Mythological Kung Fu

0

Mythological Kung Fu
Original Poster: WushuPadawan001
Forum: Kung Fu Styles, Chinese Martial Arts
Posted On: 21-03-2006, 17:07

Orginal Post: WushuPadawan001: Curious: the subject of ?mythological? Kung Fu techniques, if you will, has come up from time to time on this forum. Red sand palm, dragon and eagle claw kung (the ability to grab an opponent at a pressure point instantly immobilizing the appendage and or the person), hing kung (popularized by a young David Carradine walking on rice paper), heavy leg, iron body (forearm, fist, torso, head, legs, crotch), jade belt, sandbag kung, dim mak and so on.

Many dispute these skills as fraudulent. However, I have been privileged enough to witness more evidence supporting said techniques than disputing them. True many of these ?feats? are of the see it to believe it nature, but what evidence is there in regards to the impossibility (not improbability) or these techniques.

Post: zefff:

So are you making a claim yet asking others to provide proof?..Im sorry, I didnt see a question mark. By that logic I can shit out 24 carat gold nuggets. I really can!

Can you perform Red sand palm etc? If so great, you dont need anyone elses approval just keep on with it if you know it works.

TBH though you could have answered and continued in the other thread. I dont know why I bother posting here lately…everyone disregards me, :( I try to be polite, open minded and unbiased but you cant take the piss out of peoples intelligence, even if you are right.

peace>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

Wushu, have you or anyone YOU KNOW, ever used these techniques in a real fight? Have you been an eye witness to that?

A while ago I wrote a thread titled “Get your head out of the ring”, but it’s also good to get your head out of the dojo/kwoon aswell. Things work differently if someone is not punching you like this. *DAMMIT I CAN’T SHOW YOU*>

Post: Gazelle:

You could send a video?

And Zefff, no one is disregarding you, i don’t think. If you feel that this is so, maybe you are just making points that no one can argue with.>

Post: Sparky-bjj:

Quote:
Curious: the subject of ?mythological? Kung Fu techniques, if you will, has come up from time to time on this forum. Red sand palm, dragon and eagle claw kung (the ability to grab an opponent at a pressure point instantly immobilizing the appendage and or the person), hing kung (popularized by a young David Carradine walking on rice paper), heavy leg, iron body (forearm, fist, torso, head, legs, crotch), jade belt, sandbag kung, dim mak and so on.

Many dispute these skills as fraudulent. However, I have been privileged enough to witness more evidence supporting said techniques than disputing them. True many of these ?feats? are of the see it to believe it nature, but what evidence is there in regards to the impossibility (not improbability) or these techniques.

If these techniques actually work. How come no mma fighters train in them? As it would be easy to end the match if you can perform the techniques you mention.>

Post: WushuPadawan001:

As Sparky-bjj has respectfully and logically responded to this post I will reply to his point: Many of said techniques take years (usually a decade) to master. Time is what keeps them out of MMA. Use of said techniques in MMA tournaments would also be seen as an abuse of power.

edit: Looking over this thread and others I see that this is a topic which causes nothing but intellectual nonsense and flaming. I apologize for bringing it up again. In the future I will be sure to keep Dim Mak references to myself as no one appears to be interested in my opinion regarding them.>

Post: zefff:

Can you perform the techniques? If not maybe that would be a good indicator of why no-one is interested in your opinion. How do you know it takes a decade to master something? How do you know I cant really shit nuggets? Okay, what if I said Ive seen people shit nuggets? … do you see?

Im not saying certain things are impossible, Im saying you should stick to posting about what you actually know. Post back when youve actually learnt a Dim Mak technique thats revolutionised your practice.

peace>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

Point-by-point…

Sparky-bjj: If you really use MMA as a basis for comparison of all arts and techniques, you’re a dumbass. Since you like competitive fighting so much, I want you to find a clip of Duane Ludwig fighting anyone in the UFC. I recently saw him one-punch a dude flat the fuck the out. MMA fighting is not the trump card, in fact a strict Muay Thai fighter can out strike an MMA fighter who trains in Muay Thai, as proven by the Duane Ludwig example. If you spend all of your time practicing one set of techniques, then those skills will be exponentially better than the skills used by a jack-of-all-trades MMA fighter. When Wushu or other kung fu people train Iron Body, Red Sand Palm, etc. they are specializing their skills to a certain method of fighting, in the same way that an MMA fighter avoids specialization to remain as versatile as possible in the ring. MMA fighters will never train in these methods because it makes you linear, predictable, etc. and then future opponents will be able to defeat you, like the Gracie family monopoly post-Sakuraba. Using, say, Dim Mak might win you a fight or two in the UFC but it isn’t practical for a career fighter’s long time record. On the other hand, a non-professional fighter who cannot be scouted and doesn’t have to worry about being figured out can use any specialized set of skills he or she desires. The ring is not the rest of world. Stop being stupid.

