Next one will be available in 5 minutes.
youtu.be/EA14MSjZ1ZY
No doubt it will be a stampede.
“Should not have” is an ambiguous phrase. What I said does in no way imply that you should have not done certain things. What it implies is that it’s not the case that you should have done what you have done–though perhaps you “should” have… Anyway, what I was really talking about is your use of the word “should” in that video. I certainly disagree with the mere assertion that there should be pain and masculinity–unless it presents itself as an assertion. Perhaps you should focus more on why you have to or want to do the things you do. (As for me, I still subscribe to what I said in my Dionysa thread: “Even pity or compassion for the ‘creator in man’ is not a good rationale for political or religious philosophy. The only good reason for that is joy in the cause [in the sense of “cause and effect”], in ‘form-giving energies and an artist’s conscience’.”)
You’re thinking in terms the classical MA physics, with hooks, jabs and sideway kicks that aren’t a part of a larger pre-emptive strategy of force distribution. I tried several forms before I landed on Wing Chun; the usual things didn’t feel to me to be realistic ways of defending oneself. It’s a matter of superior physics, technology basically.
To the extreme, you get this / in terms of the mechanics of the strike.
youtube.com/watch?v=644ptQ0gZZ0
But closer to what we’re talking about, here’s my teacher;
youtube.com/watch?v=ozDOZep_vFI
You’ll see how grappling is worked into it.
Mostly, there’s awareness of the necessity to keep the opponent at a distance;
“The important thing is the empty the chest to prolong the distance between him and me.”
much of WT is in fact designed to disallow wrestling. The myth tells us that it was given to a small woman who had to ward off the town bully, who sought to marry her, to quite lieterally pin her down, which would also be his strategy in the fight.
In any good MA system there is no fixed difference between strike and grab, a strike landed on defense becomes a grappling dynamic, but will still be followed up by a second strike to a now opened spot, and so on.
I’m looking at him, interesting. I don’t now if I mentioned it but one of the elements my sifu included in his system is Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. In the end he mostly learned from it how to ward off such techniques, whereas another branch of the school split off into one of those tedious but necessary MA school wars and went to become a MMA school with a lot of groundfighting. It’s also, I noticed, a matter of tastes, what people enjoy.
I tend to watch K1 more for what’s relevant. That’s also because the guys that win those are walking around town here on saturday night, it’s sort of the local standard for tough guy. Of these night club frequenting bone breaking machines Ernesto Hoost is the most terrifying one to me.
Yes, of course. The WT kick is a straight-forward snap and ideally doesn’t go higher than 90 degrees. For maximum opportunism, it can be aimed at the knees to sabotage any attempt at approach.
We might be talking about he same thing.
But look at Hoosts lowkicks, and his occasional KO by kick to the neck.
Which brings us back where we started…
Then it becomes a question of whether or not art and politics can mix. Or if politics must always compromise the creators instinct, impede his self-causation.
Well, there’s art and then there’s art. The political philosopher’s art is to reshape man. This he can do in several ways–usually by means of art in the narrow sense, e.g. by writing books. I think saying politics compromises his art is like saying the air compromises the sculptor’s art. To be sure, politics, even in the broad sense, is certainly not as light and transparent an element. Then again, this is the second-highest art we’re talking about.
The only thing I can at the moment contribute to video are these. Various clips of me playing drums/guitar, and a couple pic/text videos I made over music.
Good uploads. The one about the philosophers is clever.
I did watch some parrots dance. That is remarkable.
youtube.com/watch?v=IBgJjMVKKRk
At 1:23, a performance sets off that would serve well as an argument for the evolutionary model explained in The Mating Mind, about which Sauwelios used to talk a lot.
Do you mean air as in necessary for the artist to exist, or as so light as to form no resistance?
Is reshaping man not also a political act? And does politics not dominate the style of most philosophers? The reason for writing esoterically is political, and Machiavelli’s work is almost entirely about politics, Plato involves much politics as do all the english philosophers; one might argue even Homer is about politics. So yes, the philosopher breathes politics, whether that is what you meant or not - but here we see that art becomes, one might say a function of guile. One speaks in metaphors in order to withdraw.
On the other hand, we have state-art. These are the actual sculptures, the buildings and, in high cultures, the administrative organization itself is designed by the necessities of aesthetics before the suggestions of convenience. Temples are meant to increase the possibility of spiritual exaltation. They communicate symbolically in appeal to the subconscious and rely on the valuing capacity of man without intervention of theory. I have some doubts about the power of philosophy to work without such highly exoteric politics; to speak in metaphors in order to advance.
