Re: New American Martial Art discovered!

"Mike" <mkorneck@xxxxxx> wrote
......Noting that *possibility of applying* does
NOT equal *incorporate in it's entirety* is not being a nanny of any
kind. It's simply pointing out a simple truth. Why you are all grumpy
when referred to this simple fact, is beyond me.

Because it's a semantics trick- taking it out of social context. I didn't
want to commit Mike to anything more than I've heard him say in the past-
nor rigidly define the parameters of the question to some metaphysical
precept of the Cosmic All.

I'd rather have people who know about logic and precision expounding
on a top of which they know little, than have people who don't
undestand logic or precision expounding on a topic on which they are
masters.

that's hilarious.
I've learned from people all my life that had little English, less Science
and conveyed their ideas by any means possible- usually by demonstrating
them on my body. Science wasn't what they studied- the skill was what they
studied, and the science behind it is of far less interest to me than the
actuality. If you won't accept anything that doesn't explain itself to you
'scientifically', then you're in for a very limited exposure to some very
interesting material.

I named at least three; Don Miller, Mario Napoli, and Mike Sigman.
I mentioned whole systems of internal art- to include ie hsing-i, pagua,
liuhebafa, and far more systems less known in the US. The choreography is
not tied to the mechanism.
And you using your own support to back up your own argument is
circular.

I'm the only one in this conversation with any actual study in the field.
I'm the one that even knows that those three guys, and those several arts,
are a rebuttal to the demand for 'proof'.
That's what I mean about not-having the basic information in the subject
area sufficient to form any useful opinion at all.
no offense.

....And because Silat can be traced back to a wishy washy definition

nothing 'wishy-washy' about it; it means what it means.
You don't speak enough of the various languages to opine otherwise.

.....in
different countires,

Known by a rather specific name as a cultural area; South East Asia. The
word always means 'fighting', although it may permutate to pronunciations
like 'bersilat'- which also means 'to do (ber) silat'.

.......I am supposed to believe that you are practiced
in everything that this wishy washy definition can be applied to? I
don't think so.

The original point was about 'complete' systems of 'real fighting'. That is
to say; studying all ranges of fighting, all weapons for fighting, the sum
of combative knowledge known to the system.
You know, as contrasted with regulated sport prizefighting.

Yeah, and perhaps that pertains to me too. How come if I say I don't
have alot of ability in Tai Chi, you believe me ... but when the
phraud says it, he is just being humble?

The sum of material you've both written on various subjects.
I know that you don't know- and I know that he does.
If you asked my teachers, with sixty years of practice behind them, if they
had 'skills', they would answer circumlocutoraly. It's simply gauche to do
otherwise in their social context.

Don't know anything about aircraft carriers-
as contrasted with taiji.
Do you know that what something *is* is defined by it's ability rather
what it's called?

Uniquely applicable to Tai Chi-
it's the most widely practiced exercise form in the world- on several
different levels, and for several different goals. Some people practice it
with martial intent, and those are divided into two camps; those that do the
'mechanism', and those that don't.
Of those that don't, they are often quite skilled in adjunct skills that are
taught by assiduous practice, even without the 'mechanism'. Whatever else
they are, they are not 'taiji'- that's the skill that Mike's 'teacher test'
examines.
Of those that do, some do it well, others less-so. Whether they do it well
is the second question; the first being whether they do it at all.
All of it is called 'tai chi'.

Question: Who really has an aircraft carrier?

I don't care.
My interest is in martial art in general; taiji in particular.
It's not necessary to know about aircraft carriers in order to have credible
opinions about taiji.
or I wouldn't have any.

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mike Sigman
    ... the next logical question is why do millions of people practice Tai Chi ... then I would guess it is a more likely a skill that they are ... Real Taiji as a martial art is pretty hard, ... the famous skills. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: YASD CountFiveOrSix the March of Archers DEAs
    ... Without Fighting skill increasing, I don't think it's possible to win. ... > Currently I have a clvl 14 HaHu with long blade and bow. ... And here's something I miss in the pure hunter ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.misc)
  • Re: Bike stability physics
    ... For those with no previous bicycle experience I've given instruction ... Usually in two minutes I'll have them pedalling and steering ... practice and feedback, almost all of them can demonstrate that skill. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Bullshit in the martial arts. Martial arts things with no martial application.
    ... horse stance is an utter waste of time. ... It is the ultimate way of "exercising" (as ... because it's targeted at a useful skill as well as exercising the whole ... Taiji has a whole set of fast practice, but one has to have to have the ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Bullshit in the martial arts. Martial arts things with no martial application.
    ... horse stance is an utter waste of time. ... The 'slo-mo' is only the means to learn the form, refine the skill, and to ... Taiji has a whole set of fast practice, but one has to have to have the ... defence skills) more then "practising" taichi. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)