JerryLove

Picking fights with prison gangs.

Hmmm. Basic serak stances (the ones we use) don't have a lead foot. Both feet are side-by-side and together. My Baji is pretty similar (looks like running in place). I have a Kuntao position that would look most like the MT stance (lower and more compact than I see in MT tournament sparring, but similar). In that case, my front foot is fully weighted, directly under my elbows, and bent at 90-degrees (and pointing directly at the opponent). The only other one I have regular practice ith is from Tjikulung... and I am not sure which foot to call "forward" as I use it primarily for mutliple-sparring.

The priority is winning under WTF sparring rules? Drop your hands. No point definding your head against someone who cannot hit it. All you need to guard is your middle. Attacks to the back are not allowed; focus (as mentioned earlier) on turning and spinning kicks. It leaves you invunerable until you get around. Gawd, what can a puncher do against a mule-kik at short range under WTF?

I fear you had already done the provocation. On the up sde, the multiple-attacker fight was very short. I'm not sure how much I'd charicterize standing, getting hit a "fight" That would be irressposble considering your tendancy to pick useless fights. I would think you would be better served simply avoiding provoking situations. I generally work by the guideline "If I'm gonna loose, would it be worth the try anyway". ???

Simply a video of the art in motion? I have some up at mine http://www.clearsilat.com/silat/Multimedia/index.htm

While I have trouble seeing this as an honest question.... It depends on the person and the time. 1. Health: I actually first entered into martial arts because I found other methods of exercise boaring. From the gymnist/TKD person, to the 70-year-old Taiji practitioner, martial arts offers a form of money. 2. Recreation: Similar to reason one, people have a simple interest in learning, performing, or knowing more amout martial arts and triditions (or just idle hands) and enjoy the rec-time. 3. Social Time: Beyond work, many adults lack time to interact with other people. It's also rare in this society to have time where you get to physically interact with anyeone but familty memebers. Martial arts can be a social event and a bonding event. 4. Accomplishment: Weather it's winning the sparring trophy, or just attaining that rank you want; martial arts allwes one to set and achieve goals. 5. Too much / too little testerone: Martial arts can be a place to build aggression, or to vent them away. Many people take MA to become more assertive, while others take them to vent steam on a big bag. 6. Money; Weather they aspire to be the next movie star, or run their own school; martial arts can be a source of a career. 7. Daycare: Two hous at the TKD school is sometimes cheaper than two hours at the daycars, and the Kids do more. (also a form of exrcise to the nintendo crowd). 8. Self defense: I know it comes as a surprise; but some people find that studying martial arts increases their odds of surviving a violent encounter.

I pretty much agree with you (I actually would support some regulation). But what I am saying is that "the student is enjoying what they are doing" is not "all that really matters"

omnifinete, I'm a big fan of hybrids. I think that we as a country use way to much fuel. I think that the complaint of the original poster is right-on in termsof what problems there are; I just don't agree with the reason (that big-business is forcing it down the throat of the consumer). bright eyes, There are not so much "bountries" as there is a topic. I'm not trying to enforce one person's topic over another (espically as this is not my thread) but your response was directed to me while not being what I was talking about. If you felt I was discussing poverty, please let me know; because it means that I was unclear. It's bad enough I make so many typos, I'd hate to think I was vague as well

I'm sorry, where did this become a discussion of poverty? I thought this was a discsussion of weather corporate greed was forcing a populus that really wanted to ride bikes and carpool to buy gas-guzzling SUVs against their will and drive them as much as possible.

