starting new arts. for what?

[soccer50]

i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by soccer50
i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy
:rolleyes: still at it that the Japanese were "small" people. It was true in relative terms more so in the 1940s, a lot of it due to nutrition. Jujitsu wasn't for fighting giant foreigners but big people in general, including the Japanese.

Most "new" martial arts aren't new, just an off-shoot of something with minor changes. BJJ comes from judo which comes from JJ while each has differences on emphasis.

Anyway, the reasons for "new" martial arts...

So they can automatically have a high rank
Feel that there needs to be a change
Feel that a combination of something works for them
Needs to place emphasis on something else
Simplicity or complexity


What creating "new" arts really means cutting and pasting some things together that a lot of the times, don't really work together, stamp on a fancy new name, advertise it, and make money or gain fame.

[Don Roley]

I think you forgot one big reason people start new arts. By doing so, they no longer have to accept that there is anyone more skilled than them in the old art. If I start "Wotsamatta- ryu" then no one else in that art is better at it than I.

Seriously though, I do know of some people who have taken arts and changed their emphisis. In the case I am thinking of, taking a sword art meant to kill other people (kind of a non- nescesary skill nowdays) and turning it into an art meant for sport and physical development. I was actually thinking of taking one of their seminars on the staff just to see what they were like. I have my own philisophical reason to look askance at people training with weapons for anything other than the purpose they were made for (i.e. kill people), but have to admit that there sword and the staff are a bit anachronistic in this age and more people have a need to get healthy and feel better about themsleves than learn to kill.

But in most cases I am familiar with, despite the reasons people may give, the majority of people who start their own art do so for reasons of ego. That is just my experience with them. I am sure they would aurgue 'till the cows come home that they have a valid, non- ego driven reason. Perhaps they even believe it themselves.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by soccer50
... Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively....

From what I gathered, jujutsu was created to get rid of armed opponents if the samurai ever lost a sword, rather than being something just creted to deal with larger opponents.

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Don Roley
I think you forgot one big reason people start new arts. By doing so, they no longer have to accept that there is anyone more skilled than them in the old art. If I start "Wotsamatta- ryu" then no one else in that art is better at it than I.
I forgot about that one :D

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by soccer50
i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

Where have you been the last 10 years?:rolleyes:

The Gracies exposed many weaknesses in many arts and opened up many eyes eyes. If YOU THINK your art is perfect as it is, then keep your blinders on. No one art is "perfect" and your own "analysys" backs that up.

Each art you named as an example has areas of specialty but none is complete as a "total fighting system."

BJJ is weak on their feet. Muay Thai can't fight on the ground.

"True" trad, Jujutsu would be the only one close to being totally complete BUT in todays age it too is not complete.

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by akja
Where have you been the last 10 years?:rolleyes:

Watching the dearth of hokey home-made "uber styles" being created by Gracie wannabes who think they know everything from watching a few videos, reading Bruce Lee books, and quoting JKD people all the time... Oh, and watching those same "arts" die a slow agonizing death since they lack experience, perspective and the test of time...


The Gracies exposed many weaknesses in many arts and opened up many eyes eyes. If YOU THINK your art is perfect as it is, then keep your blinders on. No one art is "perfect" and your own "analysys" backs that up.

Not at all... The Gracies showed what happens when someone spends a lifetime training and specializing in an area of fighting. They showed that, when you spend every waking hour training your technique, developing your physique, and making use of your training in rules-light competitions, you can become quite an impressive fighter. We have yet to see an example of GJJ/BJJ in use against multiple opponents, or against someone who really knows how to hit. I would love to see a Gracie or GJJ/BJJ practitioner go up against someone from a few styles renowned for their striking ability, ability that has been proven again and again...

And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.


Each art you named as an example has areas of specialty but none is complete as a "total fighting system."

There is really nothing that is a "total fighting system." To create one would require experience that simply has not existed in the past 100 years, and to learn one would require a time investment that 99% of the population could never afford.


BJJ is weak on their feet. Muay Thai can't fight on the ground.

