chinese boxing
wallen
chinese boxing by combining different techniques from different styles
and calling it as such. someone answered that the name is generic and
it can be so.
well if we were going to analize the history of eastern martial art it
mostly came from india, then to china where it was improved and then
to japan where it was watered down( i really mean simplified).so to
say a mix of different eastern art could be called chinese boxing is a
point with some truthfullness behind it. But.....i mean lets us look
in detail.
back in those times, human cockfighting is one of the rich, and even
the Kings pastime. this is the roots of chinese boxing.
simply put, chinese boxing is a no holds barred street fighting. it
became such a vicious technique that it was actually banned and
prohibited from commoners and reserved only for the military. such is
it that it became a separate technique from other chinese (ex. tai
chi) styles.
meaning, the techniques that were transfered to japan, and most of the
popular chinese arts today is not related to chinese boxing.
I have seen and compared many techniques, the nearest ( but again was
simplified ) technique that can be called chinese boxing is jeet kun
do.
Chinese boxing has no forms, there is only the natural and the
fighting stance, it has two main blocking technique(each with several
variations), it is neither a hard nor a soft style. technique can be
divided to 25% boxing (hand and feet)25% weapons fighting and 25%
wrestling (throws, locks, holds, chocks etc.)25% philosophy and way of
thinking.
these techniques were seldom used per-se, but together as a whole.
and it is this difference, other techniques fall short to be called
chinese boxing. In chinese boxing these parts were learned and trained
together to work as a whole unit, and not assembled from seperate
kits.
i hope this answers your questions.
Wallen Pabericio
1st Dan Blackbelt
PHILKADI
Philippine Karate Dijitsu
Civic Association
SEC NO. 43313
Kirk Lawson
>
> somebody asked about the legitimacy of martial arts schools teaching
> chinese boxing by combining different techniques from different styles
> and calling it as such. someone answered that the name is generic and
> it can be so.
> well if we were going to analize the history of eastern martial art it
> mostly came from india,
Sez who?
> then to china where it was improved
Sez who?
> and then
> to japan where it was watered down( i really mean simplified).
All of it? Are you really suggesting that all Japanese martial arts are
Chinese imports rather then a small few?
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
El Queso
>
> somebody asked about the legitimacy of martial arts schools teaching
> chinese boxing by combining different techniques from different styles
> and calling it as such. someone answered that the name is generic and
> it can be so.
> well if we were going to analize the history of eastern martial art it
> mostly came from india, then to china where it was improved and then
> to japan where it was watered down( i really mean simplified).so to
> say a mix of different eastern art could be called chinese boxing is a
> point with some truthfullness behind it. But.....i mean lets us look
> in detail.
Your specualtion is based on ... what? What term are you using for
Chinese boxing? Koushu, Wushu, Kung Fu, Wu Su, ??? Your statement is
full of generalities that are unproven. The Japanese arts came, not only
from China, but from the native Te systems of Okinawa. What evidence or
reference do you have to support your theories?
The theory of martial arts originating in India sits next to the
African/ Egyptian origin debate. The idea that martial art was
"improved" before being brought from one place to the other is a very
vague statement. Do you mean that they existed locally for some time
before being exported? If so, please look at the extant Indian arts, and
the record of ancient ones - and find the improvenments. I think
adaptation is not always improvement. I think it is a massive
simplification to put it as you did.
>
> back in those times, human cockfighting is one of the rich, and even
> the Kings pastime. this is the roots of chinese boxing.
Saying the Chinese arts, or "Chinese boxing" came from NHB competitions
is like saying that flowers come from bees. There is a direct link - but
not a causative one. These arts were developed by military, warlords,
individual families, and a million other types of people. For every
style of fighting we have now - many are now extinct. Again, saying they
came form human cockfighting is a vast overgeneralization.
>
> simply put, chinese boxing is a no holds barred street fighting.
What term are you translating as "Chinese boxing"? Without knowing this
- your statement sounds like a stretch.
> it
> became such a vicious technique that it was actually banned and
> prohibited from commoners and reserved only for the military.
Can you provide an era in which this happened? The public practice of
arts who's political affiliations were with the Ming dynasty was banned
during the Ching dynasty, but other arts were not banned. Chuka Shaolin,
for example was an art that called itself something other than it was to
be held away from govt scrutiny, and thus - practiced without trouble.
> such is
> it that it became a separate technique from other chinese (ex. tai
> chi) styles.
The theory that all Chinese styles come from one, primordial style has
been debunked by numerous martial historians. I believe Robert W Smith
had some comments on this.
>
> meaning, the techniques that were transfered to japan, and most of the
> popular chinese arts today is not related to chinese boxing.
Absolute nonsense. Where is your supporting evidence? The Shaolin arts
were developed over a 1,500 years in many parts of China.
>
> I have seen and compared many techniques, the nearest ( but again was
> simplified ) technique that can be called chinese boxing is jeet kun
> do.
Again - please tell me the Chinese words you are translating as Chinese
boxing.
>
> Chinese boxing has no forms, there is only the natural and the
> fighting stance, it has two main blocking technique(each with several
> variations), it is neither a hard nor a soft style. technique can be
> divided to 25% boxing (hand and feet)25% weapons fighting and 25%
> wrestling (throws, locks, holds, chocks etc.)25% philosophy and way of
> thinking.
Please cite the source of this information. If this art is so old as to
be unrelated to modern forms - HOW DO YOU SEEM TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT IT?
>
> these techniques were seldom used per-se, but together as a whole.
> and it is this difference, other techniques fall short to be called
> chinese boxing. In chinese boxing these parts were learned and trained
> together to work as a whole unit, and not assembled from seperate
> kits.
So then - the first teacher of this "Chinese boxing" you refer to
already knew everything from birth and created an entire system from
within, rather than "assembling" it? Please think about the silliness of
said statement.
>
> i hope this answers your questions.
Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I have been in the arts
since 1990, and I have a martial arts library of over 300 books. Nothing
I have read in all this time, in all these books, supports your
theories. They are over-generalized, and no references or links to info
have been included.
wallen
> wallen wrote:
> >
> > somebody asked about the legitimacy of martial arts schools teaching
> > chinese boxing by combining different techniques from different styles
> > and calling it as such. someone answered that the name is generic and
> > it can be so.
> > well if we were going to analize the history of eastern martial art it
> > mostly came from india, then to china where it was improved and then
> > to japan where it was watered down( i really mean simplified).so to
> > say a mix of different eastern art could be called chinese boxing is a
> > point with some truthfullness behind it. But.....i mean lets us look
> > in detail.
> your question"Your specualtion is based on ... what? Your statement is
> full of generalities that are unproven.What evidence or reference do you
have to support your theories?"
My answer, your own words" The Japanese arts came, not only
from China, but from the native Te systems of Okinawa."
further more, i said "mostly"
therefore your words "The theory of martial arts originating in India
sits
next to the African/ Egyptian origin debate." holds no water in this
page.
---------------
you said-"The idea that martial art was "improved" before being
brought from
one place to the other is a very vague statement. Do you mean that
they existed
locally for some time before being exported? "
my answer..you said it yourself above-"The Japanese arts came, not
only from China, but from the native Te systems of Okinawa".
---------------
you "If so, please look at the extant Indian arts, and the record of
ancient ones - and find the improvenments."
me " compare indian and chines martial arts..you'll see the
improvement. I think adaptation is not always improvement."
---------------
You"I think it is a massive simplification to put it as you did."
Me"Please go back to your history of okinawan karate, its begining is
in india.Have you seen the discovery channel special?
yes i did said simplified..we agree on this one"
---------------
my words" back in those times, human cockfighting is one of the rich,
and even the Kings pastime. this is the roots of chinese boxing."
Your problem" Saying the Chinese arts, or "Chinese boxing" came from
NHB competitions is like saying that flowers come from bees."
me " i did not say chinese arts..i specifically said "chinese boxing"
and why do you counter your own words with-"There is a direct link -
but
not a causative one."
still me"are you against your own point of view? beside, i said
roots...not seed."
me again"if seed is what you want, you've already given the
answer"These arts
were developed by military, warlords,individual families, and a
million other
types of people. For every style of fighting we have now - many are
now extinct."
----------------
your words "Again, saying they came form human cockfighting is a vast
over generalization."
my answer " it is not "a vast overgeneralization", but a
generalization it really is. you may call it what you want, cockfight,
duel, death match or war preparation but it was how the collective
techniques of chinese boxing evolved.
it was meant to hurt and kill, not to heal or be friends with your
neighbor."
----------------
mine-"simply put, chinese boxing is a no holds barred street
fighting."
yours-"What term are you translating as "Chinese boxing"? Without
knowing this
your statement sounds like a stretch."
answer"i'm not translating, i'm explaining what chinese boxing is."
----------------
mua"it became such a vicious technique that it was actually banned and
prohibited from commoners and reserved only for the military."
Thou"Can you provide an era in which this happened? The public
practice of
arts who's political affiliations were with the Ming dynasty was
banned
during the Ching dynasty, but other arts were not banned. Chuka
Shaolin,
for example was an art that called itself something other than it was
to
be held away from govt scrutiny, and thus - practiced without
trouble."
mamua"If your looking for a specific span of time, i could not provide
it to
you at the moment as my reference is in the Philippines and i'm here
right now
in the middle east, i assure you there is at least one, but because
you
want facts, i would not dare second guess when."
mamamua"for now, be contented with your knowledge and truth that even
for political reason, they are willing to withold techniques (how much
more security wise? like the bushido and the ninja?)and techniques
were renamed
to keep them alive."
----------------
i"such is it that it became a separate technique from other chinese
(ex. tai
chi) styles."
you"The theory that all Chinese styles come from one, primordial style
has
been debunked by numerous martial historians. I believe Robert W Smith
had some comments on this."
me" jeez, cant you read properly? i plainly said it it a different
style!
again" such is it that it became a separate technique from other
chinese (ex. taichi) styles---."