What pressure are you referring to? Considering that hybrids are selling at-cost, how much less expensive do you think they will be? The companies that make most utility vehicles have natural-gas vehicles as well (much of m county's fleet are natural gas), but I don't see the public clamoring to buy them. The standard Honda Civic is (IIRC) 130 bhp, the hybrid is 115bhp. That's not a large difference, but the standard civic still outsells the hybrids by more than an order of magnatude. It does seem to hit a sweet-spot of cheap+powerful. A descent civic is 15k, the hybrid is 19k. That's hardly 2 cars. But I guess you aren't willing to invest real money/time into alternatives. The dealrship has trained mechanics. They are not that terriblycomplicated. The technology is pretty mature actually. Hybrids were prototyped ver a decade ago. Some of the current lines are at least 4 years old. And they drive pretty well. I remember pure electrics back in the 70s. You appear to be making that from ignorance. Cold fusion has been the holy grail of physics for some time, and most everyone wants it badly. It would, in short, solve the world's energy crisis. It's not being held back. Some things may be, but not that. You want "big oil" to take note, don't but any more cars that get less than 35mpg (the Metro comes to mind). You can do that with inexpensive IC engines. Better yet, get at least a hybrid and get 60mpg. Put a solar panel on your roof, install a windmill and sell power back to the electric company, use a laptop instead of a PC (they consume less power)... They list of things you can do is very long. You can start by voting with your dollars. I'm not saying that the oil companies and car companies are not in it for the money, of course they are. And I am not saying they are persuing alternate automobile power plants as hard as they could, becaus ehtey are not. But the biggest problem is that the consumers (you and me) are not demaning buying the ones they do produce.

I agree much is not bein done for the love of money... but let's see if your "I want to do better, but big business won't let me" is true. Honda put out a version of the Civic that ran on natural Gas. I saw them for sale at the dealership some time back. Do you own one? The bug business provided it, I didn't see people like you lining up to buy them. Just in Japaneese cars, there are at least 3 hybrid lines (the hybrid Civix, the Insight, and the Prius). All are available at local dealerships. All are sold at near-loss numbers by the factory. They are not selling well. Do you own one? By a practical standard? What would you replace it with? Chrystler just put up a concept hydrogen feul cell. It costs a lot more, and it doesn't give as mch power as gasoline. Will you be buying one? Yes, but in general, the people are "you and me" not "rich oil companies". Than which ones? Litium-Ion? Lead acid? Alkeline? Nickle-Ion? Did you know there are rechargeable batteries too. Do you use them? Is it the fault of big oil companies, or do you just not want the price / hassle? There are rechargeables. Do you own them? I see flourescent bulbs that eat about 30% of the power of incandecent. You can get them everywhere. Are you using them? There are Krypton bulbs that use about 10% of that. They can be purchaced. Are you using them? Why not?

Good for him! If he is charging more than the material is worth, that's bad (leave). If he is negligent (can't teach today, busy making money elsewhere) that's bad. If he's just generally hiding costs (only $35 per month... plus insurance, uniform, testing every 2 weeks, air-conditioning fees, fees for extra classes...) that's bad. I'd love to make a lot of money working 5-6 hours selling widgets on the internet. I'd love to do the same hosting a for-pay site. And I see no problem making a lot of money in a little time teachin martial arts successfully. If you have a good and honestly sold product and can make money with it, more power to you. I agree with the underlying "out for money is bad" when applied the way I think many people are referring to (ever buy a car?), I don't think that there should be hard "shouldn't make more than X per hour in marital arts" limits imposed to remain good.

So if I come in saying "I fear for my life and need to learn unarmed defenses", and what you teach me will not work, but you convince me it will, so I walk off with a happy feeling and come back next week... Not to mention more mundane issue like if you teach in a way that causes chronic damage to the practitioner...

I miss the problem with an instructor making a living teaching. Piano teachers do it for prophet, so do school teachers. Movie martial artists do it as well. Which do you protest? Do you protest that a martial artist can teach and run a school and not have to have a second job to avoid starvation? Or do you just think they should live in cardboard boxes? Why do so many martial artists think there is something magical about this endevour that people should sacrifice to teach others? Did you learn $35 per month woth of material? If yes, I don't think you should begrudge a man making money (unless you work for free and live in a cardboard box). If not, you should (and did) leave and find somewhere that gives you your money's worth. BTW, my local movie theater charges me $8 per ticket. Taking a lady out to a move (not counting dinner) usually tops over $30. They could make their expenses for half the cost. How dare such a craft want to turn a buck.

