Dispelling Ignorance and Untruths - A Case Study of Baguamonk1's Posts

[Jordan]

Chinese Martial Arts at a Cross-Road

There is much material that Baguamonk1 has posted that can be used to comment on for the purpose of this thread. Here I present the concluding post.

when learning how to defend yourself in the most direct way is more efficient

This statement is untrue. In many situations defending yourself in an indirect way may be more efficient.

Baguamonk1’s writing is unclear. He may also meant leaning how to defend in the most direct way is more efficient than acquiring supernatural abilities. This too was untrue. If you had supernatural powers, you could defend yourself more efficiently by using your supernatural abilities than by defending in the most direct way.

And as for spiritual cultivation, he was a HUGE advocator of this in the martial arts. Especially on the core elements of taoism, which in my opinion is a way of expressing "personal freedom.

Baguamonk1 lacks understanding of what spiritual cultivation means. He used the term “spiritual cultivation” because it was perhaps trendy to do so.

Spiritual cultivation means cultivation of the spirit. Bruce Lee did not cultivate the spirit. His whole art and training were solely focused on cultivating the body using mechanical means, using parameters like how fast one could kick and how much muscular power was packed in it. Baguamonk1’s statement that Bruce Lee was a huge advocator of spiritual cultivation in martial arts was untrue.

Bruce Lee knew little about Taoism in relation to martial arts. Had he known more, he would have known yin-yang harmony, the importance of chi, and the use of herbs. Instead, Bruce Lee solely focused on combat and neglected his health, which indicated lacking an understanding of yin-yang harmony. He employed mechanical means excessively, indicating his lacking an understanding of chi. He used Western drugs despites its danger, indicating his lacking an understanding of herbal medicine.

While personal freedom is valued, as it is also valued in other great religions, it is not a signature aspiration of Taoist cultivation. At the lowest level, Taoist cultivation aims for longevity. At the intermediate level, Taoist cultivation aims at becoming an immortal. At the highest level, Taoist cultivation aims to return to the Great Void. Bruce Lee did not pay much attention to any of these aims.

Baguamonk1 was ignorant of all these. He merely relates Bruce Lee to Taoist cultivation out of fashion. He might have related Bruce Lee to Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or any religion, and make the same mistakes in his untrue statements.

Wether its in spirit, mind, or body.To know that CMA is riddled with just as much mysticism, and lack of knowledge of kung fu in general by the chinese population as with western.

As usual, Baguamonk1 demonstrated his ignorance and arrogance, and insulted both the Chinese and the Western population.

Just because he was ignorant of Chinese martial art, he presumed that the Chinese population and the Western population were also ignorant. Due to his ignorance, he formed a mistaken conclusion that Chinese martial art was riddled with mysticism, which of course was untrue. To Baguamonk1, chi, internal force and using kung fu for combat were myths, which again was untrue. And Baguamonk1 was so egoistic that just because he did not know, the Chinese population and the Western population also did not know!

You have no idea how many modern chinese men/women I've met (even some who practiced taichi/kung fu) said "I don't believe in Chi." Mostly because they are just as fed up with the esoteric, old school mystical way of describing these things (which make these methods seem supernatural) as many other people are.

Baguamonk1 was utterly ignorant of Chinese culture. Chi is an essential concept and reality in Chinese life and philosophy. Every typical Chinese knows that without chi, there is no life. Many Chinese words came from directly “chi” (“qi”), like “fa-bi-qi”, “hou-yun-qi” and “jia-qi”, which means “temperamental”, “good luck” and “work harder” respectively. Chi forms the core in many of the Chinese sciences and arts, like medicine, painting, calligraphy, and feng shui.

All members of Shaolin Wahnam not only believe in chi, they have direct experience of it, and have derived great benefits from its cultivation. Many of our members have tried to help Baguamonk1, but he just would not listen and dogmatically regard our explanation as “the esoteric, old school mystical way of describing these things”.