Every art has its shortcomings. The real test of an art is in how they handle their shortcomings rather than how they capitalize on their strengths. Let's pit a GJJ/BJJ fighter against a Muay Thai fighter and see what happens!


"True" trad, Jujutsu would be the only one close to being totally complete BUT in todays age it too is not complete.

Traditional Jujutsu would not be close to being totally "complete." Does it teach empty hand striking and kicking, weapons defense, weapons use (ancient and modern), guerilla warfare, etc.? For something to be "complete" and to address the totality of combative experience, it better deal with very literally "everything." If it doesn't, like so many of the self-proclaimed "total combat systems" being sold out there, then it is just as flawed and incomplete as the rest...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
:rolleyes: still at it that the Japanese were "small" people. It was true in relative terms more so in the 1940s, a lot of it due to nutrition. Jujitsu wasn't for fighting giant foreigners but big people in general, including the Japanese.

Who, in the feudal period during which jujutsu was created, did the Japanese fight that were so much larger than themselves? The occasional large Korean or Chinese? During the period that jujutsu flourished, the only folks it was being used against were other Japanese (someone correct my historical understanding if I am in error)!

To have an art whose sole reason for existing is to fight "big" people seems pointless, especially when said art was used as a supplementary study to bolster the selection of armed arts in use by the individual studying jujtusu in the first place.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

[soccer50]

well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by soccer50
..... bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. ....

No. He neither "got peices of various arts" nor "made a new one". That was what people presumed as what he did.

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

I agree with that statement.


take jkd.

I'd rather not.


bruce lee combined the best of the best.

No, he didn't. He studied Wing Chun, Taijiquan (from his father), some Boxing, some Savate, and later some FMA. None of these are necessarily "the best" arts in their categories, nor did he study any one of these arts long enough to know what "the best" parts of them were!

I know I'll get attacked by Bruce fans everywhere, but he really wasn't all that he is often interpreted to be! He was certainly very physicall talented. He had a certain amount of insight, but in reading some of what he wrote, you really have to wonder if he was as insightful as it sounds, or if his Philosophy degree was just helping his comments sound more insightful than they really were. Ultimately, JKD was meant to be a theory by which to approach a person's own individual training, but it has become just as much a "style" or "system" as the things Brucie allegedly railed against.

To say any person has taken "the best" from "the best" is to imply that there is a "best" way to do something. From that, to imply there is a "best" way to do something negates the claims of many arts to be "the best" at what they do. There can, logically, only be one "best" way, otherwise it is not "the best." There can't be two "number ones."

Find one undefeated art, and you may be able to claim, for a brief period, that it is "the best." But first you have to find an art that has never been defeated... And good luck with that.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Watching the dearth of hokey home-made "uber styles" being created by Gracie wannabes who think they know everything from watching a few videos, reading Bruce Lee books, and quoting JKD people all the time... Oh, and watching those same "arts" die a slow agonizing death since they lack experience, perspective and the test of time...



Not at all... The Gracies showed what happens when someone spends a lifetime training and specializing in an area of fighting. They showed that, when you spend every waking hour training your technique, developing your physique, and making use of your training in rules-light competitions, you can become quite an impressive fighter. We have yet to see an example of GJJ/BJJ in use against multiple opponents, or against someone who really knows how to hit. I would love to see a Gracie or GJJ/BJJ practitioner go up against someone from a few styles renowned for their striking ability, ability that has been proven again and again...

And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.



There is really nothing that is a "total fighting system." To create one would require experience that simply has not existed in the past 100 years, and to learn one would require a time investment that 99% of the population could never afford.



Every art has its shortcomings. The real test of an art is in how they handle their shortcomings rather than how they capitalize on their strengths. Let's pit a GJJ/BJJ fighter against a Muay Thai fighter and see what happens!



Traditional Jujutsu would not be close to being totally "complete." Does it teach empty hand striking and kicking, weapons defense, weapons use (ancient and modern), guerilla warfare, etc.? For something to be "complete" and to address the totality of combative experience, it better deal with very literally "everything." If it doesn't, like so many of the self-proclaimed "total combat systems" being sold out there, then it is just as flawed and incomplete as the rest...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

I still beleive that Trad, Jujustu is the closest to being complete cpmpared to all the trad, arts I've seen. Thats a bit more clear and acurate.