Actually, WuDong is a region / mountain / temple on a mountain. WuDong styles are styles with a liniage from or through there. Saying "wudong" is analogous to saying "shaolin". Bagua, Taiji, and HsingI are "neijia", or internal arts; as opposed o the "weijia" or external arts. And yes, all are "wushu" (war arts) and all are "kung fu" (skill developed over time).

The school I attend has a ciriculum, like a college course (or I suppose a non0college course), of information. Learn the information; show the ability to perform and teach it; pass the test and get the next phase of information.

Thank you for the response. I have asked about alternate guards several times, but have not gotten a clear "I would not use a guard with my hads extended like the one you have encountered". That simple statement would have been suficcient (though I likely would have asked "what would you use"). There has been some comment to that effect which then conflicted with other statements by the same poster. I endevoured to get a clear idea, but kept getting barraged with "I would move" retorts to simple guard questions. (I can cut'n'paste them, but see little point). I don't think, however, that starting your post with an ad-hominym ("I am sorry that you couldn't put all that intellect into a more productive discussion") is a particularly useful way to de-escilate what is, for many here, obviously being taken rather personally.

Yes, that is a purpose of the exercise. No (unless they telegraph it), but you will be able to feel and respond earlier than if you did not have the sensativity you are trying to build with sticky-hands. Sticky-hands sensativity, is improving your ability to feel what your opponent is doing from a position of in-contact with him. It's easy to say, but hard to explain without simply feeling it. Since there is no contact with the ball prior to hitting it, sensativity is unlikely to offer any benifit to vollyball.

And lik the other two self-rightous narciccists who have said so this thread, you open with an ad-hominym that reaks of everything you are complaining about. You offer nothing productive to the discussion and act arrogantly. If I were trolling, you would also be falling directly into my trap by responding; though I fail as a troll as I am posting too much. I am establishing that running is a viable solution to many encoutners. I am also responding to ad-hominm posts like yours. Cool, another ad-hominim not related to the discussion. Do go on... The appeal to ignorance. You don't know, but you talk any way. Would you care to tell me how this is a discussion of the applicability of running in combat situations? I have yet to hear any, just a few obviously inconsistant anticdotes and a lot of ad-hominims. Tell me logically why running is not often a good option. Great! Let's see what is applicable to the discussion. OK. That's not very relevent as no one has made a discussion on crime rate. Not usually. Do you have a solution to an army of trained, armed men who snipe you when you are asleep? snip a bunch of weapon use percentages, an opponent with a weapon at range (the most likely scenerio based on the listed statistics) is exactly where running is most useful. Support this claim (that turning your back is foolish). Given that you can run forward faster than backwards, why would you want to flee more slowly? Or are you suggesting an option other than running (or surrendering)? What would you do against a drawn gun at (say) 20 ft? snip some stuff on rape that also does not discuss the results of running except to claim that rapes often occur in enclosed spaces. Sweet. This is actually on topic and useful. Thanks for the cite. I want to take a closer look at how those statistics were generated, but this looks like it would actually be a correction for my original statement in the instance of rape. Back to the hominim discussion. I already pointed out exactly where Jade said that he had been in a sudden violent attack, exactly where he said what you ment by that was "busy sidewalk" and exactly where the instance you were referring to was supposedly alone behind a theatre. That said, an empty road cannot be a busy sidewalk. The statements at seperate times attesting that both were being referred to in the same instance are incongruant, and therefore untrue. Since there is no question that you cannot remember which, I must presume one is a lie... Do you have an alternate explanation? That's a straw-man. Yes I would. So glad I did not suggest that. One which, according to my former employer, has cut their robbery rates. So, you feel that "survailence flights" are a waste of military time? And this trying to find out about terroist attacks (essentially civillian ambushes) are a definate waste, and situational awarenessis useless? Wow, that's quite a statement. Is that what you are saying? That there is no point being observant because it won't work? Where did I call you a liar that you are concerned about? Your actions signify otherwise. The "I'm talking but I'm not listening" defense? Well, your "Let's not give a hoot who the post comes from, but look at what is being stated." lasted about 1.5 posts. Congrats. So long as you aren't spouting rhetoric... Well, I guess we know where you were coming form all along... What term did you use? Ah yes, arrogant and self-infatuated. Thanks for the one useful piece of data in your post. I'm going to avoid responding to the remaing half-dozen or so ad-hominims as I am getting tired of typing the same useless information. The hypocracy of your post continuestoastound me.