Also as per Chuck Liddel argument, I wasn't trying to say that UFC or MMA was the end-all-be-all to fighting. Because its not. He isn't a warrior who "lives by the sword" and no I could not imagine him swinging a halbred...But I couldn't imagine any of us doing the same thing..actually "living by the sword." I dont think any of us do, we just don't live in that kind of time period. Even if we did live in a war-time period, it would be with guns and other detached methods of killing/fighting.

Baguamonk1 is untrue to himself! Despite practicing three internal martial arts, he does not believe that chi and internal force exist, and that Chinese martial arts cannot be effectively used for combat.

As Sifu Anthony has indicated in another thread, Baguamonk1 implies that punches in Chinese martial arts are for show, real punches and other attacks can only come from non-Chinese martial arts, like UFC and MMA. We really wonder

His statements above also show that he has completely missed the meaning and good intentions of those who have wanted to help him. “Living by the sword” and “swinging halberd” were mentioned to help him realize that Chinese martial artists used their arts for actual fighting and not for show. But due to his lack of mental clarity or blind egoism, Baguamonk has missed, or chose to miss, the intended meaning.

Also my criticisms towards CMA challenges and fights are ONLY directed to the last century, when CMA and chinese culture in general was falling apart due to the various economic and political circumstances.

Baguamonk1 was ignorant of great kung fu masters who lived in the last century, like Wong Fei Hoong, Hou Yun Jia and Wang Zi Ping, who had internal force and used kung fu techniques for combat. He implied that these kung fu masters only talked about chi and internal force, and when it came to real fighting they
could not withstand attacks from exponents of UFC and MMA, or even from him using UFC or MMA.

These statements of Baguamonk1 were of course utterly untrue, but if they were mistaken by unsuspecting readers as authoritative, they might cause more damage to Chinese martial arts than the economic and political circumstances that Baguamonk1 alleged. Hence, we have a duty to dispel such ignorance and untruths, and disseminate quality information in their stead.

Yet, Baguamonk1’s action is laudable, but only to a point. He set out to enjoy the benefits of Chinese martial arts and find out the validity of chi and kung fu combat effectiveness, but like most people he was grossly disappointed to a point he concluded (mistakenly) that Chinese martial arts are a joke, and chi and kung fu combat effectiveness are non-existent.

Now he has the opportunity to come across many people who have testified from their own direct experience that Chinese martial arts are not a joke and that chi and kung fu combat effectiveness are real. He has the rare opportunity to find out, not in three years but in a few days or even a day, by humbly learning from certified Shaolin Wahnam instructors (with their no chi no fee policy) or from Sifu Wong himself. But Baguamonk1, unfortunately, has become dogmatic and would not listen. He, and many other people like him, are at a cross road. It is their choice.

[Baguamonk1]

Some of the stuff is just wrong or still being misquoted.

If you have read, or seen any of Bruce's material, you would know that he had some understanding of Chinese philosophical aspects and how they tie into the martial arts. You would also know that he did in fact emphasize spiritual cultivation, and there is even pictures of him practicing some basic ZZ postures. And that his bad habits began towards the end of his life. In fact he was one of the first to publicize, and promote the philosophy behind the arts, and how they tie into real life. Well definitely not the first, but perhaps one of the more recent and popular advocates.

I did not mean to say you don't need stances to defeat a lesser skilled opponent, I meant that it does not have to be picture perfect. I already clarified even more on the same thread (and even on this one)..so I don't see another reason for it

As I said, I am not going to respond in this thread anymore. It is a useless thread to me, but to you guys it is well worth it. I hope it has brought you insight, and allows the integrity of the Wahnam ideals to remain intact.

And I laugh at above post, saying that I "concluded" that I thought Chinese Martial Arts was a joke as a whole..Oh wow, no wonder I don't take this thread seriously. Has the reputation, and condition of these arts severely been comprimised?? Yes. I never SAID all, but there is a vast majority of BS out there, and anyone who can't see that is dellusional. And if you don't think the cultural revolution had anything to do with this, well then that is your opinion

How many times do I have to clarify that I never said that I don't believe in Chi or internal force....That is just ridiculous. I tried to explain some things in different ways, and when clarification was needed, I for the most part did (although I lost track of some topics). Just because I think "internal force" is a lame excuse to not hurt the poor, "brutes" of MMA competitions, does not mean I do not believe in it.