Zefff: People don’t disregard you. Skepticism, however, does not engender a lot of affection from those you utilize it against. When you tell a person how they are wrong in whatever they are doing, they will look at you blankly, or maybe apologize for their transgression, and then demand that their point be addressed anyway.

Panta: Some things, like Iron Body, work just fine outside of the kwoon. All you have to do is use your head and all of your tools become available to you regardless of situation.

Wushu: Belief in a certain esoteric technique is one thing, application is another. For instance, Dim Mak is primarily about target selection and aims at specific organs, neurological plexi, and major blood vessels. It’s all fine and dandy to memorize where to strike, but without training under the stress of combat so one can strike accurately enough to use these points one will flail miserably at an assailant, poking away wondering why miracle techniques failed. The only part of Bruce Lee’s teachings I will ever support is his emphasis on active resistance in training. You need that for everything to be worthwhile. Including the “mythological” techniques.>

Post: Gazelle:

Tease T. Tickle, i have only one word that comes to mind for that post…bravo!>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

Des not to pick solely on Iron Body/jacke/vest, but TMK that technique takes quite some time to prepare yourself/body b4 a fight. So in the street you would basically have to tell your attacker, comeback and attack me in 30 mins please. It’s like that Juko Kai BS.

Wushu, after reading this thread, I didn’t see anyone flaming you, however they bring up very valid points. Just because you find it difficult to answer the questions posed to you, does’t mean you should whine and bitch. You started this post by making a claim, and when challenged you are not able to support your claim.>

Post: zefff:

[quote=Tease T Tickle 
Zefff: People don’t disregard you. Skepticism, however, does not engender a lot of affection from those you utilize it against. When you tell a person how they are wrong in whatever they are doing, they will look at you blankly, or maybe apologize for their transgression, and then demand that their point be addressed anyway.[/quote 

My freind, tell me some shit I dont already know. :roll:>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

Zefff: If you already knew that, then why do you worry about people disregarding you?>

Post: Hengest:

[quote=WushuPadawan001 Looking over this thread and others I see that this is a topic which causes nothing but intellectual nonsense and flaming. I apologize for bringing it up again. In the future I will be sure to keep Dim Mak references to myself as no one appears to be interested in my opinion regarding them.[/quote 

So expressing doubts about abilities for which there is little, if any, empirical evidence for re combative worth is “intellectual nonsense”?

You’re not a creationist too are you?>

Post: zefff:

[quote=Tease T Tickle Zefff: If you already knew that, then why do you worry about people disregarding you?[/quote 

Because I need everyone to see my little light shine. :P Good question though ;)>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=Hengest So expressing doubts about abilities for which there is little, if any, empirical evidence for re combative worth is “intellectual nonsense”?

You’re not a creationist too are you?[/quote 

Empiricism – The view that knowledge only comes from experience.
If one assumes that empiricism is true, then one is claiming that all one knows to be true comes from experience. However, empiricism is an abstract idea and has no phenomenological existence and therefore cannot be experienced. Hence, if one assumes empiricism is true one can never know that empiricism is true.

Science and faith are the same thing, and if one is intellectual nonsense (not a bad claim to make) then so is the other.

Anywho, Panta, I remembered that I forgot to address your point about Iron Shirt. From what I recall of demonstrations of Iron Body techniques, it was less Juko Kai, chi-channelling crap and more conditioning through repeated contact with progressively stronger materials, like spearhanding a pot of sand and using dit da jow. The application of the technique is not to stand there and charge up, but is to use the body’s natural armor to accept punishment instead of internal organs taking it full force. If perfecting the body’s natural armor means getting the shit smacked out of you with paddles for years on end, then so be it. It’s the individual’s choice how to train and how to fight, not some transcendental notion of what is martially correct.>

Post: Hengest:

Quote:
Empiricism – The view that knowledge only comes from experience.
If one assumes that empiricism is true, then one is claiming that all one knows to be true comes from experience. However, empiricism is an abstract idea and has no phenomenological existence and therefore cannot be experienced. Hence, if one assumes empiricism is true one can never know that empiricism is true.

Science and faith are the same thing, and if one is intellectual nonsense (not a bad claim to make) then so is the other.

empirical – adj. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (Oxford English Dictionary)

My use of the adjective was perfectly suitable for this discussion Des. Don’t try and turn this thread into another bout o’ that philosophizin’ crap! :wink:>

Post: Gazelle:

Science might well be intellectual nonsense, but blimey is it good intellectual nonsense!

