Karate is NOT a traditional martial art
richardmcevoy
also appears to be true. At least, if someone is going to correct me on
this could it possibly be a non-karateka who has observed the art for a
period of time and would objectively disagree with me or point to a group
which does not do things this way. I would really love to know.
BTW I don't consider a 'you can't compare martial arts' an objective
disagreement. I want rhyme and reason not aphorisms.
As for Karateka - well clearly I am asking them to jump on me from a great
height. They're so predictable really. Straight line attack. Evade them
and they're a mile past before they work out you've disappeared.
Really we should look after our Karateka - they're so cute !!!!
1. Traditional martial arts wear the native clothing of their country.
Karateka wear silly white pyjamas which no Japanese peasant in his right
mind would go anywhere near (think of the laundry bill). Everyone knows you
should wear the clothes you are going to fight in or at least a close
facsimile.
2. Traditional martial arts teach people how to fight. Karateka teach
people how to cultivate their spirit and bugger whether it's any good or not
when the shit hits the fan.
3. Traditional martial arts have systematic evasive, defensive, striking,
kicking, locking, grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry taught as
part of the system not as some afterthought or a few techniques scattered
here and there. Karateka teach block strike block strike block strike block
strike.
4. Traditional martial arts dont pretend that playing tag with one another
as in sparring matches is the same as fighting. Karateka do.
5. Traditional martial arts ensure that their conditioning covers all
areas -cardio vascular, strength development, muscle endurance and
flexibility - as part of art, not as an afterthought to be taken on
individually by the students. Karateka deny the value of at least two of
these areas - or at least dont train them (i.e CV and strength).
6. Traditional martial arts ensure their student's develop as individuals
and are not all forced into the same mould.
7. Traditional martial arts are performed in a pliant and flexible fashion
not with robotics. At least not at senior level.
8. Traditional martial arts dont grade. Either you can fight or you can't.
9. Traditional martial arts have long respectable lineages and histories.
Karateka can't get past the 1850s.
Apparently a few Okinawan herbalists with upper class pretensions learnt a
bit of Kung Fu in China and thought they were good enough to teach. Well
Karate isn't good Kung Fu so I guess they weren't.
10. Traditional martial arts dont pretend that exercises taught to school
children are sufficient for adults. i.e. Pinan katas.
11. Of course, I could be wrong and Karate is the most wonderful
traditional martial art in the world. It's just everyone appears to have
forgotten how to do it.
Richard
Richard
Steve Perry
<richar...@breathemail.net> wrote:
(snip)
Hey, Richard?
You need to look up "traditional," or else use some other term in your
troll. By the definition as I understand, karate certainly qualifies as a
traditional art. Any art older than fifteen minutes pretty much does.
You want to argue about how useful or effective karate is, that's a horse
of a different color, but you aren't using the term "traditional"
correctly, and that blunts your attack.
Steve
Don Wagner
lithium shortages and as far as I can tell cultist activity is at a
minimal level.
...and yet....
;-)
--Don--
Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
Russ Rader
>
> 5. Traditional martial arts ensure that their conditioning covers all
> areas -cardio vascular, strength development, muscle endurance and
> flexibility - as part of art, not as an afterthought to be taken on
> individually by the students. Karateka deny the value of at least two of
> these areas - or at least dont train them (i.e CV and strength).
Not all schools don't train CV. At the Koei-kan karate-do school that I
went to for a while, years ago, the conditioning sessions were a bitch.
You got CV and endurance training, and some strength training (mondo
push-ups; it wasn't as intense as weight training, though).
So, I'll have to mark you down a point, and give you a 9 out of 10 on
the troll-o-meter. ;-)
Russ
Don Young
just what arts ARE traditional in your viewpoint?
-Don
richardmcevoy <richar...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3899b...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> 5. Traditional martial arts ensure that their conditioning covers all
> areas -cardio vascular, strength development, muscle endurance and
> flexibility - as part of art, not as an afterthought to be taken on
> individually by the students. Karateka deny the value of at least two of
> these areas - or at least dont train them (i.e CV and strength).
Muay Thai boxer
them traditional.
-Nak Muay
LeonMacfayden
even those of the same style - that your points are only half true at best.
richardmcevoy
Yea that's a really good point since all other martial arts while
acknowledging their past also try to develop new methods and ways and to be
self critical instead of self satisfied, even if sometimes looking into the
new leads them back to the old
Richard
Muay Thai boxer wrote in message
<20000204163451...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
richardmcevoy
broken away from allegedly traditional practices as passed down by the
Japanese and are trying to find their own way. Also others have been
studying the history of this art and gone - what we are doing today is not
what was done in the past and moreover what we are doing today sucks
compared to what was done in the past?
So I accept there is good and bad out there but the good seems to come
through defying alleged traditions (which turn out not to be traditional
when you go far enough back).
Karate should really be practised like Gong Fu but tell this to any Karateka
and they go through the roof trying to insist it is a different art (and not
just a little bit, I mean completely).
How utterly blind and stupid can you get ?
Richard
LeonMacfayden wrote in message
<20000204192827...@ng-ff1.aol.com>...
richardmcevoy
would say that any martial art which does make fighting its primary aim even
if fighting is regarded as a means to get somewhere else fails the
traditional test.
Traditional to me means
1. The art is about learning to fight and in learning to fight be a better
person but note if you can't fight at the end of the process then your self
improvement plan isn't up to much.
2. Having a living tradition i.e. an awareness of the past, of the history
and the culture of the art but an eye to the present i.e what is happening
on the streets today and how can the art apply and not just on the streets
but also in terms of what people are learning about physiology, psychology,
philosophy etc
3. Having training methods which are as safe as they can be but as
realistic as they can be (i.e. they feel real). To my mind modern sports
sparring is crap (not in itself but from real fighting POV) though as a
sport it is probably OK (could be better refereed though). But also Karate
katas are crap because you don't feel like you're fighting nor do you even
feel like you are being conditioned to fight. This is down to how they are
performed ie. jerkily and with too much power and the power also coming from
the wrong place (i.e. upper body instead of lower body). There is no sense
of flow there. I think the technical contents of kata are fine but there is
no feel to them whatsoever.
4. The kata and the sparring drills dont match - you have to learn
different blocks from kata to sparring to self defence - how are you meant
to know anything after that?
Now assess your ju jitsu with the same critical eye and you will answer your
own question?
Richard
Don Young wrote in message ...
storys
Rick why don't you just study whatever you find acceptable & let it go? Take
some prozac or a valium or something, anything!
......Tom......
Michael J. Gallagher
<richar...@breathemail.net> wrote:
> .... Traditional martial arts teach people how to fight. Karateka teach
>people how to cultivate their spirit and bugger whether it's any good or not
>when the shit hits the fan.
So does aikido, judo, iado --- any Japanese martial art with the "do"
suffix marks a sift in focus to the "spiritual" side, though technique
isn't totally neglected.
>... Traditional martial arts have systematic evasive, defensive, striking,
>kicking, locking, grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry taught as
>part of the system ...
So does karate. Ever hear of "bunkai"? The weakness may be in ground
fighting, but that may change over time as karateka cross-train in
things like BJJ and Shoot.
> .... Traditional martial arts dont pretend that playing tag with one another
>as in sparring matches is the same as fighting. Karateka do.
Not the ones I train with. Light contact sparring is meant to develop
reactions, timing, good distance, and other areas.
> ... Traditional martial arts dont grade. Either you can fight or you can't.
BJJ has grading, so it must be traditional and ergo, they can't fight,
right?
>9. Traditional martial arts have long respectable lineages and histories.
>Karateka can't get past the 1850s.
??? 150 years isn't "long"? Fooled me!
JimS
>
>Obviously this is a troll. There I have said upfront.
Nah...you don't say.
>As for Karateka - well clearly I am asking them to jump on me from a great
>height. They're so predictable really. Straight line attack. Evade them
>and they're a mile past before they work out you've disappeared.
>Really we should look after our Karateka - they're so cute !!!!
[snip more blather]
Rich, you're just looking for a karate guy to tell you how stupid this post is.
I'm not biting. You won't hear it from me.
JS
Khun Kao
observation, or from experience?
BTW, remember what Karate was developed for. If I remember my history
lessons correctly, it was developed by and for unarmed Okinawan
peasants to defend themselves against armed and armored Samauri. This
is why Karate is what it is. Karatekas trained to put everything into
one strike to be able to penetrate a Samauri's armor to deal the death
blow. Hence the linear block, strike, block, strike. They could not
afford to dance around with someone carrying a 3 foot plus sword.
--
Khun Kao Charuad
SuriyaSak Muay Thai at USDC
www.elbowko.com
www.lloydirvin.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> BTW, remember what Karate was developed for. If I remember my history
> lessons correctly, it was developed by and for unarmed Okinawan
> peasants to defend themselves against armed and armored Samauri.
Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
weren't any peasant in karate history. Most of okinavan practicioners were
from noble families. Also, according to documents, during XVIII century,
for example, there were about 15 samurais vs 300.000 habitants in Okinava,
hence there wasn't necessarity to practice martial arts to fight against
samurais :-)))
> This
> is why Karate is what it is. Karatekas trained to put everything into
> one strike to be able to penetrate a Samauri's armor to deal the death
> blow.
Wrong statement -> wrong conclusion.
> Hence the linear block, strike, block, strike. They could not
> afford to dance around with someone carrying a 3 foot plus sword.
There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te had a
large amount of weapon.
*********************************************************************
Stanislav BEREZNYUK KUNGFU MAILING LIST
Novosibirsk, Russia BEISHAOLIN MAILING LIST BAGUAZHANG MAILING LIST
st...@cclib.nsu.ru fido7.ru.martial-arts fido7.ru.vd.martial.arts
http://cclib.nsu.ru/projects/satbi/ http://cclib.nsu.ru/~stas/
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/atlanta/764
http://www.ba-gua-zhang.com
Khun Kao
"Stanislav L. Bereznyuk" <st...@cclib.nsu.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Khun Kao wrote:
>
> > BTW, remember what Karate was developed for. If I remember my
history
> > lessons correctly, it was developed by and for unarmed Okinawan
> > peasants to defend themselves against armed and armored Samauri.
>
> Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
> weren't any peasant in karate history. Most of okinavan practicioners
were
> from noble families. Also, according to documents, during XVIII
century,
> for example, there were about 15 samurais vs 300.000 habitants in
Okinava,
> hence there wasn't necessarity to practice martial arts to fight
against
> samurais :-)))
I do have to admit that I am going on heresay, not actual study of
Japanese/Okinawan History. An example of don't believe everything
you're told, even it it's your martial arts instructor.
>
> > This
> > is why Karate is what it is. Karatekas trained to put everything
into
> > one strike to be able to penetrate a Samauri's armor to deal the
death
> > blow.
>
> Wrong statement -> wrong conclusion.
Again, I my statements are based on what I was taught when I studied
Korean style Karate's (Tang Soo Do and Moo Duk Kwan) and Ninjitsu. It
made sense the way it was explained to me, and I believed it. I am
interested then, in what the real underlying factors were behind why
Karate developed the way it did. I have believed for many years what I
stated above, and if it's wrong, I want to know what the real story
is...
>
> > Hence the linear block, strike, block, strike. They could not
> > afford to dance around with someone carrying a 3 foot plus sword.
>
> There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te
had a
> large amount of weapon.
Ok, I know you are very right about this. I oversimplified my
statements and left weapons out of it. I am aware of many of the
weapons that were developed by Okinawans and have seen their practical
uses demonstrated.
>
> *********************************************************************
> Stanislav BEREZNYUK KUNGFU MAILING LIST
> Novosibirsk, Russia BEISHAOLIN MAILING LIST BAGUAZHANG MAILING LIST
> st...@cclib.nsu.ru fido7.ru.martial-arts
fido7.ru.vd.martial.arts
> http://cclib.nsu.ru/projects/satbi/
http://cclib.nsu.ru/~stas/
> http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/atlanta/764
> http://www.ba-gua-zhang.com
>
>
Seriously, I am really interested in what the real story is. Please
reply. Though I no longer study Karate or Ninjitsu, I'd like to have
the facts straight and not have to put my foot in my mouth when talking
to someone who knows better.
storys
"Stanislav L. Bereznyuk" <st...@cclib.nsu.ru> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.3.96.SK.10002...@glory.nsu.ru...
>
> Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
> weren't any peasant in karate history.
Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
> for example, there were about 15 samurais vs 300.000 habitants in Okinava,
> hence there wasn't necessarity to practice martial arts to fight against
> samurais :-)))
>
It only takes one who wants to test his sword on you to make your point look
rediculous.
>
> Wrong statement -> wrong conclusion.
>
Wrong reasoning led to the above.
>
> There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te had a
> large amount of weapon.
>
Not when they started. Note the extreme lack of edged weapons. Go read some
accurate chronicles and you just might learn something about rice flails,
water sticks etc.
.......Tom.........
Khun Kao
by the common folks to defend themselves against armed and armored
samauri. Yes, they did develop weapons such as tonfa, sai, and
nunchaku. But the kicking and punching was designed to deal with those
with weapons and wearing armor.
Or, so I was told...
Now, I know the following, as I actually have researched this. The
development of Karate corresponded with the era in Japan's history when
all but the Samauri class were forbidden to wear swords. The martial
art of Karate developed in response to this so that those not of the
samauri class (the commoners) could defend themselves.
My understanding, as I mentioned before, was that the straight-forward,
linear approach of Karate was b/c Karatekas trained to put everything
into the one blow to blast through the armor of a samauri to deal
the "death blow".
This assumption, based on both my own conjecture and also what I have
been taught by my Karate and Ninjitsu instructors, may not be the true
reason for what makes Karate the way it is (block, strike, block,
strike).
I would really be interested in knowing what the actual reasons for
Karate developing the way it did are.
Angie
> My understanding, as I mentioned before, was that the straight-forward,
> linear approach of Karate was b/c Karatekas trained to put everything
> into the one blow to blast through the armor of a samauri to deal
> the "death blow".
(a) Not all karate would be concidered "linear"
(b) You don't understand the concept of "single strike".
(c) Only idiots think you can punch through armor.
> This assumption, based on both my own conjecture and also what I have
> been taught by my Karate and Ninjitsu instructors, may not be the true
> reason for what makes Karate the way it is (block, strike, block,
> strike).
Only bad karate is block strike block strike.
> I would really be interested in knowing what the actual reasons for
> Karate developing the way it did are.
Japanese styles, at least, borrowed a lot from kendo, and therefore tend
to be very "straight in". I still would avoid the term linear though.
Karate comes in many extreemely varied forms. Trying to lump them all
together to denote "the way karate is" is just ludacrice.
Angie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
storys
"Angie" <lgd...@nwu.edu> wrote in message
news:lgd450-0902...@mac136.cnadc.nwu.edu...
>
> (a) Not all karate would be concidered "linear"
This is correct. Okinawan karate in particular can be circular in nature
esp. at the higher levels. It is after all based in part at least on White
Crane Kung0fu
> (b) You don't understand the concept of "single strike".
Not gonna touch this one. I don't get this sense from what was written so I
can't comment
> (c) Only idiots think you can punch through armor.
>
Only idiots who think this are those who don't know how Samurai armour was
constructed and the power that these people could put in a blow and what the
could and as a matter of course did blast through. Their hands were not like
ours. They made sacrifices & paid prices that we of this time and place
would not make or pay. I can break a one inch pine board easily with my
fist. One of the old style karateka of this time would find this a paltry
feat. He could blast through a bamboo breastplate with a nikiti ( spear
finger ) blow and not only survive to tell of it but pick his spot to do it
as well.
>
> Only bad karate is block strike block strike.
>
It is often just this. It's not all it is but it does happen.
>
> Japanese styles, at least, borrowed a lot from kendo, and therefore tend
> to be very "straight in". I still would avoid the term linear though.
>
They did???? How so???? The peasants who developed it did not have access to
this teaching so they could not have borrowed what they didn't even know.
Unless of course you are talking about what happened later on in karate's
development?
> Karate comes in many extreemely varied forms. Trying to lump them all
> together to denote "the way karate is" is just ludacrice.
Among the various styles there is a kind of similarity. Otherwise we'd have
to come up with a different name for a given style as it would not be
recognisable as karate.
........Tom............
P.S. Is this the same Angie as the one who posted before? You sound
different
Shinbo
up, maybe to hard for you.
What True Traditional Art do you do ?
Paper Folding ? No you would cut yourself!
May be you should take a trip to my Dojo I am quite sure that I could show
you how you have miss read the Non Trad Art
Sharon
richardmcevoy wrote in message <3899b...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>Obviously this is a troll. There I have said upfront. Unfortunately, it
>also appears to be true. At least, if someone is going to correct me on
>this could it possibly be a non-karateka who has observed the art for a
>period of time and would objectively disagree with me or point to a group
>which does not do things this way. I would really love to know.
>
>BTW I don't consider a 'you can't compare martial arts' an objective
>disagreement. I want rhyme and reason not aphorisms.
>
>As for Karateka - well clearly I am asking them to jump on me from a great
>height. They're so predictable really. Straight line attack. Evade them
>and they're a mile past before they work out you've disappeared.
>Really we should look after our Karateka - they're so cute !!!!
>
>1. Traditional martial arts wear the native clothing of their country.
>Karateka wear silly white pyjamas which no Japanese peasant in his right
>mind would go anywhere near (think of the laundry bill). Everyone knows
you
>should wear the clothes you are going to fight in or at least a close
>facsimile.
>2. Traditional martial arts teach people how to fight. Karateka teach
>people how to cultivate their spirit and bugger whether it's any good or
not
>when the shit hits the fan.
>3. Traditional martial arts have systematic evasive, defensive, striking,
>kicking, locking, grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry taught as
>part of the system not as some afterthought or a few techniques scattered
>here and there. Karateka teach block strike block strike block strike
block
>strike.
>4. Traditional martial arts dont pretend that playing tag with one another
>as in sparring matches is the same as fighting. Karateka do.
>5. Traditional martial arts ensure that their conditioning covers all
>areas -cardio vascular, strength development, muscle endurance and
>flexibility - as part of art, not as an afterthought to be taken on
>individually by the students. Karateka deny the value of at least two of
>these areas - or at least dont train them (i.e CV and strength).
>6. Traditional martial arts ensure their student's develop as individuals
>and are not all forced into the same mould.
>7. Traditional martial arts are performed in a pliant and flexible fashion
>not with robotics. At least not at senior level.
>8. Traditional martial arts dont grade. Either you can fight or you
can't.
>9. Traditional martial arts have long respectable lineages and histories.
>Karateka can't get past the 1850s.
Khun Kao
#1-I grant you that maybe not all Karate is linear, but I never learned
any of the advanced stuff, and to tell the truth, never SAW it.
Everything that I ever witnessed within the Karate systems that I
studied was indeed linear.
#2-If I don't understand the concept of "single strike", explain it to
me.
#3-Let me clarify about punching through armor. Granted, this would be
quite a feat. But as was mentioned by a previous poster, they were
those who were able to do this. Why do you think the founder of
KyoKushinkai (sp?) Karate could kill a bull with one punch to it's
skull. Also, one of the Miyagi's (I don't remember which one) could
kick a hole in a metal barrel?
The truth is however, that I was not taught that Karatekas simply
punched through the armor. In Ninjitsu, I was taught WHERE the blows
were placed by the Karateka.
Karateka's did not just punch straight into the breast plate hoping to
shatter it and kill the wearer. They placed the blows where the seams
of the armor were, or where there was no armor. An example would be:
Blow comes, Karateka defends with an side block and grabs the arm at
same time. Karateka pulls opponent in and strikes under the grabbed
arm with a punch. This blow is aimed at one of the spots where a
humans ribs are most vulnerable. The blow would break ribs and
possibly puncture a lung, or worse. I learned this b/c this is still
applicable today, as body armor/flak vests still do not protect this
area or the wearer would not be able to move their arms.
Thank you for your opinion.
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
My friend is specialized in studing history of japanese martial arts, and
during several years he prepares to publishing the true history of karate
(it is about 1000 pages now and still not finished). I had an opportunity
to read part of his work (he asked me to check "chinese" part of history).
Unfortunately I think I have no right to publish here or somewhere else
parts of his work before official publishing of the book, hence I'll give
only main ideas.
1)We have no real information about pre-XXcentury karate. Only several
documents are exists, those documents often were misinterpreted by
translators, hence nowday's "official" history of karate has many
mistakes.
2)There wasn't such a man like "teacher Kushanku". There was an oral story
about chinese ambassador, whose bodyguards demonstrated some martial art
during visiting Okinava. We don't know what art it was (description is
very dark - I read this text by myself; even sumo can be described in
that terms). There is no any mention that those men teach anybody.
3)Okinava people didn't "fought against samurais". They used okinava-te
for own purposes - for fighting among themselves (in the bar, for example
:-) ).
4)One of the first line of okinava-te derived from "36 families", moved to
Okinava from China when Okinava was China's satellite. One of those
families - Kojo family (chinese pronounsation of "Kojo" character is
"Cai", they were relatives of Fujian province' officials) - had a great
influence on okinava-te developing. There exist saying "there are no
karate besides Kojo family's karate". According to legend, Kojo Uekata
studied martial arts in China in the beginning of XVIII century, after
returning to Okinava he began to teach his relatives.
5)Most other lines of okinava-te were born during XIX century. One of the
main person is Sokon Matsumura. He studied fist-fighting and
staff-fighting in China, but we don't know where exactly: some sources
tell about Fujian province, other sources - about Beijing. It is also
known that he studied Jigen-ryu kenjutsu in Japan. BTW, Matsumura was from
noble family :-)
6)At the end of XIX century several other men from Okinava after studing
martial arts in China returned to Okinava and began teaching. We can name
Kambun Uechi, Kanryo Higaonna.
7)In the first half of XX century karate came to Japan. It was changed due
to political reasons, and it is necessary to separate okinavan karate and
japanese karate.
In Okinava empty-hand fighting wasn't separated from weapon fighting.
Okinavan karate was a complete system. Also, training in Okinava included
"tegumi" - training of sensitivity, wrestling, joint locks etc. Okinavan
karate also included medicine, special methods of conditioning etc. Most
of these were lost in japanese karate.
Badger
> > Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles -
there
> > weren't any peasant in karate history.
>
> Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
Just to remind me, when did Miyagi die, something like 1920 or so?
Weren't a lot of nobles running around Okinawa by then, ditto for
samurai.
> > for example, there were about 15 samurais vs 300.000 habitants in
Okinava,
> > hence there wasn't necessarity to practice martial arts to fight
against
> > samurais :-)))
> >
>
> It only takes one who wants to test his sword on you to make your
point look
> rediculous.
Okay, cite an example of a karate master taking on a samurai, empty-hand
vs. sword.
> > There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te
had a
> > large amount of weapon.
> >
>
> Not when they started. Note the extreme lack of edged weapons. Go read
some
> accurate chronicles and you just might learn something about rice
flails,
> water sticks etc.
Note the bogus supposed origins of weapons like sai and tonfa.
Badger
--
Northern Shaolin Five Animals Kung Fu
& Filipino Martial Arts
http://www.cyberus.ca/~badger/
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> > Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
> > weren't any peasant in karate history.
>
> Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
I said about pre-XXcentury history.
> > There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te had a
> > large amount of weapon.
> >
>
> Not when they started. Note the extreme lack of edged weapons.
"Lack"??? What about okinavan system of fighting with sabre and shiekd,
for example?
> Go read some
> accurate chronicles and you just might learn something about rice flails,
> water sticks etc.
Those "weapons" were taken from China, not developed by illiterate
peasants.
Angie
> > Japanese styles, at least, borrowed a lot from kendo, and therefore tend
> > to be very "straight in". I still would avoid the term linear though.
> They did???? How so???? The peasants who developed it did not have access to
> this teaching so they could not have borrowed what they didn't even know.
> Unless of course you are talking about what happened later on in karate's
> development?
"Japanese" karate came from Okinawa a la Funakoshi. But not until the
1920's. The footwork comes from kendo (as does the attack philosophy),
which most of Funakoshi's students had trained in since it was a normal
thing to take in school. Furthermore, it was begun as a college sport,
not something designed by peasants, and certainly not something geared
towards defence against Samurai.
> > Karate comes in many extreemely varied forms. Trying to lump them all
> > together to denote "the way karate is" is just ludacrice.
>
> Among the various styles there is a kind of similarity. Otherwise we'd have
> to come up with a different name for a given style as it would not be
> recognisable as karate.
So would you say that the Okinawan Ryu are the same as, say, Shotokan?
The differences are extraordinary. There are enough differences even with
in Shotokan, from one sub school to the next to make any pronouncement of
"the way karate is" fanciful and misguided. In fact, the differences are
so vast that even within the shotokan community, one group does not
appreciate being lumped with another group. This is just one style. Why
attempt to add more in? I know that the Shorin Ryu I took for a few
months appeared much closer to Kung Fu than the Japanese karate I'd taken
previously or since. They can hardly be lumped together to determine if
karate is "linear" or if the mode of attack or the philosophies are the
same.
> P.S. Is this the same Angie as the one who posted before? You sound
> different
Yup, it's me. Maybe I have a cold. ;)
Angie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Between two fighting swords
Hell resides.
Enter in
And find paradise.
Kendo Club
: Angie...
I'm not Angie, but I play her on TV.
: #1-I grant you that maybe not all Karate is linear, but I never learned
: any of the advanced stuff, and to tell the truth, never SAW it.
: Everything that I ever witnessed within the Karate systems that I
: studied was indeed linear.
The Okinawan Karate is often circular. When it was imported to Japan, it
was often practiced in kendo dojos and picked up a lot of kendo
influences. The linear attacks, the point scoring system (even down
to the flags), and the single strike mentality all were the result
of kendo influence. A lot of the shotokan terminology and
concepts of timing and opportunity also come from kendo.
: #2-If I don't understand the concept of "single strike", explain it to
: me.