My post about the Chinese Men and Women who do not believe in "Chi" was there to show just how the condition exists in some places, including China itself. The cultural revolution, and alot of changes in China has alot of people practicing Taiji, and other methods of internal arts for health. Clearly there are MANY exceptions, I was just trying to illustrate the condition of some of the modern chinese, and practicioners. Some people of the newer generations, if not educated or cultured by their siblings or family, often grow up without the knowledge or actual experience of the past generations, and the heritage they left behind. Some of the "modern" thinkers, think differently, and often times discard the old traditions and philosophies without even trying to decode or understand them. Just because they are Chinese, it does not mean that they practice kung fu, taiji, or even have a basic understanding of the taoist/buddhists philosphies and how it applies to martial arts. Or perhaps they do, but they don't believe in it. Just like there are skeptics and Aethiests here in the states when it comes to religion.

The state of kung fu itself is different. As many of you have said, there are lots of wushu monks out there, and alot of BS. How shaolin is practiced now (even the image), is seemingly different form how it used to be practiced. You guys train it more authentically than the Wushu crap that is out there, it is not that wushu is crap, but rather that people mistake Wushu for the traditional methods. Anything that does not have perfectly bent arms, ridiculously and dangerously low stances, fast flashy movements, is often misjudged as inferior to the newer flashier stuff. And there ARE some people out there who learn this stuff and think its the same as it was before the cultural revolution! Like those documentaries out there on the Shaolin temple and just how deadly and effective they are, but we all know they are government-placed monks and they practice wushu. Complete with breaking bricks over the edge of a stair..and only hitting the middle (usiing the stair for leverage) and chi gong tricks...Again, I wasn't saying that it was all "physics tricks" but that what these charlatans did, for the most part, do use them. Those who have the real skill, and real gong fu, do not need "tricks" they have the real deal.

[Jordan]

Invaluable Lessons from our Forum

My previous post concludes a series of explanations to dispel ignorance and untruths revealed in a chosen post by Baguamonk1 quoted at the beginning of this thread. In another thread, having been revealed the untruths of his statements, Baguamonk1 said he would not post further, except posting his agreement. Hence, I thought my previous post could also be the concluding post of this thread.

Nevertheless, Baguamonk1 posted a long reply to my previous post, which he is welcome to do. This long reply from Baguamonk1 shows more ignorance and untruths. Hence, I feel duty bound to dispel such ignorance and untruths again.

The comforting part is that initially I found Baguamonk1's posts boring because not only they contained abundance of ignorance and untruths, but also they were unclear and often needed to be read a few times before their meaning became apparent. But now they start to provide much fun as well as benefit in training for mental clarity.

I would like to mention again I have nothing personal against Baguamonk1. Indeed I was glad he apologized for being rude previously, though like Sifu Andrew in another thread I would be gladder had he not negated it in his next comment. I also compliment Baguamonk1 for writing in shorter paragraphs instead of one whole chunk, his posts are now easier to understand.

Nevertheless, saying all these good things about Baguamonk1 does not mean I would not dispel the ignorance and untruths still found in his post. As a Shaolin Wahnam instructor it is my duty to dispel ignorance and untruths, and ensure quality information in our forum. This process also helps our students in training of mental clarity.

Indeed, Baguamonk1 would be the one to benefit the most if he exploits this opportunity. Already he has gained two significant benefits. His heart is more open now, as indicated by his readiness to apologize for being rude, and his posts are easier to read, indicating that he has improved in presentation of his material. If he follows the discussion explaining why his posts are full of ignorance and untruths, he will also benefit from having better mental clarity.

It is these qualities - having an open heart, being able to present yourself coherently, and having mental clarity - that is much more important than holding opinions whether Bruce Lee was a traditional Chinese martial artist. This forum provides opportunities to develop these desirable qualities.


The dispelling of ignorance and untruths will follow.

[Jordan]

African cake making and rocket producing

Baguamonk1,

This is the start of another series of posts not just to show the ignorance and untruths of Baguamonk1's latest post, but also to help Shaolin Wahnam students to develop mental clarity and to understand sound kung fu philosophy.