Our time is, I fear, too thick skinned, and too pig-skinned to be susceptible to what is written. Evolutionary logic is almost forcing us to utilize the available media; to use visual media like the Greeks used marble to sustain the word at the source.
Rather the latter. But as I said, politics is certainly not as light an element. The sculptor’s art would be significantly more difficult if he had to swing his hammer through water instead of air. But this is the second-highest art we’re talking about. If the political philosopher is unable to maneuver his hammer through the mud of politics, perhaps he is not fit for his calling. Then again, practice bears art, as we say here.
Sure, but how will you get there without practicing political–or religious!–philosophy first? Political philosophy is not just about the philosopher’s protecting himself; that’s just the reason why it tends to have to be esoteric. If it was just about that, the philosopher could just withdraw to his Epicurean garden; he would not have to “go down”.
Well, it depends on whom you seek to reach. Formerly, most people could not even read; how could they have been susceptible to what was written? Anyway, yes: I for example was allured to philosophy after I had “attached my heart” to Jim Morrison. In that case, the media were music and film more than print. And my “definition” of the grand style is this: “The grand style is the style that really communicates the soul of a great man.” Again I will point you to section 964 of The Will to Power. But I think that, especially in our liberal times, the primary “task” is to be(come) a great man. Thus Daniel Conway writes:
[size=95]“Great individuals are always artists in Nietzsche’s sense, for, in the course of their self-overcomings, they inadvertently produce in themselves the beauty that alone arouses erotic attachment. By virtue of their self-creation, exemplary individuals come to embody ‘the great stimulus to life,’ unwittingly inviting others to join them in the pursuit of self-perfection. […] Independent of the philosopher’s own aims and aspirations [e.g., steeling his intellectual conscience], his overflowing will enters the public sphere as a sign, presenting itself for reception by observers and witnesses who do not share his first-hand, artist’s perspective. ‘The first distinction to be made regarding works of art,’ Nietzsche decrees, is that between ‘monological’ and ‘dialogical’ art (GS 367). Monological art is produced by the artist who has ‘forgotten the world,’ who disregards altogether the perspective of his likely audience, while dialogical art is produced by the artist who ‘looks at his work in progress (at “himself”) from the point of view of the witness’ (GS 367).
This distinction is crucial to Nietzsche’s political thinking, for it explains the difference between the philosopher’s orientation to his own self-overcomings and that of his witnesses. A philosopher who maintains a monological orientation toward his own self-overcomings will inadvertently produce for his witnesses an incarnate work of art, whose dialogical significance remains unknown (and uninteresting) to him. This means that the nomothetic [= legislative] influence and consecratory properties of exemplary human beings are, to a great extent, unwitting and involuntary; the dialogical use made of them need bear no correlation to their own monological aims.
From the dialogical perspective of the witness, in fact, the squanderings of the genius are often mistaken, especially by (relatively) impoverished souls, for invitations and seductions. From the monological perspective of the artist, however, these same emanations appear (if at all) simply as the inevitable by-products of the philosopher’s private pursuit of self-perfection.” (Conway, “The philosopher’s Versucherkunst”.)[/size]
Compare:
[size=95]“I don’t think the shaman, from what I’ve read, is really too interested in defining his role in society; he’s just more interested in pursuing his own fantasies. If he became too self-conscious of a function, I think it might tend to ruin his own inner trip.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28kUWH0A4Gg)[/size]
…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_9jWLmrfm4[/youtube]
The technician at work. Like a well oiled machine. Keep in mind his weight here. He is ninety percent of the time lighter and smaller than his opponent. Now if you put Seagal against Gracie here, you’re going to see the same pattern. This is because there is no way to defend against Gracie’s method… except that very short window of time before he seizes you. If you don’t get that window, it’s over for you. Only a matter of time.
Granted, there is nothing pretty or graceful about this jujitsu. You’re not going to impress the chicks with beating a guy by an upside down arm bar at a party. But we are concerned with effectiveness, not aesthetics.
Don’t get me wrong. Seagal is a beast, but Gracie is a few things more.
The closest anyone has come to effectively defending against Gracie’s shooting is at 3:49. That dude in the black tank top gets that window of time and does all the right things. This guy keeps Gracie from getting both hands on him by persistently punching at him. But this is an inefficient trade because Gracie is able to dodge or absorb those punches, while the tank top guy is steadily getting tired from over thrown punches which are not working. The moment the ineffective punching stops, Gracie gets both hands on him while the guy is briefly winded. The turtle beats the rabbit.