For the record "pure" BJJ has defeated "Pure" Muay Thai many times.

Just how many of the original styles have died that same slow agonizing death?:D

The Gracies did expose the weakness of not cross training which before that was not as commonplace as it is today, no doubt about that.

About the light competitions bit. I really hate to say it but thats an "American thing". we created the rules for Safety. You do remember the first 2 UFC's.

Also, many people don't understand it because they don't see it first hand. I have some tapes from Brazil that were recorded in the early '90's. Its coverage from 4 tournaments in the back country with no rules. Its raw and I've never seen that type of cpmpetition in the USA! It was dominated by martial artist who know how to fight in any situation, not just on the ground or just on their feet

And do you deny that the arts have evolved faster in the last 10 years than they did in the past?

Traditional Jujutsu did originally have strikes and kicks but you probably won't see that today, I thought that was clear.

Also, the last 10 years has evolved MORE REALISTIC MARTIAL SPORT than than what we, ourselves developed over time. That is undeniable!:asian:

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up

I wonder if you even have a clue:D

Sorry buddy, your examples suck:D

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by akja
....For the record "pure" BJJ has defeated "Pure" Muay Thai many times.

What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Who, in the feudal period during which jujutsu was created, did the Japanese fight that were so much larger than themselves? The occasional large Korean or Chinese? During the period that jujutsu flourished, the only folks it was being used against were other Japanese (someone correct my historical understanding if I am in error)!

To have an art whose sole reason for existing is to fight "big" people seems pointless, especially when said art was used as a supplementary study to bolster the selection of armed arts in use by the individual studying jujtusu in the first place.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:
Exactly my point. Well actually, my point was that it wasn't against the "huge foreigners" against the "small Japanese". Asians were pretty much relatively shorter than other people in the early and mid 1900s, but today, it's not uncommon to see fairly large Asian person. Sticking to those types of stereotypes won't do anyone any good. You can give me average heights and weights and all that, it really doesn't do much IMO.

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up
Misconception.

There are no "complete" arts? What does complete mean? Does complete mean that you spend an equal amount of time on every possible subject/scenario possible? That won't work, you need to have emphasis on one thing or another depending on you. Cross-training is without a doubt useful for most people as most systems today won't give you the freedom of looking at things from a different point of view from that of the instructor's. It helps one be more adept and helps people in general. There are many naturally gifted people who can go up against people of all types (all types of strikers, grapplers, etc.) without a problem, and can stick to what they do no matter what the opponent does, even if it's unexpected. Unfortunately, most people are not like that, that's why cross-training is useful.

And Bruce Lee never created a style. JKD was never meant for it to be a style, he never wished he had a name for it but a name was needed to get his philosophies across better. Bruce Lee was more of a revolutionary on TRAINING, not on creating new arts. And the flaw with the argument is that not only do you have to look at striking at a striker's point of view, but you have to look at striking at an outside striker's point of view, an inside striker's point of view, a puncher, a kicker, a pressure grappler, a power grappler, an outside grappler, a setup/tie grappler, a person who likes to throw or choke or lock, etc. in order to form "new counters" to every possible situation and then trying what you like best. There's simply not enough time to learn what you must and practice enough to be proficient in every possible counter to every possible attack.

Bruce Lee never combined the best of the best, you're mistaking that with "keep what is good, throw what is useless" quote. And realize, that his quote is RELATIVE, it is not a standard. Something that is useful to me may not be useless to you.

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by KennethKu
What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?
You realize that Royce Gracie only fights under his own rules?

I never knew arts could fight each other too.

Akja, you are trying to argue an uphill climb. I can say that judo can defeat BJJ because a practitioner of judo managed to beat Helio, but that won't work.