-------------------
mine-"meaning, the techniques that were transfered to japan, and
most of the popular chinese arts today is not related to chinese
boxing."
yours- "Absolute nonsense. Where is your supporting evidence? The
Shaolin arts
were developed over a 1,500 years in many parts of China."
me" could you elaborate which is nonsense? if you understood the whole
context
of the first message, your the one who talking nonsense. my friend
chinese
history is older than 1,500 years, if shaolin came to japan then so
what?
I'm talking about chinese boxing which i'm saying is a diferent style
from tai chi and other present chinese martial arts."
----------------
mine"I have seen and compared many techniques, the nearest ( but again
was simplified ) technique that can be called chinese boxing is jeet
kun
do."
yuo"Again - please tell me the Chinese words you are translating as
Chinese
boxing."
Me.." i am not translating any word pe se...i'm explaining what
chinese boxing is. you want me to translate like karate=empty hand?
i'm not doing that, i'm saying karate=fighting with so and so.
-------------
mine"Chinese boxing has no forms, there is only the natural and the
fighting stance, it has two main blocking technique(each with several
variations), it is neither a hard nor a soft style. technique can be
divided to 25% boxing (hand and feet)25% weapons fighting and 25%
wrestling (throws, locks, holds, chocks etc.)25% philosophy and way of
thinking."
Yours"Please cite the source of this information.If this art is so old
as to
be unrelated to modern forms - HOW DO YOU SEEM TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT
IT?"
me"first of all, i never said unrelated, i said different, and i have
stated that difference above. all styles even if they were discovered
from diff.
corners of the earth are related. first in their initial purpose, and
second
in actual movements and application. because the human body has the
same
structure, and all techniques conform to this structure."
--as for my knowledge in CB, it is the first in several arts Philkadi
teaches
to its members, i started training in Philkadi 1988, reached black in
1992.
we have 2 main courses- the fighter and the instructor, i was trained
to be an instructor. i started with apprentice when i was in
green,assitant when i was in brown,training instructor at black and
full pledge instructor at 1st dan.
I never paid a single cent to learn, but i did lost four front teeth
and my ego.
i now teach for free to those willing to continue the art and capable
of
carrying it safe.
----------------
mine again"these techniques were seldom used per-se, but together as a
whole.
and it is this difference, other techniques fall short to be called
chinese boxing. In chinese boxing these parts were learned and trained
together to work as a whole unit, and not assembled from seperate
kits."
you"So then - the first teacher of this "Chinese boxing" you refer to
already knew everything from birth and created an entire system from
within, rather than "assembling" it? Please think about the silliness
of
said statement."
me" did you not read above? must i spoon feed you like a child? or you
just want to test my knowledge? the art is an accumulation from actual
combat, of pitting man against another man. which means, it did not
came from one person but form knowledge learned and practiced and
tested.chinese boxing like Arnis (Tagalog martial arts) is a dynamic
knowledge, its only tradition is to keep with the times and and its
purpose. it seldom looks back into history"
------------------
my last line "i hope this answers your questions."
"Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I have been in the arts
since 1990, and I have a martial arts library of over 300 books.
Nothing
I have read in all this time, in all these books, supports your
theories. They are over-generalized, and no references or links to
info
have been included.
----to question is the first sign of wisdom...i'm glad you have it.
you dont have
to accept my belief. but you should not have tried to make me look
stupid.Not
all knowledge can be found in the books, and nowadays books are seldom
to
inform rather they're to amuse and earn. you'll also see the same
thing written
in most of them, this is not always to confirm rather the authors
based it on
the same other book. being not there does'nt mean it does not exist.
Think about the God...nobody can confirm his,her or its existence, but
look
around you...look at yourself...are you willing to accept your just an
annomaly in the universe? Just a product of a lucky accident?
Then think about us....somebody asked for the legitimacy of the term,
i merely clarified it as simply as i can...and you bomb me for facts
which you do not have....you are hungry for knowledge...dont bite the
hand that may feed you.
the answers i have here is the best i can provide for the moment, if
you want facts..go to the Philippines and train there. i know because
i have...
El Queso
boxing". Your refusal to do so shows that you are making a lot of
history up, or listening to someone who is. "Chinese boxing" is not a
system any more than Kung Fu or Karate is. Your ridiculous generalities
and inability to answer a thread in the normal way indicate you are
interested in passing on your stories, not authenticating them.
wallen wrote:
>
> El Queso <the_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3D348EB5...@yahoo.com>...
> > wallen wrote:
> > >
> > > somebody asked about the legitimacy of martial arts schools teaching
> > > chinese boxing by combining different techniques from different styles
> > > and calling it as such. someone answered that the name is generic and
> > > it can be so.
> > > well if we were going to analize the history of eastern martial art it
> > > mostly came from india, then to china where it was improved and then
> > > to japan where it was watered down( i really mean simplified).so to
> > > say a mix of different eastern art could be called chinese boxing is a
> > > point with some truthfullness behind it. But.....i mean lets us look
> > > in detail.
> > ---------------------
> > your question"Your specualtion is based on ... what? Your statement is
> > full of generalities that are unproven.What evidence or reference do you
> have to support your theories?"
>
> My answer, your own words" The Japanese arts came, not only
> from China, but from the native Te systems of Okinawa."
You placed my answer after a question I didn't ask. Why can't you simply
insert your answer after my quote? Afraid if you don't paraphrase me,
people might actually understand what I was saying?
>
> further more, i said "mostly"
>
> therefore your words "The theory of martial arts originating in India
> sits
> next to the African/ Egyptian origin debate." holds no water in this
> page.
Sure it does. It was true when I said it, and it is still true.
> ---------------
>
> you said-"The idea that martial art was "improved" before being
> brought from
> one place to the other is a very vague statement. Do you mean that
> they existed
> locally for some time before being exported? "
>
> my answer..you said it yourself above-"The Japanese arts came, not
> only from China, but from the native Te systems of Okinawa".
Your massive oversimplification leaves me wondering what the hell you
are talking about. Please state these improvements. By this idiotic
standard - the newer - the more improved. Excuse me, I'm going to pour a
glass of improved wine. It was bottled in January of this year.
>
> ---------------
>
> you "If so, please look at the extant Indian arts, and the record of
> ancient ones - and find the improvenments."
>
> me " compare indian and chines martial arts..you'll see the
> improvement. I think adaptation is not always improvement."
That is no answer - show me the improvements - tell me what
inferiorities were fixed before transit, and provide me a way to check
your claims. You can't. You were using specualtion in place of fact
again. You are doing that a lot.
> ---------------
> You"I think it is a massive simplification to put it as you did."
>
> Me"Please go back to your history of okinawan karate, its begining is
> in india.Have you seen the discovery channel special?
This is apparently all you have seen. I have been studying since 1990,
and have read hundreds of books, seen dozens of documentaries, and
poured gallons of sweat and blood onto floors and dirt. As far as
Okinawan martial history - I own and have read 8 or 10 books on this
very subject. One of my Shuri-ryu teachers studied with Fusei Kise (a
name that would register if you really knew a lot about Okinawan
karate). I have studied with Taika Oyata and several other Okinawan
masters. My knowledge is far more complete than a one hour documentary,
is yours?
> yes i did said simplified..we agree on this one"
> ---------------
> my words" back in those times, human cockfighting is one of the rich,
> and even the Kings pastime. this is the roots of chinese boxing."
>
> Your problem" Saying the Chinese arts, or "Chinese boxing" came from
> NHB competitions is like saying that flowers come from bees."
>
> me " i did not say chinese arts..i specifically said "chinese boxing"
Since you will not define the terminology you have translated as Chinese
boxing - this is meaningless. "Chinese boxing" is a widely used term
with a different definition for everyone you meet. You might as well
call it "Mish mash".
> and why do you counter your own words with-"There is a direct link -
> but
> not a causative one."
>
> still me"are you against your own point of view? beside, i said
> roots...not seed."
How about this - human cockfighting was an important part of the
development. See how easy it is not to overstate your point?
>
> me again"if seed is what you want, you've already given the
> answer"These arts
> were developed by military, warlords,individual families, and a
> million other
> types of people. For every style of fighting we have now - many are
> now extinct."
> ----------------
> your words "Again, saying they came form human cockfighting is a vast
> over generalization."
>
> my answer " it is not "a vast overgeneralization", but a
> generalization it really is. you may call it what you want, cockfight,
> duel, death match or war preparation but it was how the collective
> techniques of chinese boxing evolved.
> it was meant to hurt and kill, not to heal or be friends with your
> neighbor."
> ----------------
> mine-"simply put, chinese boxing is a no holds barred street
> fighting."
>
> yours-"What term are you translating as "Chinese boxing"? Without
> knowing this
> your statement sounds like a stretch."
>
> answer"i'm not translating, i'm explaining what chinese boxing is."
Exactly - YOU ARE NOT TRANSLATING. You are taking generalized
terminology and applying it a to specific thing. You say modern KF
styles bear little similarity to this "Chinese Boxing" you speak of. I'm
calling you on this. What is your source material? If it is so old as to
be gone - how do we know of it in modern times... someone wrote about
it, right? They wrote it in Chinese... right? What were the Chinese
words they used to describe this art or system? You can't answer because
you are simply ill informed on martial history of your own style.
> ----------------
> mua"it became such a vicious technique that it was actually banned and
> prohibited from commoners and reserved only for the military."
>
> Thou"Can you provide an era in which this happened? The public
> practice of
> arts who's political affiliations were with the Ming dynasty was
> banned
> during the Ching dynasty, but other arts were not banned. Chuka
> Shaolin,
> for example was an art that called itself something other than it was
> to
> be held away from govt scrutiny, and thus - practiced without
> trouble."