Angie can do this better than me, but I believe the correction you're
looking for is that the shotokan people practice each strike as if it
could end the fight, ie fully committed and correct. This is not to
say that they are not ready for a follow-up, or that they believe that
each punch will really end it. Of course in a sword fight one good
(or even not-so-good) strike ends it. In a fist fight this is rarely
the case.
Neil
Khun Kao
ae...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Kendo Club) wrote:
> Khun Kao (khu...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> : Angie...
>
> I'm not Angie, but I play her on TV.
>
> : #1-I grant you that maybe not all Karate is linear, but I never
learned
> : any of the advanced stuff, and to tell the truth, never SAW it.
> : Everything that I ever witnessed within the Karate systems that I
> : studied was indeed linear.
>
> The Okinawan Karate is often circular. When it was imported to
Japan, it
> was often practiced in kendo dojos and picked up a lot of kendo
> influences. The linear attacks, the point scoring system (even down
> to the flags), and the single strike mentality all were the result
> of kendo influence. A lot of the shotokan terminology and
> concepts of timing and opportunity also come from kendo.
Cool. Again, I studied both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and I never saw
any circular ANYTHING. I don't know if this is b/c my instructors
didn't know it (which I doubt) or just weren't demonstrating or
teaching what I was not prepared to learn (probably).
>
> : #2-If I don't understand the concept of "single strike", explain it
to
> : me.
>
> Angie can do this better than me, but I believe the correction you're
> looking for is that the shotokan people practice each strike as if it
> could end the fight, ie fully committed and correct. This is not to
> say that they are not ready for a follow-up, or that they believe that
> each punch will really end it. Of course in a sword fight one good
> (or even not-so-good) strike ends it. In a fist fight this is rarely
> the case.
I have to admit that what you said above is correct based on what I
have learned. I admittedly have been simplifying some of what I have
been saying so I don't have to type as much.
>
> Neil
>
Thanks for clarifying!
--
Khun Kao Charuad
SuriyaSak Muay Thai at USDC
www.elbowko.com
www.lloydirvin.com
Steve Gombosi
I think "lie" is a an overly strong word, but I don't think any
offense was intended (Stanislav is, after all, not a native speaker
of English).
There's a lot of mythology. Most people are just repeating the stuff
they've heard. FWIW, I've trained with a number of high-ranking
(7th Dan and higher) Okinawans, and *none* of them thought the
"doughty unarmed Okinawan peasants duking it out with heavily armed
Satsuma samurai" fables worthy of serious consideration.
>> > weren't any peasant in karate history.
>>
>> Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
Yara, Matsu Higa, Sakugawa, Oyadomari, Matsumura, , etc.
Upper crust aristocrats, most of them.
Once you get into the Meiji era and later, things change.
>Just to remind me, when did Miyagi die, something like 1920 or so?
1953, actually.
>Okay, cite an example of a karate master taking on a samurai, empty-hand
>vs. sword.
It could've happened once or twice, somewhere in the red light district
of Naha. My money's on the highly trained fighter with the 3-foot
pigsticker, rather than on the highly trained fighter with the
big knuckles. Both Agena and Matsumura were supposedly involved in
brawls of this sort...2 (legendary) incidents in 200 years do not
constitute a trend.
Steve
Angie
> Khun Kao (khu...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> : Angie...
>
> I'm not Angie, but I play her on TV.
Thank god they got someone good looking to do it! ;)
> : #1-I grant you that maybe not all Karate is linear, but I never learned
> : any of the advanced stuff, and to tell the truth, never SAW it.
> : Everything that I ever witnessed within the Karate systems that I
> : studied was indeed linear.
>
> The Okinawan Karate is often circular. When it was imported to Japan, it
> was often practiced in kendo dojos and picked up a lot of kendo
> influences. The linear attacks, the point scoring system (even down
> to the flags), and the single strike mentality all were the result
> of kendo influence. A lot of the shotokan terminology and
> concepts of timing and opportunity also come from kendo.
Yes. That's what I was trying to say. Hey Neil, did I tell you I have
the opportunity to start in with some kendo? The opportunity, just not
the time. =(
> : #2-If I don't understand the concept of "single strike", explain it to
> : me.
>
> Angie can do this better than me, but I believe the correction you're
> looking for is that the shotokan people practice each strike as if it
> could end the fight, ie fully committed and correct. This is not to
> say that they are not ready for a follow-up, or that they believe that
> each punch will really end it. Of course in a sword fight one good
> (or even not-so-good) strike ends it. In a fist fight this is rarely
> the case.
Yes, that's mostly it. The most important part is the mentality behind
it. You should execute every technique as if it was your only chance. No
holding back. No wavering. Make the decision and just do it. You can
not think about the next move that they may throw at you because that will
impede your ability to put your all into your technique. A very kendo-ish
philosophy, n'est-ce pas? Mentality as well as the physical capability.
=)
Angie
> Cool. Again, I studied both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and I never saw
> any circular ANYTHING. I don't know if this is b/c my instructors
> didn't know it (which I doubt) or just weren't demonstrating or
> teaching what I was not prepared to learn (probably).
Either of these are likely. Shotokan does tend to be much more linear
than other arts, and even more than most other forms of karate (from what
I've seen anyways). However, at higher levels, movements become softer,
more circular. Just like in softer or more circular arts, at higher
levels they become harder and more linear. ;)
What's the statistical nomenclature for that? Regression towards the mean? ;)
Kendo Club
: Cool. Again, I studied both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and I never saw
: any circular ANYTHING. I don't know if this is b/c my instructors
: didn't know it (which I doubt) or just weren't demonstrating or
: teaching what I was not prepared to learn (probably).
That's because I don't think there is much circular stuff in either
of those. If you had a look at Okinawan Goju-ryu or Shorin-ryu you'd
see the circular stuff.
Disclaimer: I have no direct shotokan experience. They may do things
differently as you move up the food chain, or in different dojos. I
only know what I've seen locally (we have a top-level competitor
in Nishiyama-sensei's org here in Saskatoon) and what I've read.
Neil
storys
"Stanislav L. Bereznyuk" <st...@cclib.nsu.ru> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.3.96.SK.10002...@glory.nsu.ru...
>
> > > Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
> >
> > Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
>
>
O.K. then now we change our setting. ( temporal that is ) I know that the
Okinawan royaltyhad a private art that wasn't desmenated but we aren't
talking about that. The topic is karate as developed from Naha te and
others. Karate is not a nobles art.
> There weren't any fool to use empty hands against sword. Okinava-te had a
> > > large amount of weapon.
> > >
> >
> > Not when they started. Note the extreme lack of edged weapons.
>
> "Lack"??? What about okinavan system of fighting with sabre and shiekd,
> for example?
>
Read the legal files. they were all confiscated. You wanted to cut your meat
you went to the knife that was chained in the middle of the village & then
cut it there.
>
> Those "weapons" were taken from China, not developed by illiterate
> peasants.
>
Ever hear about something called parallel evolution? Look it up some time.
.......tom........
storys
> "storys" <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
> > "Angie" <lgd...@nwu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > Japanese styles, at least, borrowed a lot from kendo, and therefore
tend
> > > to be very "straight in". I still would avoid the term linear though.
>
> > They did???? How so???? The peasants who developed it did not have
access to
> > this teaching so they could not have borrowed what they didn't even
know.
> > Unless of course you are talking about what happened later on in
karate's
> > development?
>
> "Japanese" karate came from Okinawa a la Funakoshi. But not until the
> 1920's
Ahh O.K. I was still in an Okinawan mode! I study both so I'm used to
compartmentalizing. Sorry.
> > Among the various styles there is a kind of similarity. Otherwise we'd
have
> > to come up with a different name for a given style as it would not be
> > recognisable as karate.
>
> So would you say that the Okinawan Ryu are the same as, say, Shotokan?
> The differences are extraordinary.
No one is going to claim that they are ni any way identical. Similar in a
gross general way but NOT the same. If they got too different then we'd need
a new name.
> appreciate being lumped with another group. This is just one style. Why
> attempt to add more in? I know that the Shorin Ryu I took for a few
> months appeared much closer to Kung Fu than the Japanese karate I'd taken
> previously or since. They can hardly be lumped together to determine if
> karate is "linear" or if the mode of attack or the philosophies are the
> same.
>
Agree'd and what you say about the similarity to kung-fu is very real in
Shorin Ryu or any of the other related Okinawan arts. Get some fairly high
ranked person to show you you how to walk forward in cat stance sometime. I
saw it done by a man who has over 17 years experience and it was amazing.
.......Tom...........
JimS
>
>Khun Kao (khu...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>
>: Cool. Again, I studied both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and I never saw
>: any circular ANYTHING. I don't know if this is b/c my instructors
>: didn't know it (which I doubt) or just weren't demonstrating or
>: teaching what I was not prepared to learn (probably).
>
>That's because I don't think there is much circular stuff in either
>of those. If you had a look at Okinawan Goju-ryu or Shorin-ryu you'd
>see the circular stuff.
Yikes, I'm not a happy camper with this discussion.
I've always had a pet peeve about these "circular vs. linear" arguments.
Usually, the person saying a style is "circular" means only that he/she saw
somebody waving their arms in a circular fashion. For instance, people see
something like an Uechi-ryu circular block and start labeling Uechi-ryu as
"circular". The same folks watch a Shotokan stylist do a lunge punch, and, sure
enough, out comes the evaluation that "Shotokan is linear". But we're only talking
here about the arc (or lack of) a given technique is being delivered in.
What about the Shotokan stylist throwing a hook punch?
A crescent kick? A ridge-hand (haito)? What about the Uechi guy throwing a straight finger-jab?
Obviously, labeling a style based on what arcs seem to prominent isn't enough.
Let's take the argument further. Say I throw a reverse punch straight to your nose.
Sure enough, the trajectory was extremely straight. Now, let's look at the rotation
of the forearm during that trajectory. Linear or straight technique? You make the call.
I can argue either way.
Let's add the hips to that punch. Say I went from half-front facing to full-front-facing
and the entire torso went through a rotation to impart the hips into that punch.
Linear or circular technique? You make the call.
The thing is, people will often assume, too, that "linear" means crappy and "circular"
is cool. But this is another misnomer. The fact that a style like Shotokan has redirected
the circular mainly to the torso rather than just waving the arms is a huge plus in my book, not
a minus. That some of the ending limbs have been minimalized in arc movements
while the attention is shifted onto the torso is a physiological plus, when you think about
it. You're redirecting circular motion to the major mass of the body where it can do more
damage.
And yes, there is a huge difference between philosophies on circular movements as you wade
through the various options of choosing a particular style as a beginner, and one reason
why some folks chose the art they did :-).
Cheers,
JS
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> In article <87utbc$k1f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Badger <badger...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Your history teacher lied in this case.
>
> I think "lie" is a an overly strong word, but I don't think any
> offense was intended (Stanislav is, after all, not a native speaker
> of English).
Thanks for correction. I'm often have problems with my poor english :-)
JimS
>> Cool. Again, I studied both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and I never saw
>> any circular ANYTHING. I don't know if this is b/c my instructors
>> didn't know it (which I doubt) or just weren't demonstrating or
>> teaching what I was not prepared to learn (probably).
>
>Either of these are likely. Shotokan does tend to be much more linear
>than other arts, and even more than most other forms of karate (from what
>I've seen anyways).
If we're talking "linearity of arcs", yes, no question Shotokan has reduced the
end-point motion and redirected it more to the torso, as I've stated in another post.
There's a reason for that, and whether one views it as a strength or weakness, it's
the rationale for Shotokan's development as it went the way it did.
>However, at higher levels, movements become softer,
>more circular. Just like in softer or more circular arts, at higher
>levels they become harder and more linear. ;)
>What's the statistical nomenclature for that? Regression towards the mean? ;)
I'd agree with some of that, but I'm not satisfied with the picture of "Japanese karate
is linear, Okinawan karate is circular" observation in general.
For one thing, this kind of mentality ignores the wide diversity even within the Japanese
spectrum. Wadoryu, for instance, prides itself on soft redirection parries and not meeting
force with force; Japanese Gojuryu prides itself on incorporating "hard" and "soft" as well.
Shitoryu, a quasi-Okinawan style, actually has much in common with Shotokan in the manner in
which techniques are delivered, so go figure. Heck, Shorinji Kempo, while not a karate style
per se, sees itself as a shaolin art.
Never mind at this juncture whether the claims of these various styles are accurate; the point
is, you have wide diversity within the spectrum even on the mainland of Japan.
Personally, I find these "linear vs. circular" stereotypes have just enough fact in them to make
them dangerous when taken as gospels. Particularly, when folks start criticizing a particular
style as being such-as-such as a gross generalization and you find out they really haven't put
in enough time in the style to make an objective evaluation. It's a common occurance on these
lists, but it concerns me. A lot of bogus information is being spread out in internet land about
karate in general, and by golly, the misuse of the term makes "tai chi" look absolutely pristine
by comparison.
My two cents.
Take it for what it cost you :-).
