JerryLove

I was of the same mind. Then I saw it done... then I had it done to me... then I learned to do it to others. I even devised and performed some double-blind tests on related Qi activities. While you have no particular reason to accept some name one a BBS, let me chime in and say that, to some extent, Qi arts are quite real. What can and cannot truely be done, I cannot say... I can only attest to the things I have personally worked with.

Or one art that does both. I think that's a generallity, and I can offer a dozen examples where it would be preferred. The one actually in the post where I said that (someone attacking your child) would be an obvious one. I'm not going to take my time closing distance... I'm going to run. Apparently you have not read this thread. I did not suggest it initially, superleeds did. Nor did he claim it was the "end all and be all". Please take the time to read the post before criticizing it. Again, you seem to be addressing someone else's statement as if I said it. It was Jade_Lotus who said that running would be bad. And yet you posted one... Considering the post I was responding to was simply an ad-hominim attack on me, it seems quite appropriate. Kind of like where you make a personal attack on me for making a personal attack on Jade? Would that be a hypocrite? However that is not what I did. I criticized him for *attacking* superleeds' statement as incompitent because it's not 100%, and then putting up a counter of his own which is also not 100%. That was the hypocritical act... and being personally insulting to superleeds is why he got a retort from me. I don't and it's not important to my comment. He claimed that he was in a street so crowded that he could not possibly keep a safe distance from people around him. And that in this crowd, there was an aggressor (with a knife IIRC) on him faster than he could react. Apparently, this "shoulder-to-shoulder" crowd had no particular response and just kept walking along ignoring the knife-wielding mugger in their midst. That said, either this is the most blase' crowd I have ever heard of, or his scenerio is fishy. Either way, I agree with superleeds' suggestion that running is generally an excellent first recource in a violent confrontation.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much! You make a post criticizing, and calling incompetent ("Have you ever been suddenly and violently attacked?? Obviously not") a poster who suggested that running was the first option. You chose to nitpick that there were some instances where you could not run, and then to speak in "never turn my back", "always walk" generalities. I did the same nit-pick on you, and you became offended. If you don't enjoy the behavior, I would suggest you cease poffering it on others. As to a point or purpose? I thought that would be ovious. My point is that you are unfairly attacking someone with a perfectly good idea because it's not 100% universal, while having the hypocracy to counter with other ideas that are also not 100% universal. I should not take you for an idiot and assume you will walk form a rifle at 50'? Then don't take superleeds for an idiot and assume he will run when someone is holding his child. As to sudden, violent attacks. The first rule is, as always, awareness. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that you were confronted by a mugger in a busy street so crowded that you could not have kept a safe distance from others. Either you live in the most blase-to-crime area I have heard of, or yor had already failed basic martial awareness. That said; unles you are on the ground, you can run in the middle of an opponent activey beating on you (in many situations). As I said in mypost; of course there is no "one solution" for everything. To presume so would be silly. I see no reason that superleed's suggestion of "run" as a first, bets option most of the time should be replaced with yours; and I see no indication that superleed must never have been attacked. I found and find your arrogance annoying. This does not appear true at all. Your ego appears highly tied into other's opinions of you. If it were not, you might have attempted to correct errors in my response, but would not have devoted an entire post to attacking me in a rather unconstructive manner and defending that you were the only "non idiot" here who understood somthing about "sudden, violent attacks". Of course, you don't care, you just said so.

Yes; but this time you will berunning toward them. If there were one solution for every situation there wouldn't be so many arts. If you could run, and assume it would be bad, then you must assume that your opponent is faster or has better endurance. So a guy in an open field at 50 feet starts hooting an assault rife at you and you walk? See the problems of anticdotal arguments? Running isn't always wrong either. Sounds like you did it wrong, or at the wrong time.

It's people I am more afraid of than styles. I suppose any reasonably compitent grappler with 100 lb on me would be what I like lest (of the unarmed options).

They are arts. They are inanimate and cannot therefore "help" at all (nor preform any other action-words (verbs) like "beat"). Will you practicing Jujistu help you dance? Maybe.

