Low Light Techniques

[Ian]

Old but good.



Parts 2 and 3 are there as well.

[fisherman]

Ninja skills!!!
Cool!

[Shenquan]

What's the connection with ma?

[Royal Dragon]

This is modern military/law enforcement combatives, or maybe better said here as true American reality martial arts.

[Ian]

What's the connection with ma?

halberd, deerhorn knives, double hook swords... what's the connection with ma?

[Shenquan]

I'm sorry I don't get it. If I buy a gun and learn some basic military concepts about how to use the gun I'm doing modern American martial arts? 'Cos if that's the case I'll gladly keep on sticking to the old Chinese ones

halberd, deerhorn knives, double hook swords... what's the connection with ma?

White weapon training (that is, not shotguns and bazookas) dramaticallly improves empty hand skills at least on the account of two things:

A) Training with most weapons (not talking about the fancy ones used in competitions) means training with something heavy and being able to use a heavy tool doing the same things one does when not waving one requires much a higher level of practice (think about being relaxed and using structure while holding a 2 meters long metal staff, spear, halberd...to do dynamic movements)

B) Weapon training should let the practicioner get a much more in-depth look at angles and footwork (at least on the basis that when you study a weapon you should also study how not to get hit by another weapon)

What ability does using a gun enhance (apart being able to kill somebody with no effort even if you're 10 years old of course)?

[Ian]

I'm sorry I don't get it. If I buy a gun and learn some basic military concepts about how to use the gun I'm doing modern American martial arts? 'Cos if that's the case I'll gladly keep on sticking to the old Chinese ones

No, you're just doing martial arts. Martial. Of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior. How much do you want to bet that if the old Chinese masters were alive today, they'd be using guns instead of spears?

What ability does using a gun enhance (apart being able to kill somebody with no effort even if you're 10 years old of course)?

Well, have you tried using a gun? Maybe if you actually tried, your opinion would be informed instead of speculative.

Don't scoff at modern weapons just because you prefer archaic weapons... er, weapon-like-objects. Being able to use a firearm skillfully is no mean feat. There's more to the practice than 'point and shoot'.

[Shenquan]

I don't really think that people interested in ma would start learning how to shoot just because in some parts of the world guns are sold to anyone just willing to buy one. I mean, let's be serious, there are 1.4 bilion Chinese and and oustanding number of Chinese martial arts (new and old) but I've never heard of a Chinese master teaching how to use a tank just because in modern warfare you can do more damage with a tank than with a sword.
I've never used a gun and I sincerely hope to stay like that till the day I die but there's one thing I'm sure of: using a gun makes you better at shooting but that has absolutely nothing to do with using your body as a weapon (ain't it funny that the guy in the second video shows he's learned the fancy stuff studying japanese swordplay?).
During these olympic games an Italian woman has won a gold medal in shooting http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/BIO/Athlete/7/207767.shtml don't tell me she's a dangerous expert fighter or a brilliant internal martial artist just because of that

[Ian]

I don't really think that people interested in ma would start learning how to shoot just because in some parts of the world guns are sold to anyone just willing to buy one.

That's a personal judgement. It doesn't make firearms work a) any less valid for today's culture, b) anly less martial, and c) any less challenging to master.

I mean, let's be serious, there are 1.4 bilion Chinese and and oustanding number of Chinese martial arts (new and old) but I've never heard of a Chinese master teaching how to use a tank just because in modern warfare you can do more damage with a tank than with a sword.

But you HAVE heard about xingyi being developed on the battlefield, taiji being used to defend chen village, bagua being used by bodyguards. How is this different? What right-minded warrior would object to using guns?

Spears are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Arrows are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Swords are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Guns are for...?

Don't you think the reason why Chinese martial artists didn't teach how to operate tanks is more along the lines of them not HAVING any tanks? Or tanks not being INVENTED at that time? Or how about during wartime, they learned how to operate tanks from people WHO KNEW HOW. Or they simply had different roles to fulfill?

This is just common sense.

I've never used a gun and I sincerely hope to stay like that till the day I die but there's one thing I'm sure of: using a gun makes you better at shooting but that has absolutely nothing to do with using your body as a weapon

"I have ZERO experience with guns, but I'm 100% BEYOND-A-SHADOW-OF-A-DOUBT POSITIVE it doesn't teach you as much about the martial arts as a fake spear does." Think about it.

Better yet, either quit pushing your entirely speculative view of the world on others. Or just drop it.

ain't it funny that the guy in the second video shows he's learned the fancy stuff studying japanese swordplay?

What's funny about that? James Williams has more than 40 years of experience in the martial arts. His credentials are too numerous for me to type so have a see for yourself http://www.dojoofthefourwinds.com/instructor.html

Maybe if you're in the area you can ask him in person: why waste time shooting when shooting "has absolutely nothing to do with using your body as a weapon"?

During these olympic games an Italian woman has won a gold medal in shooting http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/BIO/Athlete/7/207767.shtml don't tell me she's a dangerous expert fighter or a brilliant internal martial artist just because of that

Where did I say shooting makes you a brilliant fighter? Moreover, where did I say anything about internal martial arts??