JS
Mike Sigman
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
news:8815e2$tnn$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>
> Personally, I find these "linear vs. circular" stereotypes have just
enough fact in them to make
> them dangerous when taken as gospels. Particularly, when folks start
criticizing a particular
> style as being such-as-such as a gross generalization and you find out
they really haven't put
> in enough time in the style to make an objective evaluation. It's a common
occurance on these
> lists, but it concerns me. A lot of bogus information is being spread out
in internet land about
> karate in general, and by golly, the misuse of the term makes "tai chi"
look absolutely pristine
> by comparison.
I haven't seen a lot of "circularity" in karate. Usually what I see is
someone doing a very linear p/k are with occasional "circular blocks" and
things like that. A "circular block" is also quite linear though, compared
with all that's involved in a "circular" martial art. Karate tends to be
about as "circular" as it is "internal".
Mike "If it's trendy and cool, claim you do it" Sigman
JimS
You caught me before I moved on for the day :-).
While your point is accurate, I'd venture most of the folks criticizing the "linearlity"
of karate aren't coming from a neijia perspective. They're criticizing from within their
own karate experience (or lack of), so we're talking about in-house usage of terminology
by karateka and wonnabe karateka. And I'm questioning the conclusions some are drawing
here from even a conventional karate perspective.
I think a Chen taijiquan stylist, however, would certainly have a valid point that the
various planes the waist goes through, not to mention the entire body reeling when it
moves, would certainly take the concept of "circularity" to a different level.
Not something you'll see in Shotokan, no question.
JS
Angie
> Yikes, I'm not a happy camper with this discussion.
> I've always had a pet peeve about these "circular vs. linear" arguments.
> Usually, the person saying a style is "circular" means only that he/she saw
> somebody waving their arms in a circular fashion. For instance, people see
> something like an Uechi-ryu circular block and start labeling Uechi-ryu as
> "circular". The same folks watch a Shotokan stylist do a lunge punch,
and, sure
> enough, out comes the evaluation that "Shotokan is linear". But we're
only talking
> here about the arc (or lack of) a given technique is being delivered in.
It all comes down to degrees, doesn't it? I agree that it's not correct
to say that something "is" or "isn't" linear, but....
> What about the Shotokan stylist throwing a hook punch?
More circular than a reverse punch, but more linear than a boxing cross. =)
> A crescent kick?
That one's sneaky.....by definition, it has to be circular, doesn't it?
Is there a difference in the degree of circularity (if we can call it
that) between two arts though? The ones I throw don't have a huge arc to
them. Then again, I don't necessarily do them right. ;)
>A ridge-hand (haito)? What about the Uechi guy throwing a straight finger-jab?
> Obviously, labeling a style based on what arcs seem to prominent isn't enough.
Degrees. Degrees.
Take for instance, the move in heian/pinan4. The move at the top of the
"I" formation that preceeds the kick--the ridgehand to the neck (for the
simplest bunkai). The first style I trained in, which called itself
Okinawan but what I've since found out is really Japanese with a bit more
of an Okinawan flavor, did this move in an arc, such that the ridge of the
hand sends the force perpendicular to and into the neck. Shotokan does
the same move, but with very little arc. At least *we* always have.
Instead, the hand makes a bee-line from it's starting position to the
neck, with the force aimed more at an angle close to straight back than
towards the center of the neck. Same move, two totally different results,
and I would say that the first is more circular than the second.
There are lots of examples like this. The way the legs move in Heian3.
The hands in Jion. Most of Jitte from what I can tell. Those are just
the ones that come immediately to mind.
> Let's take the argument further. Say I throw a reverse punch straight to
your nose.
> Sure enough, the trajectory was extremely straight. Now, let's look at
the rotation
> of the forearm during that trajectory. Linear or straight technique? You
make the call.
> I can argue either way.
> Let's add the hips to that punch. Say I went from half-front facing to
full-front-facing
> and the entire torso went through a rotation to impart the hips into
that punch.
> Linear or circular technique? You make the call.
Much less circular than arts that are usually called circular. ;) How's that?
> The thing is, people will often assume, too, that "linear" means crappy
and "circular"
> is cool. But this is another misnomer.
Bah. When have we ever let society dictate how we look at ourselves.
Oh, yah. Never mind. ;) ;) ;)
>The fact that a style like Shotokan has redirected
> the circular mainly to the torso rather than just waving the arms is a
huge plus in my book, not
> a minus. That some of the ending limbs have been minimalized in arc movements
> while the attention is shifted onto the torso is a physiological plus,
when you think about
> it. You're redirecting circular motion to the major mass of the body
where it can do more
> damage.
I'm biased, but I agree that the moves in Shotokan are far superior to
anything else. Ha ha ha ha ha. ;) ;)
> And yes, there is a huge difference between philosophies on circular
movements as you wade
> through the various options of choosing a particular style as a
beginner, and one reason
> why some folks chose the art they did :-).
The thing is that in the end, everything gets closer to the stuff that
they look so different from. There are lots of circular blocks in
Shotokan. Just look at some of the upper level kata. Nijushi-ho is full
fo them. I have a feeling that at top levels, even very circular kung fu
starts looking a bit more linear. It's a cost benefit analysis that each
person has to make for him/herself.
=)
Badger
Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu (JimS) wrote:
> Let's take the argument further. Say I throw a reverse punch straight
to your nose.
> Sure enough, the trajectory was extremely straight. Now, let's look at
the rotation
> of the forearm during that trajectory. Linear or straight technique?
You make the call.
> I can argue either way.
> Let's add the hips to that punch. Say I went from half-front facing to
full-front-facing
> and the entire torso went through a rotation to impart the hips into
that punch.
> Linear or circular technique? You make the call.
Considering that the joints in the body *only* work by rotation, your
argument is kinda moot. Unless you finally got around to getting your
arms replaced with those hydraulic rams (Can't pick up a dime, but *man*
what a punch), that is.
Actually, one of my students is doing his black sash thesis on this
subject, dividing circular motions into 5 classes. Rotation of the
forearm falls into Class 1, if I recall.
Badger
--
Northern Shaolin Five Animals Kung Fu
& Filipino Martial Arts
http://www.cyberus.ca/~badger/
Brian Eddy
Karate styles.
However, in the debate of Circular vs. Linear...I have always
understood it to mean the concept that dictates how you deal with your
opponent's momentum (in a nutshell).
Linear styles tend to meet power with power. Very strong blocks and
deeply rooted stances. This cuts down on mobility a little bit and is
why you see a lot of punches and blocks being traded.
Circular styles will redirect the opponent's force to take them off
balance and lead them into a strike or other move. The constant motion
makes it difficult for all but the most skilled fighter to drop into a
really solid stance.
There is a trade-off. Both concepts have a strength and a weakness.
Just a side note: For those who saw the Matrix, what they did would
be considered bad Kung Fu. The stances were pretty but when it came to
the fight they reverted to a linear way of trading punches and blocks.
Frankly it reminded me of the VERY bad Kung Fu movies of the 70's when
they found anyone who could punch and put them on screen.
Brian Eddy
1st degree Black Belt
Kung Fu San Soo
storys
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zIVo4.21081$Nv1.2...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>
> I haven't seen a lot of "circularity" in karate. Usually what I see is
> someone doing a very linear p/k are with occasional "circular blocks" and
> things like that. A "circular block" is also quite linear though,
compared
> about as "circular" as it is "internal".
>
>
Mike I'm surprised!!!! This sounds like a troll!
......Tom........
Mike Sigman
"storys" <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote in message
news:2X4p4.98$Zn6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> Karate tends to be
> > about as "circular" as it is "internal".
> >
> >
>
> Mike I'm surprised!!!! This sounds like a troll!
>
> ......Tom........
Odd. Jim took my point right away and he has a lot of time in karate.
Karate can be "circular" if you mean something other than what is meant by
the non-linear arts. Karate can be "internal" if you mean something other
than what it means to be an internal martial art.
Mike Sigman
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> > > > Your history teacher lied in this case. If you see chronicles - there
> > > > weren't any peasant in karate history.
> > >
> > > Chojun Myiagi was a noble??? I could go on & on check your sources.
> >
> > I said about pre-XXcentury history.
> >
>
> O.K. then now we change our setting. ( temporal that is ) I know that the
> Okinawan royaltyhad a private art that wasn't desmenated but we aren't
> talking about that. The topic is karate as developed from Naha te and
> others. Karate is not a nobles art.
OK, but not "peasant art". IMHO nowhere in the world peasants themselves
developed high-level martial arts, why Okinava has its own way?
High-educated peasants? :-)))
> > "Lack"??? What about okinavan system of fighting with sabre and shiekd,
> > for example?
> >
>
> Read the legal files. they were all confiscated. You wanted to cut your meat
> you went to the knife that was chained in the middle of the village & then
> cut it there.
But what about, for example, royal bodyguards?
> > Those "weapons" were taken from China, not developed by illiterate
> > peasants.
> >
>
> Ever hear about something called parallel evolution? Look it up some time.
OK, the island was near China, sometimes was a part of China empire, had
many immigrates from China, habitants often travelled to China, but they
developed this themselves, exactly like in neibourgh China :-)))
storys
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:my5p4.21971>
> Odd. Jim took my point right away and he has a lot of time in karate.
> Karate can be "circular" if you mean something other than what is meant by
> the non-linear arts. Karate can be "internal" if you mean something other
> than what it means to be an internal martial art.
Still trolling! O.K. Lets limit ourselves a bit here as if we try to talk
about ALL forms of karate we won't get anything done or say anything worth
saying. Lets limit ourselves to Okinawan karate only. this form of karate
has both internal elements and circularity ( If that's even a word ) Why?
How? It started with a man called I believe Kanryo Higannona ( the spelling
may be off. I have two problems. I am a terrible speller and I have great
difficulty remembering names The first is due to the way I read which is in
turn due to the fact of my being a totally self taught reader by age three
and the second is just me.) He went to Fukein province in China and studied
White Crane Kung-fu. Later a stucent of his Chogun Myiagi did the same and
Goju Ryu Karate was born. At advanced levels the resemblance between the two
systems is quite amazing. Thie circularity is quite evident in certain
blocks like the hariatoshi block and in the manner that one is taught to
defend against such things as a shoulder grab. The hariatoshi block is
performed thusly ( I'm going to arbitrarily do this discription from horse
stance because this is the way it is taught to beginners and You so far as I
know are not familiar with the system ) Step into horse stance moving the
right foot and facing towards the left. Your feet should be at a 45 degree
angle referced to the line they were in when you started. Your LEFT hand
moves to a low position just to the left of your left knee, around in a
clockwise fashion, up to above your head, continuing in such manner around
blocking your chest right side groin and ending one fist lenght above your
left knee. Your right hand starts out extended in front of your body,
pulling back to be in chamber when the left is coming down in its Circular
path to its end point. Now this is only one example. There are others. One
example of a circular self defense is this. you are grabbed on the right
shoulder by a person standing behind you. the straight line defence is to
elbow the person with the right arm and then follow up with a punch. In Goju
you will often turn counter clockwise to elbow ith the left hand and follow
with a cross or slashing circular knee. Again this is only one example.
As far as the internals are concerned well not all internals are as you see
them as not all styles are the same. Sorry to say this as I know it will
just generate scorn and such from you as it attacks your dearly held beliefs
but that's the way it is. Right off let me say that I cannot do this as yet
except in a very limited fashion under certain conditions and totally by
accident. In a few years I might be able to control it but who knows?
Sanchin kata which in many Okinawan styles is the kata taught first is the
kata that starts the internal process. It prevents, by it's nature, the use
of external power and is dependant on breathing and position. Now Okinawan
karate has been and is criticised for some of the changes it has brought
into this kata. This kata is seen as the descendant of Sam Chin kata of the
White Crane school (Also found in the Five Ancestor Fist). The differences
are in the lack of compression and the easier breathing in the Sam Chin
version. Mayhap practicing the older version would bring out the internals
faster. I don't know as I don't practice it. The earlier Okinawan kata
except for Sanchin ) depend on and utilise external power. Later kata do as
well but they don't prevent it. Example; the turn and genital slap in Sepai.
The blow is very short in travel and power is allowed to come from the hip
rather than any arm movement. At the time the slap is delivered, the other
hand is in a very odd chamber at the hip ( hip chambers are not normally
part of Goju ) This as you can see ( I hope ) can use external power but is
not such to prevent or hinder a use of internal power.
Mike I have NO intention of getting into a brouhaha with you about the
internal arts so don't expect one. I know your prejudices but since you said
you were serious I responded. You can learn or not. Your choice entirely. I
have found the above to be true and it is I think why Aikido works so well
with and by Goju. This I have found myself to be true by practical
application.
.........Tom.........
storys
>
> OK, but not "peasant art". IMHO nowhere in the world peasants themselves
> developed high-level martial arts, why Okinava has its own way?
> High-educated peasants? :-)))
>
No not particularly just highly motivated. You want another example?? Try
the french art La Savate. Esp the southern version of this art. It was
invented if you will by illiterate sailors. La moulinette is another French
art practiced by peasants because they had no access to swords and needed
something to defend themselves with against robbers. Or try the English.