It works as if to find a common ground for how the universe is. Maybe that isn’t the way to go, and i’m starting to think that maybe it isn’t, maybe we should just leave it up to the individual to work out how things are for them, because the universe is different shades of grey (with the odd flurescent streek), the different shades being the differences in how different people see it all. Does peoples different perseptions mean that there are millions of different universes rolled into one, maybe it’s like we’re all reading different parts of the same page out of the same book? I had another one to put down, but one of the lads intervened it in the common room by proposing to me (joke of course, he’s always doing stuff like that). That could of been something really good to! Never mind, i will continue with its absense anyhow. Empirically speaking we are all in different versions of the same universe, because we each experience different things, a different segment of reality (whatever that is). Darn it, i’m going to have to cut that one short. I’ve got to go to physics, i guess i was just thinking out loud, why the heck can’t i think out like this when there is nothing to interupt me? I guess that would just be too convenient. I guess i have so many thoughts in a mess that i’m trying to pull them altogether to make them somewhat coherent and logical, and…really got to go now.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

Hengest: Yes, your use of the word was suitable in that it made linguistic sense. I was, however, arguing against the implicit claim within your post that anything which is empirically verified is superior to things which are not empirically verified based on the fact that empiricism itself cannot be verified empirically. I never questioned the suitability of your claim, just the veracity of it.

Gazelle: You might like some of the pragmatic thinkers, like William James. It sort of allows the skeptic to go ahead and say that beliefs are meaningless, but goes on to say that we should adopt the beliefs which are most beneficial to us. Now, that might seem to back up science as good because we get medicines and such from science, but get this: we’ve had medicines for millennia without scientific investigations and other scientific truths, like gravity, aren’t actually all that useful to our daily lives. Like I need to know that the mass of the earth is pulling me towards its center by bending the fabric of spacetime.>

Post: Hengest:

[quote=Tease T Tickle Hengest: Yes, your use of the word was suitable in that it made linguistic sense. I was, however, arguing against the implicit claim within your post that anything which is empirically verified is superior to things which are not empirically verified based on the fact that empiricism itself cannot be verified empirically. I never questioned the suitability of your claim, just the veracity of it.[/quote 

Oh well that’s OK then.

But just because empiricism can’t be proven empirically, doesn’t mean ass-whooping skills can’t. :D>

Post: Gazelle:

I’m not making any conclusive statements on sciences value (i don’t believe i did anyway), i think i just stated that it is really very fun and interesting, whether it is true or not. If you think about it (you probably already have, but there we go), even if it is not true, or does not apply to the universe, it has got to be one of the biggest mathematical, abstract buundles of integrated, and not so integrated rubbish that you have ever seen, and it is absolutely stunning feat in that respect. If it is so, then i think the only way we are going to get out of its netting is by separating ourselves from such things, and taking a look at what we ourselves believe. If phenomena has no essential reality, implying that all phenomena is somewhat in our own heads (or muddled by our own interpretation), then the universe would essentially be unique for each of us, thus implying that we need to find our own individual understanding of it, and way of living in it, unless we can somehow get passed that (it might be that we have to do the former to get passed it), then that would be approaching the real, basic principle of ‘science’ – unbiased observation.>

Post: bamboo:

Lets make it easy Wushu,

Explain the combat applications of these:

Heres the thing wushu. I know like any other martial art, here is good and bad in kung fu. I simply believe that the mythological stuff= the bad.>

Post: WushuPadawan001:

Ok, I like a challenge *cracks knuckles*

1st Picture: Man in grey pants is holding a cat/empty stance. Right hand is a high block easily turned to a pluck. The pluck pulls the man in black pants into a low kick, a toe-kick to the groin for instance. The left hand covers the opening (arm pit) made by a high block. Still following the pluck scenario, it (the left hand) could be turned into a strike at the same time the pluck occurs or after. There are another three obvious applications for the man in grey pants alone.

2nd Picture: Essentially the same as the first. Only major difference is that the man in shorts is in what appears to be a high 60/40 stance. Another application: Man in pants covers down with the left (extended hand) and shoots with the right to the head. Again, there are multiple applications for this scenario.

3rd Picture: First, this kick is shown poorly executed. The man appears to be doing a straight leg kick, but takes his heel off the floor showing bad form and rooting. That said, this kick (when done properly) trains flexibility, rooting, power, speed, and has multiple applications: mostly as a low kick. For instance, take the scenario from the second picture. The man in black could lift the attacker?s extended arm exposing it for a straight leg kick (from the man in pants right leg) to the armpit.

In Kung Fu every movement has meaning, application.