Your latest post (Post 47) is quoted in full, and is commented upon by instalments. Please note again that your post is quoted in full, not selected in bits here and there. In other words, my comments are directly on what you actually said and in its whole context.

So, citing your own admission (please see Post 17 of The Benefits of Internal Force are not just for Combat, and Post 24 of this thread) please don't start acting like an ass again by repeatedly saying that you did not say what is quoted, or that you were quoted out of context.

Some of the stuff is just wrong or still being misquoted

Can you please pin-point which stuff is wrong or misquoted? You are in the habit of making wild and unsupported allegations. For once, can you be specific? Just cut and paste those parts you believe are wrong and misquoted. In this way we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise you are just saying untruths again.

It is interesting that you say some of the stuff is misquoted. Do you actually know that all the quotations are from your own words, and are quoted in full? How is it then that they are misquoted or quoted out of context?

If you have read, or seen any of Bruce's material, you would know that he had some understanding of Chinese philosophical aspects and how they tie into the martial arts. You would also know that he did in fact emphasize spiritual cultivation, and there is even pictures of him practicing some basic ZZ postures. And that his bad habits began towards the end of his life.

This is another example of wild, unsupported statements. Without supporting with evidence, such as quotations from Bruce Lee's material, you could as well say that Bruce Lee or any Tom, Dick or Harry had some understanding of African cake making and how it tied into producing rockets. Of course, this example is outlandish, but it shows how irresponsible you can be by making wild statements without substantiation.

In fact he was one of the first to publicize, and promote the philosophy behind the arts, and how they tie into real life. Well definitely not the
first, but perhaps one of the more recent and popular advocates.

Do you realize the innate contradiction in your statements above? Here your writing is clear, with one exception, but your thinking is not. The exception is the confusion over what the pronoun "they" refers to. Does it refer to publicizing and promoting, or to the arts? If "they" refers to the arts, what arts do you mean?

But more serious is your unclear thinking. You mentioned that Bruce Lee was one of the first, and then you said that he was one of the more recent advocates. Can't you see that this is a self-contradiction?

Let me make it easy for you to understand. Suppose there were 10 advocates, and we line them from 1 to 10, 1 being the first and 10 being the last in time of the advocates. If Bruce Lee was one of the first, he would be number 2 or 3. If he was one of the more recent, he would be number 8 or 9.

Moreover, the fact provided by you was wrong. It is well known that Bruce Lee's philosophy on his martial art was vastly differently from the established philosophy of Wing Chun or of Chinese martial arts in general.

For example, Bruce Lee himself said:

There is nothing better than free-style sparring in the practice of any combative art.

Quoted from "Bruce Lee's Most Famous Quotes" at

http://www.fightingmaster.com/master...#On%20sparring

In contrast, established Wing Chun maxims advice:

The body follows the movement of the hands. The waist and the stance move together. Complement the hands with posture to make good use of the
centerline.

Quoted from "Maxims of Wing Chun" at:

http://www.wcarchive.com/articles/ma...s_of_Wing_Chun

Can you see the difference between the combat philosophy of Bruce Lee and of established Wing Chun principles? Bruce Lee advocated free-style fighting, whereas established Wing Chun principles advocate fighting with specific forms, which are not free-style.

Further dispelling of ignorance and untruths will follow.

[Jordan]

Stances and Mental Clarity

I did not mean to say you don't need stances to defeat a lesser skilled opponent, I meant that it does not have to be picture perfect. I already clarified even more on the same thread (and even on this one).so I don't see another reason for it.

This is another good example showing lack of mental clarity, and also where you could benefit much if you have some patience to follow my explanation.

You did not exactly say the following words, “You don’t need stances to defeat a lesser skilled opponent”, “kung fu stances are useless in fighting”, or “using stances in combat is less effective in free sparring”, and we never said you did. But your posts in this and other threads imply what we say is your ideas about stances.

Let me give you an example to make things easier. Suppose Tom said, “I don’t enjoy eating cake. It makes me sick.” Basing on what Tom had said, you commented, “Tom doesn’t like cake. It made him unhealthy.”