What exactly is a "pure" art? My TKD is different from karatekid's TKD, my wrestling is different from everyone else's. I box differently, I do everything different, and yet, what's pure? I'm one of the only people who wrestle like I do. I have a Russian stance most of the time and sometimes switch to a Korean or a Mongolian stance. My setups are different, I like to juke, I like to tap and play with people's heads. There are people who use similiar strategies, but only I wrestle like I do. Yet, it's pure wrestling. If a wrestler watched me wrestle, he would say I trained in wrestling. It's just that tactically, technically, and physically, I wrestle differently from everyone else.

Not only are there too many variables, it is impossible to pit people against each other like that.

Here's a good read for you: http://martialarts.about.com/library/weekly/aa041903a.htm

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by KennethKu
What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?

"Minimal rules" is the best we will ever get here. It would of been more clear if I would of stated a pure BJJ fighter and a pure Thai fighter.

I wasn't stating that Thai fighters don't beat BJJ fighters. It was a response to what would happen if a Thai fighter fought a BJJ fighter.

Also I have a student who is a decent Thai fighter and has a lot of potential but I'm miles ahead of him just because thats all he knows (except what I'm teaching him), he needs to be more well rounded. Its to easy for me to take him where I want to be rather than where he would prefer to be.:asian:

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
Misconception.

There are no "complete" arts? What does complete mean? Does complete mean that you spend an equal amount of time on every possible subject/scenario possible? That won't work, you need to have emphasis on one thing or another depending on you. Cross-training is without a doubt useful for most people as most systems today won't give you the freedom of looking at things from a different point of view from that of the instructor's. It helps one be more adept and helps people in general. There are many naturally gifted people who can go up against people of all types (all types of strikers, grapplers, etc.) without a problem, and can stick to what they do no matter what the opponent does, even if it's unexpected. Unfortunately, most people are not like that, that's why cross-training is useful.

And Bruce Lee never created a style. JKD was never meant for it to be a style, he never wished he had a name for it but a name was needed to get his philosophies across better. Bruce Lee was more of a revolutionary on TRAINING, not on creating new arts. And the flaw with the argument is that not only do you have to look at striking at a striker's point of view, but you have to look at striking at an outside striker's point of view, an inside striker's point of view, a puncher, a kicker, a pressure grappler, a power grappler, an outside grappler, a setup/tie grappler, a person who likes to throw or choke or lock, etc. in order to form "new counters" to every possible situation and then trying what you like best. There's simply not enough time to learn what you must and practice enough to be proficient in every possible counter to every possible attack.

Bruce Lee never combined the best of the best, you're mistaking that with "keep what is good, throw what is useless" quote. And realize, that his quote is RELATIVE, it is not a standard. Something that is useful to me may not be useless to you.

Yes I think that our primary arts are the ones that we spend the most time with early on. Not the sytle the method such as stand up vs. ground. I will always be a better stand up fighter and the ground grappling is an enhancement but at the same time I recognize how important ground grappling is. You can't expect to get out of a life or death situation in areas that you only spend minimal time in.

Early on Bruce did in fact create a martial art (Jun Fan Gung-Fu) as he had intended. But as he "evolved" he changed his mind about his art, his teaching methods and ultimately what he was teaching.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
You realize that Royce Gracie only fights under his own rules?

I never knew arts could fight each other too.

Akja, you are trying to argue an uphill climb. I can say that judo can defeat BJJ because a practitioner of judo managed to beat Helio, but that won't work.

What exactly is a "pure" art? My TKD is different from karatekid's TKD, my wrestling is different from everyone else's. I box differently, I do everything different, and yet, what's pure? I'm one of the only people who wrestle like I do. I have a Russian stance most of the time and sometimes switch to a Korean or a Mongolian stance. My setups are different, I like to juke, I like to tap and play with people's heads. There are people who use similiar strategies, but only I wrestle like I do. Yet, it's pure wrestling. If a wrestler watched me wrestle, he would say I trained in wrestling. It's just that tactically, technically, and physically, I wrestle differently from everyone else.

Not only are there too many variables, it is impossible to pit people against each other like that.

