hate to admit this but i've been sitting here, supposedly drawing in autocad but kinda watching live big brother coverage. just now, a big argument between two housemates somehow developed. this doesn't matter.... during this, two other housemates who, for whatever reason have a hatred towards each other started to argue as well, tempers flaring ending with the male housemate 'hitting' the female housemate. now bare in mind that this female has previously been i) loud ii) abusive iii) threatening iv) baiting (for the male housemate to 'try something') v) from what i can tell, she was the one who initiated both the argument AND the physical exchange. was he right to? is it always wrong for a man to hit a woman? here's what i think. and feel free to criticise me. we live in a society where there are certain lines that you don't cross. it can be said that one of these is that men should not hit women. BUT i think that more importantly, man (human kind) should not hit fellow man. the old saying comes into my head 'do unto others as you want them to do unto you'. if you shout at me, i can shout back. if you push me, i can push back. if you hit me, i can hit you back. i don't care if you are man or woman. if you decide to cross any of those lines then i think that any right to that defence (of man not hitting woman) goes right out of the window. now i'm not saying that the male housemate is totally free of blame or responsiblity but what was he supposed to do? my honest answer? i don't know. i've typed them words but i'm sure if think about it more, i might have something different to say. what do you guys think?

my point? that you put words into her mouth then argued against these words that she did not say. no one said anything about this being exclusive to MA. again this is something that you said....