Mythological stuff = bad. Well, I disagree, but that?s cool. Hell if we agreed on everything this forum would be pretty boring.>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

[quote=WushuPadawan001 Hell if we agreed on everything this forum would be pretty boring.[/quote 

I’m really getting sick of this cop-out statement.>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

In the first picture, the dude in the grey pants shouldn’t be opening up his opponent. Instead should be closing him off. If he’s was facing a stronger opponent or someone who actually knows what’s going on. His deflection/parry would be overcome easily. He also should not be looking to block/parry from a cat stance. Instead looking to keep his opponent at a comfortable distance from him. This is just the jist of the things wrong with that pic…in a combative sence. I hate to type so I’ll just leave the critique at that. Also i hate the cat stance, I used to like it, but now all I see it an unstable stance, where I would love to exploit and take him down. Oh and that parry the dude in the grey is using, is really dumb because if someone has good knowlede in Shaolin, he would have at least a basic understanding in Chin Na. Thus the dude in the grey will loose his wrist. Okay I’m done so for now on the first one.

The second pic, make a little more sence. The dude in the shorts is closing off his attacker. However his stance doesn’t allow him for many effective counter/attacks. His right leg should not have been his lead leg.

The last pic…..that is the dumbest kick, and not only because he has poor form. That kick says, “look my groin is open, kick it, kick it.” Not to mention the weakness and vounerability of the supporting leg. that dude is asking for a high impact slam to the ground.

rant over…..for now….dun dun dunnnnn.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

1) Anyone can take any picture of any art exponent and pick it apart because a) not every picture will explain the context in which that exponent thought that technique was proper, b) not every exponent is a master and c) picking apart ANYTHING is easy; just ask any skeptic. So, any claims against the people in Bamboo’s pictures are meaningless because they do not speak to the art or even the techniques when properly employed, which is the basis for our discussion here.

2) None of those pictures could demonstrate the disputed techniques or sets of techniques. For instance Iron Body refers to conditioning practices and Dim Mak refers to target selection, both of which would be impossible to demonstrate in a picture unless the picture was of a bat being broken over somebody’s limb or a closeup of the targeted pressure point. I’m not as familiar with the other “mythological” techniques, so I cannot explain whether or not they are demonstrable in photographs, but I’m willing to bet they are similar.

3) Panta may not like the disagreement-is-the-spice-of-life cop out, but I dislike even more the I-haven’t-seen-it-so-it-must-not-be-true cop out. Wushu is not a fraud, putting us on to benefit from our gullibility, nor is he the unfortunate student of a fraud (The pedigree of his instructors appear impeccable, in fact), therefore if he makes a claim about a style of art that most people on this forum only know from Hong Kong cinema then we should hear it out. If it becomes apparant that he’s speaking nonsense, then we should jump on him, but right now, we should hear him out.>

Post: lakan_sampu:

science and faith is the same? how come? (i’d just like to hear the explanation, nothing against it)>

Post: bamboo:

mwahahaha!

I’ve gotten good at trolling.

/bow>

Post: nbotary:

[quote=bamboo mwahahaha!

I’ve gotten good at trolling.

/bow[/quote Are you saying you want a new belt??? :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:>

Post: zefff:

Des,

This thread could have been about anything, any subject. Mythological techniques dont get me in a huff, its the pointlessness of making a claim and then asking us the reader to prove otherwise that I found ridiculous, not the claim itself but the transference of the burden.

This whole thread is a troll attempt and how can we hear W out when he is asking us to disprove his beliefs? I respect his practice as my me having feelings for his beliefs that dont affect me would be a ridiculous waste of my energy. I do not respect a thread that is not informative or entertaining but inflammatory but I will still listen to wisdom.

peace>

Post: WushuPadawan001:

Quote:
its the pointlessness of making a claim and then asking us the reader to prove otherwise that I found ridiculous, not the claim itself but the transference of the burden.

This whole thread is a troll attempt and how can we hear W out when he is asking us to disprove his beliefs?

My apologies. I have been unclear on this.

My reasoning for starting this thread was to better understand why someone believes ?mythological? techniques to be bad/useless/idealized or what have you.

I will try to be clearer in the future.>

Post: zefff:

No worries Wushu,

other people might have other takes on it but here is my response which follows this disclaimer – To me, a mythological technique is one where the exponent has no full knowledge and understanding of the technique and its application. So even an anti-rape or simple knife disarm technique could be ‘mythological’ to me, meaning its practicality is not based in any kind of science whatsoever.

Why are mythological techniques bad? Because they fill the student with a false sense of power that they cannot quantify. So they are bad if and when attempted by someone who doesnt understand them.

Why are mythological techniques useless? Because they are not understood fully by the exponent, how can they be harnessed and utilised effectively?…The answer is they cannot.

Why are mythological techniques idealised?…Ahhhh, because of the human ego.

This is what I think anyway. Thanks for your post. It was a good one that has made me think.