So then your experiences when people run at you in a fight are not relevent to the situation I originally offered "run at an opponent" as a solution for are they; I said "if they had your child, you would run, just at them", you said "Every single person that has ever ran at me in a fight, to hurt me or otherwise gain advantage in that fight has never succeeded in that attempt." Now you tell me that none of those situations relates to the one I suggested; therefore your comment is irrellevent. Based on what evidence? Then you are dropping context; this was original broached by Jade Lotus when he said "So if someone suddenly and randomly attacks your wife and children, then running would be the best way to defend them?? " - Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:42 am Since I recommend an awareness level that fights start at range, I do support running as a general first option. The object is to stop the guy with the ball. One runner with one tackler and you would see a pretty high success rate of escape. I think a trained tackler with no interest in positive position trying anything he can to bring someone to the ground and failiing is very indicitive of what an untrained attacker who doesn't tran all day to tackle people will do when persuing a opponent of opportunity. And are irrellevent to someone you cannot catch. Irrellevent to someone you cannot catch. And I did not say that you did. Stop straw-manning. cite. cite. "Have you ever been suddenly and violently attacked?? Obviously not..I have, " - Jade Lotus Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:42 am "Maybe you didn't understand what I meant by suddenly and violently. I'll explain..an unexpected attack, you're walking along minding your business, people are walking next to you, typicall busy sidewalk." - Jade Lotus Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:39 pm (his next post). I think I have been reading just fine. Your situation is far less impressive. 5 people and one might attack? The same thing that got me out of 5 definately attacking will get me out of 1 attacking. Sounds like you need a new strategy. No kidding? Sounds like you failed awareness again. It's specifically awareness focused on martial threats (opther people) as opposed to awareness on smog-levels or gas prices; but yes, there is nothing magical about the concept. That's supportably untrue. For example, robbers used to lurk near night deposits (may still). Most companies have people with large night deposites circle the bank before pulling up. This allows a look around for said ambush. It works. Your statement is a deomnstateable lie. Lock your house, close your windows, don't go into unlit areas, don't enter your house if it's suspcious, avoid being near obstructions through which you cannot see, don't walk through crowds, etc. It's common sense and it generally works. Nothing is 100%, neither running nor awareness. I recommend both as skills as they are typically enough. I'll get to lotus's post after errands.

I still view everything with the same skepticism I did before. The only difference is that, with my new understanding that Qi in some form is true, the standards are a little different for some claims. (you know, reasonable claims require reasonable proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof). I don't know of any books that offer testable proof... For me, it was only learning to perform a no-touch technique reliably on strangers that convinced me... That was through a seminar.

I spent most of my martial arts life in the exact same boat; and you are probibly in the position I am. That said, with the information availably, you are of an opinion that I entirely support. I had / have seen many of the Chi tricks. Some I could see the biomechanics of, some I chalked up to psycosematics (and some certainly are). I rolled by eyes at qigong person after qigong person who spoke at length of their abilitys, but who had limited demonstrations. What finally changed that was my instructor dragging me, kicking and screaming (metaphorically), to our schools "qigong healing workshop". I followed what we were told, tried all the imagery, felt the sensations... But that could be psycosematic (I was giving a good-faith effort to believe it). So, armed with my qi skills in hand, I devised a double-blind test. The qigong healing works by "scannig" your subject... finding areas the deel "wrong" (warm, cold, dry, wet, tingly, etc), and fixing them. So for my double blind test, I decided to enlist some non-martial artist (mostly random mmbers of my extende family). I would have them sit and relax; I would scan them and get a firm idea in my head of exactly what was wrong and where; I would then fix it as best I could and get a firm idea in my head of how well I had made it go. I even wrote down my thoughts on some occasions (normally, I trust myself not to lie to me, so I did not always). Afterwards, I would ask them what they had felt before, during, and after the work. I was very careful not to ask leading questions. My results were that I did miss things. There were hurts I did not find. OTOH, I never found something in error. If I felt a problem, they felt the problem either from before I started work, or when I started workin on it. I was also accurate in weather I had been successful in fixing it. There were no false positives, and there were no wrong impressions of success. It's also worth pointin out that I did the healing behind them, I did not really preface them with what I was planning ("can I try someing? Sit there."). There is no actual contact in the healing process; at east one person's visual perception wa actively wrong (she said I was over on her right and she felt the sensations / pain on her left... but I had in-fact been on her left and she didn't see where I was correctly). I've done this experiment around a dozen times, never a false positive, and yes, I almost always find something.

There is definatly a Qi/Ki which is not "biomechanics". Unfortunately, there are also trick of leverage, changes of intent (Yi), physical conditionsing, biomechanics, and just plain untruths that also get chalked up to "Qi". It's easy amist such noise to miss the signal. I've done enough double-blind, no-contact work to establish for myself it's reality. How much the reality matches the claim I have not had proven to my satisfaction s of yet.

*prods self to determine emperical existance* it would seem so. Anticdotal. Have you ever had both hands wrapped around a child you were tryig to abduct when the father ran up behind you to get close then engaged? If so, I'd love to hear about it. If not, then the situation I presented that (tounge-in-cheek) retort on would make it an appopriate action. That said, I do agree that a "sprint" as a closing method is only good until you hot about 10 ft. Then, unless you are persuing a fleeing opponent, you'd probibly better slow down. I disagree. There are plenty of instances of (for example) women outrunning woud-be rapists. Or even the simple attempt being sufficiently discouraging. I see on TV all the time, footbll players with mass attackers attemping to force a fight to the ground (always bad for the lone person) by "tackling" running to get to the safet f the goal line. It seems that running away gets results. Sounds like a good idea. I agree with you that (under most circumstances) running into an opponent's range is a bad thing. I think that running away from an oponent can be an excellent idea under many circumstances. Regarding running away, I disagree. I think the statistics on the success of fleeing by untrained people bear out my statement (anyone got numbers handy to intorduce here?). If that is the situation, then the statement "people are walking next to you, typicall busy sidewalk" as an implied depiction of his experience was a lie. It is surpisingly hard to hit or stab a fleeing person. That said, I don't think he shoud have run in that situation as he had someone else to worry about. I disagree. He left an armed assalient with presumably homiciadal tendancies to walk the street without even cursoary attempt to get him behind bars; this despite the proximity of a movie theatre with phones and people, and a second party to go there while he sat on the assailent. It all depends on everything. There are millions of circumstances which could be addressed case-by-case. I don't think that the general statement you have offered up removes running as a generally good action; but I think you are presuming more than you are indicating. We actuallg have one where 3-6 people surround you. They all attack at will and you try to line them up or get out the door. Try that without running. Then there is the issue of martial awareness. I am remided of the kikboxing instructor that was attacked by the gang of drunk Peurto Rican youths in the park. A woman rollerblading into a group of drunk teenagers was a poor martial decision. While she carries no legal responsability, she "should have known better" and should not have gotten in that situation to begin with. It was a complete failure of her training. One goal of self-defense training is to eliminate, as best as possible, having someone in range with a knife before you realize an attack is coming. It may not always work out (nothing is 100%) but that should be one of the first things you focus on, your first line of defense.