>
> mamua"If your looking for a specific span of time, i could not provide
> it to
> you at the moment as my reference is in the Philippines and i'm here
> right now
> in the middle east,
I suspected there would be at least one reason you had no proof. Nice
dodge.
. i assure you there is at least one, but because
> you
> want facts, i would not dare second guess when."
Your assurances are not meaningful to me.
>
> mamamua"for now, be contented with your knowledge and truth that even
> for political reason, they are willing to withold techniques (how much
> more security wise? like the bushido and the ninja?)and techniques
> were renamed
> to keep them alive."
A very obvious dodge. You should AT LEAST be able to cite a reference.
Again you supply generality whaen asked for the specific.
> ----------------
> i"such is it that it became a separate technique from other chinese
> (ex. tai
> chi) styles."
>
> you"The theory that all Chinese styles come from one, primordial style
> has
> been debunked by numerous martial historians. I believe Robert W Smith
> had some comments on this."
>
> me" jeez, cant you read properly? i plainly said it it a different
> style!
Can't YOU read. You said "became a separate technique", not WAS a
seperate technique - meaning that before this - it was not seperate.
>
> again" such is it that it became a separate technique from other
> chinese (ex. taichi) styles---."
> -------------------
>
> mine-"meaning, the techniques that were transfered to japan, and
> most of the popular chinese arts today is not related to chinese
> boxing."
>
> yours- "Absolute nonsense. Where is your supporting evidence? The
> Shaolin arts
> were developed over a 1,500 years in many parts of China."
>
> me" could you elaborate which is nonsense? if you understood the whole
> context
> of the first message, your the one who talking nonsense. my friend
> chinese
> history is older than 1,500 years, if shaolin came to japan then so
> what?
History says that Da Mo came from India to China in 528 AD. That is
about 1,500 years. I said the SHAOLIN arts. Didn't I? Now who can't
read? Did I say "Chinese history"? That's right - I didn't. I know you
need to try to turn this around, but this is not the way to do it.
> I'm talking about chinese boxing which i'm saying is a diferent style
> from tai chi and other present chinese martial arts."
If it is a style - it has a name. A Chinese name. If you knew this, and
could provide it - it would decrease your current level of total
unreliability in terms of historical accuracy.
> ----------------
> mine"I have seen and compared many techniques, the nearest ( but again
> was simplified ) technique that can be called chinese boxing is jeet
> kun
> do."
>
> yuo"Again - please tell me the Chinese words you are translating as
> Chinese
> boxing."
>
> Me.." i am not translating any word pe se...i'm explaining what
> chinese boxing is. you want me to translate like karate=empty hand?
No - I want you to say "When I say Chinese boxing, I refer to the system
know also as Go Ti according to historians like X" or something to that
effect. You know - something that would tell me your education did not
come solely from one person's mouth.
> i'm not doing that, i'm saying karate=fighting with so and so.
And if you were to say there was an ancient Karate that was unlike the
modern stuff - I'd want to know what it was called in Japanese.
> -------------
> mine"Chinese boxing has no forms, there is only the natural and the
> fighting stance, it has two main blocking technique(each with several
> variations), it is neither a hard nor a soft style. technique can be
> divided to 25% boxing (hand and feet)25% weapons fighting and 25%
> wrestling (throws, locks, holds, chocks etc.)25% philosophy and way of
> thinking."
>
> Yours"Please cite the source of this information.If this art is so old
> as to
> be unrelated to modern forms - HOW DO YOU SEEM TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT
> IT?"
>
> me"first of all, i never said unrelated, i said different, and i have
> stated that difference above. all styles even if they were discovered
> from diff.
> corners of the earth are related.
That is an absolutely proven fallacy. Many cultures developed martial
systems without the influence of other systems. Many indigenous peoples
had spear technique 10's of thousands of years ago. They didn't have to
see someone use a spear to value hunting with a pointy stick. The same
can be said for weaponless fighting. Many cultures have traded
techniques, bit not all styles are related, unless you want to use vague
criteria such as "they all move the body" or silliness like that. That
is a fantasy.
>first in their initial purpose, and
> second
> in actual movements and application. because the human body has the
> same
> structure, and all techniques conform to this structure."
In this case - everything is related because it exists. That makes
everything kind of the same. See - black holes are like Twinkies.
> --as for my knowledge in CB, it is the first in several arts Philkadi
> teaches
> to its members, i started training in Philkadi 1988, reached black in
> 1992.
That you hold a blackbelt in an art you have no true name for, and
cannot relate the history of - is nebulous at best.
> we have 2 main courses- the fighter and the instructor, i was trained
> to be an instructor. i started with apprentice when i was in
> green,assitant when i was in brown,training instructor at black and
> full pledge instructor at 1st dan.
> I never paid a single cent to learn, but i did lost four front teeth
> and my ego.
Should've bought a mouthpiece. Losing teeth does not make people tough,
just ugly.
