169 replies to this topic

[Grigori]

Any martial art worthy of the name must account for beating a superior fighter. If they claim otherwise then they have lost their way. Why would anyone train hard to beat a weaker foe?

The fights you described are ritualized competitions to establish dominance. People hold back because A: the know the other guy isn't trying to kill them, B: they're confident of their ability to maintain control of the fight.

Like I said I don't worry about these encounters because I choose not to get involved. But I can't CHOOSE not to be the victim of a violent crime. If I percieve this is what's about to happen I don't take chances. I can't assume the bad guy won't kill me, I can't assume I'm better than they and could control the fight as I please.

We as civilized people are brought up to respond to confrontations in a civilized manner. However when faced with people who are used to uncivilized violent livestyles you must recognize the situation as abnormal and lose your restraint. I don't care how well trained you think you are, if you're not prepared to go all the way you will not prevail.

I don't think this is a modern problem just a problem Wuxia writers don't think about. Why is it that when a man is caught sleeping with another man's wife his instinct is to flee rather than fight? Why doesn't he stop to evaluate how strong or skilled the husband is? The reason he flees instead of stand and fight is because a mad husband is irrational. A mad person may do anything, pay any price, he won't care if he goes to prison.

If you ever encounter a violent attacker who don't care, I hope you don't over analyse the situation. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6 as the saying goes. Sun Tzu was right, battles are won or lost before they're fought.

[CARDINAL009]

It's the man who makes the system, not vice-versa.

[Wujiang]

90% of fights are a matter of establishing dominance. Break both their elbows and probably dislocate their jaw and it really doesn't matter whether they are insane or not. Having violent tendency is one thing. Having the ability to deliver violence is another. You can't say that becaseus someone is trying to hurt you, then they will hurt you. It is subjected to their physical ability to deliver. Normally, against someone intended on hurting you, even breaking a finger is enough to stop them.

You can't assume a bad guy won't kill you or hurt you. But that is irrelevent. What you can assume is that they are subjected to pain and mechanics. The popular culture often tells use that when a fight occurs, it is a strict choice of you beating the daylight out of him or get seriously hurt or killed. This is a distorted view of the world. If a small amount of pain won't stop them, increase it. If it won't, do something so they physically are incapable of attacking again. If breaking one finger isn't enough, then break their knee and you can walk away. There is no need to beat them so they are lying in a puddle of their own blood. That is the values of benevolence which confucianism instills. Unless you find people who can pose a threat even after having 2 broken knees and 2 dislocated elbows.

Your insistant to 'go all the way' is especially dangerous to yourself when mixed with military styles which is designed to kill. As I said before, killing someone, no matter what reason, is a serious offence. And it will lead to a long time in a cell or even a death sentence. Military arts should remain strictly on the battlefield where you aim is indeed to kill. Problem about civilization today is that they see a societal conflict as the same as battle engagement.

[CARDINAL009]

Your insistant to 'go all the way' is especially dangerous to yourself when mixed with military styles which is designed to kill. As I said before, killing someone, no matter what reason, is a serious offence. And it will lead to a long time in a cell or even a death sentence. Military arts should remain strictly on the battlefield where you aim is indeed to kill. Problem about civilization today is that they see a societal conflict as the same as battle engagement.

Agree w/ your pov.

Prefer to have a lawyer to handle all my "dirty" work. [LoL!]

[Grigori]

90% of fights are a matter of establishing dominance. Break both their elbows and probably dislocate their jaw and it really doesn't matter whether they are insane or not. Having violent tendency is one thing. Having the ability to deliver violence is another. You can't say that becaseus someone is trying to hurt you, then they will hurt you. It is subjected to their physical ability to deliver. Normally, against someone intended on hurting you, even breaking a finger is enough to stop them.

You can't assume a bad guy won't kill you or hurt you. But that is irrelevent. What you can assume is that they are subjected to pain and mechanics. The popular culture often tells use that when a fight occurs, it is a strict choice of you beating the daylight out of him or get seriously hurt or killed. This is a distorted view of the world. If a small amount of pain won't stop them, increase it. If it won't, do something so they physically are incapable of attacking again. If breaking one finger isn't enough, then break their knee and you can walk away. There is no need to beat them so they are lying in a puddle of their own blood. That is the values of benevolence which confucianism instills. Unless you find people who can pose a threat even after having 2 broken knees and 2 dislocated elbows.