And you don't typically want to use a strike to the neck as a knockout because it's not too difficult to actually kill (presuming you got the knockout).

If I read my anatomy book right, the interior corotid (near the spine) carries most of the blood. The cutting of the exterior corotid seems to cause a pressure imbalance that tricks the brain into cutting off it's own blood supply. But I could be misunderstanding the biology a bit. Not really true. Any asphyxia of the brain kills brain cells; so does getting drunk. If it's done right, from 4-11 seconds. Depends on what they are doing.

Korea has been pushing to get TKD accepted as an olymic sport for decades. Of course it's a sport... It's supposed to be... That's what it's founder wanted.

The benifit of bouncing is that it puts you in motion. It's easier to change motion than to initiate motion. Bouncing also makes you a moving target. Bouncing also puts your body in "activity" you'll see most athletes moving before the actual evnet starts). Bouncing helpt disguise other actions. Since you are already in motion, you attack isn't quite as instinctivly obvious. Also, bouncing *can* be used to power your strikes. Personally, I don't bounce.

Depends on the posture. At the most elementary postures, it's resolved by constant motion of those parts. It would be akin to a WC practitioner in a constant chain-punch / withdrawing hand. Considering that your opinion appears closed, I would have to say that it is you beating a dead horse. The leading hand, in WC, in my experience; is presented as a relatively static starge rather far from the body. Well, if you can't do something you have not seen done, had not considered, and went in presuming would not work, then I guess it can't be done About 6' is the range at which one can hit an extended hand or foot of another combatant. It is not a range at which one can hit an opponent's body. You don't appear to have ever been interested in the actual discussion I can discuss instance-by-instance depictions, but I don't get the impression that you will actually listen. This discussion of range is properly a seperate discussion. You keep changing the subject. We can talk about mainting vs closing range, but since you are unable to post a single post entirely on this subject, I see no reason to assume that you will be able to stay on the topic of range. Yes. But that is not the scenerio I am discussing. I am talking abot being at 6' (however one got there) and attacking an outstreached hand. And at any given moment you are at some given distance. If that is >6', then no one hits. If that is <5' then both can hit. If that is around 6', then the WC person has a target within his opponent's range. So is evrey other art on the planet. The reason I chimed in originally on this topic was because o the self-congradulating back-slapping that you assume that you magically do somthing different than everyone else. Every art deals with range, both closing and retreating. Every art deals with bridging, every art dals with angling. I'm pointing out a specific problem with a specific posture in WC, and you seem to ego-involved. This, unfortunatley, reenforces my original opinion that the minds involved ewre closed and the egos at full inflation. That's my point. At 6' a person willing to attack weapons is a threat to a person in the WC posture depicted. The people I played with were in a guard that was a target. That's why it's called a fight. You keep focusing on "what to do then". The topic, right this moment, is that there is a target which you have presented, which can be hit at a time that you cannot hit your opponent (presuming he isn't in a posture with a similar problem), and for which you don't have good protection. Can you attept to close then? Of course. You can attempt to close at 6' against someone not attacking you too. That's irrellevent. You can always advance, angle or retreat; and so can your opponent. That's not being debated (as much as you seem to want to). There is a range at which you can be hit and your opponent cannot. This is a flaw of the posture.

The short list? Don't use file sharing. Don't run 9x. Make sure all accounts you use have unique passwords. Disable all accounts you are not using. Don't run attachments or open compressed files unless you know the contents. Turn off file-sharing. If you need file sharing, attach it to a non-routing protocol. Make sure you are not running services which serve content (like IIS). Always keep an up-to-date antivirus. Those are the basics. Plopping yourself behind a NAT firewall and using a local IP is good too. More extreme measures are also available.The short list? Don't use file sharing. Don't run 9x. Make sure all accounts you use have unique passwords. Disable all accounts you are not using. Don't run attachments or open compressed files unless you know the contents. Turn off file-sharing. If you need file sharing, attach it to a non-routing protocol. Make sure you are not running services which serve content (like IIS). Always keep an up-to-date antivirus. Those are the basics. Plopping yourself behind a NAT firewall and using a local IP is good too. More extreme measures are also available.