> i now teach for free to those willing to continue the art and capable
> of
> carrying it safe.
And what do you tell people who ask about the history of Chinese boxing?
My bet - you tell them what you have been told and never check for
yourself.
>
> ----------------
> mine again"these techniques were seldom used per-se, but together as a
> whole.
> and it is this difference, other techniques fall short to be called
> chinese boxing. In chinese boxing these parts were learned and trained
> together to work as a whole unit, and not assembled from seperate
> kits."
>
> you"So then - the first teacher of this "Chinese boxing" you refer to
> already knew everything from birth and created an entire system from
> within, rather than "assembling" it? Please think about the silliness
> of
> said statement."
>
> me" did you not read above? must i spoon feed you like a child? or you
> just want to test my knowledge?
You have already failed this test. Your inability to come up with more
than a generic term for Chinese boxing is far more instructive.
>the art is an accumulation from actual
> combat, of pitting man against another man. which means, it did not
> came from one person but form knowledge learned and practiced and
> tested.chinese boxing like Arnis (Tagalog martial arts) is a dynamic
> knowledge, its only tradition is to keep with the times and and its
> purpose. it seldom looks back into history"
> ------------------
> my last line "i hope this answers your questions."
>
> "Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I have been in the arts
> since 1990, and I have a martial arts library of over 300 books.
> Nothing
> I have read in all this time, in all these books, supports your
> theories. They are over-generalized, and no references or links to
> info
> have been included.
>
> ----to question is the first sign of wisdom...i'm glad you have it.
> you dont have
> to accept my belief. but you should not have tried to make me look
> stupid.
I am not trying at all. If you look stupid, it is because of what you
have said and not been able to say.
>Not
> all knowledge can be found in the books,
Usually - in terms of history - that is the only way to realize what was
real, or at least real to the author. Oral history is much more flexible
than documentation. Can you find the name of your style in a book?
Chinese boxing is a much used term that means many things to many
people.
>and nowadays books are seldom
> to
> inform rather they're to amuse and earn. you'll also see the same
> thing written
> in most of them,
I don't read Paladin press "How to kill" books. I read scholarly tomes
by folks like Robert Smith, Mark Wiley, George Mattson, Shoshin
Nagamine, and Don Draeger. You know - people who actually research what
they claim and provide the evidence they used to come to the conclusions
they did.
>this is not always to confirm rather the authors
> based it on
> the same other book.
Please quote an example to prove your point from the authors I
mentioned. You cannot. That is a strawman tactic to divert attention
away from your inability to provide even a shred of historic detail
about this style "Chinese boxing".
> being not there does'nt mean it does not exist.
> Think about the God...nobody can confirm his,her or its existence, but
> look
> around you...look at yourself...are you willing to accept your just an
> annomaly in the universe? Just a product of a lucky accident?
The discussion wasn't on Philosophy 101. Do you think being more vague
like this will help me understand your concept of chinese boxing?
>
> Then think about us....somebody asked for the legitimacy of the term,
> i merely clarified it as simply as i can...
I DID NOT ask for clarification. I asked what Chinese words you
translate as Chinese boxing. You neither commented or clarified. You
never even answered. You just said "I'm not translating". Well, if you
aren't - surely someone must've. What term did THEY use?
>and you bomb me for facts
> which you do not have....you are hungry for knowledge...dont bite the
> hand that may feed you.
I asked for terms. You did not provide them. I asked you for specific
information and you refudsed to provide it. Whether this is deliberate
or not, I don't know. As far as the hand that feeds me - don't flatter
yourself. You put yourself into this forum and offer information that is
unverifiable at best. You state generalities and vague theories. This is
not the kind of food I grow strong on. It is junk food, and has no place
in my diet.
>
> the answers i have here is the best i can provide for the moment, if
> you want facts..go to the Philippines and train there.
You said if people had questions - to ask them. Now you will not provide
answers and tell me to go away. This is very telling about your level of
knowledge.
> i know because
> i have...
Yeah, you know - but you just can't seem to convey what it is you know,
how you know it, or what it is even called.
Queso
Badger Jones
wrote:
>Please tell me which Chinese words you are translating as "Chinese
>boxing". Your refusal to do so shows that you are making a lot of
>history up, or listening to someone who is. "Chinese boxing" is not a
>system any more than Kung Fu or Karate is. Your ridiculous generalities
>and inability to answer a thread in the normal way indicate you are
>interested in passing on your stories, not authenticating them.
I'm with El Queso. "Chinese Boxing" was a term developed by
Westerners to describe Chinese martial arts. It is not the name of a
style, or if it is there should be a Chinese name for it.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"I've come the conclusion that no story cannot be improved upon with a good
cratering." - Ted MacKinnon
wallen
thanks, your second letter is better than the first one.
the first one tried to bastardize me and my knowledge,
the second one clearly states your point of inquery.
thank for the change, and yes i still see your doubt. as i have said,
because you want proof, i will not double guess.
your mentioning of "go-ti" rings a bell, it is i believe connected
with
the history of this art we now call chinese boxing.