Your insistant to 'go all the way' is especially dangerous to yourself when mixed with military styles which is designed to kill. As I said before, killing someone, no matter what reason, is a serious offence. And it will lead to a long time in a cell or even a death sentence. Military arts should remain strictly on the battlefield where you aim is indeed to kill. Problem about civilization today is that they see a societal conflict as the same as battle engagement.

This is a common point of view among trained fighters who expect the attacker to behave like in the dojo. I accept that it works for some people in some conditions but it's the wrong attitude for self defense. Confucian benevolence stops when the fight starts. This sort of thinking was meant to cultivate character among street toughs back in the day. But today's lawyers and housewives don't need to be taught restraint. Far from it they need to learn to unleash their primal self. What if you're the one who got your finger broken, or your knees broken, do you stop defending yourself? If someone trains for years but in the end loses touch with their primal side the training was great disservice. They can never be more than half of a warrior.

I respect that there are highly trained people out there who can control the fight so thoroughly they can decide when and how to escalate. In my experience these people are few and far between. They are the genetic one percenters who train constantly, and even they grow old. The vast majority of people will never have the luxury of physical overmatch.

Does this mean they should kill in every fight? Of course not. But they must be prepared to do it in a split second, they must be prepared to fight a killer. The discipline is in the ability to turn that naked aggression on and off at will. Most people have problem turning it on or do it too late. Then you have other people who see fights as controllable and dominance rituals. These are the people who are most anti-social because they're more likely to get in fights in the first place.

Edited by Grigori, 02 August 2005 - 11:45 PM.

[Wujiang]

This is a common point of view among trained fighters who expect the attacker to behave like in the dojo. I accept that it works for some people in some conditions but it's the wrong attitude for self defense. Confucian benevolence stops when the fight starts.

That is just a modern view which mixes up war with street fights. Confucian values are less applicable (not completely useless) simply because society is different today. All you need to do is to witness (which I did on more than one occasion) a street fight in areas like modern-day mongolia and other steppes areas which western influence have not been as obvious and you will see the difference. People backs down when they know they can't win.

This sort of thinking was meant to cultivate character among street toughs back in the day. But today's lawyers and housewives don't need to be taught restraint. Far from it they need to learn to unleash their primal self. What if you're the one who got your finger broken, or your knees broken, do you stop defending yourself? If someone trains for years but in the end loses touch with their primal side the training was great disservice. They can never be more than half of a warrior.

VERY western perception. But fortunately not the only one that works

An obvious cultural difference is the concept of Zouhourumo. Where the west encourages the use of their 'primal instincts' in a fight, the east considers this to be "the fight taking over you". Thw west considers this something that will happen one way or another during the fight. While the east thinks this is not the case. Which is why by the Early Qing dynasty onwards, martial arts development (especially those that evolved in the city) were developed under the idea of controlling oneself and the opponent in the fight.
You don't need to be a killer to defeat a killer. It is not a matter of using the same level of violence against violence. You can still win using non-leathal techniques. This is the key of Chinese arts. Breaking his finger will be just as painful on a serial killer and ultra-marine as it does on an average John Doe. And breaking the knee caps is just as effective. There is no such thing as someone who can pose any real threat when you dislocated their elbows, wrists and knees.

[CARDINAL009]

That is just a modern view which mixes up war with street fights. Confucian values are less applicable (not completely useless) simply because society is different today. All you need to do is to witness (which I did on more than one occasion) a street fight in areas like modern-day mongolia and other steppes areas which western influence have not been as obvious and you will see the difference. People backs down when they know they can't win.
VERY western perception. But fortunately not the only one that works

An obvious cultural difference is the concept of Zouhourumo. Where the west encourages the use of their 'primal instincts' in a fight, the east considers this to be "the fight taking over you". Thw west considers this something that will happen one way or another during the fight. While the east thinks this is not the case. Which is why by the Early Qing dynasty onwards, martial arts development (especially those that evolved in the city) were developed under the idea of controlling oneself and the opponent in the fight.
You don't need to be a killer to defeat a killer. It is not a matter of using the same level of violence against violence. You can still win using non-leathal techniques. This is the key of Chinese arts. Breaking his finger will be just as painful on a serial killer and ultra-marine as it does on an average John Doe. And breaking the knee caps is just as effective. There is no such thing as someone who can pose any real threat when you dislocated their elbows, wrists and knees.