Here's a good read for you: http://martialarts.about.com/library/weekly/aa041903a.htm

I wasn't stating that BJJ rules and beats Thai. I was answering to a what if a BJJ fighter fought a Thai fighter.

No art is the best all we have is what is best for us as individual martial artists.:asian:

[mtabone]

No Martial Art forms have ever fought each other, only people have. Nor, can any Martial Arts fight any other Martial Arts. But people can fight people. Just wanted to quickly point that out.

[A.R.K.]

Yiliquan 1,


And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.

Not a poke at Yiliquan, but how is Yili NOT included in your above statement? I believe it is only 20 years old give or take from what I've gathered here from you and others. And that it is a combination of disciplines before it. Well, it would have to be.


Mtabone,



No Martial Art forms have ever fought each other, only people have. Nor, can any Martial Arts fight any other Martial Arts. But people can fight people. Just wanted to quickly point that out.

Very insightful and true. It would come down to 'any given day'. It is the person, not the discipline that dertimines the outcome. That is why many people with real world experience, but no official training or 'rank', can beat the snot out of someone in the martial arts that has no experience beyond the dojo.

In general,

I trained in Chin Na for example and have used it on duty in perhaps 90% of the altercations I've been in. But there are times I've had to use hard blocking/striking methods i.e. typical karate type methods. I choose to blend, incorporate etc several things together into a logical order for LEO professionals. And thus far it is working wonderfully.

As for ego's and high ranks etc, yes I'm sure that is the motive for some. But it would be wrong to stereotype everyone. Every discipline studied here on this board is NOT the orginal. Every discipline studied here is a blend of somthing before it. If not for these leaders before you the world of combative techniques would not be where it is today. And although there is some bad, and no universal standards it is still much more refined and open to the general public than ever before. And since the root purpose of the martial arts is to keep yourself and loved ones safe, it is a wonderful thing to have such diverse options.

:asian:

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by soccer50
i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

Soccer,
I hope you don't take my comments personal. Sometimes I could use a better choice of words.

I just don't agree with your comments, nothing more.

We all disagree at times and thats what its about, discussion.
:asian:

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
Yiliquan 1,

Not a poke at Yiliquan, but how is Yili NOT included in your above statement? I believe it is only 20 years old give or take from what I've gathered here from you and others. And that it is a combination of disciplines before it. Well, it would have to be.

Show me where I ever said Yiliquan was perfect. Show me where I ever said it was 100% complete.

I will go on the record and say that as arts go, I believe it is one of the most complete arts being taught.

We have empty hand combat (strikes, kicks), grappling (throws, joint locks, ground fighting - though not of BJJ type nor intensity of training since it is not compatible with the doctrine of Yiliquan and dealing with multiple opponents at one time), ancient weapons use (staff, broadsword, spear, straight sword, two-handed sword, short stick, double sticks, double daggers, elkhorns, tiger fork and kwan-dao just to name a few), modern weapons use (for those who are interested, there are more than a few of us who are well educated on the use of firearms, and Yilisifu has done a fair bit of training with firearms instructors (I think) ), weapons defenses (against generic categories of non-firearm weapons, as well as specific defenses against firearms), meditation (qigong and chan meditation), health and healing (TCM and other forms of traditional medicine are studied at later points), etc.

As it goes, we have quite a bit in our curriculum to work with. Much more than most schools I have seen, visited or trained in.

And yes, Yiliquan is only 21 years old, however it really isn't a "new" system like some of the ones folks try to pass off as their own personal, new and improved creations. Just a reorganization of the presentation of material that has been around for a very, very long time. If you want to really calculate the age of all the info that has been passed down, there were about 12 - 14 generations of folks to go through last time I looked...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
I trained in Chin Na for example and have used it on duty in perhaps 90% of the altercations I've been in.

Ah geeeeez!

Why do you have to go and invite trouble like that? Could you not find a way to make a point without sounding like you are bragging and we know that when asked you will unable to provide proof to us. So you are just inviting some folks to come in and argue with you.