Actually, I was supporting your definition. You and inyctrotter seemed to be disagreeing (though you are both correct), so I elaborated to clarify. I'm sorry you seem to have taken it as an attack. My statement could have been interpreted as simply an answer to the question. It could have been interpreted as support of your statement. It could have been interpreted as a disagreement with inyctrotter (though he's not wrong). But you decided to take it as some sort of criticism on your post (which I never mentioned or alluded to). I don't understand why you would choose to invent the worst-possible case for yourself and then assume it's true.

Anyone here who studies under an instuctor and believes that art doesn't matter is a hypocrite. If art A is never benifical over art B (regardless of which arts they are) then any art at all must be presumed useless. Also, if it were soly an issue of "fighter vs fighter", we would see no commonality in successful fighters related to art... we do. Everything matters. The art matters, the skill level matters, the size matters, the speed matters, the timing matters, the desire to win matters, the luck matters, the day of the week and phase of the moon matter. And they all matter in ways far to complex to boil down to a short formula. This should be obvious.

https://www.m-w.com Main Entry: kung fu Pronunciation: "k&[ng]-'fü, "ku[ng]- Function: noun Etymology: Chinese (Beijing) gOngfu skill, art "If we refer to any chinese dictionary, we will find that the term Kung Fu (gong fu in pin yin¹) means (a) dexterity/skill, (b) art and © time. Kung Fu means perfection and deep knowledge on any subject. Thus for example, if somebody is an excellent calligrapher or dancer, then we can say that "he has kung fu" in calligraphy or dancing. Nevertheless, the term Kung Fu does not mean skill that is acquired from specialization - on the contrary, it refers to deep and complete knowledge of the subject and includes not only the present condition, but the whole period of time and the course through which one managed to reach the top." - http://www.eagleclaw.gr/en/articlew1.htm

I'm sorry you feel that way, though it explains why you don't seem to have tried to digest what I was saying, rather just argue it Certainly there will be times and situations where forcing distance does not work. If something just "worked", it wouldn't be called a "fight". It also depends on the intent of the other fighter. You never addressed my "you would simply cross from 6' regardless of relative position?" question. I would not recommend trying to turn this into a discussion of reality of a street-fight here. That reality varies from fierarms at range to grappling on the ground. I've been trying to look at pecific issues in isolation for the sake of a productive discussion. You contradict yourself. Then your argument is that, at 6ft, the WC person will charge forward. The problem with the posture remains (I have a traget before he does), and you are, by assuming that the WC fighter will successfully close range, assuming who will win the range game. I'm not sure what forward moementum you are imagining. I think the also comes from a non-attempt to look at what I am saying before responding. Yes and no. Mostly I was knee-jerk responding to you attempting to force the subject change. The forward mvement of WC is not the fastest on the planet (with the standard drag-step moement that I have seen evidenced) and as such (given space) it should be possible to keep range. If it is not in a given situation, than it is not. Firstly I agree with the standard statement, but this depends on what speed the forward erson can / will put on. Also, I never advise backpeddling, but it is quite possible to move away from an opponent while still attacking him without backing up (look at the "widening circles" of pagua for an example). That said, it may fail. In my expierence with WC people it did not as they did not move rapidly forward. Had they moved forward at a higher rate, then they would have closed and the fight would be different than it was. I'll give you a simple one to imagine (I avoid this because we risk the "action / counter" game of discussion). WC is in a standard WC posture, O is in a T-stance without a crossed leg (the bent leg toward WC). They are 6 ft apart. O leans onto the bent leg and swings his fist in a closing, horizontal swing to just inside the extended hand. O's arm transitions through "in front" of WC, but does not remain. Presuming WC moves forward and O wants to stay out, O pushes off the bent leg and "steps" away. If WC perfroms the "kick-step-slide" that seems the preferred movement, it has about the same speed (perhaps less) as the push from the T-Stance. If WC does not do that, but (for exmaple) rushes, then range will be closed and we can discuss other aspects of fighting. Against many strategies, keeping range may not be possible (probibly wont). I agree with you. Continuious forward movement (as opposed to short lunges) is not something I have seen in WC; if it's there, then that sounds like a fun discussion. And forward? I noticed right after asking, I'm new to this board. Yea, you too.

