Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Too many of my friends host misinterpretations of the softer-styles, such as tai chi.
Energy has the tendicy[sic] to travel the path of least resistance.
Slightly suspicious of this claim, assuming that when he says energy it has anything at all to do with the concept from physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system. For example, water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance as it is pulled downward by gravity. Electricity flowing through a circuit behaves similarly; while every available path has some current through it, the amount of current through each path is inversely proportional to its electrical resistance. Atmospheric disturbances (storms) flow on the path of least resistance by flowing toward zones of low barometric pressure, where lower air density offers less impedance to the storm system than higher pressure zones.
The path of least resistance is also used to describe certain human behaviors, although with much less specificity than in the strict physical sense. In these cases, resistance is often used as a metaphor for personal effort or confrontation; a person taking the path of least resistance avoids these. In library science and technical writing, information is ideally arranged for users according to the Principle of least effort, or the path of least resistance. Recursive navigation systems are an example of this.
Note: The path of least resistance applies on a local, not global, reference. For example, water always flows downhill, regardless of whether briefly flowing uphill will help it gain a lower final altitude (with certain exceptions such as superfluids). In physics, this phenomenon allows the formation of potential wells, where potential energy is stored because of a barrier restricting flow to a lower energy state.
I see the key as being the ability to negate the opponents strength by simply redirecting the force driving it. It's not necessarily about avoiding an oncoming force, and it certainly isn't about overcoming it. It's a matter of accepting it, conforming to it, and guiding it away from you -- thereby granting you the ability to strike devastating blows to an off-balance adversary.Ampoliros wrote:More often I see them avoiding direct combat as much as possible.
I doubt FH wrote with a mind to Wing Tsun, I just think the essence of it is fittingFreakzilla wrote:The only clue actually given by FH in the books I remember is that is is an eight-fold combat style.
Has there ever been a documented case in history where someone won a fight using Tae Kwon Do? I doubt it, which leads me to believe that in the future, people will have all switched to Jeet Kune Do.Dravition wrote:On a related tangent, I think a hard-style, such as tae kwon do ('the way of the hand and foot') is more in line with Honored Matres. It emphasizes power strikes, mostly designed to utilize a persons relatively large leg muscles. Even the forms of blocking are intended to deal damage to an opponents striking limbs.
Two things. First, I hope you don't truly believe that a system like Tae Kwon Do -- renowned and practiced in many parts of the world (fyi created by Korean peasants to defend themselves against armed, armored, and sometimes mounted soldiers) -- is entirely ineffective. Like any style, it has strengths, and it has weaknesses. If it had zero merit, few would know of it, and fewer would practice it. Second, the status of Bruce Lee and his style (Jeet Kune Do) within martial arts history has been massively inflated. I'm not claiming that he was fraud, or anything of that sort. He was, for his relatively short life, a dedicated practitioner and teacher of the martial way of life. What most people tend see past, though, is the fact that he was also a celebrity actor, and that popular perceptions of his abilities were largely created and perpetuated by the machinery of mainstream marketing. Furthermore, his untimely death has only fueled the ability of media interests to capitalize on 'the myth' of 'the legendary Bruce Lee'.Nekhrun wrote:Has there ever been a documented case in history where someone won a fight using Tae Kwon Do? I doubt it, which leads me to believe that in the future, people will have all switched to Jeet Kune Do.Dravition wrote:On a related tangent, I think a hard-style, such as tae kwon do ('the way of the hand and foot') is more in line with Honored Matres. It emphasizes power strikes, mostly designed to utilize a persons relatively large leg muscles. Even the forms of blocking are intended to deal damage to an opponents striking limbs.
I know, sorry if I came across rather abruptly.Freakzilla wrote:I'm just giving you the text, man.
No problem. I happen to buy into the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do that unless human beings develop new appendages that there is an effective way to move that is fairly universal. It tends to rely on that. No question that Wing Chung/Fencing/Boxing were it's major influences, but it has definitely evolved beyond all three. The only thing I've found it to be missing is grappling, which Bruce was working on before he died.Dravition wrote:Two things. First, I hope you don't truly believe that a system like Tae Kwon Do -- renowned and practiced in many parts of the world (fyi created by Korean peasants to defend themselves against armed, armored, and sometimes mounted soldiers) -- is entirely ineffective. Like any style, it has strengths, and it has weaknesses. If it had zero merit, few would know of it, and fewer would practice it. Second, the status of Bruce Lee and his style (Jeet Kune Do) within martial arts history has been massively inflated. I'm not claiming that he was fraud, or anything of that sort. He was, for his relatively short life, a dedicated practitioner and teacher of the martial way of life. What most people tend see past, though, is the fact that he was also a celebrity actor, and that popular perceptions of his abilities were largely created and perpetuated by the machinery of mainstream marketing. Furthermore, his untimely death has only fueled the ability of media interests to capitalize on 'the myth' of 'the legendary Bruce Lee'.Nekhrun wrote:Has there ever been a documented case in history where someone won a fight using Tae Kwon Do? I doubt it, which leads me to believe that in the future, people will have all switched to Jeet Kune Do.Dravition wrote:On a related tangent, I think a hard-style, such as tae kwon do ('the way of the hand and foot') is more in line with Honored Matres. It emphasizes power strikes, mostly designed to utilize a persons relatively large leg muscles. Even the forms of blocking are intended to deal damage to an opponents striking limbs.
One last interesting 'fyi': Bruce Lee was instructed in Wing Tsun in his youth. He has even acknowledged the primacy of this system as an influence to his own.
Still Friends?
Sorry, been watching too many Tony Jaa movies lately!
This is actually a fundamental principle of Wing Tsun. Every movement used in the system is incorporated into only three forms. And remember also, a basic tenet of Wing Tsun is to always strike directly along the shortest path between yourself and your target (efficiency of motion). So, the point is to control that line, thereby giving you the ability to strike will simultaneously denying your opponent the same freedom. The simplicity of the system -- ie the fact that there are only so many movements -- means that the Wing Tsun proponent will attempt block/deflect and strike simultaneously with singular movements. I encourage you to research this more if you find it as fascinating as I do. Moving on.Nekhrun wrote: No problem. I happen to buy into the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do that unless human beings develop new appendages that there is an effective way to move that is fairly universal.
1) I accept there were multiple influences on Jeet Koon Do (including boxing and fencing), but I maintain that Wing Tsun was the primary influence. 2) I give credit to the notion that Jeet Koon Do is a system with an explicit goal of transcending style-categorization. In a sense, it is a 'consciously-evolving' model of martial art. That said, it has yet to definitively prove itself as superior. Ultimately, such judgements are based on the abilities of individual practitioners of different styles. The style itself is not the important thing. Did you know that the 'Do' component the martial art naming convention means, 'the way' -- as in a path or a journey? The point is that a martial artist can find greatness regardless of the path/style that get's them there. It all depends on the person. 3) I agree that both Jeet Koon Do and Wing Tsun have little to offer in the way of grappling techniques. At least with Wing Tsun, the system was designed for close-quarter striking. The point is to not let the fight get to the ground. Remember my last post: 'all styles have strengths and weaknesses'.No question that Wing Chung/Fencing/Boxing were it's major influences, but it has definitely evolved beyond all three. The only thing I've found it to be missing is grappling, which Bruce was working on before he died.
Lol, I'm not going to argue with you on this. I will say, however: this is not a problem limited to Tae Kwon Do schools. The North American martial arts industries have been largely distorted and drained of traditional essences for the purpose of fitting them with the mainstream goals and expectations of our culture. Any school that uses the coloured-belt method of tracking a student's progress is evidence of this. In tradition martial arts, teachers/masters wore black belts to designate their status and authority, and students wore white belts. That was all. And the belts themselves were more important for their utility: they held up peoples pants. The coloured belt system was designed to satisfy the Westerner's need for constant gratification and desire for an objective measure of their skill. That's only one example. But anyway, the point here is that I agree with.Back to Tae Kwon Do, I think as an art it's still pretty cool, but in a fight with no rules I find very little of it to be very practical. The reason why so many people in the US (and probably other places) practice it is that it has become the McDonalds of Martial Arts. They start kids young and hand out belts when the check clears. We've got a shitload of 8-10 year old black belts in this country that could use an ass-kickin'.
I really like this part of your comment. You have a great point about the BG ('trained in the minutiae of human behavior and could read someone's intent before they put any action into motion'). I guess I would say that any style that emphasizes a sensitization to the flow of energy and force (Jeet Koon Do and Wing Tsun both do this) would be fitting for the BG. Remember, you might have insight into a person, and know that they want to attack you, but it is impossible to precisely predict how the attack will be expressed. What you can do with much training is learn to instinctively respond to such expressions as they happen -- and not only respond, but do so with great efficiency. Unfortunately, such abilities fall into the category, 'can't adequately describe/explain with words'. And so, that is all.Back to the original point of the thread: I think the Bene Gesserit were trained in the minutiae of human behavior and could read someone's intent before they put any action into motion which could be intercepted and attacked before any real danger presented itself (kind of like Bruce Lee's philosophy).
Feel free to disagree, Nekhrun. You certainly have valid ideas, and I respect them. ToE, Muay Thai is a much better match for the HM. Thanks for reminding meI'm more of a Muay Thai kinda guy myself, just hurt people really badly without making it all fancy. Knees and elbows are hard, hit people with those, preferably in the head. It's pretty much the art of running into things and breaking them.
No question, Bruce said as much and it was the style he trained in and taught before making his own realizations.Dravition wrote:1) I accept there were multiple influences on Jeet Koon Do (including boxing and fencing), but I maintain that Wing Tsun was the primary influence.
Dravition wrote:I encourage you to research this more if you find it as fascinating as I do.
I practiced Martial Arts for almost 30 years and was an instructor in T'ai Chi (Yang style) and Jeet Kune Do for 7 years. One of my teachers from time to time was Bruce's student Ted Wong. The only one of his students who did not train in another system before learning Jeet Kune Do. Sadly, he passed away not that long ago.
Don't forget footwork. It is probably the single greatest weakness of that particular style. It's why Bruce incorporated boxing and fencing.Dravition wrote:3) I agree that both Jeet Koon Do and Wing Tsun have little to offer in the way of grappling techniques. At least with Wing Tsun, the system was designed for close-quarter striking. The point is to not let the fight get to the ground.
I maintain that Jeet Kune Do does not as it is able to incorporate other concepts. To change with change is the changeless state. Bruce hated the limitations of any style. Instead he dealt with efficiency.Dravition wrote:Remember my last post: 'all styles have strengths and weaknesses'.
Sadly, as a child, I participated in this nonsense. But it did eventually lead me to better things.Dravition wrote:The North American martial arts industries have been largely distorted and drained of traditional essences for the purpose of fitting them with the mainstream goals and expectations of our culture.
Thanks. I have a feeling that we'd probably agree on far more than it would first appear.Dravition wrote:Good Chat
There's a great interview with Bruce Lee where he mentions this very thing. He agrees with you that when a gun comes out then that's it. But like he said, "All knowledge is ultimately self-knowledge." Martial Arts is about how you understand your own body and it's relation to your space and how you interact with another person. It's not really about fighting at all. (I know this may seem like a contradictionSerkanner wrote:It must be silly me thinking about this but considering most of "you" are Americans where it is legal to wear fire arms, isn't it a bit ridiculous to discuss the benefits of martial arms.
)