Aside from the trouble these boards may see with people calling for you to back up your claims and you ending up sanrling back and forth with them, there is the trouble of a potential LEO thinking about taking Chi Na based on what you say. You have the responsibility to back up what you say in such cases and you refuse to.

So can't you just try to make yout points without relying on experiences that you are not able or willing to prove in an open forum? Things would go a lot smoother if you did.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Don Roley
Ah geeeeez!

Why do you have to go and invite trouble like that? Could you not find a way to make a point without sounding like you are bragging and we know that when asked you will unable to provide proof to us. So you are just inviting some folks to come in and argue with you.

Aside from the trouble these boards may see with people calling for you to back up your claims and you ending up sanrling back and forth with them, there is the trouble of a potential LEO thinking about taking Chi Na based on what you say. You have the responsibility to back up what you say in such cases and you refuse to.

So can't you just try to make yout points without relying on experiences that you are not able or willing to prove in an open forum? Things would go a lot smoother if you did.

I don't recall you proving anything either. Because you can't. But because "he can't", you want to regulate how he expresses his thought process.:D

[A.R.K.]

Don,

When have I not backed up my LEO experiences? I've repeatedly stated that any may contact me privately for phone #'s to my supervisors for verification. I've stated all may contact FDLE or SEPSI as well. Proof offered, you've just not acted on it.

:asian:

[chufeng]

Yiliquan is only 21 years old, however it really isn't a "new" system like some of the ones folks try to pass off as their own personal, new and improved creations. Just a reorganization of the presentation of material that has been around for a very, very long time.

The system of YiLi is derived from Paixingquan...a 400+ y/o system that was used by underground societies to overthrow the Ching Dynasty...
Paixingquan IS a blend of Shaolinquan, Xingyiquan, and Baguachang...
Yiliquan still teaches the two traditional Xingyiquan forms from the Xanshi school...Lien Wan Wu Xing and Xi Erh Xing Quan.
Yiliquan teaches ChangChao-dong's Bagua and LungXing Bagua.
Several of the traditional Shaolinquan forms have been retained.
The 24 step simplified TaiJiQuan and the combined (5-family style) of TaiJiQuan have been added...
Additionally, the eight-shape forms were added and are a synthesis of the teachings of the other styles...the shape forms teach strategy and entry...how to neutralize and close with the bad-guy...
The method of instruction is more in line with Japanese style instruction...warm-up, drill, forms practice, one-step and three-step sparring...class typically includes a short lecture on how and why a movement is performed in a particular way...class also includes a section on "where in the form is this technique?" or "What do you see in this movement?" It's not all spoon-fed...the students have to think and look for applications beyond the obvious...Oh, and there is the obligatory beating for Yiliquan1
;)

In addition to any typical class, there is some other aspect that we work on...sometimes chin na, sometimes chokes, sometimes defense against weapons, etc.

So, yes it's new...but it's not so new.

:asian:
chufeng

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by akja
I don't recall you proving anything either. Because you can't. But because "he can't", you want to regulate how he expresses his thought process.:D

For your information, Don Roley didn't make any claim.

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
I've repeatedly stated that any may contact me privately for phone #'s to my supervisors for verification.

You see, that is the problem. You would have to trust your word that you were giving out real numbers and not just the numbers of friends and/or students. If you could give the numbers in a public forum, or some sort of official web page and contact info, then the problems would go away. Unfortunatly, you have always refused to do this in the past and it comes down to a matter of trusting your word.

AFAIK, violent actions in a detention facility involving officers are written up in detailed reports. These reports are part of the public record. You should be able to give the case numbers and dates of some of these, but do not seem to be able to. And then the problem of trust somes in.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by KennethKu
For your information, Don Roley didn't make any claim.

I stated that he could not prove any claims, whether he made claims or did not, it did not matter. There is no way to prove claims.

I guess my point is more like: Well whose asking?

When someone directs statements to me, I check their profile before I respond. I try to give the repect that someone has earned. If the profile is blank, they are saying they wish to give opinions without us knowing where they are coming from. Then it takes time to figure them out. In the mean time, I'm opening a can of worms.:D

As far as backing up the claims. Anybody in here at anytime can lie. How do we know that the people we are talking to are telling the truth?