Chinese boxing was was transferred to other nation, like all other
arts.It was in japan our founder learnt of this art.
Towards the end of Han period in China, it was known as "Chikara
kurabe"
back then, it rely most on brute strenght.
because it was used mainly for battle, the development of armour also
changed
the art with it. grapling was added to its repetoir of techniques as
puching or
kicking while in armour, another person also wearing an armour is
impractical.
this was known in japan as "Yori kumi-uchi"- or wrestling in armour(
they still use striking techniques, but now with weapons ). although
yori kumi uchi is a bundle of fighting techniques, it was viewed
merely as a "tactic", - a means to an end.
this partly explains the aparent lack of a specific root name and
history.
as ive said before, it is just a fighting art. something whose history
and beginning is not glamourous . something that was just there by the
byways,
used by warriors and passed along mostly through learning from actual
combat. its nearest equivalent in present times is street fighting.
Badger Jones
>your mentioning of "go-ti" rings a bell, it is i believe connected
>with
>the history of this art we now call chinese boxing.
Go-Ti was a wrestling art with the practitioners wearing horned
helmets.
>Chinese boxing was was transferred to other nation, like all other
>arts.It was in japan our founder learnt of this art.
Now we're getting somewhere.
>Towards the end of Han period in China, it was known as "Chikara
>kurabe"
A Japanese name.
>this was known in japan as "Yori kumi-uchi"- or wrestling in armour(
Again, another Japanese name.
So, still no Chinese name for your "Chinese Boxing"?
foo hawkes
> "Chinese Boxing" was a term developed by
> Westerners to describe Chinese martial arts. It is not the name of a
> style, or if it is there should be a Chinese name for it.
The term most likely originated when Westerners took notice of the
Chinese rebels during the Boxer Rebellion. What the rebels did is known
as kung fu today, even wushu, and the Westerners who were exposed to
kung fu termed it Chinese boxing since it is comparable to Western
boxing, which primarily consisted of fisticuffs. At any rate, Chinese
boxing is another acceptable term for Chinese martial arts, but anyone
can choose to agree or disagree. Bruce Lee's character Lung was called
a Chinese boxer by one of his friends who witnessed Lung's fight with
the rotund Italian who tried to use his knowledge of Western boxing
against Lung, though fruitlessly.
Badger Jones
>young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom (Badger Jones) wrote in message news:<3d36c223...@news.storm.ca>...
>
>> "Chinese Boxing" was a term developed by
>> Westerners to describe Chinese martial arts. It is not the name of a
>> style, or if it is there should be a Chinese name for it.
>
> The term most likely originated when Westerners took notice of the
> Chinese rebels during the Boxer Rebellion. What the rebels did is known
> as kung fu today, even wushu, and the Westerners who were exposed to
> kung fu termed it Chinese boxing since it is comparable to Western
> boxing, which primarily consisted of fisticuffs. At any rate, Chinese
> boxing is another acceptable term for Chinese martial arts, but anyone
> can choose to agree or disagree.
I have no problem with the term, and use it occasionally as well.
However, it is not the name of a specific CMA style, which is what we
are trying to get.
El Queso
wallen wrote:
>
> el queso,
>
> thanks, your second letter is better than the first one.
> the first one tried to bastardize me and my knowledge,
> the second one clearly states your point of inquery.
I'm sorry you took the first post as an attack on you - it wasn't.
>
> thank for the change, and yes i still see your doubt. as i have said,
> because you want proof, i will not double guess.
>
> your mentioning of "go-ti" rings a bell, it is i believe connected
> with
> the history of this art we now call chinese boxing.
No, actually it was an ancient Chinese grappling system where the
fighters wore horned helmets and tried to gore each other.
>
> Chinese boxing was was transferred to other nation, like all other
> arts.It was in japan our founder learnt of this art.
This migration process too over a hundred years, and happened without a
concentrated effort to import fighting arts into a country.
>
> Towards the end of Han period in China, it was known as "Chikara
> kurabe"
Chikara kurabe is a japanese term, if you are saying they used this term
in Japan, during the Han dynasty - ok.
> back then, it rely most on brute strenght.
> because it was used mainly for battle, the development of armour also
> changed
> the art with it. grapling was added to its repetoir of techniques as
> puching or
> kicking while in armour, another person also wearing an armour is
> impractical.
> this was known in japan as "Yori kumi-uchi"- or wrestling in armour(
> they still use striking techniques, but now with weapons ). although
> yori kumi uchi is a bundle of fighting techniques, it was viewed
> merely as a "tactic", - a means to an end.
> this partly explains the aparent lack of a specific root name and
> history.
> as ive said before, it is just a fighting art. something whose history
> and beginning is not glamourous . something that was just there by the
> byways,
> used by warriors and passed along mostly through learning from actual
> combat. its nearest equivalent in present times is street fighting.
