No problem - typos happen, it's just extraordinary that "Ringneck" happens so often.
Originally Posted by rydam
I NEVER said that the East didnt have hard styles. The original question that was being asked was about mysticism in WMAs, and the reason being that the inner self development issue from religion isnt there.
Originally Posted by odysseus_dallas
PS: I am a serious practicioner, which has led me to study WMAs as part of an ongoing research project.
I'm pretty sure both the West and the official military bodies of the East didn't employ ki and mystical elements too much in their soldiers' training.
Of course there is superstition, religion, and propaganda in war, but in the "martial arts" (aka arts of Mars, the Roman god of War), ki and the like is a waste of time and effort. Wars were won with soldiers, tactics, and weaponry, not mystical forces hidden in each person's body.
I'm pretty sure most generals of old from all over the globe agreed that it's more effective to bonk a person on the head with a stick than to spend 30 years learning how to shoot wind at a person.
That being the case, the West had no reason to pursue mystical elements in combat--especially with the Catholic Church burning people that did.
As for disabling shouts and the like, war cries for intimidation or breaking opponent's concentration were definitely used all over the world, but that's hardly considered "mystical."
Of course there is mysticism, every fighting based part of the society is going to have sort of mysticism, it is matter of putting all the chances on your side.
Mysticism is not only ki/chi, it is reading the augurs in the guts of an animal, believing that God will point out the right side, in cases where there is no tangible evidence.
Or has it has been mentioned, trying to find out the best day to fight someone bases on your first name and 5 cabbalistic divinatory circles and later astrology (Thallhoffer 1443 and 1459 edition to grass him up).
Basically the physical word and the mystical word were strongly separated in occident in orient they have a view that link both.
Now saying that you need to cut his cut, extending you ki, using weight under side, centralisation of body and unbendable arm is exactly the same as saying that you need to strike will all the strength of your body, (but not like peasant), in shuch way that his point fall and your hit.
It is just two way to look at the same thing
The real issue with ki/chi is that it is way to describe and explain the world that dates from a few millenniums so that people at the time could understand and not the absolute ultimate truth that some people now understand it to be.
Hence the utter gonnads whacky stuff out there, throwing people that stand matters always or knocking someone out by lightly touching his arms and then the neck.
That being said there is stuff that is covered by chi/ki that you do consistently work and that you will find in medieval or even smallsword manuscripts. Amazingly enough, those one can be explained with bio-mechanics and Newtonian physics.
IE, it is a way to apply power and stay relatively relaxed so that you can be more fluid.
Hopes small word thrust is really like WT/chinesse bocing/Bruce lee “no-arming” punch.
You have stuff like the mudershloss who can be assimilated to Dim Mak (granted in ringen you always try to hit as hard as you can but well).
Lichtanauer’s Do not fence like a peasant or with exaggerate strength but use all the strength of you body, is like the idea that you need to be relaxed and use good bio mechanics when you fight because it promote fluidity and give less to your opponent to work with.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO