JerryLove

I understand completely, and am the same way. It's only after coming up with and doing some double-blind experiments that I came to realize that my dismissal was incorect. I don't have the answers for you as to what is going on; nor can I go through and clearly point out what is real and not in terms of claims. I can tell you what I've done, and what happened, but you were not there, and have not done it yourself, and so it would just be another claim. BTW, the experiments were no-contact readings and manipulations with "voulenteers" who were not martial artists and whom I had not told what I was doign (asked if they would "help me with an experiement") and did not tell what to expect.

I've personally woeked with chi beyond the point that your hypothesis would allow. That said, I don't feel disrespected and would probibly have agreed with you a few years ago.

Varies, one example. Both hands forward, up, and out; like if you made a big "V" above your head with your arms and then tilted it forward about 60 degrees. Legs together.

Did you personally know the woman? How can you exclude (for example) that she did, in fact, do Yoga?

I don't really find myself with a strange attraction to transformers or power-relay-stations. Lots of energy there.

No, I do Yang Taiji, though I've meet the taoist taichi people. Delta1: the point was that I disagree with your definitions. I've not met any qigong practitioners that made the claims you did there (not saying none exist). I also hold these claims to be false.

I will hit with the open hand reasonably often.

It seems to depend on the persons nature. A person who is very nervious seems to use it well (put it in fron to them and stab at anything that scares / get's near them) and an angry person seems to do well (repeated and very fast ice-pick stabs towards the center of mass). Generally, it seems, the one's who do poorly are the ones who are neither very scared nor very angry, or have bad training.

Personally, I cannot come up with a good test for this particular hypothesis.

I'm a taoist.. what are you?

Hmmm, this Taoist feels otherwise. Space exists because of the rapid expansion of 4 dimentions in Nth dimentional space. Chi does not seek balance any more than magnatism seeks it (chi does not seek), but harmony is found in balance, and happiness in harmony. The universe exists as polar opposites, and so does everything in it. Thes opposites are contanly working at destroying one another, but at the same time are the seed from which the other grows. This is a truth of reality, not an aspect of chi. And Taiji is not the grand nexus of chi, it's properly Taiji chuan (Grand nexus boxing) and it's a fighting style which draws from grand-nexus principles

And when you have added D to C then what? Add E? OK. And when someone has collected these all his life adding and adding, and you are training under him in what he knows, what do you add? Your idea is self defeating. A combination of arts is an art; ergo the belief that all arts are incomplete but arts formed from cross training are not incomplete (which you presume to be impossable since you require all to be incomplete) is an obvious pardox. It's inventor can be found on film... that's modern. And when you learn 100 styles.. what you actually do is still just one style (even if it's made from those 100). Again, an oxymoron.

You've had a 250lb brusier that wants you dead sit on top of you and just drop arms on your head and it didn't do anything? It makes many a boxer fall unconsous, but I suppose you feel people "in the streets" are more able to take head-shots than professional boxers.

And of you stay within arms reach but not close enough to smother, all he has to do is get twitchy and stab whatever your bring to hit him with. If you are close enough to knee, imagnie the effect of him cutting at your groin or stomach... rememner, if you can get apulse, it's less thatn 1/2 inch to teh artery.

Do you believe that our original poster was deciding between a school that taught TKD and a school that taught "all the traditional arts of China"? Since "kung-fu" is a grou pof arts, one cannot go learn "kung fu", as much as learn "a kung fu"; and since there is such variety, comparing kung-fu and TKD would be like comparing pizza and french food. So I assumed which KF he ment, and pointed out so. Technically speaking (and how it's used in CHina) gongfu [kungfu] is any skill, Wushu is any martial art, Weijia are external arts, and Neijia are internal arts. But in American parlance, Kungfu is any Chinese martial art, and Wushu is a specific art.

Huh? I own a Glock 23 (my carry), a WWII Lugar, a Walther P.38, a .22 target revolver (wih pearl handles no less), and a pair of Remington 700 hunting rifles. I've fired (among other things) a Glock 30 (.45 cal concealable) and it hurt my hand. About whom are you referring?

Considering the concealment factor, most .45 and 10m are a little large (or have too much kick for their weight). I like .40 (or 9mm) as a compramise between size and power.

There are two groups of things.. the subjective and the objective. Subjective things are not "real". "pretty" is subjective, but not real (does not exist), "tasty" is subjective but not real (does not exist). People may deicde whatever they like about Chi, but the reality of it does not change. People may choose any religion they like, but thre reality of existance does not change either. So no, just because you feel that any energy is "chi" doesn't mean that you are properly using the word. You can redefine words all you like (you could declare "pizza" or encompass all forms of food), but it's not very useful.