EDIT: I have been thinking and I guess it might be my own ego that has made me feel annoyed and want to chastise you for your own views. I should be sorry but I still feel that if you make a claim you must back it up. Especially if you want to sway opinion.

peace>

Post: Gazelle:

Yes, if someone makes a claim, they should be ready to back it up, or ate least, be willing to attempt to.

To me ‘mythological techniques’ are just that, mythological, and such i would not consider either iron body or Dim Mak as mythological techniques, because people are practicing them today, with effectiveness in the dojo at least. Outside the dojo, provided the person has a poper grasp of them, then, yes they can be useful as well, thus making them even less of a ‘mythological technique’ for how i understand the term. That’s my opinion.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=lakan_sampu science and faith is the same? how come? (i’d just like to hear the explanation, nothing against it)[/quote 

A few different reasons. Mostly because very few people who like to claim science as backing up their claims are actually scientists. It’s one thing to be a full-fledged experimental empiricist and present data from your own observations to make a claim, it’s something entirely else to read something from some magazine, newspaper or worse yet a website and then claim that you “know” something. Unless you’re doing the experiments yourself, all you know is what you’re told and there are some important epistemic faults in that situation: 1) the reporter may be lying, 2) the reporter may be mistaken, 3) the communication may not be clearly transmitted and 4) the reader may be too ignorant of the subject matter to truly understand what’s being said. For instance, we’re talking here about the usefulness of certain martial techniques, but none of us have ever seen them implemented in real-world situations – which means we can’t make any claims about their effectiveness, positive or negative.

The other reason is because epistemically, empiricism itself is a worthless method of knowing reality. I went over my typical reason for claiming such in my post to Hengest, but I’ll go over it with a little more depth. When examining epistemic theories that have been proposed over the years, numerous skeptical and rational theories have been produced with varying strength and acceptance, however each and every exponent of empiricism at one point or another says, “I know that there is an external reality because to claim that there isn’t is nonsense,” or something very similar and then no premises to support that conclusion are given. Furthermore, using skeptical tests for verifying how certain epistemic theories can hold weight one will find that empiricists almost always claim that their fundamental assertions are grounded in unassailable, clearly obvious facts like the existence of the external world, the physical nature of that world, etc. Unfortunately, nothing is clearly obvious or unassailable, so while it may be a fact that there is an external world, empiricists are assuming it’s true because they refuse to consider the possibility of it’s falsity. This is typically referred to as “dogmatic” thinking and taking a claim on “bad faith.”

I equate contemporary, Western culture’s view of science in much the same way I view Dark Ages Europe’s view of Christianity. Everything that we can know about the world, everything we do know about the world, and every question we still have left to ask about the world is given to us either by men in priestly vestments or lab coats. In the past century, we have seen a dramatic departure from the view of doctors, the view of scientists and the way in which one should live their life, and it’s all because of the impact of the Logical Positivists and like-minded empiricists who basically made noise until people let them become popular. Doctors were once looked down upon as being deviants because public thought asked, “Who would want to play around in other people’s organs?” Scientists went from being eccentric hermits who did nothing important to being unfathomable prime movers that no one in the public sphere could understand. People went from attributing real-life phenomena like crime to a choice on the part of the criminal to saying there’s genetic predictors and the social environment plays a huge part of forging the criminal mindset. People, in essence, went from living life to being dull-witted and it’s all because they bought into faulty epistemology.>

Post: Bloodybirds:

My brother NB told me about this thread but I have been realistically training the last few days, doing yard work, being with the wife….nothing mythological but very real. Now, to some comments made on this post. When I was in Hong Kong for two years, I saw: eagle claw locks that penetrated through the skin to bone very easily, a 87 year old grandmaster set a bone of a student, place herbs on it, wrap in gauze (a compound fracture), and a few days later there was no evidence of breakage or injury on an x ray or MRI. I saw a Shaolin master boil water in his hand while I stood no more than 2 feet away from him. That same master asked me to take a Rambo like serrated knife (carbonized steel), and at a demo for sick children in Dallas, ask me to stab him full force in the stomach. When I did so, the real blade broke in half, shattering to the ground. This same master took 75 pounds of weights and rammed it multiple time into his balls (they were NOT withdrawn, as some would say).

I have seen my White Crane/Long fist/tai chi master here in Houston do fa jing punching and blow out candles from 4-6 feet away or multiple candles with one strke (for those who have never practiced candle-punching, try it some time). I saw my Ying jow master, when he was younger, take hardened porcelain cups and crush them by his index finger and thumb, shattering the entire cup.

I have seen my Shaolin brother, with developed iron skin, take a fresh bamboo stalk from the ground in Louisiana, and wrap it around his forearm with the sharp edges and never be cut or penetrate the skin.