Yes, but you have not answered the question about how you came to use
the term Chinese boxing, and what words (Chinese words) were used in
place of this term. I don't need a root name - just a Chinese term used
to describe the same arrt - so I can know what you are talking about.
Cheers,
Queso
wallen
their early history japan adopted words and writting from the
chinese).it was how they called it in japan. go-ti is among the
beginnings of chinese boxing. as ive mentioned earlier,it was a death
match/battle technique and i do not have my notes with me...i'm
relying right now on memory and stored knowledge. thats why i do not
want to give specifics... i just might eat my words later and it would
not be good for anybody. any way i can give you some more idea of the
technique.
the one we teach has 25 kicking techniques, only 3 of which leaves the
ground
( jumps), the rotary kick, the butterfly and stomping forward. we have
no flying kicks although some of us practice it just for fun. we use
the ball, heel, blade and knees of the feet, the instep is never
used-even for roundhouse we use the ball of the feet.
there are 25 hand attacks which is matched to 10 lower ( defensive-
block and counter)and 10 higher (offensive- attack)maneuvers
( thats 10x25 = 250 defensive / 10x25 = 250 offensive technique /
25x25 =
625 possible 1-2 combination 0r 25x25x25= 15,625 possible 1-2-3
combination )
there are two main blocks- "parry" and "snake" blocking. the palms are
used for both blocking tech. the fore arms ( as in traditional karate)
is never used for blocking- but for shielding as some event might
require.the foot are used for blocking as well. the parry and snake
blocking is a preparetion for grabbing if you so want to control your
opponent by locking him. in parry you tap with the palm, if you wnt to
grab you simply close your palm instead of tapping...same with the
snake block. empty hand stick dis-arming are given in sets of 5
techniques. the other four is a failsafe for the first technique( its
like this...supposing i use tech-a to dis-arm and tech-a needs to grab
the back of the hand to accomplish it correctly...then what would what
would happen if i grabbed the stick instead?(like wrong timing...)then
tech-a will be useless..but since tech-b is taught which uses grabbing
the stick, then i just procceed to tech-b...and so on). all dis-arming
and lock/release method are taught this way...there is always a
continuum...sort of like a train..there are failsafes for every
manuever(this is part of the philosophy of chinese boxing)and in an
actual fight, you attack on what target is visible, with what weapon
is available. you might be holding a knife but if he's too far then
kick, if he slips inside use elbows,then follow up with the
knife...sort of like that...
o yah...before i forgot...we ( team pasig )practice with rubber shoes
on...
foo hawkes
> >
> >> "Chinese Boxing" was a term developed by
> >> Westerners to describe Chinese martial arts. It is not the name of a
> >> style, or if it is there should be a Chinese name for it.
> >
> > The term most likely originated when Westerners took notice of the
> > Chinese rebels during the Boxer Rebellion. What the rebels did is known
> > as kung fu today, even wushu, and the Westerners who were exposed to
> > kung fu termed it Chinese boxing since it is comparable to Western
> > boxing, which primarily consisted of fisticuffs. At any rate, Chinese
> > boxing is another acceptable term for Chinese martial arts, but anyone
> > can choose to agree or disagree.
>
> I have no problem with the term, and use it occasionally as well.
> However, it is not the name of a specific CMA style, which is what we
> are trying to get.
Who ever said it was the name of a specific CMA style? It pretty
much should cover all CMA styles under one umbrella.
foo hawkes
> So, still no Chinese name for your "Chinese Boxing"?
The closest name used for a non-Chinese art derived from Chinese
Boxing would be Shorin-Ryu (which is an Okinawan style of karate,
translated as Shaolin style) or Shorinji Kempo (a Japanese system
taken from Shaolin or Sil Lum). The Chinese term used to indicate
Chinese boxing though used lightly would be Shaolin Chuan-Fa.
Rob Dueck
I bet it doesnt take many shots to do it.
"wallen" <wal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:799d5530.02071...@posting.google.com...
Hedgehogey
>I bet it doesnt take many shots to do it.
>
Yeah and I bet jewish noses are easy to break cause they're so hooked.
Ignorant rascist.
Hedge
On the contrary, patriotism is often the FIRST refuge of scoundrels-Mark Twain
And tommorow when the world stops and the human clock stops ticking, we'll be
an index fossil buried in our own debris
Rob Dueck
Dear Ignorant Racist Hedge,
I was joking. Get a life.
"Hedgehogey" <hedge...@aol.comidiocy> wrote in message
news:20020727021538...@mb-fr.aol.com...
Blanche Nonken
> >Do Chinese People's eyes swell shut when they box?
> >I bet it doesnt take many shots to do it.
> >
>
> Yeah and I bet jewish noses are easy to break cause they're so hooked.
I'm of the opinion that it gives us better structural rebound. Never
broke my nose, despite a few nice impacts. My brother, on the other
hand, he of the cute Irish pug, took a baseball to the face back in
Little League and mooshed it properly.
I like to think it's the genetics of those nasty, war-like Khazars.
Gives me a slight edge.