Personally, I'm a fan of pressure points as an afterthought. Use physical techniques that work on their own; if you also happen to trigger off points, it's gravy. Although as I initially mentioned, not all "pressure points" are pressure points. I prefer to hit targets than blindly; and there are many good targets around joints and nerve trunks that work physicaly, not on pain compliance or energetic activity... Which was what I originally ment to point out

Until you look at uprigh arts like Bagua, Wing-Chung, Hsing-I, etc. And liniar arts (WC and Hsing-I come again to mind). There are many hundreds (thousands?) of arts called "Kung-fu", there are at least dozens of "Karate".

Enrollment is done typically in-school. So yes, the instructor would be in a uniform. Outside activities are usually either polo-short and slacks, or t-shirt and pants; depending on circumstance (appearence vs workshop for example).

Korea was occupied by Japan for a long time. During the occupation, Indegenous arts were repressed by the Japanese. When Korea became independant, they wanted to establish a national identity. One thing they wanted to do was establish a national art. So General Choi Hong Hi, with a Black Belt in Shotokan Karate, created Tae Kwan Do as a national art. TKD had standardized names, belts, rules, and forms (several of the Poomse being exact replicas of Karate Kata). The base of TKD is Choi, and the martial base of Choi was Karate. That said, many of the initial instructors had other backgrounds, and half-a-century has passed. "Karate" and TKD (wtf, atf, itf, etc) are not identical, but they do have a shared history.

I'm not aware the Maui Thai has groundfinghting. Can anyone affirm that it does?

Try http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~mcweigel/rmafaq/rmafaq2.html That said... As this is a groaner question, I am not about to answer it. But I would like to address one thing. "Jeet Kune Do (which I know is a derivation of WC)" Mr.Lee stopped using Jun-Fan KungFu as a name for his art (and hence started JKD) specifically to get away from the "classical mess" that he percieved CMA to be. As such, while JKD is based on Bruce's work; and while his early training was WC; I think calling JKD simply a "derivation of WC" is not accurate. JKD is more of a conglomerate art, containing pieces of many arts (including WC). You may be aware of this, and that may have been what you ment; but it doesn't appear that way in the way you said it.

Let's not change the basic point. I was / am responding to "The lead need not be extended in a Man Sao". Do you also feel that this posture does not require the lead hand to be extended out? If you do not, then the semantics of "how" one does it is not really what I have at issue. So let' talk about when "in range" is from a WC perspective. IME, when you cannot reach your opponent's body with your hand, and he has not made contact with you, you are not "in range" from the perspective of changing arm-positions. They have waited for "first contact", or a closer range than the one I am discussing. You illustrate my point here. I am discussing a range farther than a fist will connect at; unles you have a very lunging punch that crosses 6 feet which I have yet to evidence in WC. But you have claimed you abandon it before you are in range where that makes any difference, unless punching the air 3-feet in front of your opponent is useful. About 3 inches. Sorry it seems that way; I try not to put the cart before the horse and dicuss a bigger range of variables when the smaller one has yet to be sorted out. I'm sure you are very impressive. It has worked well in the past. Something about action vs reaction and bad hand placement. Ah yes, andother assumption of WC that I disagree with; the assumption that forward movement is what is coming at you. If you are looking to movement based responses to WC based movement, it's usually triangle-step flanking; though depending on the opponents speed, I could just keeb back stepping and working long-range destructions. You are claiming to be able to react as fast as I can punch ("In but one variant I could move in when you do - close the fist and fire - hey your target just moved AT your face!"), so let's presume I have the same relative reflexes as you do. At 6 feet, where are your hands? Sounds like it would be fun to play with you. You in FL by any chance? I've got a 15" reach advantage based on target; though I don't think I've ever seen a WC with such low hands. Nor is this indicated by any of the WC instructors I have seen published. Can you referene me to someone with a WC fighting posture at "belly-button" height? And in oder for you to control range, you had better have distance control that goes beyong mine. Of course, control of distance is easier or harder based on more circumstances that I would care to shake a stick at, not the leat of which is the comparitive desireed distances and strategies to maintain them. Since I have yet to see WC "rush" (a movement with enough forward speed to make reversing from it to keep distance functionally impossable), it appears range can be maintained. If it cannot, then the fight changes. The inital problem of the posture remains weather you have moved to a position where it ceases to be exploited or not. Yea, and Bodidarma originated all kung-fu, though he stole it from secret fighting techniques of the Pharohs.