Firstly, there is no "kung fu", so I will assume you mean Chinese national Wushu. Also, you are unclear on what you mean by "menal aspects", so I can't help you there without clarification. Of ths two, I like wushu margainlly over TXD because i see fewer knee problem in Wushu practitioners, and because I find it prettier and more interesting. Both will get you in good shape.

Do you think it will hurt my chances? Unskilled people survvie knife attacks... what is the effeect of training? Do you really believe it has no effect? Perhaps you are poorly trained. Besides, as I mentioned, my example was knife-on-kinfe. If you are ever down here, I welcome you to come in, grab a marker, and try your luck. Unfortunatley, few people are clear on what they are referring to with the terminology. I think we all agree that learning for reasons of Dogma is wrong. But to say that anyone not in a "MMA" school is in a dogmatic art is a straw-man logical fallacy. Silat (my art) is a knife art. We learn them offensively. We defend against people sparring with them (or rather safer counterparts) and trying to win. Large pool to pull from, better adn more widespread medicine and nutrition, subtle improvements in training methods, and better steroids. Now tell me how substantially running itself has changed? Tell me how much better the average casual runer is than the casual runner of old. We are back to poorly defined terms. Some were, and still are. I do disagree here. It can be trained this way, but I think you loose more than you gain using randori as a training ground for things you can't really practice well... again I refer you to the "sparring methodologies" thread. So you are restricting to fights with no epees, and no guns, and no knives, and no bar-stools? I think I see why we disagree. Judo is a modern art invented to be PE for school-children... You seem ignorant as to the subject at hand Yes, the UFCs can teach us a lot. They teach us about the dangers of unrealistic training, and the dangers of exploitable holes, and the fallacy of believing you can always make the fight you want (remain standing for example). They are great tools and taught the MA community a lot. Unfortunately, one blindness seems to have been replaced with another And you make my point for me. If cross-training in A and B is better than either, and I make C (whcih is cross-training between A and B), how do you improve on C by cross-training? It's redundant. It's the closest legal option, it's however, not the best training tool. It creates its own set of false beliefs. Why is anything not MMA neccessairily TMA? Why is anythong not MMA neccessairily dogmatic? I will not be breaking the records from 500 years ago. There's a handful of guys in the workd that can outrun the sprint record from 50 years ago, but I wil lnever been one of those guys... Same for martial arts.

No, I'm not offended either. I do take exception to your definition of Qi as "energy in any form". It literally means "breath", and does not translate as "energy" in such a general term. I suspect that your candle trick is creating wind eddies, and a ceiling fan does not move air by emitting qi. As to where qi is drawn from and moved too; once you develop a sensativity to feeling it and moving it, most of these questions you can answer on your own by simply feeling for.

My chances of dying alone are considerably less than 50/50 (you do realize I was suggesting knife-on-kinfe), but you've avoided the point . Fencing or MMA you are under combat either way... do you suggest fencers would do well at the UFC? Or that BJJ is good training for a fencing match? Sprinting or Marathon, it's running either way... balloon or plane, it's flying either way.... depth or speed, it's swimming either way... your idea is obvious, but also quite false. I have no idea which "MMA" definition you are presently using, but I find any one of them false to that statement. If you can be more specific in your claim, I can be more specific in my critique. Argument based on the false premise that an individual art is not well rounded. (again, depending on which definition of MMA you are using).

I'm unconvinced that MMA training (specificaly, the training methodology of relying on limited-rules free-sparring) is neccessairily preferred for non-competition. The reason it's ideal for competition is obvious; becuase you are practicing exactly what you will be doing. The reason it's probibly not ideal for combative training is the same... you are not practicing what you will be doing. Depending on the nature of teh combat and opponent, how different the two are will vary. Get into a fist-fight in bar, and the fight may look very similar to what you expect from MMA randori... Get into a knife fight in a dark alley, and it probibly won't. There's a sparring methods thread in teh Combative arts section on this.

Why o you presume that has anything to do with chi. Can he put them out without moving?

If there are no better arts, then there are no worse arts either. This means that the art you train makes no difference what-so-ever. if that is true, there is no point learning any art, as the art you just make up will be euqally good. Since we do not believe this conclusion, the premise must be similarly flawed. There is not a "best" martial art; because there is not a singular person or situation in which to test... but there are certainly "better" martial arts based on presumption of circumstance. For example, Boxing is better than wrestling for a boxing match. conversely, wrestling is better than boxing for a wrestling match. A fencer will take a boxer... if he has an epee; but he will not if they are unarmed.