Unfortunately, since my undergrad and grad majors are business oriented, I cannot wax scientifically or psychologically like my esteemed colleague Tease. I know what I have seen. I have also seen dim mak done in a real fight in both Hong Kong and NYC, with the same deleterious affects. Luckily, in both cases my elders were versed in the reversal as well so the persons lived.

To the question about MMA or UFC, you may hate me for saying this, but by and large their fighting technique is street brawling at best. Sometime, go witness the real underground fighting in Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc. where you must declare your style of Kung fu, and fight it using its appropriate theories or apps. If you deign to not use it or use another sub style, you have dishonored your school and will be kicked out, if you live. The UFC is currently a bunch of really bad ground fighting that I would think those on this site who practice authentic grappling, jujitsu (Brazilian or Japanese), or kick boxing would cringe. Oh, for the days of Benny Urquidez, Greek Havanas, Dennis Alexio, etc. and other fighters who did not care.

If true internal ba qua, hsing i, taiji, or internal subsets of external styles were employed, MMA or UFC fights would be about 30 seconds long, not to mention the charges brought!!!

WuShu is a younger brother of mine and has studied under two very top masters, Master Jeff Bolt, the senior of Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, and the recently deceased Madame Wong Ju Rong (for those who know, the literal grandmother of Chinese martial arts and the daughter of Grandmaster Wong Xi Ping, probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, recognized treasures of true kung fu in the mainland China of the 20th century). While he is still young, I can attest to his burgeoning skills and absolute love of the art. He is only 18, and yet I find him alot more mature than some on this site.

In the past, some of you have criticized me and my opinions. I have accepted some, conceded points, and/or argued with supportive evidence my beliefs backed up by what I believe to be facts. In the end, that too is subjective depending on one’s relevance toward “factual” sources. But, I have always tried to keep criticisms about what one says rather than personal attacks on the commenter. We can still respect and still be disagreeable. I am sure that some of the things I have noted above may be met with skepticism by some or all on this thread, but everything I have stated, I have either seen or participated in. And yes, I have been through iron body, iron palm, and dim mak training under my Ying Jow master, and my Shaolin master. It was very painful, long term, and after all of this time I am still trying to learn the higher levels of all of it. But that is the fun, to learn it while learning the mental and physical responsibility and humility that go with it.

Sorry if I ran long, but I had to offer this less than “eloquent” rebuttal to some things said on this thread. God bless. Time to go put on the workout clothes, leave for the park, and go train…..>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

BB, here is the problem I have with these techniques. Don’t take this as an attack, but it lies in your post. These techniques are almost like Urban Legends. They always happened/witnessed to/by a friend of a friend. Wushu started out this thread and when asked if he had witnessed or experienced or done these techniques, he became defensive.
You have posted that you’ve have witnessed these things first hand. Still this is posted on a public forum, where I can’t even verify that you study Kung Fu. I can say that I have seen my Sifu break the middle brick of 3 bricks by using Cotton Palm, but I dont expect any of you to believe me. (I’ve never seen him do it btw). So, basically, I dont believe you or your claim.

I dont like UFC (that much) but your critiques on MMA artists are a little off. Some of the best ground games I’ve seen were from MMA artists like Nogueria, Rickson, and the like. In fact the worst Kung Fu i’ve seen were those artists stepping into an MMA ring. Then the excuse of, “if i had used my real techniques, you’d die and I dont want to kill you” comes out. You say in the underground circuits in Hong Kong you have to claim your style and only fight in that style. I find that to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard (well maybe not the most ridiculous). To me that is insulting Kung Fu. Kung Fu isn’t about styles, it’s about survival, adapting, LEARNING (even during combat.) Not only do I find it ridiculous but not realistic. I have to die because I proclaimed my style to be Wing Chun, but when I’m ground fighting with a Kuo Chuan practitioner I can’t use my BJJ? How is that real.

Many including myself have learned that MMA is far from street brawling. And believe me bro, that is not an easy lesson to learn.

No one has been able to provide proof, unquestionable proof, to shut up the ney sayers. These techniqes will continue to stay in the realm of myths and legend.