The little issues of worrying about this and that is a waste of time.:asian:

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by akja
I stated that he could not prove any claims, whether he made claims or did not, it did not matter. There is no way to prove claims.

Actually, a while back I did prove my claim of fluency in the Japanese language. I did it in such a way as anyone could check it for themselves through a local Japanese consulate rather than have to trust me.

But in most cases, I prefer to give reference to things outside of my own experience and are part of the public record. I may have the exact same experience, but if it is in a book or something of that nature it is a lot easier for others to check for themselves. And it does not sound like I am trying to impress others with how experienced I am.

And I avoid all of the trouble that we have seen between ARK and those that have been demanding proof. It would be nice to do without the screaming for a while. But in this case, a police officer may choose an art based on what ARK says he has experienced. So to let it slide without asking for proof may cause injury to potential LEOs in the future. And thus the trouble may begin.

Again, if we do not wish to prove anything, we should not make claims that we will have to prove when asked. Things would be a lot more calm around here if we all just tried to avoid basing things on experiences we can not or will not then back up in an equally public manner.

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by akja
...There is no way to prove claims....

Wrong. Just because you do not know how to, does not mean it cannot be done.


Originally posted by akja
.....As far as backing up the claims. Anybody in here at anytime can lie. How do we know that the people we are talking to are telling the truth?....

All of the above, have been addressed repeatedly many times already. If you wish to learn, then just do a search on old posts.

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by Don Roley

.....Again, if we do not wish to prove anything, we should not make claims that we will have to prove when asked. Things would be a lot more calm around here if we all just tried to avoid basing things on experiences we can not or will not then back up in an equally public manner....

This will also enhance the quality of the forum significantly.

[A.R.K.]

Yiliquan 1 & Chufeng,

Again please note that I am not questioning Yiliquan's value or it's place in the arts. Only that Yiliquan 1's statement...


And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.

...caught my eye. It would seem that every style/system/discipline be it ten years old or five hundred years old is a blend, incorporation, or mix of other arts either before it or contemporary with it. For example Chufeng, you gave an excellent description of Yiliquan past and present. Many thanks :asian: And I noticed this as well...


The system of YiLi is derived from Paixingquan

Which is perfectly acceptable.


Paixingquan IS a blend of Shaolinquan, Xingyiquan, and Baguachang...

And blending is perfectly acceptable as well. In fact all disciplines currently taught are a blend of something[s].


Several of the traditional Shaolinquan forms have been retained.

The 24 step simplified TaiJiQuan and the combined (5-family style) of TaiJiQuan have been added...

Additionally, the eight-shape forms were added and are a synthesis of the teachings of the other styles

Things retained, combined, added, and borrowed from other systems.


The method of instruction is more in line with Japanese style instruction...

Sounds like a very well rounded discipline :asian: I just wanted to make point that most/all new disciplines are the same/similar in that they were derived from disciplines before it. And that is a good thing as it gives options to the practitioner.

Well done in my opinion :)

Don,


You see, that is the problem. You would have to trust your word that you were giving out real numbers and not just the numbers of friends and/or students.

I'm just not sure if your attempting to cast some illusion of denial or if you honestly aren't the brightest light in the harbour :rofl:

You see my friend, I work as an officer for a real Sheriff's office. Although policy prohibits me from listing agency numbers on the internet in an open forum I have time and again invited anyone interested to contact me privately. The number[s] that I give them as well as the name of the agency are easily verifiable by the internet or by 411 on your telephone. And since they are real numbers to a real agency then you can rest assured that any supervisor that answers is indeed a real supervisor. Unless you see this as some vast conspiracy put in place just to fool you :rolleyes:

How many times must I say contact me? I'll give you my work number and the times that I'm there so we can speak personally. I'll be more than happy to give you the names of the supervisors that I have worked under, the Cpls & Sgts in the training section I work with or the Academy where I am an Instructor.

I've done everything short of dial the phone for you Don.

