Drunken Monkey

and a lot of the demonstations you see in the media are carefully set up tricks. a common misconception is that the punching into a vat of sand etc is for knuckle conditioning. that exercise is more for developing 'short bridge strength' than anything; the action of pushing your hand into something that resists getting you used to going through your targets...

is this concept so hard to understand? if the chinese didn't want you to know something, they wouldn't show you it in the first place OR they would show you something that was 'wrong'. they wouldn't hide things in a form because if it is in a form, no matter how hidden, people will find it. don't want people to know. don't show it. all of this talk of hidden moves sounds too much like a marketing ploy.

OI! wing chun does not fight 'dirty'....

but didn't he just try to show ONE WAY of how to apply their stand up 'rules' on the floor? why are you (seemingly) trying to discredit what he is doing? afterall, you are questioning the things he is doing but he isn't here to give you an answer....

sounds like someone doesn't understand basic physics... all actions have an equal and opposite reaction and seeing as you are standing up when you are punching, the only thing you have to react against is the ground. it doesn't matter how much power you can get from your body, if you aren't grounded you aren't going to be able to use the power because you will quite simply fall over. the more grounded you are (i.e the more reaction you are getting from the ground bar frictional forces) the more power you can use. hence, by grounding yourself, you are harnessing MORE power.

it's just all too real...

the belt isn't the reward, the knowledge and skill is. it's hard to differentiate but it is an important difference.

why would you want to hide technique in a kata? if you truely want to hide something quite simply, don't show anyone. it's not hard. the chinese guys did this a lot. they used to teach their sons the proper forms and teach outsiders modified versions with missing pieces. they wouldn't bother with teaching things with 'secrets' in it. when the old masters used to train, they did so out of the gaze of everyone. that is how they hid things. i'll go back to wing chun for a bit because then everyone can see what i'm trying to say. the first form, i'll assume that you are familiar with. for those that are not, it is simply a series of hand motions that we train whilst standing stationary. the motions are just that. to use the 'moves' we take the hand motion and add stepping, stance, position etc etc etc. nothing is hidden. nothing is secret. nothing is symbolic. everything has an application (or used to have an application....), either for training and/or for fighting.

so doesn't it follow that the more reaction you are getting from the ground, the more power you are 'generating'?

why are people so hung up on styles winning things like this, or anything else similar for that matter? saying that a certain style wins a fight is almost like saying that the man wasn't part of the achievement. my sifu always says, at the end of the day, if you are in a fight, i don't care if you are doing wing chun or not, i want YOU to win. if YOU win, then i've done my job.

i think it recently an award in the states for best comedy or something. look for it. you might hate it but if you like it, well, that's a bonus...

what i'm picking at is that you seem to be saying 'i am right, you are wrong'. i have only been offering things reasons why i think there is no outright religious movements in forms. i think they are more cultural than anything. i'll go back to chinese forms as a reference. the chinese culture is deeply set with buddhist, taoist, ancestoral worship, worship of small gods etc etc. that is chinese culture and not all of it is even taken to be religious as it is also part of the culture's mytholgy and sometimes even the history. for the new year, the famous happy new year saying is often accompanied by the 'businessmans' hands which undoubtedly has origins in buddhist/temple worship but the movement itself has been far removed from the actual religious connotations. my point is that even if the movement has origins in religion, it does not mean it is religious. and i'm still not convinced that 'symbol' is the best word to use. i've always seen forms as a series of types of movement (movement not meaning technique). for example, when in a form you do an arm extension, it represents all types of hand movement, be it a fist, a palm or a push. the same goes for different starting points of movements. if in a form you begin a move from the waist or chest, or hand extended, it shows you that you can do things from that position. same for footwork. you then deconstruct each type of movement and re-construct it into techniques that you can use. we are talking more or less about the same thing. we, you and i a least, are only arguing over the choice of words we are using.

but that's kinda the point of stances. we might train them 'stationary' but they are very much a thing that is meant to be in motion.

well, sticky hands isn't actually in the hands. it's more about understanding and knowing what to do when you feel pressure on your forearms (bridge). 'chi sau'='sticky hands' but you have to remember that in chinese, hand and arm are both called 'sau'.

i have to admit that i was a bit annoyed cos your post was also kinda irrelevent to the thread. whether every single traditional arts guy who takes part in a ufc fight loses was not even part of the question and yet you still decided to post your case, in a way that can be read as offensive. i specifically singled out chinese arts because for some reason, people seem more reluctant to fight under that banner compared to the japanese arts people. you seem to have gotten into your head that i'm targetting chinese martial arts and saying that they lose all of the time, instead of seeing the post in context of the question of the thread.

we were talking about the guy who is said to be a 'five animals' stylist. i assume this to mean, that he has some training in 'five animals' forms. five animals being the set of shaolin origin. hmm, calling my words garbage? sounds kinda personal... people like me? please explain what 'people like me' are like. there's no point in arguing over this because quit simply, you have misunderstood what i have said and have taken my words out of the context of this thread. just for you, i'll add a little to something to my post to clear things up a little.

did i say that ALL cma who go in lose? i made a general statement. you, my friend, have to get that bitter-stick out of your behind. as for the five animals. this is a famous set that features in (and indeed is derived from) shaolin. both hung gar and choy li fut have a five animals form. there is, if you like only ONE set of five animals. seeing as mantis isn't even a traditional shaolin form, i find it hard to believe that it features as part of its five animals form.

well, don't forget that he was totally obsessive about the things he did, if he was thinking of going into something like the ufc he would do nothing but train for it... see? is it hard to make nice comments full of detailed opinions?

well, why don't you tell us a bit more about your club? a simple name check against whatever organisation will turn up loads of info. well, it should....

i'll say it again. there are 'buddhist hands' (well, one anyway..) in wing chun but wing chun has nothing to do with religion. it IS possible for the shapes to be just that, shapes... not all cars have need for a spoiler but a lot have them anyway.

so out of all of the fighters that have participated, you can name ONE. not exactly a lot is it...?

sorry...

well, that's why i say go to gp. he can get you refered and you you can skip A&E and the wait.

lets got through this again. karate has origins in shaolin. that's a given. but there are no religious movements in shaolin forms (except the names of some movements but even then they are just poetic names, nothing more) so why would karate have religious intent? the origins of shaolin kung fu has the forms being for health, not religious practice. and what has animals got to do with religion? the fut sau position is named because it resembles the hand position taken by monks. there is no religion in wing chun but we have the same hand position. shaolin forms ARE NOT a religious dance so why are things derived from them religious dance? if anything, considering the fact that the japanese sought to refine the chinese forms, i would've thought that any excess would've been removed. what does the presence of buddhist statues prove? there's a few in london if you know where to look. to paraphrase you. Religon is not present in kata, I'm sorry but it simply isn't, it never has been.

karate has origins in shaolin so there are going to elements of shaolin that remain in karate forms. however, does that in itself make the katas a religious dance? considering that karate was developed outside of china, outside of shaolin and the buddhist 'way' (not really a religion anyway) i would say that they are not.