Remember I still concider myself a Kung Fu artist, y’all may not, but my kung fu may not be your kung fu.

once again I’m at work so my thoughts may be sperratic, and uncomplete but I think I got my point accross.>

Post: Gazelle:

Black Panta, you have made some good points, points that i agree with, certainly for the most part. But, i trust BlodyBirds word, i might be wrong in doing so, but i do. It may help that i do have some kind of related experience/contact in this sort of thing, though not neccesarily all related to martial arts that makes it easier to believe for me. I trully, honestly think that it is possible (of course, it’s possible that there’s a Tesco’s on the dark side of the moon, but there isn’t any evidence to support it, it was something along those lines that is stopping you from putting faith in it, yes?), that is to say it would not come as much of a surprise if i as walking down the street and i saw some of those things, and Bloodybirds has just help strengthen my believe. And, though i’m not quite sure that MMA is quite street brawling, it isn’t anything much deeper than fighting (well, i can only speak for kickboxing from experience, but i have gained a small impression that some of the other things in this kind of area are similar), conditioning your body and techniques to fight in a ring, although you could come back with ‘kung fu is also about conditioning the body’. The thing is, the kung fu conditioning does seem to go deeper, into spririt, sole than some of the MMA does (correct me if i’m wrong).

Now, for some of these, i can understand why you would turn the ‘mythological techniques’, that is the punching out candles from several feet away, and boiling water in the hand.>

Post: zefff:

MMA is a sport. Its not fighting and the more the sport develops, the less like actual fighting it becomes.

Comparing the sport of MMA with the concept of what Kung Fu is, is a waste of time IMHO.>

Post: Bloodybirds:

Black Panta, thank you for your comments. First, as to whether or not I study kung fu/tai chi: I would be more than happy to give you the email addresses or phone numbers of my teachers Leung Shum, Ricky Anderson, and Jeff Bolt plus my brother Joel Rodriguez in Atlanta or others who have trained with me over these many years. Also, NB, Wushu, Punchdrunk, and Stazzi are all junior classmates of mine currently with Sifu Jeff Bolt in Houston. As I have stated, Jeff is the senior of Dr. Yang Jwing Ming. At the beginning, when I joined, I was highly criticized for repeating my credentials, so I will not do that in this thread. I, too, am sure that you are probably a legit person because I have seen your comments on this forum and you always make cogent, well-thought comments that could not come from video or mag reading….lol. I have not seen your credentials stated on here since I have been on, but you are a moderator, so I guess that supplies you with at least a modicum of legitamacy. On this forum, I have found out very quickly that people are rather quickly revealed as charltans by others in not-so-subtle ways.

Now, to your other comments you have made. There are of course documented instances of the candle punching, in both film and still, that show these techniques. To your anticipated objection, that it could be edited, I agree. But, then, I was there. To your comment about your Sifu, and the Cotton Palm, Sigung Leung Shum is a high-level practitioner of Cotton Palm and, though I am not any good at it, I have seen him do things with it during Chinese New Year celebrations in NYC in the 1980s. Again, it is a matter of whether, as Americans, we always demand empirical or scientific evidence. As a matter of fact, in other parts of this forum there has been debate about the existence of chi, since it is not “seen.” However, in most of his books, Dr. Yang Jwing Ming will relate chi to bioelectric impulses that occur during training emitting as fa jing, silk reeling, etc. By the way, he has a doctorate in physics and a masters in Engineering from Purdue, so that is verifiable. He also relates everything in martial arts expression of chi to Ohm’s Law….I am a financial analyst, so I really never understood this…lol. Does this mean it does not exist and is not measurable? Several experiments have been conducted with mixed results.

As far as your comments about the contests in Hong Kong, with all due respect your reaction is typically Western in nature. If you combine the fanatacism of football, baseball, and basketball into one item, martial arts, you will understand each Asian country’s feelings toward their martial art. As a result, to the competitors, schools, and witnesses who see these contests, it is a very serious matter to represent the schools’ style and theories to the rest of the world. In fact, Panta, in my opinion the fact that there is not that push here results, in some measure, to seeing very mediocre fighting skills and quasi-kickboxing type fighting in the current Chinese martial arts tournament scene. Even the Sanshou has evolved to that with some decent throws implemented (see Cung Le).

I agree with you that such claims as non-touch techniques, chi explosions, breaking boards, etc. are cute parlor tricks that should be dismissed. I will also say that, up until say 50-100 years ago, the real training that most martial artists in Asia undertook to survive resulted in some incredible physical results that cannot be duplicated in the soft, politically correct, pampered societies of today. Then, it was for survival. Today, just get a gun and become brave!!!