Emotional control is the key.

[Grigori]

That is just a modern view which mixes up war with street fights. Confucian values are less applicable (not completely useless) simply because society is different today. All you need to do is to witness (which I did on more than one occasion) a street fight in areas like modern-day mongolia and other steppes areas which western influence have not been as obvious and you will see the difference. People backs down when they know they can't win.
VERY western perception. But fortunately not the only one that works

An obvious cultural difference is the concept of Zouhourumo. Where the west encourages the use of their 'primal instincts' in a fight, the east considers this to be "the fight taking over you". Thw west considers this something that will happen one way or another during the fight. While the east thinks this is not the case. Which is why by the Early Qing dynasty onwards, martial arts development (especially those that evolved in the city) were developed under the idea of controlling oneself and the opponent in the fight.
You don't need to be a killer to defeat a killer. It is not a matter of using the same level of violence against violence. You can still win using non-leathal techniques. This is the key of Chinese arts. Breaking his finger will be just as painful on a serial killer and ultra-marine as it does on an average John Doe. And breaking the knee caps is just as effective. There is no such thing as someone who can pose any real threat when you dislocated their elbows, wrists and knees.

I don't understand why you credit the west for the concept of aggression training. Every military and most police forces understand it's critical importance. Every person who has faced a life or death struggle come away with an appreciation for it. In fact it is a universal instinct in the animal kingdom. Aggressiveness is part of our DNA, it allows you to survive when you're civilized self cannot continue.

You continue to seperate military and police approaches to survival as different from the civilian. This shows you don't believe a civilian may need to fight for his life or that of a loved one. Survival is survival. There is no difference. It maybe different for a ritualized bar room match but these represent an avoidable situation usually resulting from bad judgement of both parties.

Keep in mind most of the Chinese martial arts popular today are in fact less than two hundred years old and primarily concerned with ritualized clan/gang competitions. These fighting styles do not represent the overall martial spirit of three thousand years of Chinese martial arts and one should understand their cultural contexts and limitations.

Furthermore, even if certain martial tradition is western, I don't see how it's less relevant. Anyone who has faced death and lived another day has something to teach me. There are plenty of highly skilled people who goes hand to hand with real bad guys as bodyguards, prisoner handlers, and professional instructors who are contracted by government agencies with demonstrable real world results. Ignore their hard earned experience at your own peril.

[CARDINAL009]

Keep in mind most of the Chinese martial arts popular today are in fact less than two hundred years old and primarily concerned with ritualized clan/gang competitions. These fighting styles do not represent the overall martial spirit of three thousand years of Chinese martial arts and one should understand their cultural contexts and limitations.

 

In most cases, that pov's quite true. The exception would be internal martial arts.

Edited by CARDINAL009, 05 August 2005 - 01:26 PM.

[Wujiang]

Aggressiveness is part of our DNA, it allows you to survive when you're civilized self cannot continue.

On the contrary, it has been proven that humans have a instinct for survival AND an instinct to die. Do not look at a human on a one dimensional level. It is a matter of how society cultivates these instincts that makes us what we are. Not just DNA. What matters is a balance of things.

All things are ritualized. It is just a matter of whether we are aware of it or not. These schemas are the fundamental building block of our mind. Without them, we either enter nirvana or go mad.

These fighting styles do not represent the overall martial spirit of three thousand years of Chinese martial arts and one should understand their cultural contexts and limitations.

Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain. Martial arts is a product of human affairs. Human affairs cannot be taken out of human context. Using a civilian style on the battlefield or using a battlefield style in civilian setting is death one way or another. You are trying to say that an engagement that occurs in the city is no different from that of the battlefield. And I am saying there is a critical difference even to this day. A soldier is never questioned as to why he would kill a hostile, it is the (commonly accepted) nature of what it means to be a soldier to do so. A civilian is different. What is irrelevent is the assumption one will ever get into an ABSOLUTE situaiton of either kill or be killed. The world is not absolute. There is always a way for one to survive wihtout becoming a killer, regardless of the threat. The quesiton is whether we have the capability to do so. The more advance your training and experienced you are, the more you are able to accomplish it.
Killing someone and then getting hanged/shot/electricuted makes you no less a dead man than getting killed in the engagement. All that is different is that you will die a killer or a victim. The solution is to attain total victory of which you will win the fight and not lose because of the victory n either the legal level, revenge of your rival's family, etc.