Their quarter staff arts were dispised by the nobility but were most
effective against robbers and such and even the occaisional noble if the
situation presented. However examples are not recorded as the peasants were
illiterate, the act illegal and the noble embarassed. Thus NO record was
made or even admitted to. Also the noble was probably illiterate too.
Reading was considered a clerkly art suitable for priests only.
>
> But what about, for example, royal bodyguards?
>
Dead at the time we are speaking of.
>
> OK, the island was near China, sometimes was a part of China empire, had
> many immigrates from China, habitants often travelled to China, but they
> developed this themselves, exactly like in neibourgh China :-)))
Quite possible as travel wasn't all that common and the only other
development of the nunchuk that I'm aware of at this time was actually in
Mongolia which is quite some distance from Okinawa. I'm not aware of any
contact between Okinawans and Mongols around this time. The Chinese dispised
the Mongols and I doubt that they would have taught Okinawans Mongol tactics
or weapons. Note also that The Okinawans grew rice. The flail was right to
hand as it were. Necessity is the mother of invention but Ingenuity is the
daddy & not one person has ever called the Okinawan people stupid.
.........Tom..........
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> > But what about, for example, royal bodyguards?
> >
>
> Dead at the time we are speaking of.
???
Motobu clan, if I'm not mistaken, still exists.
> > OK, the island was near China, sometimes was a part of China empire, had
> > many immigrates from China, habitants often travelled to China, but they
> > developed this themselves, exactly like in neibourgh China :-)))
>
> Quite possible as travel wasn't all that common
> and the only other
> development of the nunchuk that I'm aware of at this time was actually in
> Mongolia which is quite some distance from Okinawa.
MONGOLIA?????????
I lived there during five years, and Museum of history in Ulan-Bator was
one of my favorite. Mongols didn't have anything similar. According to
most records, nunchaku-like kinds of weapon were developed in Southern
China around General Yue Fei's time. And they still in use in different
styles of chinese martial arts.
Chas
> OK, but not "peasant art". IMHO nowhere in the world peasants themselves
> developed high-level martial arts, why Okinava has its own way?
> High-educated peasants? :-)))
Try Indonesia, SEAsia, the Barrier Islands- high level martial arts; as
sophisticated as any on earth and more than most. They are capable of
dealing with the most finessed variances in power generation, tactics
and strategy in all fighting levels and scenarios, deep analysis of the
'geometry' and kinesics of fighting.
Surely there were 'noble' arts also- of course, the other ones fed on
them and took their stuff, but that's incidental.
Additionally, 'peasants' is a social term- I'm relating it to 'common
sorts of people'.
Chas
Chas
> Quite possible as travel wasn't all that common and the only other
> development of the nunchuk that I'm aware of at this time was actually in
> Mongolia which is quite some distance from Okinawa.
However, travel up and down the island chain was common for the last
8,000 years- far easier than travel across the China Sea to the
Mainland.
Composite wooden weapons of braided flex and various sorts and numbers
of members are far more common amongst people with limited access to
metal than amongst people with a history of common use and availability
of metal. If you want to learn club, stick and associated weapons, it is
far more sophisticated amongst those sorts of folk than amongst people
for whom wood was a poor second choice.
The clubs, 'swords', spears, cudgels, two and more part composite
flexible weapons, throwing darts, blowpipes, arrow variations, atlatls
and projectiles and useful shields and other armor is very sophisticated
and the systems for use very effective and practical among the
inhabitants of the Barrier Island chain off the Chinese Mainland.
> Note also that The Okinawans grew rice. The flail was right to
> hand as it were. Necessity is the mother of invention but Ingenuity is the
> daddy & not one person has ever called the Okinawan people stupid.
It's a commonly practiced weapon type- the braided womens' hair is a
common source of combat quality cordage- many Filipino weapons are
wrapped with it, the flexible connections and tie-down wrapping is made
from it- same with weapons from Borneo, New Guinea and down the Chain. I
have weapons in my own collection that bear this out- things of
considerable antiquity. Shaping the wooden members is a matter of small
bits of metal or stone or taking advantage of natural holes or knobs.
All circumstantial of course- there is little written that doesn't
depend on the Chinese language characters or the Japanese influence. We
don't have any video, photos or canceled check stubs to 'prove' it <g>
Chas
Michael J. Gallagher
<richar...@breathemail.net> wrote:
>katas are crap because .... the power also coming from
>the wrong place (i.e. upper body instead of lower body) ....
Sorry, but the way I've learned them, your movement is ALWAYS centered
in your lower body, along with your breathing. When the kata calls
for a power move, like a reverse punch, there is usually hip rotation
behind it.
> .... The kata and the sparring drills dont match - you have to learn
>different blocks from kata to sparring to self defence - how are you meant
>to know anything after that?
>
Yeah, you break some of the classical rules when you go to sparring.
The trick is to break the _right_ ones; break the wrong ones and
you're in trouble.
Beyond that .... kata helps with some aspects but not others, and the
same for sparring. You need both -- as well as a variety of types of
drills and partner training in between --- if you want to get
anywhere.
storys
"Dustin Laurence" <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> more of them is that most places they were slowly replaced by iron
weapons
> before they were recorded.
Also they were probably either as illegal as hell or used in an illegal
manner. Beating up on the gentry was generally frowned upon! Thus such
things would actively be kept out of any recorded media. Also at this time
people who could read/write were the exception & not the rule. Again another
reason why it might not get recorded. One thing I think is certain. If a
weapon is worthwhile & capable of being built/fabricated with a minimum of
tools & skill it will be found and built in many places usually at or about
the same time.
........Tom..........
Dustin Laurence
>storys wrote:
>> Quite possible as travel wasn't all that common and the only other
>> development of the nunchuk that I'm aware of at this time was actually in
>> Mongolia which is quite some distance from Okinawa.
>Composite wooden weapons of braided flex and various sorts and numbers
>of members are far more common amongst people with limited access to
>metal than amongst people with a history of common use and availability
>of metal.
And IIRC _The Secret History of the Sword_ mentions and has a European
picture of someone beating the stuffing out of someone with what looks
like an assymetric two- or three-section staff. Ah, here we are,
p138-139. I'd guess that Chas is right and the reason we don't know about
more of them is that most places they were slowly replaced by iron weapons
before they were recorded.
Chas, do you know of other references that mention segmented weapons
outside of Okinawa and such?
Dustin
--
"I regard you as one of the largest obstacles to
the free dissemination of information to the world
aquarist community that has ever existed."
-- Richard Sexton, <4i406o$o...@gold.interlog.com>
Chas
> Chas, do you know of other references that mention segmented weapons
> outside of Okinawa and such?
"A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in
all Countries and In All Times"; George Cameron Stone (Jack Brussel, NY)
1934, 1961
'Stones' is the definitive work in the field in my opinion. It shows all
sorts of flails and such-
Chas
Dustin Laurence
>"A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in
>all Countries and In All Times"; George Cameron Stone (Jack Brussel, NY)
>1934, 1961
>'Stones' is the definitive work in the field in my opinion.
Geeze, with a title like that, it had better be!
Seriously, that looks very interesting. Time to ILL another book I
probably can't afford to buy.
That "decoration" part looks especially good; now I'll never have to beat
someone with an "ugly stick" again. <ba-dum ching!>
JimS
[snipped for brevity, continued because Angie is on a roll]
>The thing is that in the end, everything gets closer to the stuff that
>they look so different from. There are lots of circular blocks in
>Shotokan. Just look at some of the upper level kata. Nijushi-ho is full
>fo them. I have a feeling that at top levels, even very circular kung fu
>starts looking a bit more linear. It's a cost benefit analysis that each
>person has to make for him/herself.
>Angie
I don't know about circular styles becoming more linear and linear becoming more circular.
While this may happen to some degree, I don't know if it tells us much other than that at
a basics (kihon) training level, certain styles will tend to emphasize straight-line deliverence
of techniques (say,Shotokan) vs. styles which start out more "circular" in the blocks (i.e.,
Uechi, Goju).
All this becomes a moot point when the kata are considered, because the kata (regardless of
style, really) always contain both elements. Kata will always have some circular arcs in
some techniques and straight-line stuff as well, so making a gospel out of any of this stuff is
really only saying, "well, I see X style doing more straight-line techniques than Y style". To
me, this isn't that interesting an observation :-).
What *is* interesting, to my mind, and yours too Angie, because I can read minds like a
psychic, is the method of body dynamics behind the arm or leg movement. I don't give a damn
if a style does all circles if I don't see much in the way of body dynamics. Sure, a style
like Uechi or Goju has a lot of circular blocks, but these stylists *should* be telling us
*how* they're throwing these techniques using the body, not just bragging on having the
circles. If Kanei Uechi throws a mean circular block, it ain't just because his arm is waving,
it's because he has figured out how to put his whole body into it.
JS "say amen, somebody"
Steve Gombosi
Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Chas, do you know of other references that mention segmented weapons
>outside of Okinawa and such?
Dustin,
Flails are common implements in every pre-industrial agricultural
society. The damned things have been around at least since Egypt
(probably Sumer). They were certainly a mainstay (along with scythes
and pruning hooks) of every peasant rebellion in European history.
I'm sure that Europeans, Chinese, and Okinawans were not the only
people to think of walloping one another with this very common
tool.
Steve
Dustin Laurence
>Flails are common implements in every pre-industrial agricultural
>society. The damned things have been around at least since Egypt
>(probably Sumer). They were certainly a mainstay (along with scythes
>and pruning hooks) of every peasant rebellion in European history.
Flails in the sense of straight wooden segments joined by short hinges?
"Flail" makes me think of metal ball-and-chain things, or at least long
flexible portions as opposed to short hinges; perhaps I use the word
wrongly, that's why I'm asking questions and why I tried to use the term
"segmented weapon." I assume that's not what you mean since what I call a
flail is pretty specialized as a weapon (unless you've got a mule that
needs really *serious* discipline!), and I can believe that an
agricultural implement (going along with the scythes and hooks, 'cuz
that's what disarmed peasantry have) would have the same type of
construction as the nunchaka or three-section staff.
>I'm sure that Europeans, Chinese, and Okinawans were not the only
>people to think of walloping one another with this very common
>tool.
Very reasonable, I just had not heard of such things and so I wanted
clarification in baby-words.
Plus, as an agricultural implement they would already have had some basic
skills in not hitting yourself with the stupid thing, always a good skill
to have when using flexible weapons. :-)
Badger
laur...@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Laurence) wrote:
> Plus, as an agricultural implement they would already have had some
basic
> skills in not hitting yourself with the stupid thing, always a good
skill
> to have when using flexible weapons. :-)
"Basic skills" is right. Pull straight back, pound straight down,
repeat as necessary. Ain't pretty, but it'll work on grains and
adversaries alike.
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> > OK, but not "peasant art". IMHO nowhere in the world peasants themselves
> > developed high-level martial arts, why Okinava has its own way?
> > High-educated peasants? :-)))
>
> Try Indonesia, SEAsia, the Barrier Islands- high level martial arts; as
> sophisticated as any on earth and more than most. They are capable of
> dealing with the most finessed variances in power generation, tactics
> and strategy in all fighting levels and scenarios, deep analysis of the
> 'geometry' and kinesics of fighting.
BTW, I heard rumors (I don't want to write the names publikly) that some
of those arts are modern-day arts and only call themselves "old".
> Surely there were 'noble' arts also- of course, the other ones fed on
> them and took their stuff, but that's incidental.
IMHO it also could be reverce process: agriculture stuff used with
techniques, designed for usual weapon. For example, Mainland Asia knew
different types of flails (example - Korean cavalier flails), including
that type, which today is known as "Okinavan nunchaku".
> Additionally, 'peasants' is a social term- I'm relating it to 'common
> sorts of people'.
Agreed. In general, I believe that martial arts were created by people who
had time for creative work, had an experience for analis etc etc etc.
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> > OK, but not "peasant art". IMHO nowhere in the world peasants themselves
> > developed high-level martial arts, why Okinava has its own way?
> > High-educated peasants? :-)))
> >
>
> No not particularly just highly motivated. You want another example?? Try
> the french art La Savate. Esp the southern version of this art. It was
> invented if you will by illiterate sailors. La moulinette is another French
> art practiced by peasants because they had no access to swords and needed
> something to defend themselves with against robbers. Or try the English.
> Their quarter staff arts were dispised by the nobility but were most
> effective against robbers and such and even the occaisional noble if the
> situation presented. However examples are not recorded as the peasants were
> illiterate, the act illegal and the noble embarassed. Thus NO record was
> made or even admitted to. Also the noble was probably illiterate too.
> Reading was considered a clerkly art suitable for priests only.
But how we can say anything about the art, if we have no information? How
we can compare this with anything else? AFAIK Savate, for example, was
rebuilt during the middle of XIX century, hence we don't know what really
was called "Savate of sailors". Of course, people fought everywhere in the
world, but can we call any set of fighting tricks "Martial art"?
Chas
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Chas wrote:
> > Try Indonesia, SEAsia, the Barrier Islands- high level martial arts; as
> > sophisticated as any on earth and more than most.
> of those arts are modern-day arts and only call themselves "old".