Damn, I'm doing it again! I'm arguing with someone who has zero experience and doesn't know what he's talking about

[shawnsegler]

Your anger...lead you to the darkside it will.

S- Just sayin am I

[Ian]

Nah I have nothing against Mr. Quan.

No point in debating without a little righteous indignation though

It's just debate. And mud-slinging.

[bruce]

I've never heard of a Chinese master teaching how to use a tank just because in modern warfare you can do more damage with a tank than with a sword.

Ka-50 "Black Shark" is a single-seat attack helicopter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RITbQHL ... re=related

the above video shows some amazing martial art practice. you could think of it as a "form".
fighting technology has since the first fight between men been changing and adapting.

what is the difference between the man and his weapon shown in the above video and a chinese bagua master armed with a knife in 1885?
technology i think is one of the main differences ... do you hear my point?

[shawnsegler]

It's just debate. And mud-slinging.

Word that.

Peace,

S

[bruce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otNwrxmVC9I

more chinese martial arts

[Shenquan]

That's a personal judgement. It doesn't make firearms work a) any less valid for today's culture, b) anly less martial, and c) any less challenging to master.

Of course it's personal judgement, just like it is your personal judgement to believe otherwise. I personally have very strong difficulties in considering guns a part of "today's culture" and if they are I guess that just proves how screwed up we are. Anyway, going back to your statements

But you HAVE heard about xingyi being developed on the battlefield, taiji being used to defend chen village, bagua being used by bodyguards

That's a very good point but I still think there is one major difference. MAs were indeed developed on the battlefield, that is to say, a practicioner after going to war or after using his skills to fight would then have a feedback which enabled him to improve what he was practicing on the basis of direct experience. I don't see a strong parallel with guns. Guns were invented in a room, then someone said "wow! if we use this we can kill anyone!" and after that they have been employed in war. They have been invented by scientists, not by warriors (exactly like tanks, bombs and everything else) so there was no process of first person experience involved.

Spears are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Arrows are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Swords are for killing people from a distance while protecting their users.
Guns are for...?

Guns are for eliminating any kind of advantage another human being can have on you. If a 8 year old went on the battlefield with a sword (or even just tried to fight an adult) he would have been dead meat. Now take Fedor and put him 2 meters in front of an 8 year old who has enough strength to hold a gun and pull a trigger, who would be dead meat?

Don't you think the reason why Chinese martial artists didn't teach how to operate tanks is more along the lines of them not HAVING any tanks? Or tanks not being INVENTED at that time? Or how about during wartime, they learned how to operate tanks from people WHO KNEW HOW. Or they simply had different roles to fulfill?

This is just common sense.

You know that's funny because hand cannons were already employed in Yuan dynasty (13th century) but over the next 700 hundred years no one has developed methods to improve skills in such weapons (although there can be a wide range of reasons for this, I'm aware of that).
In Japan the samurai class (they were warriors) didn't like one bit the meiji revolution and considered outrageous what was going on (yes, I know, it was because they all became unemployed all of a sudden, but is that just it?)

I have ZERO experience with guns, but I'm 100% BEYOND-A-SHADOW-OF-A-DOUBT POSITIVE it doesn't teach you as much about the martial arts as a fake spear does

True, I have absolutely no experience whatsoever with guns so, if you would like to explain what kind of body ability (apart from shooting with more accuracy) can be developed using a gun, I'll be more than happy to read on.

What's funny about that? James Williams has more than 40 years of experience in the martial arts. His credentials are too numerous for me to type so have a see for yourself http://www.dojoofthefourwinds.com/instructor.html

It's funny because I understood you were claiming that practicing shooting gives you some sort of ability and then you posted a video of somebody whose only fancy stuff came clearly directly from his traditional ma training

Maybe if you're in the area you can ask him in person: why waste time shooting when shooting "has absolutely nothing to do with using your body as a weapon"?

I'm a bit far off but I think it would be interesting to hear his point of view

Where did I say shooting makes you a brilliant fighter? Moreover, where did I say anything about internal martial arts??

If you didn't than it is just a misunderstanding because I thought that was just about the point you were trying to make (in the above sentence didn't you just imply that shooting has more than somthing to do with using your body as a weapon?)

Nah I have nothing against Mr. Quan.

As I have nothing against you and I do find this discussion very stimulating


to bruce:

what is the difference between the man and his weapon shown in the above video and a chinese bagua master armed with a knife in 1885?
technology i think is one of the main differences ... do you hear my point?

I think I see your point but still in my opinion there is a huge difference. I'll put it this way. A bagua fighter armed with a knife in 1885 had to fight in first person with no protection looking another folk in the eyes and knowing that if he did somthing wrong he might get cut, loose an eye or bleed to death notwithstanding that he also had to consider the fact that in front of him there was another human being so he had to deal with his own conscience while deciding if fight to kill or fight trying not to kill.
A pilot on a Black Shark is surely a highly skilled pilot (I don't really think that piloting those things is easy) but he basically flies from a considerable distance from his target and by pushing a button he can kill an outstanding number of people with almost zero risk (notwithstanding that such bombings are frequently done during the night).
Does anyone really think it is the same?