And I'm not sure why you would have a problem with me stating that 90% of the uses of force I've had I've used Chin Na techniques :confused: Chin Na means simply to 'seize and control' and that is what we do on duty. We try our best not to cause any injury if possible. Chin Na techniques work extremely well in the LEO/Correctional environment. No a boast or bragg, simply fact.

And, you still haven't answered my question about the Pangainoon off shoot comment. You said you couldn't find any comment that I had made on it and I provided it to you, Dated around 3 months ago. You said you would need that to be convinced . So since I provided what you asked for..are you convinced?

:asian:

[A.R.K.]

Kenneth Ku,

AKJA posted..


There is no way to prove claims....

And you posted...


Wrong. Just because you do not know how to, does not mean it cannot be done.

But didn't post how this might be done. Could you enlighten us please. Perhaps you have thought of something we have not. Would appreciate your valued input.

:asian:

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
You see my friend, I work as an officer for a real Sheriff's office. Although policy prohibits me from listing agency numbers on the internet in an open forum I have time and again invited anyone interested to contact me privately. The number[s] that I give them as well as the name of the agency are easily verifiable by the internet or by 411 on your telephone.

So things can be confirmed on the internet after you give them to me, but you can not just give me the information or post them where everyone can see them?

And let us face it, there is enough out there on these forums to make anyone suspect you. Because of past experiences, you are actually under more suspicion by many than the typical poster. But you can avoid it by just not making statements that are based on experiences that can not or will not be proven in an equally open fashion.


Originally posted by A.R.K.
And I'm not sure why you would have a problem with me stating that 90% of the uses of force I've had I've used Chin Na techniques :confused: Chin Na means simply to 'seize and control' and that is what we do on duty.

Chin Na is the name of a system of techniques from China used to seize and control that emphisizes joint locks and manipulations. It is not a generic term such as grappling. Again, you use terms that you do not seem to be fully aware of the full meaning of. This can be a cause for problems when someone sees the term Chin Na and thinks that you are talking about the Chinese system.

[fringe_dweller]

This thread was looking interesting for a while..... can we stop it from degenerating into a "yes i am, no you're not" thread like so many others have before?

Respectfully,

[A.R.K.]

So things can be confirmed on the internet after you give them to me, but you can not just give me the information or post them where everyone can see them?

I just don't understand why your having difficulty with this this Don. Policy prohibits me from listig agency numbers in an open forum. Do you understand what prohibits means? It means that they will not permit you to do it. Do you understand what an open forum is? Your on one now :D

If you would like to speak with me personally then I can arrange this. I can give you the numbers you claim to seek. If you need further verification that they are indeed the correct numbers you may check with the agencies website or dial 411. Its pretty simple Don. :shrug:


And let us face it, there is enough out there on these forums to make anyone suspect you.

Uh no, only those that subscribe to believing unsubstantiated inuendos based entirely on fictitious post content. No one has proven anything here on anybody. No one has even come close. However, please feel free to post ALL the reasons you suspect me. I would VERY much like to see them.


Chin Na is the name of a system of techniques from China used to seize and control that emphisizes joint locks and manipulations. It is not a generic term such as grappling. Again, you use terms that you do not seem to be fully aware of the full meaning of. This can be a cause for problems when someone sees the term Chin Na and thinks that you are talking about the Chinese system.

Chin Na is a Chinese system the techniques of which can be found under various names in most every discipline in the world. I am fully aware of the terms and their meaning as related by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming one of the foremost experts in Chin Na in the world. In addition to years of training in Chin Na I have many of his excellent works on the subject. To seize and control is his translation of Chin Na which is why I posted thus. Since he is one of the world's foremost experts, and Chinese perhaps you should inform him that he is not fully aware of it's meaning :rolleyes:

I see you once again skipped over the Pangainoon comment question. Any reason for this?

:asian:

[A.R.K.]

Fringe dweller,

It would be wonderful if a few folks would discontinue making unsubstantiated statements or trying to color public opinion with debator's tricks and tactics. We shall see....

:asian:

[arnisador]

This thread is now locked because it once again is an argument over an individual's credentials.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-