Depends on what you call 'old'-
I would think that most silat styles have *roots* in systems that go
back quite a ways- obviously, under the customs of system lineage,
*every* art is brand new because you always identify the *last* teacher.
For instance, modern 'pokwa zen' is derived from the same root (one
would think) as 'paqua'- the art branches in about 1830-1850 from what
I've understood.
> IMHO it also could be reverce process: agriculture stuff used with
> techniques, designed for usual weapon. For example, Mainland Asia knew
> different types of flails (example - Korean cavalier flails), including
> that type, which today is known as "Okinavan nunchaku".
A matter of nobles learning from peasants then, not the other way
around.
> > Additionally, 'peasants' is a social term- I'm relating it to 'common
> > sorts of people'.
> Agreed. In general, I believe that martial arts were created by people who
> had time for creative work, had an experience for analis etc etc etc.
Could be- I never thought of it in that light, but I shall <g>
Chas
JimS
>
>
>"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:my5p4.21971>
>> Odd. Jim took my point right away and he has a lot of time in karate.
>> Karate can be "circular" if you mean something other than what is meant by
>> the non-linear arts. Karate can be "internal" if you mean something other
>> than what it means to be an internal martial art.
>
>Still trolling!
Nope. He's not. Let's see why:
>O.K. Lets limit ourselves a bit here as if we try to talk
>about ALL forms of karate we won't get anything done or say anything worth
>saying. Lets limit ourselves to Okinawan karate only. this form of karate
>has both internal elements and circularity ( If that's even a word ) Why?
>How? It started with a man called I believe Kanryo Higannona ( the spelling
>may be off. I have two problems. I am a terrible speller and I have great
>difficulty remembering names The first is due to the way I read which is in
>turn due to the fact of my being a totally self taught reader by age three
>and the second is just me.) He went to Fukein province in China and studied
>White Crane Kung-fu. Later a stucent of his Chogun Myiagi did the same and
>Goju Ryu Karate was born. At advanced levels the resemblance between the two
>systems is quite amazing.
Southern shaolin systems (of which White Crane is one) have had a trememdous impact
on Okinawan systems in general, no question. This, unfortunately, proves nothing for
your argument above. White Crane is *not* considered one of the neijia, traditionally
represented by the "big three", taijiquan, xingiquan, and baguazhang. There are very
good reasons why not. Unfortunately, judging by your statements, you don't know what
those reasons are.
Bottom line is, you're using the word "internal" differently than others coming from
a neijia perspective. Before you use words like this, perhaps it would be a wise thing
to check out a recognized practitioner of one of these "big three" and see for yourself
the differences. One cavet here, in bagua and xingyi it's very hard to find a decent
teacher in the West; easier with taijiquan. Forrest Chang mentioned one giving a seminar
in D.C., however, so it *is* possible to get out and see some good xingyi if one really
wants to do so.
>Thie circularity is quite evident in certain
>blocks like the hariatoshi block and in the manner that one is taught to
>defend against such things as a shoulder grab. [snip]
Doesn't have a thing to do with anything.
>As far as the internals are concerned well not all internals are as you see
>them as not all styles are the same. Sorry to say this as I know it will
>just generate scorn and such from you as it attacks your dearly held beliefs
>but that's the way it is.
Well, there's the expected slam on Mikey, but what if you're completely missing the
boat here? Always a possibility, even though it's a tough revelation to the ego.
Go over your above comments once more, consider my criticisms, and really try to get
out and see some good neijia. If there is none in your area (and chances are, you may
have to travel a bit to see a really fine recognized teacher in action), it will be
well worth your effort, and may redefine your use of these terms.
If you spit and sputter at criticism and think you've already got this stuff down, then you'll
miss out. That attitude is typical, but its pure poison. Go check.
Regards,
JS
Mike Sigman
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
>
> Southern shaolin systems (of which White Crane is one) have had a
trememdous impact
> on Okinawan systems in general, no question. This, unfortunately, proves
nothing for
> your argument above. White Crane is *not* considered one of the neijia,
traditionally
> represented by the "big three", taijiquan, xingiquan, and baguazhang.
There are very
I studied Uechi Ryu for a while on Okinawa and it was a part of my martial
arts experience that I enjoyed. However, let's face it... the styles like
Uechi Ryu and Goju represent some Okinawan going to China to learn a
traditional Chinese martial art and then bringing it back to Okinawa, where
the teacher taught "his version" of what he learned. In other words, in no
case are these types of karate really the original thing which the teacher
thought was important enough for a trip to China to learn. And given that
it was someone from Okinawa, I have no doubt that the Chinese teacher kept a
lot of things back.
So for some of these posters to go on and on and on about Okinawan (or
Japanese) karate when it's pretty obvious they are just homebrew takes on
older Chinese martial arts... it seems a bit silly. Take them for what
they are, but everyone should quit carrying on about "buried secrets that
are just being unveiled" when really you're just embellishing homebrew takes
on Fukien White Crane, Southern Mantis, etc., etc.
As far as them being "internal", that simply shows how naive the poster is.
Same with "circularity", etc. This is the talk of little boys in what I
call "Spanky and Our Gang" discussions... if you don't know, you just
prattle on out of loyalty because you can't conceive of logic or history.
:^)
Mike
JimS
>I studied Uechi Ryu for a while on Okinawa and it was a part of my martial
>arts experience that I enjoyed. However, let's face it... the styles like
>Uechi Ryu and Goju represent some Okinawan going to China to learn a
>traditional Chinese martial art and then bringing it back to Okinawa, where
>the teacher taught "his version" of what he learned. In other words, in no
>case are these types of karate really the original thing which the teacher
>thought was important enough for a trip to China to learn. And given that
>it was someone from Okinawa, I have no doubt that the Chinese teacher kept a
>lot of things back.
You may get an argument out of some Okinawan stylists for not giving enough credit
to "indigenous" elements, and I've taken flack in the past for saying about the same
thing, but I personally think these assumptions are pretty reasonable on the whole.
And Chinese (traditionally) haven't revealed their good stuff even to outside the family very
often; it would be truly amazing if they did to an Okinawan studying the system...
Doesn't add up.
I don't know if one could include all Okinawan karate styles into this category, but
the ones you mentioned (Goju, Uechi) certainly don't seem to be terribly original.
>So for some of these posters to go on and on and on about Okinawan (or
>Japanese) karate when it's pretty obvious they are just homebrew takes on
>older Chinese martial arts... it seems a bit silly. Take them for what
>they are, but everyone should quit carrying on about "buried secrets that
>are just being unveiled" when really you're just embellishing homebrew takes
>on Fukien White Crane, Southern Mantis, etc., etc.
Curiously, I believe the further you go down the food chain (i.e., to Japan), the
more the "indigenous" element becomes germane. Okinawa may have retained more southern shaolin
elements than countries further down the list. I think so. The longer the time line, the
further the "distortions". Even so, your general point is still valid for Japanese systems,
in my book :-).
JS "just an opinion"
Steve Gombosi
Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Odd. Jim took my point right away and he has a lot of time in karate.
We karate guys are a subtle bunch ;-).
>Karate can be "circular" if you mean something other than what is meant by
>the non-linear arts. Karate can be "internal" if you mean something other
>than what it means to be an internal martial art.
Of course, one could (as you've often pointed out) make exactly the same
statements about most tie-chee practitioners in the West.
Steve
FB
> This is the talk of little boys in what I
> call "Spanky and Our Gang" discussions... if you don't know, you just
> prattle on out of loyalty because you can't conceive of logic or history.
> :^)
>
> Mike
Careful, Mike.
Lucid commentaries based on experience and historical precedent can get you in
trouble. <g>
storys
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
news:88ee0b$ps9$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
> >about ALL forms of karate we won't get anything done or say anything
worth
> >saying. Lets limit ourselves to Okinawan karate only. this form of karate
> >has both internal elements and circularity ( If that's even a word ) Why?
> >How? It started with a man called I believe Kanryo Higannona ( the
spelling
> >may be off. I have two problems. I am a terrible speller and I have great
> >difficulty remembering names The first is due to the way I read which is
in
> >turn due to the fact of my being a totally self taught reader by age
three
> >and the second is just me.) He went to Fukein province in China and
studied
> >White Crane Kung-fu. Later a stucent of his Chogun Myiagi did the same
and
> >Goju Ryu Karate was born. At advanced levels the resemblance between the
two
> >systems is quite amazing.
>
trememdous impact
> on Okinawan systems in general, no question. This, unfortunately, proves
nothing for
> your argument above. White Crane is *not* considered one of the neijia,
traditionally
> represented by the "big three", taijiquan, xingiquan, and baguazhang.
There are very
know what
> those reasons are.
> Bottom line is, you're using the word "internal" differently than others
coming from
> a neijia perspective. Before you use words like this, perhaps it would be
a wise thing
> to check out a recognized practitioner of one of these "big three" and see
for yourself
> the differences. One cavet here, in bagua and xingyi it's very hard to
find a decent
> teacher in the West; easier with taijiquan. Forrest Chang mentioned one
giving a seminar
> in D.C., however, so it *is* possible to get out and see some good xingyi
if one really
> wants to do so.
>
I said diddly about internal. I said Goju is descended from White Crane. I
stand by that. Define internal any which way you want. I literally don't
care
> >Thie circularity is quite evident in certain
> >blocks like the hariatoshi block and in the manner that one is taught to
> >defend against such things as a shoulder grab. [snip]
>
> Doesn't have a thing to do with anything.
>
Again I could not care less. I was speaking to the circular issue not some
internal problem you may or may not have.
> >As far as the internals are concerned well not all internals are as you
see
> >them as not all styles are the same. Sorry to say this as I know it will
> >just generate scorn and such from you as it attacks your dearly held
beliefs
> >but that's the way it is.
>
> Well, there's the expected slam on Mikey,
Which he asked for just as you are now by refusing to see that the
discussion had NOTHING to do with internal stuff.
> out and see some good neijia. If there is none in your area (and chances
are, you may
> have to travel a bit to see a really fine recognized teacher in action),
it will be
> well worth your effort, and may redefine your use of these terms.
I do some Aikido. It's considered internal does that count? I'm quite happy
where I am & really don't give a hoot in the hot place for the internal
arts. If I wanted to there are several teachers in the area including
certified Chinese Doctors to whom I could go and see whatever.
> If you spit and sputter at criticism and think you've already got this
stuff down, then you'll
> miss out. That attitude is typical, but its pure poison. Go check.
I've never said I have it down. I've said that I can't do it as they do in
Tai chie. Honesty gets you in my face.....hmmmmm maybe I'd better start
lying all over the place and then things would be better?
........Tom.........
storys
>
> I studied Uechi Ryu for a while on Okinawa and it was a part of my martial
> arts experience that I enjoyed. However, let's face it... the styles
like
> Uechi Ryu and Goju represent some Okinawan going to China to learn a
> traditional Chinese martial art and then bringing it back to Okinawa,
where
> the teacher taught "his version" of what he learned. In other words, in
no
> case are these types of karate really the original thing which the teacher
> thought was important enough for a trip to China to learn. And given
that
> it was someone from Okinawa, I have no doubt that the Chinese teacher kept
a
> lot of things back.
>
> Japanese) karate when it's pretty obvious they are just homebrew takes on
> older Chinese martial arts... it seems a bit silly. Take them for what
> they are, but everyone should quit carrying on about "buried secrets that
> are just being unveiled" when really you're just embellishing homebrew
takes
> on Fukien White Crane, Southern Mantis, etc., etc.
>
And you get your shorts in a knot about how people view your beloved
internal arts. Your duplicity is exceeded only by your blindness.
.......Tom........
Mike Sigman
"storys" <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote in message
news:3JGq4.400$Jz3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
>
> And you get your shorts in a knot about how people view your beloved
> internal arts. Your duplicity is exceeded only by your blindness.
>
Wow! Talk about factual rebuttals! I couldn't care less about how people
"view" internal arts. It's how they practice. You just go on and practice
your Poor Man's White Crane, Bubba.
Mike Sigman
Badger
"storys" <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
>At advanced levels the resemblance between
the two
> systems is quite amazing.
Really? Who have you seen do Fukien White Crane? I see very few
similarities at all.
>The
differences
> are in the lack of compression and the easier breathing in the Sam
Chin
> version.
Oh, and the totally different movements. Let's not forget those.
The one thing I repeatedly see popping up from the goju camp is the link
to Fukien White Crane, and comparisons to it. But it seems that none of
the people talking about it have actually seen any Fukien White Crane.
It is not the same style, it is not even close. Miyagi took what he was
taught and diverged radically.
At least the "goju is descended from pakua" stuff is surfacing less and
less.
Badger "Feeling a bit fractious today"
MattBarnz
>katas are crap because you don't feel like you're fighting nor do you even
>feel like you are being conditioned to fight. This is down to how they
>are
>performed ie. jerkily and with too much power and the power also coming
>from
>the wrong place (i.e. upper body instead of lower body). There is no sense
>of flow there.
Perhaps you are doing them incorrectly? That doesn't seem to describe mine, or
any that I've seen done well...