I admit my response is more emotional than clinical this time, but I feel it necessary. Panta, I appreciate your views and respectfully disagree with them in this context, but it is always fun and educational defending my experience/beliefs.>

Post: Gazelle:

[quote=Bloodybirds By the way, he has a doctorate in physics and a masters in Engineering from Purdue, so that is verifiable. He also relates everything in martial arts expression of chi to Ohm’s Law….I am a financial analyst, so I really never understood this…lol. Does this mean it does not exist and is not measurable? Several experiments have been conducted with mixed results. [/quote 

I believe there has been some form of ‘machine’ built to read the aurorae, which, i think is basically the same thing, or if not, certainly related. For those who don’t know, the aurorae, for those who have learnt to see, and interpret it can say about the bodies physical condition, as well, as the persons emotional and even, spiritual state. I presumed that it was something to do with electromagnetism, what the body absorbs, and what it releases. Different substances absorb different frequencies of radiation, so it seemed logical that what is absorbed and what is released will tell you something about the bodies physical health at least. Ohm’s law (for those who either don’t know, or don’t recall) states that the total voltage within a circuit is proportional to (i.e. increases at the same rate as) the current flowing within it (however, this is only true for ohmic resistors), and is usually only true at specific temperatures. So it could be that the relation you were speaking of could be him denoting two charateristics, i.e. the flow of the chi itself and the strength, and saying that as one gets stronger/increases, so does the other by the same rate. Ohm’s law is mearsurable experimentally, so it does not neccesarily mean that it is not measurable, or that it does exist. He could however be implying that it only exists with a given set of ‘conditions’, maybe the discipline, the belief, as well as the correct mental and spiritual state? Which, i think would make sense.

[quote=Bloodybirds I will also say that, up until say 50-100 years ago, the real training that most martial artists in Asia undertook to survive resulted in some incredible physical results that cannot be duplicated in the soft, politically correct, pampered societies of today. Then, it was for survival. Today, just get a gun and become brave!!![/quote 

It’s a bit of a shame really. In some respects, it might be considered braver to actually do the job by hand, especcially if you do not know your opponents skills. Doing it so would probably make you more sensitive to the harm you are doing to your opponent. Although, it does take guts to fire a gun at someone, at least, if you care about killing/seriously harming someone.>

Post: Bloodybirds:

I have a question to those of you who regularly place what someone wrote previously in the body of your response and then comment on it: how do you do it? Sorry that is such a simplistic question, but then again I am a financial person and martial artist, not an IT person….help!!! Thanks alot.

Gazelle, great reply. Although, here in America you do not necessarily have to be brave about shooting a gun….see so called gangsters who would rather shoot than fight. To me, if you want to be a true leader of a bad ass crew, use your hands, feet, etc, and feel each other’s bodies expanding and yielding rather than shoot someone from a car….yeah, that takes alot of guts. And yes, to those who question, my second master (the Shaolin guy who grew up for 12 years in Hong Kong but is from Monroe, La. and when he came back as a teenager led the largest gang in that state for awhile)and some of us seniors had to sometime face down teenage wannabes picking on our teenage students with our hands, sabers, and sticks to their knives/guns. He taught us to always protect your junior students, families, and fellow seniors….to the Shaolin code of ethics, protecting the weak and spreading the art are primary directives.>

Post: Gazelle:

To answer your question bloodybirds, click on the ‘quote’ button on the box which you want a quote from. This will automatically take you to the place where you write a reply, and put the text there. The text will have a bracketted bit at the beginning saying ‘quote’ with a few equal signs thrown in for good measure, and the last one, i believe, just says ‘quote’. If you only want one section quoted then you simply delete the text that you do not want between the two bracketted ‘quote’ bits sitting either end of the text like bookends. If you delete those bracketted bits, you won’t get the quote in a white box. If, however you want individual text sections from that post, you isolate the individual sections you wish for, by deleting the rest, and entering spaces between them. You then have to copy and paste the bracketted bits, so that each section is sandwiched by the same looking bracketted bits. So, you’ll have separate sections of writing, each with the beginning ‘quote’ bracket at the beginning of that specific section of text, and the end ‘quote’ bracket at the end of each section of text. You can write in the spaces between each ‘quoted’ section.

If you wish to quote more than one post, i would think you’d have to quote the one post, like explained above, then copy and paste the other individual sections/posts from the sroll box below the writing section, sandwiching each individual section of text with those bracketted ‘quote’ things.

I hope you understand that.>

Post: Gazelle:

[quote=Bloodybirds Gazelle, great reply.[/quote 

Thank you.>

Post: samurai6string:

okay, prepare for 2 cents worth.

Zefff> come on now, who loves ya baby? :) IF you’re not careful I’ll just have to write another bar scenario. :lol:

As to the rest of this thread, I have to agree that Bloody, Wushu, and NB have access to some truly amazing teachers. Wushu, I thik maybe your exposure to such high calibre instructors has opened windows to you regarding things that most would find hard to believe. Bloody, I would have to disagree slightly with your point about MMA. In the first few years of the UFC, there were all kinds of fighters who claimed many different styles, and tried to fight according to what they knew. It wasn’t always just a bunch of guys who all studied the Muay Thai/BJJ curriculum. It is a sport, and the athletes have evolved using what is most effective in the context of the rules.>

Share.

About Author