PDA

View Full Version : What is Djimbe's point?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

WhiteShark
10/29/2003 1:49pm,
As far as I can tell the thrust of ALL his arguments is that CMA before 1900 (which is not long ago according to him) was badass and included tons of crosstraining and groundfighting. And his source for this information seems to be himself. Does anybody have a problem with this? If not I think we can move on now.

Oh I forgot it's also not CMAs that are the problem, it's 99.5% of the CMA schools outside of China? Is that it Djimbe?

Edit: I'm perfectly serious, I'd just like to see his case presented in one place without attacking specific sentences that other people write.

Ronin
10/29/2003 1:51pm,
Actually, Dijimbe is quite correct on the differnces between "kung fu" schools here and in Asia.
Also, the pre 1900's is pretty much accurate also.
Not just the Chinese , but the Japanese too.

Matt W.
10/29/2003 2:21pm,
Come on, D! The other thread was getting a bit convoluted. Let's hear it!

BTW, I must confess a bit of sympathy with your (D's) position. As a dabbler in Medieval European MA, I run into myths that are even taugh as fact on college campuses all the time! "Broadswords" weighed 20 lbs. A knight couldn't get up if he fell down. The fighting was just hack and slash. Etc.

But when I come across that, I can point to museum pieces that list the weight and dimensions ("See, they only weighed about 2lbs"). And I can show them medieval fighting manuals ("See, their fighting was quite sophisticated"). But so far I just hear from you what you tell me. I'm wrong because 99% of Kung Fu schools in the US are wrong. I'm wrong because 100s of years ago... blah, blah, blah.

I'm not trying to insult you, but see it from my perspective. Where's the evidence? Any evidence?

But answer Whiteshark first. I don't want to hi-jack his thread!

;)

Matt

HAPKO3
10/29/2003 2:21pm,
To be honest, I don't really give a **** about the so called "martial arts history".

In the little research that I did on the subject in the past, "martial arts history" is complete and utter bullshit, and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Real historians, the ones that teach in universities and do actual reserch and not the ones who write cheap ninja books, more or less ignore martial arts alltogether, as they never really played a pivotal role in anything.

I do martial arts in the present, and for my own reasons. Why should I give a **** as to whether or not WOng CHong Kong, a mythical taiji master of the late 15th century was a badass or not.

If you're interesed in history, study real HISTORY. It's fascinating.

PeedeeShaolin
10/29/2003 2:22pm,
lol

Ronin
10/29/2003 2:27pm,
Most of the GOOD stuff has been written by Robert Smith and Donn Draeger ( although Smith is a little to PRO chinese at time for me).
This is a nice site,give it a look:
http://ejmas.com/kronos/

Djimbe
10/29/2003 2:35pm,
"Djimbe's Point" right now is to eat as many Pork nuggets as he needs to to get full before getting to Bed .

My OTHER point IN THAT ONE THREAD was that too many people look at the McDojoish state of a Lot of Schools in Post-WWII US , and then decide that they are "TRADITIONAL" when they are anything BUT that . THEN they decide that all things TRADITIONAL are BAD , because McDojos are . They decide that the SYSTEM is what the SCHOOLS that THEY have come to know are . This is not now , nor has it ever been True . The Principles and Techniques of the System are what the system is . Training methods , especially of the Body are Variant not only from school to School , but from Practitioner to Practitioner . I go to the Gym . Theres a guy or two in my class that looks like hes never seen a Gym he didnt Drive By . There are little people in the class that wouldnt stand a CHANCE on the Pro MMA Circuit without Weight Classes (dunno if theyld be heavy enough for the SMALLEST one) , but could still KTFO 99% of the people on the Planet , and thats enough to get them home at Night .

Belts are a Product of The last Century . McDojoish Ideas of Chi Pawas , and "Kong Jiin" are a product of the last Century . and this Sissified Training that ppl are thinking that they can learn Fighting withotu Fighting is a Product of the last Century .

Ronin
10/29/2003 2:41pm,
Martial arts and history go hand in hand.
Martial arts are any and all systems of COMBAT.
From asia, europe, africa, etc...

Right on Djimbe, people fail to realise that "traditional" martial arts are the ones the preach and practise "practical combat techniques".
Traditional or classical MA, were never sports.

Ho wmuch do people actually think the MA have changed in the last 500 years?

HAPKO3
10/29/2003 2:43pm,
Martial arts never played a pivotal role in history mostly because large scale disputes were settled by armies, where hand to hand combat was very much secondary o millitary strategy. Millitary history is important and fascinating. Martial arts history is more or less irrelevant. The only times it, I guess, could affect anything is via the outcomes of duels.

As to well written books, I once read an extremely well written book on the history of Okinawan karate. It was concise, informative, and it seemed that the authors did a lot of research.

However, when I decided to look into it a bit, it turned aout that they were completely full of ****, as were the people they were citing. Waht I did was I consulted, by email, a number of the most prominent historians (real ones) that specialize in the history of Okinawa, and was told that there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever about okinawan peasants learning karate to use it agains armed samurai, and the rest of the **** that that book tried to sell.

Think of it, we don't even have a clear picture about the state of martial arts in the 1950's. All different sides are claiming different (and often equally far-fetched) things. We have no idea who was a badass and who wasn't, nor can we even trace the influences half the time. Catch wrestling is a perfect example. How much do we really know about catch wrestling? All we have is a bunch of sparadic and contradictory information that people use to focus the attention on themselves.

I'm not even talking about the last century.

WhiteShark
10/29/2003 2:47pm,
You know I'm glad I started this thread for this sentence alone:

They decide that the SYSTEM is what the SCHOOLS that THEY have come to know are .
It's been said before but it never occured to me before. The main difference in the TMA opinion versus MMA . Is MMAs all stress training more than the system because it is MIXED martial arts. The system is not as important as the training because they all use different systems. So to them a school with bad training would imply a poor system. Because training is the system that ties MMAs together.

HAPKO3
10/29/2003 2:49pm,
Originally posted by WhiteShark
You know I'm glad I started this thread for this sentence alone:

It's been said before but it never occured to me before. The main difference in the TMA opinion versus MMA . Is MMAs all stress training more than the system because it is MIXED martial arts. The system is not as important as the training because they all use different systems. So to them a school with bad training would imply a poor system. Because training is the system that ties MMAs together.

That's not true. MMA, call it "freefighting" Vale Tudo, whatever, is more or less a style as of itself. It is characterized by fighting strategies, techniques, and training methadolagies. Just like any other style.

Ronin
10/29/2003 2:55pm,
hand to hand is a PART of the MA, but so is sword fighting, tactical warfare, armed warfare, in short everyhting to fo with combat.
Martial arts have ALWAYS affected history, the Roman Legions for example.
Even the tactics of special forces.
The okinawan MA may not of affected Okinawan history, but the Japanses MA sure did.

HAPKO3
10/29/2003 3:03pm,
Originally posted by ronin69
hand to hand is a PART of the MA, but so is sword fighting, tactical warfare, armed warfare, in short everyhting to fo with combat.
Martial arts have ALWAYS affected history, the Roman Legions for example.
Even the tactics of special forces.
The okinawan MA may not of affected Okinawan history, but the Japanses MA sure did.

Well, I think we're going by different terms here. Millitary developments, that of weapons, strategy, etc. has always been more or less the driving force of history.

However, individual hand to hand training, which is what I reffer to as "martial arts" is more or less irrelevant to millitary history. The fact the the English used their longbows to rule the battlefields for centuries is of utmost importance. But the "fact" that some Chang **** Huy (who probably never existed in the first place) studied the Mo'Cha'Ming style of Shaolin Gung'Fu and executed the Tiger Sodomises Lotus Flower technique to anihilate Ming Xing Fing and his Bear Bends Fox Over style is absolutely irrelevant.

HAPKO3
10/29/2003 3:04pm,
Originally posted by Osiris
You can have tactics comng out the ass, but if you send the local TKD school to do the fighting, theyll get slaughtered. The hand to hand sytems affected history greatly.

Not really, because the cancelled each other out.

Ronin
10/29/2003 3:06pm,
HAHAHAHA , nice one buddy :)
Martial arts is ALL things pertaining to war and combat.
But nowadays, you only think 1 on 1 fight, that is true.
And on the point,I agree, no major differnces, unless you count the boxer rebellions and wll the bullets the boxers made the westerners waste shooting them.
Ah yes , invulnerable to bullets indeed :rolleyes:

PizDoff
10/29/2003 3:10pm,
To be honest, I don't really give a **** about the so called "martial arts history".

HEAR HEAR!!!

Hearing about old master and how the techniques were developed doesn't help me at all....

History is good, but only for a QUICK QUICK reflection then we move on......

(Edit: This is not inclusive of any art or section of arts....)