Actually, I was referring to the L3 nerve (I believe it stands for "leg 3"), which is the one the doctors have told me is being pinched in my lower lumbar. I was not referring to the "lung 3" meridian.

Ad Hominim logical fallacy, let's try to stay on topic. I'm talking about mainting poper pressure on the arm in order to fight. IME, the pressure is maintianed weather there is resistance at present or not. If you attempt to only apply pressure when resistance exists, you are pushing rather than springing. The exact terminology will vary, but basic methods include reaching for a point, and imagining water (or something similar) pouting out the arms. Without that aspect, the extended arm is weak, though this may not matter if your statement that you drop this position at 6' from your opponent is true, as the position is never used for anyhin except show. This has not, in my experience, been how most WC people I have engaged with have used the position. IME, both personal and in acedemic look, the posture is used until either the opponent comes in range of the hands, or until the bridgin starts. At that point, the WC practition functionally moves into "sticky-hands". Yes, you have said that the posture is abandoned at 1-2 steps out of kicking range (the point where two outstreached hands can meet). So what purpose can a hand posture serve if only used at such a range? Punch range is (about) 3ft; your extended arm is a target at around twice that distance. You cannot punch my body at the range I am talking about. Not without closing range. And the particular vunerability I am discusing is usually exploited (by me at any rate) bay coming out and in. Attempting to get your foot across the 9ft diagonal to my head would be foolharty. Similarly, you are a little far to really expect to connect with a kick against any but the most foolhardy (and you will need to step out with the kick, not a common tactic IME for WC). Fo course there are. You cannot usea weapon at any range longer than the weapons reach. You can attempt to cross distance while attacking, and we can disucss that as well. If your arm is outstreached, your hand is almost 3ft from you body. Mine is as well. That's a potental distance of 6ft (not accounting for lean and such). I mean what you ment when you said (regarding this range) "If the opponent is close enough to be a threat the Wing Chun man should already be attacking" This statement seems to illustrate much of my original point. I can continue an engagement at 6 ft without closing. I have not seen that WC has a good solution to an aggressor who keeps range and performs destructions to the limbs. My problem with the WC stance is that it presents the limb as an easy target without good reposte'. Yes, that is the one I am discussing (though my discription placed the height differently, the position and problems are the same). The forward hand is very vunerable to a limb destruction. Correct. I am talking about the prolems I percieve. At this moment, I am focusing on the "ready posture" and tactics from early engagement. IME they have a tendancy to look for a bridge. If I obligingly go for the head / body, they attempt to move the attack outside the "doghouse" while bridgeing and looking for an inside position. If I keep range and (among other things) work spot-hits against the forward hand, they have trouble. I would be a target for what? I have a sphere I can put a weapon in, so do you. You have a limb in my sphere. Of course you can attempt to rush in, of course you can do many things. But you have an undefended target offered to me at a range where I have none to you. I consider it an expolitable failing that probibly stems from WC's history as a "boxing" style. I think WC is very good at what it apears designed for. I think that outisde of that, there are some basic problems related to the presuppositions that WC seems to make. IME, trying this out has given me confused opponents; but I make no claim to the particular quiality of their WC. Having looked at it in articles, I see the writers there doing the same things that appear problamatic, and were exploitable, in the people I have interacted with. Perhaps I have just had bad luck with finding the right WC people; though I must assume that if I have consistanly found this a problem, it must be a problem for at least a large number of WC practioners (even if not every one).