Martial arts.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: Martial arts.
(08-04-2016 06:13 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Banjo

Tai Chi was developped by the Chinese Imperial Guard during the 15th century. It's a brutal martial art. Probably one of the most sadstic and efficient one I have studied. It's designed to disarmed and maim people in armor or wearring extensive protection. It's purely a battlefield martial art. Like Indian Kenpo, the eldest martial art still in practice today, you are suppose to spend the first 5 years of training only learning the basic move and practicing your balance and precision by making the move in slow motion while physically training on the side. The next 5 years, you actually learned how to really apply those move by adding speed and power to it. Of course, very few school of Tai Chi today train or even know about part 2.

I know the history. But the Tai chi I did was not an effective fighting style for today. It was fun though.

I have read the histories of most of the major martial arts. I was right into it. I miss it terribly. After my injury I could no longer train and my body put on all this weight. That was hard to take. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 09:20 AM
RE: Martial arts.
[Image: 1318871492_braking_bricks_on_fire_fail.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
08-04-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Martial arts.
I would learn a new style for fun over practicality. I'm not looking for fights. Plus it's a good work out.

Some styles I'd like to learn by would feel a bit silly in would be Drunken Boxing, and Ninjutsu.

To get to drunken boxing thou i would have to learn Shaolin kung fu. And Ninjutsu well I can't really find any (legit) classes. Probably because they're ninjas. I would most likey learn a new style for fun. Not pratical uses.

I would like to learn more wepons thou. I'm proficient in Bo and Sais. Wanted to learn Nunchucks and Tonfa's but my Sensei wasn't a fan of them so i never got to learn them. I have friends that own a Kendo school. But they live in San Fran.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2016, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2016 08:45 AM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Martial arts.
I've dabbled in Taekwondo, Western boxing, and Filipino boxing over the years, but I've never practiced consistently enough to achieve any skill. I'm decent at joint-locking. My interest in the subject focuses primarily on the history and folklore of Chinese martial arts.

(08-04-2016 06:13 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Banjo

Tai Chi was developped by the Chinese Imperial Guard during the 15th century. It's a brutal martial art. Probably one of the most sadstic and efficient one I have studied. It's designed to disarmed and maim people in armor or wearring extensive protection. It's purely a battlefield martial art. Like Indian Kenpo, the eldest martial art still in practice today, you are suppose to spend the first 5 years of training only learning the basic move and practicing your balance and precision by making the move in slow motion while physically training on the side. The next 5 years, you actually learned how to really apply those move by adding speed and power to it. Of course, very few school of Tai Chi today train or even know about part 2.

I've never heard this history of Taiji before. Folklore places it during the 12th-13th centuries, however, modern research shows it actually developed from the 17th-19th centuries. There are several books on the subject, including Tai Chi's Ancestors (1999) by Douglas Wile and Scholar Boxer (2005) by Marnix Wells. It sounds like you are describing one of the older wrestling styles like Shuai jiao. As for Indian Kempo, I doubt it's the oldest codified martial art. Many of the stories touting the age of South Asian fighting styles can be connected to this 17th century Chinese manual, which is, oddly enough, connected to Taiji. As for actual history, boxing is mentioned in ancient Hindu epics, but there is no way to connect them conclusively to the styles practiced today.

I have discussed the evolutionary origins of martial arts in another thread.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Martial arts.
(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I would learn a new style for fun over practicality. I'm not looking for fights. Plus it's a good work out.

Some styles I'd like to learn by would feel a bit silly in would be Drunken Boxing, and Ninjutsu.

To get to drunken boxing thou i would have to learn Shaolin kung fu. And Ninjutsu well I can't really find any (legit) classes. Probably because they're ninjas. I would most likey learn a new style for fun. Not pratical uses.

I would like to learn more wepons thou. I'm proficient in Bo and Sais. Wanted to learn Nunchucks and Tonfa's but my Sensei wasn't a fan of them so i never got to learn them. I have friends that own a Kendo school. But they live in San Fran.

Beware of styles created for films, such as Snake. Many movie styles don't really exist. Wink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2016, 10:38 AM
RE: Martial arts.
(09-04-2016 08:24 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  I've dabbled in Taekwondo, Western boxing, and Filipino boxing over the years, but I've never practiced consistently enough to achieve any skill. I'm decent at joint-locking. My interest in the subject focuses primarily on the history and folklore of Chinese martial arts.

(08-04-2016 06:13 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Banjo

Tai Chi was developped by the Chinese Imperial Guard during the 15th century. It's a brutal martial art. Probably one of the most sadstic and efficient one I have studied. It's designed to disarmed and maim people in armor or wearring extensive protection. It's purely a battlefield martial art. Like Indian Kenpo, the eldest martial art still in practice today, you are suppose to spend the first 5 years of training only learning the basic move and practicing your balance and precision by making the move in slow motion while physically training on the side. The next 5 years, you actually learned how to really apply those move by adding speed and power to it. Of course, very few school of Tai Chi today train or even know about part 2.