In a gloved up match punches dont tend to distribute chi. My punches sometimes tore open the gloves. The dojo would be like a party tent with feathers floating like confetti. But with the gloves intact kung fu and tai chi lost anout 50-60 perecent of their effect. Its is after all a cushion to protect from the realkty of the fight - the bones at both ends. Shaolin practice includes hardening of the bones. For me it is pleasant to do fist pushups on gravel. I needs to feel whats happening right at the edge of my actual being. Gloves are meant to insure that matches are not over in 10 seconds. Under such circumstances the turtle wins almost by definition.
I guess that very question is my question. How realistically can one avoid such techniques? Is the statistical data not enough- that the vast majority of real fights end up in a disoriented, tangled mess?
If this is the case, and it most definitely is, to be a master of those circumstances is to be master of the fight. Call it the ontology of bodily combat. Given that the laws of physics are the way they are, a physical confrontation between two human beings will always have an identifiable tendency to go a certain way, to turn out a certain way, follow a similar pattern every time… or most of the time, anyway. And it never looks like a scene in a martial arts movie.
Empirical evidence has shown that in real competitive fighting, which is really only a planned street brawl (minus a few trivial rules- no eye gouging or fish-hooking, etc), of the two opponents, the one who has more experience in grappling tends to be the winner. Or, the situation ends up in a grapple and one or the other wins unwittingly.
If you don’t like this fact blame the universe. Don’t shoot the messenger.
It only works like that because it is the most evolutionarily efficient way to defeat an enemy with no weapons. Of course, many fighters feel more natural punching and keeping a distance, but this is not because that way is more effective. It is because the fighter feels more comfortable doing it. There is a difference. He may not want to wrestle because of some warriors code, for instance, or associating it with cowardice; your excellent example of the mockery of wrestling in one culture.
But if you are modifying and manipulating the ordinary, real circumstances of fighting and ruling out some forms because your opinion is that they are frivolous, you are changing the natural terms of hand to hand combat and disregarding the fact that grappling is the superior style of fighting in circumstances which have no rules or modifications. I believe the Greeks and Romans understood this.
By the way there are far better videos of Seagal out there. That one you posted did not do him justice, Cross.
Erm yeah there are better videos. There are actually good ones. I knew you know this, it was a joke…
Just watch that vid of my sifu. He demonstrates in various ways how to prevent the opponent from coming into grappling range, ways that can hurt, in themselves, quite a bit.
At the end of each UFC game the loser gets up. That is not a real fight, period. Its called Martial art for a reason.
I exaggerate it a bit. On the other hand I dont nearly bash UFC enough. Along with most combat sports, they do not feature the one against three situation, which is the real problem in the streets. Grappling is worthless if you cant knock out two men first.
My sifu taught the Israeli army for a while, as a specialist on inflicting maximum damage in minimum time in a consecutive fashion.
Let’s go with this. The sensai at this wing chun place my friend took classes at always emphasized quick, sudden inside jabs over anything else. And he would put together all these complicated combinations of various chops that would be executed during the advance of the fighter. One touch one kill- a wing chun motto- is concerned with precisely aimed, lethal strikes at vulnerable spot on the body.
But the sensai had sense enough to admit that the probability of this working in circumstances in which the opponent expected to fight, was significantly lowered. This is because those combinations of moves are extremely difficult to execute properly and precisely, as they are or could be when an opponent was not expecting the attack. That little bit of information… that this guy is about to try to hit me… changes everything for that style of fighting.
There is a fine line between the sport and the science of fighting that is sometimes blurred. Things don’t happen like they need to happen in most fights for that stuff to work with any consistency. But, but, if you can pull it off, it looks spectacular. Even aikido has its faults with those two and three part wrist lock moves that require the opponent to be weighted just right with his feet on a dime, to work. When was the last time you actually saw an aikido wrist lock take down happen in a fight? Your opponent would almost literally have to offer you his arm, for that to work in a real fight.
That is a excellent point. You have found the missing scale on the dragon’s belly.
For that, one must master the arts of Smith and Wesson.
Now you’re breaking my balls. You know damn well if those dudes didn’t tap out in those matches with Gracie it would either be nap time for them or they’d be wheeled out in a chair with a broken arm or leg.
Yes, the loser gets up, but only because he can legally stop his opponent by tapping out.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzImQo7cdg[/youtube]
Watch from 1:38 forward. UFC personnel explain how surprised they were by the effectiveness of grappling. Remember this was the first time anything like this had been done legally and publically, so nobody knew what to expect. Colorful fighters from all kinds of schools entered that ring, and that unassuming, medium sized hispanic guy with the boring gi on handles every one of them.
p.s. there is enough content in this thread about fighting to warrant a thread of its own. Would/should these posts be removed and put into a thread elsewhere so as to not further disrupt the talk-video topic of this thread? It could be easily done… take somebody five minutes.
TV magic. All it is dude. “A hit!”