Matt
JimS
[snip rambling conversation]
>> If you spit and sputter at criticism and think you've already got this
>stuff down, then you'll miss out. That attitude is typical, but its pure poison. Go check.
>
>I've never said I have it down. I've said that I can't do it as they do in
>Tai chie. Honesty gets you in my face.....hmmmmm maybe I'd better start
>lying all over the place and then things would be better?
Well, I'm not here to run down people that don't do things like taiji-ers, but I *would*
like non-neijia practitioners to quit asserting "we have that too".
That's what is dishonest, because it reveals a lack of getting out and checking to see
whether you should be saying stuff like that.
The problem boils down to using buzzwords that have no real content. Everybody wants to be on
the "internal" bandwagon because it sounds cool- ain't nobody ever gonna say, "yeah, my art
is completely external". Even though it's true. But you'll never hear it, because people
think it's an admission of inferiority. Not true at all. Seeing some big qualitative differences
in how the body is used to deliver power is *not* a judgement call of one approach
producing a better fighter than another approach. Heck, you could make the argument that
many external styles make a better fighter quicker because the skills are easier for most
folks to pick up.
It's more a matter of using terminology well or not. You can't blame somebody in the recognized
internal arts for being fussy about it, because it's a key concept to these arts, not just
a cliche that makes you sound cool. Many of you guys just want to sound cool. I'm not interested
in sounding cool, I want to know what "internal" really means. If you don't, and it sounds to
me like you're not interested from your comments, then just axe that word "internal" out of
your vocabulary, because it makes you lose credibility throwing it around loosely.
JS
JimS
>
>In article <myfp4.176$Zn6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> "storys" <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
>>At advanced levels the resemblance between
>the two systems is quite amazing.
>
>Really? Who have you seen do Fukien White Crane? I see very few
>similarities at all.
>to Fukien White Crane, and comparisons to it. But it seems that none of
>the people talking about it have actually seen any Fukien White Crane.
>It is not the same style, it is not even close. Miyagi took what he was
>taught and diverged radically.
Well, wait a minute. "Diverged radically" is very open to question.
The similarities are pretty overwhelming, if you ask some of us.
As a for instance, Uechi-ryu traditionally uses elements out of the tiger, dragon, and
crane styles, and you can see various techniques quite similar to what southern shaolin
folks do. I did some southern stuff (mantis, white crane) at one point and was able
to see quite similar approaches when I picked up a video of Kanei Uechi doing the "big three"
Uechi kata. It was the same stuff, basically. Repackaged a bit, that's true, but nothing
"diverging radically" in my book.
I don't think the White Crane system greatly resembles Goju specifically either, but I think Goju
falls under the "southern shaolin" category as a general package. The main argument here is that
some Okinawan styles are pretty much "repackaged" home-brew southern shaolin.
Adding a few techniques, creating a few new kata or whatever doesn't really challenge that,
to my mind.
Would you disagree? I'm open to objections, if you can tell me why this assumption
sucks.
JS
Mike Sigman
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
> As a for instance, Uechi-ryu traditionally uses elements out of the tiger,
dragon, and
> crane styles, and you can see various techniques quite similar to what
southern shaolin
> folks do. I did some southern stuff (mantis, white crane) at one point and
was able
> to see quite similar approaches when I picked up a video of Kanei Uechi
doing the "big three"
> Uechi kata. It was the same stuff, basically. Repackaged a bit, that's
true, but nothing
> "diverging radically" in my book.
>
> I don't think the White Crane system greatly resembles Goju specifically
either, but I think Goju
> falls under the "southern shaolin" category as a general package. The main
argument here is that
> some Okinawan styles are pretty much "repackaged" home-brew southern
shaolin.
> Adding a few techniques, creating a few new kata or whatever doesn't
really challenge that,
> to my mind.
>
> Would you disagree? I'm open to objections, if you can tell me why this
assumption
> sucks.
I think that some of the minor details are always open to argument, but the
general idea is that some Okinawan went to China and learned what he could
of a Southern Chinese system (you can rest assured that if his teacher knew
any "secrets" he didn't pass them on to an outsider and foreigner because
the family livelihood would be at stake). The Okinawan came back and
tinkered it a bit maybe, but basically he wouldn't do much to the holy
system he learned in China. In China a system became popular generally if
it was effective and had a track record, famous name, etc. On the
Okinawan styles though there is less in the history of some of these styles
to support the popularity other than the western love-affair with karate and
the loyalty of some of the local fans. None of these systems were ever
involved in "great conflicts" that I know of and the ideas about hidden
subtleties and deep philosophical imports is ludicrous. Hmmm. I might just
come up with a style myself, since the marketing opportunities are so good.
Mike
Steve Gombosi
Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>s...@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>Flails are common implements in every pre-industrial agricultural
>>society. The damned things have been around at least since Egypt
>>(probably Sumer). They were certainly a mainstay (along with scythes
>>and pruning hooks) of every peasant rebellion in European history.
>
>Flails in the sense of straight wooden segments joined by short hinges?
Yes. They're used to thresh grain - which is why the Egyptians
associated them with Osiris in his role as a harvest/fertility
deity.
Steve
Steve Gombosi
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
>And you get your shorts in a knot about how people view your beloved
>internal arts. Your duplicity is exceeded only by your blindness.
In what way is Mike being "duplicitous"?
Steve
storys
"Steve Gombosi" <s...@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:88hc8q$dls$1...@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu...
By engaging in the my art is the only art and slamming without reason and
with total lack of logic type of thing whilst insisting everyone else
conform to some logic that he himself is the only custodian of.
.....Tom.....
storys
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
> In article <0JGq4.399$Jz3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
sto...@delete.execulink.com says...
>
> [snip rambling conversation]
> >> If you spit and sputter at criticism and think you've already got this
> >stuff down, then you'll miss out. That attitude is typical, but its pure
poison. Go check.
> >
> >I've never said I have it down. I've said that I can't do it as they do
in
> >Tai chie. Honesty gets you in my face.....hmmmmm maybe I'd better start
> >lying all over the place and then things would be better?
>
> Well, I'm not here to run down people that don't do things like taiji-ers,
but I *would*
> like non-neijia practitioners to quit asserting "we have that too".
> That's what is dishonest, because it reveals a lack of getting out and
checking to see
> whether you should be saying stuff like that.
>
One more time ( perhaps you will read & retain it this time) read the above
quote of mine. I can't do internal ala TC. I can do Aikido to some extent. I
do it well enough to pass a 1'st kyu exam using it. IMHO this is pretty
meaningless but I can do it
Please don't accuse me of saying things I haven't You would not appreciate
it if I did this to you now would you?
.....Tom.......
Mike Sigman
.
> >
> > In what way is Mike being "duplicitous"?
> >
>
> By engaging in the my art is the only art
OK, quote where I've said or implied that.
>and slamming without reason and
> with total lack of logic type of thing whilst insisting everyone else
> conform to some logic that he himself is the only custodian of.
Oh please. Where have I insisted that? Wipe the foam off your lips and
try to act like a man.
Mike Sigman
> Please don't accuse me of saying things I haven't You would not appreciate
> it if I did this to you now would you?
> .....Tom.......
Yeah... go look at your other post, hypocrite.
Badger
> >>At advanced levels the resemblance between
> >the two systems is quite amazing.
> >
> >Really? Who have you seen do Fukien White Crane? I see very few
> >similarities at all.
> >The one thing I repeatedly see popping up from the goju camp is the
link
> >to Fukien White Crane, and comparisons to it. But it seems that none
of
> >the people talking about it have actually seen any Fukien White
Crane.
> >It is not the same style, it is not even close. Miyagi took what he
was
> >taught and diverged radically.
>
> Well, wait a minute. "Diverged radically" is very open to question.
> The similarities are pretty overwhelming, if you ask some of us.
I dunno, FWC concentrates on "+" shaped footwork, moving between a
front-facing and side-facing stance, kneeling stance, bridging vs.
blocking defensive techniques, and a lot less use of fists to attack.
It uses a "pinch-knee/goat-capturing" stance vs. sanchin stance (even in
sam-chin/sanchin kata) and "chambers" hands lower and further out from
the chest.
What similarities do you see, for contrast?
> As a for instance, Uechi-ryu traditionally uses elements out of the
tiger, dragon, and
> crane styles, and you can see various techniques quite similar to
what southern shaolin
> folks do. I did some southern stuff (mantis, white crane) at one point
and was able
> to see quite similar approaches when I picked up a video of Kanei
Uechi doing the "big three"
> Uechi kata. It was the same stuff, basically. Repackaged a bit,
that's true, but nothing
> "diverging radically" in my book.
Regretably, I have seen little Uechi, so I can't make much of an
intelligent comment ("Hey, like you ever do, Badger..."). What little I
have seen looks pretty much like transplanted narrow-horse Southern
Shaolin. The Goju also has a very obvious narrow-horse Southern Shaolin
progenitor.
That said, if FWC is the source for goju, some major changes were done
on the material brought back to Okinawa.
>
> I don't think the White Crane system greatly resembles Goju
specifically either, but I think Goju
> falls under the "southern shaolin" category as a general package. The
main argument here is that
> some Okinawan styles are pretty much "repackaged" home-brew southern
shaolin.
I agree that the connection between Goju and Southern Shaolin is
obvious. It is the connection with Fukien White Crane that I take issue
with. Either Goju is from FWC and major changes were made, or Goju is
from another style (possibly with FWC thrown in). I've wondered how
widely disseminated sanchin is in south China, which would give a nice
indicator of style-mixing as well.
> Adding a few techniques, creating a few new kata or whatever doesn't
really challenge that,
> to my mind.
I would agree with the statement in general, I just don't think it is
applicable here. What kata do the styles have in common? I'll have to
dig for my list of the FWC empty handed forms to post.
> Would you disagree? I'm open to objections, if you can tell me why
this assumption
> sucks.
Nah, don't think it sucks, and I'm enjoying the discussion.
Badger
Mike Sigman
>
>What I wrote is my assesment of your writings over the
> past several months ( No I haven't kept a record ) and it is my opinion
and
> as such I will stand by it.
No, you said I said things... that's not an "opinion".
An opinion would be something like: "In my opinion you're some middle-aged
mousey guy who can't find his ass with both hands with your pants down and
the lights on." That's an opinion. Based on your self-absorbed
hobby-level posts, it's probably true, though.
>Others can disagree with you. This is NOT a sin
> nor are such people automatically wrong. The last was about blocks and
> circular as opposed to linear karate. I gave several examples of circular
> moves & you had a shit fit. Tough!
Whoooo baby. Since when have I had a shit fit? You've been reading too
many Gl Joe comics.
> As for the Okinawan arts being inferior
> to the Chinese that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Quote me where I said that.
> Mine is
> different and is based on more than simple prejudice. Japan/Okinawa people
> are famous for taking things from other cultures and inproving them and
> taking them to a higher level. One example of this is the Quartz watch
> look it up )
Jesus! Get real. Japanese improved the quartz watch and that means they
improved Chinese martial arts? Why do you think Japanese are going in
droves to China to study martial arts and inviting Chinese to Japan to give
workshops?????
> Unlike you I will acknowledge that they do exist but I can't demo them so
I
> don't talk about them.
Why make an exception from your normal behavior? You can't "demo" Taiji,
yet you jump right into the conversations.
> I suggest you need to get out more and find out that
> there is a world out there that doesn't revolve around you or even know
you
> exist.
Can it be??? Can it be???
> I enjoy your posts when you stick to what you know. When you go off
> on a tirade I lose interest very quickly. I've lost interest in this some
> time back
I studied Uechi Ryu on Okinawa. You're saying I don't know it enough to
comment about it or I don't know enough about the Chinese martial arts to
comment about them? What are you trying to say? Instead of discussing
this, you jumped right into personal attacks and that's all, just some
amateur defending "his style" out of knee-jerk reaction. No other facts or
rebuttal. You're a pip.
Mike Sigman
Dustin Laurence
I wrote:
>>Flails in the sense of straight wooden segments joined by short hinges?
>Yes. They're used to thresh grain - which is why the Egyptians
>associated them with Osiris in his role as a harvest/fertility
>deity.
It is interesting to find out that this design is pretty universal, then,
given the hype about them as a special Okinawan weapon. That makes it
easy to believe that they were a common weapon the world over.
Do you know of any evidence of similar designs in the Western Hemisphere?
Dustin
--
"I regard you as one of the largest obstacles to
the free dissemination of information to the world
aquarist community that has ever existed."
-- Richard Sexton, <4i406o$o...@gold.interlog.com>
Chas
> Do you know of any evidence of similar designs in the Western Hemisphere?
See 'Stones'- Fig. 284, p. 228 ('Flails'). It shows German, French,
English and Swiss types from as early as the Fifteenth Cent although the
text puts them in the Thirteenth cent and 'probably much earlier'. They
are generally the type with a short end and a longer one; most have
spikes on the striking end- some of them look more like a mace and
chain- spiked ball(s) and a longer chain. The others have simple chain
link 'hinges'.
I believe the weapon is shown in a number of artworks from the Late High
Renaissance Italy to Holbein also.