I've never heard this history of Taiji before. Folklore places it during the 12th-13th centuries, however, modern research shows it actually developed from the 17th-19th centuries. There are several books on the subject, including Tai Chi's Ancestors (1999) by Douglas Wile and Scholar Boxer (2005) by Marnix Wells. It sounds like you are describing one of the older wrestling styles like Shuai jiao. As for Indian Kempo, I doubt it's the oldest codified martial art. Many of the stories touting the age of South Asian fighting styles can be connected to this 17th century Chinese manual, which is, oddly enough, connected to Taiji. As for actual history, boxing is mentioned in ancient Hindu epics, but there is no way to connect them conclusively to the styles practiced today.

I have discussed the evolutionary origins of martial arts in another thread.

History of Martial arts can be complicated and convoluted. Most of them see their «codifed origin» stemming from the 17th century, but most of them had earlier roots than these. The fact that Taiji, for exemple, was had several different names and incarnation before the 18th century makes it hard to trace. Most martial arts have their origin in oral tradition more than in books. Other have issues with their names. For exemple Crane kung fu can refer to several school of martial arts, some of them radically different based on their regionalism.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2016, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2016 05:33 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Martial arts.
(09-04-2016 10:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  History of Martial arts can be complicated and convoluted. Most of them see their «codifed origin» stemming from the 17th century, but most of them had earlier roots than these. The fact that Taiji, for exemple, was had several different names and incarnation before the 18th century makes it hard to trace. Most martial arts have their origin in oral tradition more than in books. Other have issues with their names. For exemple Crane kung fu can refer to several school of martial arts, some of them radically different based on their regionalism.

Oral legends cannot always be trusted as they often contain fictional material drawn from popular religion, literature, and mythology. Many modern systems try to trace their techniques to legendary masters (historical or mythic) even if they have no real connection to them. The Chinese were fastidious record keepers, though. Much of what is known about the history of martial systems today come from manuals. For instance, contemporary records show that Shaolin specialized exclusively in spears and staves centuries before they took up boxing. This weapon-based tradition eventually died out and had to be rejuvenated by strong men from outside the monastery. And regarding internal styles like Taiji, records indicate that they did not come into existence until the Ming-Qing transition. See the works of Meir shahar for more information (e.g., here and here). Another good source is Chinese Martial Arts (2012) by Peter Lorge. Lorge suggests "schools" have their origin in the groups of traveling weapons performers during the Song dynasty (c. 12th century)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
09-04-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: Martial arts.
(09-04-2016 12:35 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(09-04-2016 10:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  History of Martial arts can be complicated and convoluted. Most of them see their «codifed origin» stemming from the 17th century, but most of them had earlier roots than these. The fact that Taiji, for exemple, was had several different names and incarnation before the 18th century makes it hard to trace. Most martial arts have their origin in oral tradition more than in books. Other have issues with their names. For exemple Crane kung fu can refer to several school of martial arts, some of them radically different based on their regionalism.

Oral legends cannot always be trusted as they often contain fictional material drawn from popular religion, literature, and mythology. Many modern systems try to trace their techniques to legendary masters (historical or mythic) even if they have no real connection to them. The Chinese were fastidious record keepers. Much of what is known about the history of martial systems today come from manuals. For instance, contemporary records show that Shaolin specialized exclusively in spears and staves centuries before they took up boxing. This weapon-based tradition eventually died out and had to be rejuvenated by strong men from outside the monastery. And regarding internal styles like Taiji, records indicate that they did not come into existence until the Ming-Qing transition. See the works of Meir shahar for more information (e.g., here and here). Another good source is Chinese Martial Arts (2012) by Peter Lorge. Lorge suggests "schools" have their origin in the groups of traveling weapons performers during the Song dynasty (c. 12th century)

I agree with you tht point, but I think its hard to assess the establish martial genealogy, especially with the pseudo-historical nature of many. For Tai Chi, I had heard the the style was born in the 12th-13th century or so (I made a type in my previous post, I am sorry) amongst «sellswords» and performers. Later, their style was merged with some wrestling styles of the invading Mongols and was later codified and adopted by high ranking soldiers a few centuries later with strong influence from neo-confucianism philosophical school to create what we consider «modern» Tai Chi. Than again, I got that resume from a practionner a few years back during a seminar. My memory can be blurry so there might stem some confusion. Thanks for the link though and the book sugestion. I will definetly look it up.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Martial arts.
I agree 100% with the last three posts. More modern styles, such as TKD can be traced to their origin from Shotokan karate. Indeed many of the original patterns are derived from Shotokan katas, such as Kanku Dai. This is of course due to the Japanese occupation from 1911 through 1945.

As for older styles, too much is related to histories from folklore.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Martial arts.
(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I agree with you tht point, but I think its hard to assess the establish martial genealogy, especially with the pseudo-historical nature of many. For Tai Chi, I had heard the the style was born in the 12th-13th century or so (I made a type in my previous post, I am sorry) amongst «sellswords» and performers. Later, their style was merged with some wrestling styles of the invading Mongols and was later codified and adopted by high ranking soldiers a few centuries later with strong influence from neo-confucianism philosophical school to create what we consider «modern» Tai Chi. Than again, I got that resume from a practionner a few years back during a seminar. My memory can be blurry so there might stem some confusion. Thanks for the link though and the book sugestion. I will definetly look it up.

My pleasure. Another good book is Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals (2005) by Brian Kennedy. It's more pseudo-scholarly (no citations), but it's still a good source of info.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: