you tube'd some vids

Well everytime i say shotokan works the guys says "dude :bang: seriously :bang: "
its kinda annoying because i expect an answer not that....
I nvere said Tai Chi is ineffective.... i just bought up tai chi because he practices it. All i want is him to proove to me shotokan doesnt work but tai chi does. I figured id use tai chi because he knows the art. Its a pretty fair question because he can apply what he knows about the art that he studies... im not asking him to tell me about 2 arts that he knows nothing about....

 

This unrealistic training you speak of is less common with weapon arts than empty handed arts. With weapons arts, people are first trained weapon on weapon and then only later do they go weapon against empty hands. The realistic expectations of just how difficult it is to deal with a determined weapon wielding enemy is just a lot more obvious. Whereas with empty handed arts, the weapon training comes later and most expectations are based on empty hand verse empty hand experience, which is unwise to base potentially lethal decisions on.

It seems to me, that one major point that you have liokault, is that one should not engage a weapon using the techniques taught in empty handed martial art systems. The point being that the decision to fight is based off of false information and unrealistic training.

Your next point from that is that one should stop training in unrealistic ways. Some have interpreted that to mean that you are saying that one should not train at all. But I don't think that is the case, I am believing that you still find value in realistic training... it is just that the majority of the training is unrealistic.

My issue with this line of thinking is that there is no way to quantify realistic training by agenda. I have trained with law enforcement with and against weapons that have quite a lot of experience when it comes to what is realistic and what isn't. I only get a taste of the training they have gone through, one of them travelled the world learning from different instructors, his job was to train SWAT to survive against weapon armed attackers.

Realistic comes down to what is LEARNED, not what is taught. If someone comes in with a closed mind and learns nothing, it does not matter how good or bad the instruction is, they come out with nothing.

If someone comes out of training in knife disarms with the thought that they can easily defeat a weapon armed attacker, then they did not LEARN a realistic lesson. I would rather that someone comes out of training learning to treat all attacks as if a weapon is involved. Based on the assumption that any attack can involve a weapon, even if you think it is just punches or kicks, sets up a better environment for learning.

For example, I have found that many are taught good techniques but don't learn them right. For years my instructor taught me weapon counters and every time he almost broke my arm immediately with contact. Coming from more of an Aikido background with weapons, I would skip the break and go for control. It took me years to get a clue of what exactly was going on. By skipping the training to block (not get hit) and immediately break the arm or other part of the attacker's body, I was teaching the technique wrong. These techniques were designed to block and break/stun. No they may not be the best technique for the job, but by not breaking/stunning, I ensured the technique would fail and I would end up in a wrestling match with the weapon bearing attacker.

There were a few principles that need to go along with any training. From Aikido the first principle is "avoid and unbalance" or roughly don't get hit and attack/unbalance... from there the techniques follow for control. From Kajukenbo, the principle is usually "block and stun" or basically don't get hit and break their arm or hit them in a vital area... from there the techniques follow for control.

1. "avoid and unbalance" or "block and stun/break" (don't get hit and attack)
2. control delivery system
3. finish, etc.

Whether the attacker has a weapon or not, the same principles apply!!!

What is learned is more important that what is taught, IME.

 

can anyone save this thread ?

It started out quite promising with Chris sharing some training clips.

Since then its degenerated, anal beyond belief. I always thought that the Ninjutsu section was the most anal but I have been proved wrong, sigh

 

Party pooper

Just kidding.

 

agreed ... how did we get onto this AGAIN!

look at the last nife thread ... air your views there if it hasnt already been covered .... but the fact is that all this HAS been covered in that thread!!!

lets talk about some of the other videos then ....

CHEN YUN SAN!

whaddaya think!



chris

 

S'ok, but Egg Fu Yung is better

 

Linky

Very power, very fluid.

Dare I say it...

D4 R3A1 T4I CH1!!! :yeleyes:

 

I think those guys are wan shu jins students. You can see the fear in that one guys eyes the second time he hits him and when alex gets hit he looks genuinely hurt but it doesn't look like master chen hits him hard at all.

it would be very interesting to meet him...maybe one day

sam

 

Sorry for having participated in taking this thread off topic.

The video of Chen Yun San impresses me with his fluidity AND power. Athough it would have been nice for me to know the context of what he was teaching in the last half of the video. It appeared to be trapping techniques but they could have been breaking technique.

One of my instructors has been studying Tai Chi for over thirty years. At times we make comparisons between external martial arts and internal martial arts, and it appears that the external martial arts have simplified techniques to allow them to be more effective in a shorter amount of time.

He had one comparison about power. Our version of a particular strike used the hammer fist to strike, the Tai Chi version used the back of the open hand. The hammer fist was easy to teach and even if one missed the target, the forearm could still hit with a good amount of force. However, it was the Tai Chi back of the open hand strike that generated more power and compression to internal organs. Striking at the chest, the Tai Chi version probably could be shown to have a larger chance of stopping the heart and causing internal injury.

The way it was explained to me was that the original version was that from Tai Chi, it was simplified by external martial arts so that it did matter as much if the technique was not perfect. For instance, if the person had on heavy clothing, the external version would still be effective where as the Tai Chi version would not be as effective compared to if no heavy clothing/armor was present, although the power would still be there, what would be lacking is the access to the vital organs.

Anyway, looking at the various videos, I can see how the internal martial arts is not all that different than the external martial arts except that the internal martial arts is more true to the actual effective empty hand technique, where as the external martial arts is more simplified and quicker to learn to use effectively. Based on this, there is not division between external and internal martial arts, it is more of a progression... one might have a need to start with external martial arts but as one gains years of experience, they will eventually move towards the internal martial arts for perfection of technique.

Well that's what I think comes from these videos.

 

Agreed ... i think both sam and i have hit alex a bit ... with little reaction from him .... He said that Chen Yun Sans work is of a different degree ... just super powerful.

They are Wang Shu Jins Taiwan school as far as i know. All very experienced in their own right ... apparantly they took on Master Chen when he got arrived with a film crew for the doc 'the real martial arts' ... tried to injure him ... he then ... ahum .... taught them.

you can really see the fear they have for this little skinny man .....

very impressive work.

Cheers
Chris