[Grigori]

On the contrary, it has been proven that humans have a instinct for survival AND an instinct to die. Do not look at a human on a one dimensional level. It is a matter of how society cultivates these instincts that makes us what we are. Not just DNA. What matters is a balance of things.

All things are ritualized. It is just a matter of whether we are aware of it or not. These schemas are the fundamental building block of our mind. Without them, we either enter nirvana or go mad.
Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain. Martial arts is a product of human affairs. Human affairs cannot be taken out of human context. Using a civilian style on the battlefield or using a battlefield style in civilian setting is death one way or another. You are trying to say that an engagement that occurs in the city is no different from that of the battlefield. And I am saying there is a critical difference even to this day. A soldier is never questioned as to why he would kill a hostile, it is the (commonly accepted) nature of what it means to be a soldier to do so. A civilian is different.  What is irrelevent is the assumption one will ever get into an ABSOLUTE situaiton of either kill or be killed. The world is not absolute. There is always a way for one to survive wihtout becoming a killer, regardless of the threat. The quesiton is whether we have the capability to do so. The more advance your training and experienced you are, the more you are able to accomplish it.
Killing someone and then getting hanged/shot/electricuted makes you no less a dead man than getting killed in the engagement. All that is different is that you will die a killer or a victim. The solution is to attain total victory of which you will win the fight and not lose because of the victory n either the legal level, revenge of your rival's family, etc.

I agree that if you were a rarified master you could indeed have more control and therefore use more discretion. However it's pretty arrogant to assume you have this previlage when you're jumped in a dark alley by people who may be armed and high on drugs. You're not in a duel, there's certainly no ritual involved.

As for legal issues. You must survive this day. The right to live is THE basic human right. Hire a good lawyer, let him worry about it. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Edited by Grigori, 05 August 2005 - 08:02 PM.

[Wujiang]

I agree that if you were a rarified master you could indeed have more control and therefore use more discretion. However it's pretty arrogant to assume you have this previlage when you're jumped in a dark alley by people who may be armed and high on drugs. You're not in a duel, there's certainly no ritual involved.

Hence the need for training. For untrained individuals, most people who gets jumped in a dark alley intent on killing for whatever twisted reason really doesn't stand much of a fighting chance (running is your best bet). Firstly, the 'jumpers' normally does not work alone. Second, when lost the element of surprise, untrained people doesn't have the reflex to move their body to soften the first blow which is normally the last.

And pay no heed to the title of master or grandmasters. They are titles. Nothing more. What is really important is your own mental and physical abilities.

As for legal issues. You must survive this day. The right to live is THE basic human right. Hire a good lawyer, let him worry about it. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Like I said, I would be the first to agree that CMA is slightly out of date as to their applicability in modern day. But as you said it before, you have to look at things in terms of their cultural context. More importantly their history context simply because these systems were developed 200-50 years ago, they are operating on a legal system where killing for any reasons IS a death penalty. But if you study the cases for the past 10-15 years, the chances of your getting away for killing someone for self-defense in the United Kingdom is actually quite low. Although you don't get the death penalty, most defendents need to go to prison for a long time. Even if you just did as little as break a few bones on the attacker, you are still be charged. There was a case a few years ago in the UK where an attacker jumped a women in a dark park, pined her down and was about to rape her. She got out her trusted spray and went for his face in which blinded him. Sickeningly, because he only pined her down and did not actually managed to get his penis into her, she can't 'prove' he was about to rape her in court but the lawyers can prove that it was she who blinded the attacker. And now, she is serving time. The question I have been bugging my sister with for years is whether going by that logic, I need to be dead to prove he was intent to kill me thus justifying self defence. Law of the modern 'civilized' world is really a joke sometimes.

Edited by Wujiang, 05 August 2005 - 10:41 PM.

[BlueDragonMagik]

Law of the modern 'civilized' world is really a joke sometimes.

I really agree with that. ...

[Suhana LIM]

Da jia ni men hao


IMHO, there is no such thing as the "best martial art system." But I believe in the good and trained martial art practitioners.

In this era, too much self promoting and self glorification, that's why we often hear "the best/number one/most advance,etc martial art style."

Cheers.

[Kediren]

Systems don't make the person. It's the person that makes the system.

You have right!!

But i think that Aikido and Qinna are best martial systems for modern Times..