Chas
storys
"Dustin Laurence" <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message >
> Do you know of any evidence of similar designs in the Western Hemisphere?
>
This design was/is so universal that it's impossible to tell. Somewhere I
read about or saw a picture ( memory is the first to go ) of a european
peasant using a large flail like what was used for wheat threshing to beat
on the head of a swords man from outside his reach. Now I just vaguely
remember this so I can't say whether the book was fiction or non-fiction or
whatever.
......tom.......
Stanislav L. Bereznyuk
> Karate sucks and they get their ass kicked by Boxers and Thai Boxers.
AFAIK, Mas Oyama with Co went to Bangkok especially to beat ThaiBoxers.
And he did it.
*********************************************************************
Stanislav BEREZNYUK KUNGFU MAILING LIST
Novosibirsk, Russia BEISHAOLIN MAILING LIST BAGUAZHANG MAILING LIST
st...@cclib.nsu.ru fido7.ru.martial-arts fido7.ru.vd.martial.arts
http://cclib.nsu.ru/projects/satbi/ http://cclib.nsu.ru/~stas/
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/atlanta/764
http://www.ba-gua-zhang.com
chip
> Karate sucks and they get their ass kicked by Boxers and Thai
> Boxers.
That is a very bold statement!!! In some cases you may be correct but
why always insult a style in this way when it is down to the individual
practitioner? There may be a day when a Thai or normal boxer has to
face a karateka in a situation and due to their low opinion of the
style loses. Pre judging individuals because of their style can be a
very costly mistake. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPONENT!! It could cost
you your life.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Angie
> lgd...@nwu.edu says...
>
> [snipped for brevity, continued because Angie is on a roll]
How sweet! But you have to say that to keep me your lackey. ;)
> >The thing is that in the end, everything gets closer to the stuff that
> >they look so different from. There are lots of circular blocks in
> >Shotokan. Just look at some of the upper level kata. Nijushi-ho is full
> >fo them. I have a feeling that at top levels, even very circular kung fu
> >starts looking a bit more linear. It's a cost benefit analysis that each
> >person has to make for him/herself.
> >Angie
>
> I don't know about circular styles becoming more linear and linear
becoming more circular.
> While this may happen to some degree, I don't know if it tells us much
other than that at
> a basics (kihon) training level, certain styles will tend to emphasize
straight-line deliverence
> of techniques (say,Shotokan) vs. styles which start out more "circular"
in the blocks (i.e.,
> Uechi, Goju).
I think that it also says that at lower levels, which let's face it is
most of what is seen and what people base their stylistic beliefs on,
students begin with exagerated movements. As they progress, the rigidity
of "what's correct" becomes a bit more flexible. So in other words,
people looking at one style and saying "that style is linear, and that one
is circular" is based on the actions of lower and intermediate levels (and
here, intermediate can go pretty high up the ranks), rather than anything
innate to the style. But the kata do show that linearity is not a hard
fast rule, even for a style that would easily be concidered linear.
> All this becomes a moot point when the kata are considered, because the
kata (regardless of
> style, really) always contain both elements. Kata will always have some
circular arcs in
> some techniques and straight-line stuff as well, so making a gospel out
of any of this stuff is
> really only saying, "well, I see X style doing more straight-line
techniques than Y style". To
> me, this isn't that interesting an observation :-).
Like I said, all in degrees. If you feel the need to break stuff down to
a linear/circularity issue, then it's a good idea to know where things
stand from art to art. Personally, it doesn't matter too much to me,
except as far as you go on to point out below.
> What *is* interesting, to my mind, and yours too Angie, because I can
read minds like a
> psychic, is the method of body dynamics behind the arm or leg movement.
I don't give a damn
> if a style does all circles if I don't see much in the way of body
dynamics. Sure, a style
> like Uechi or Goju has a lot of circular blocks, but these stylists
*should* be telling us
> *how* they're throwing these techniques using the body, not just
bragging on having the
> circles. If Kanei Uechi throws a mean circular block, it ain't just
because his arm is waving,
> it's because he has figured out how to put his whole body into it.
Oh, I definitely agree that that's the question that needs to be
addressed. I'd love to find out how an art that seems so fluid and
circular deals with body dynamics/contraction. Have they traded it off
for speed? Is it a question of what is getting tightened? Even with
these questions, it could be helpful to put things on a linear/circular
continuum. Is the trading off a matter of degrees? A matter of trading
off additional things? Maybe everyone does stuff totally differently?
Also, how much of this depends on body type? Is on easier on smaller
people? Does one practically require you to be big?
> JS "say amen, somebody"
Amen brother!
hee hee hee!
;)
Angie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Between two fighting swords
Hell resides.
Enter in
And find paradise.
JimS
>Mike I've been thinking.
Always dangerous. There's a cure for this, it's called the Jerry Springer Show.
>The only thing I can think of that could possibly
>have gotten you so uptight is the remark I made vis a vis your attitude to
>other practitioners and arts. I've seen you slam just about everyone here re
>internal arts. I've seen you slam just about everyone for just about
>anything from not using their right names ( vilifying them no less ) to
>daring to question your pronouncements re any art whatsoever. In fact just
>about the only one I've yet to see you come down on is JimS who for a very
>long time didn't use his name but I guess that was O.K.
Yip, I see special treatment here, no question.
I guess you're just getting picked on for no good reason, so your whining is
entirely justified. We love whining. Keep up the complaints; the more you whine,
the more we respect your martial arts experience.
>I'm not sure if he uses his last name even now.
Not if *you're* going to email me with more of this stuff. "Quark X" to you, pal.
> The last was about blocks and circular as opposed to linear karate. I gave several
> examples of circular moves & you had a shit fit. Tough!
You don't even know what people are talking about, but you're defiant to the end.
You won't get out and look and see why your use of terms like "internal" is wishful
thinking, but you think you know better and don't have to look.
How can anyone take you seriously?
Let's face it, you want an audience for your whining and we make lousy moms on RMA.
If you want good listening skills, see a therapist. They'll hear all your complaints,
but only because you're paying good money for it. Sheesh, we're not getting a cent for
all this couch psychoanalysis.
Regards,
Mr X
David Williams
cousins. :)
Jim Storey
Tom Story
I think its that "e" in the last name or lack thereof thats causing all the
friction.
Sounds like it could be a Springer episode all itself! Or a spin-off of the
old Patty Duke show.
And Mike could play that guy on Springer who breaks up the pseudo
fisticuffs.
Wonder if he'd mind shaving his head for the role?
Hmmmm.
Regards,
Mr W.
"Cousins, identical martial art cousins
They talk alike, they spar alike,
Sometimes they even Bunkai alike
You could lose your mind,
When Cousins are two of a kind"
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
news:88ubdr$mat$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
JimS
>Jim Storey
>Tom Story
>I think its that "e" in the last name or lack thereof thats causing all the
>friction.
Definately the lack thereof. "ey" is Scottish; "ie" is Irish; just "y" are the damn limeys.
Just so you know who to blame for historical errors.
>"Cousins, identical martial art cousins
>They talk alike, they spar alike,
>Sometimes they even Bunkai alike
>You could lose your mind,
>When Cousins are two of a kind"
Damn, you're old. The ole' Patty Duke theme gone haywire.
Shows me *your* age, Mr. W.
Mr. S.
storys
"David Williams" <dlw_N...@wingchun.com> wrote in message
news:rcDs4.5425$x5.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> Jim Storey
> Tom Story
>
> I think its that "e" in the last name or lack thereof thats causing all
the
> friction.
>
the
> old Patty Duke show.
Actually all that means is that both of us are Celts. My family is from the
borders of Scotland originally. they spelled their name Storrie. They moved
to Dundee and from there they went to England. Then they made a move to
America on the Mayflower. 'Round about 1776 they moved north to Canada and
we've been here ever since. The ey branch of the family is rather short on
reasoning power as is evidenced in Jim's posts but we won't mention that.
Hero worship is a tad embarrassing in an adult too don't you think?
.......Tom......
David Williams
born! ;^)
As for the Patty Duke rhyme, don't make me go Brady on you both!
"Its the story...
of man named Story(ey)...
Who was doing some old eastern martial art.
Till the one day when the Story met the Storey
And they knew that they would disagree about the arts!
Thats the day they became the Storee bunch! The Storee bunch!"
If I remembered more of the lyrics I'd mangle it more too. Still working on
some ways to rhyme makiwara and kumite to finish em off.
Mr W.
"I'm old--and I watched a lot of TV as a kid too"
"JimS" <Jim.S...@Uchsc.edu> wrote in message
news:88v2rc$ur6$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
> In article <rcDs4.5425$x5.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
dlw_N...@wingchun.com says...
>
> >Jim Storey
> >Tom Story
> >I think its that "e" in the last name or lack thereof thats causing all
the
> >friction.
>
Mike Sigman
> Yes I am old. But not as old as Sigman! He was killing Jedi's before I was
> born! ;^)
Is there a reason you keep dragging my name into posts that I'm not involved
in?
Mike Sigman
David Williams
name.
And you were posting in this thread as well. Were you not?
Hmmm deja.com shows you all over this thread (at least 7 posts)--so nobody
is dragging you anywhere.
Do you want residuals or something?
David Williams
"Gee, and I thought this was Usenet"
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jJGs4.3526$2E1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mike Sigman
> Well Mike, If you go back and read Tom Story's post he did mention you by
> name.
> And you were posting in this thread as well. Were you not?
>
> Hmmm deja.com shows you all over this thread (at least 7 posts)--so nobody
> is dragging you anywhere.
>
> Do you want residuals or something?
Is there a reason YOU keep dragging my name into posts? Is that clearer?
David Williams
Cause you're a fun loving guy (guess not)?
Cause I wanted to?
Cause I am old, but you are still older than me?
Or is humor unbecoming to a man of your stature? The Stor-- clan seemed to
handle it fine.
OIC. Yours is the name that should not be written. Cool! Kind of an HP
Lovecraft thing nowdays eh?
David Williams
"No, there is no secret, triad, cabal, master plan, black helicopter thing
involved here...Really. Truly."
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yFft4.1226$7c2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mike Sigman
clearer?
"David Williams" <dlw_N...@wingchun.com> wrote in message
news:1ykt4.723$so2....@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> Cause its a free country?
> Cause you're a fun loving guy (guess not)?
> Cause I wanted to?
>
> Cause I am old, but you are still older than me?
>
> Or is humor unbecoming to a man of your stature? The Stor-- clan seemed to
> handle it fine.
I don't want to be associated. I agree with whoever it was that posted
about the horrifying (like watching a car wreck or something) hero worship
you do for Ken Cheung and Wing Chun. I don't want to be associated in any
form with what you do. You seem to miss that. I wouldn't go so far as
to say I'm nauseated, like he said, but I really just don't want to be
involved. Use other peoples' names. Make jokes where Ken Chung is
involved... or if you'd prefer to just play, using the tripe you posted
above, I'll be glad to play again and do it for you. If you want to play
"use someones name for jokey purposes to get a dig in", heck... let's do it.
Mike Sigman
David Williams
you'll go over the edge in some vendetta-like
counter.
And as the Taiji Hall Monitor and "keeper of all things neijia" of RMA
perhaps you should consider the ol kettle & pot saying.
As to association, what association? Other than going to a seminar of yours
and buying 4 of your tapes not any association. You're the one who gets all
hostile and bent out of shape. How could there possibly be any association
between you a student of internal arts and me a student of Wing Chun? There
isn't.
This is a discussion group. no more no less.
Discussion. Sometimes it is informative, sometimes inflammatory, sometimes
boring or polemic but it is all
just an opportunity to talk, shoot the breeze, whatever. That means you see
posts and replies from all sorts of
people here. Some who troll, some who are bored, some who have interesting
things to say. I think that is what
generally goes on in a discussion forum. The context of this interaction, is
just that a public discussion place.
In the end, what that means is that this is still a public forum for
discussion. You are certainly entitled to your feelings, thoughts or
whatever regarding me or anyone else who is free to post here. Posting or
even reading for that matter does not imply any association other than one
of discussion.
We each may have opinions regarding the other and guess what, that's great!
I actually find you to be a source
of very good information regarding Martial Art, martial history, body
mechanics and energy release--personalities aside. No doubt that means
little to you. So be it.
I sometimes get the feeling that your position here on usenet and in life is
that everyone else in the world is supposed to operate from YOUR own
personal mental model or world view. It doesn't work that way however.
Everyone has their own view and viewpoint. We agree on things, we disagree
on things or we even misunderstand what we think the other person's position
really is. We therefore may judge the other people we encounter in a variety
of either positive or negative ways.
It doesn't make that person who we label them. In any case, you are the way
you are and I am the way I am. Thats part of being human. As are the
feelings/emotions etc. we garner towards each other when we attempt to
communicate. I'm not looking to be your friend or student or whatever. If
you take a crack about being old as a personal dig--well boy are things ever
grim.
Before I was going to end this with something else, but I've decided better
of it. In any case, there is no misunderstanding at all about any sort of
association Mike--there never was.
Regards,
David Williams
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_4lt4.2079$t7.1...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...