Now, Tom turns at you accusing, “Baguamonk1, I didn’t say I didn’t like cake. I didn’t say it made me unhealthy.”

Moreover, you came to our forum to praise Kaitan in a thread which debates whether Kaitan’s Tai Chi Chaun or Wahnam Tai Chi Chaun is closer to the original Tai Chi Chuan. It is significant that you came in not during the debate but long after the debate was over with overwhelming evidence that Kaitain’s Tai Chi Chaun was vastly different from original Tai Chi Chaun all its important aspects.

One major issue in this Tai Chi Chuan debate concerned stances. Kaitain was of the opinion that using Tai Chi Chaun stances in combat was less effective than bouncing about as in Boxing. We in Shaolin Wahnam are of the opinion that using stances is crucial in Tai Chi Chuan as well as all other styles of kung fu.

It is quite clear to anyone with mental clarity to see that in this context and basing on what you have written in this and other threads, you are of the opinion that stances are not effective in fighting, irrespective of whether your opponent is more or less skilled than you. Using the analogy mentioned earlier, if the debate was whether eating cake was healthy, it is quite clear to anyone with mental clarity that Tom was against eating cake, even though he might not have said this in exact words.

I would not quote here, but rather leave the pleasure and benefit of finding your own appropriate quotes in your posts. This will be a useful exercise on mental clarity.

On the other hand, if after reading our explanations you have changed your mind and now consider stances are very important not only in solo training but also in combat, please state so clearly.

By the way, stance training if performed correctly is excellent for training mental clarity. The golden rule in stance training is to relax.

[Baguamonk1]

Well you clearly missed the point.

It is possible to bounce about, (not like is shown in your videos, for no purpose) if you are trying to establish a pace or some sort of evasive footwork. bouncing about, as if in jumping up and down for no reason is stupid. You missed the point, you can still hit rooted, and become rooted whenever you wish to strike or defend. Wether you believe it or not, it takes alot of skill in being able to move quickly, and evasively, with quick footwork, and remain rooted when striking/defending. If a boxer was not rooted, he would have no power, and no mobility. When I'm on the ground, I use the core taiji (such as tingjing and structure) and it helps a great deal. There is nothing wrong with using basic jujitsu if the situation calls for it.

As for taiji, all I was saying is that you could use Taiji's core principles in changing a tire, or even boxing. Yet somebody replied "when demonstrating taiji you are going to change a tire, hahaha" I never said anything about demonstrating...If you take all of the Chen style punches out of the forms (including cannon fist form), and box someone else at a high speed, in some cases, it will not look too different from regular boxing to the UNTRAINED eye. The method of application and body structure, as well as the method of using body mechanics will obviously be different.

I totally agree that claiming you fight with "taiji" and then reduce to standard sloppy boxing/kick boxing is lame. I have seen Zhabao guys who claim they "fight" but in reality they train them with Boxing drills! Not even the punches are taiji punches! That is lame.

Why is this called Dispelling ignorance and Untruths? This is OPINION, not fact.
The thread should be called "My opinion, twisting words, and case study on baguamonk's words." You say I act like I'm authorative, well so do you. Trying to pass of mere opinions as fact.

I can say you are Ignorant and spreading Untruths for thinking that sitting in a gong bu stance, waving your arms in front of your face is all you have to do to stop and agressive and powerful boxer who "bounces about" But then that would be OPINION wouldn't it? And wether is true or not, is completely unknown to me, or anyone else who does not train at wahnam. Until proof is shown against a professional boxer, or at least amateur, then nobody will know for sure.

"The body follows the movement of the hands. The waist and the stance move together. Complement the hands with posture to make good use of the
centerline."
It is funny that you mention this quote, because Bruce Lee said something almost Identical in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do book out there. If I had it, I would quote it. Guess its off to Barns and Noble. But in Tao of kung fu he illustrates alot of things to do with tradtional kung fu. Also most of what is said on that website goes hand in hand to what Bruce advocates. He was only against becoming a mechcanical machine, limited by it. Clearly some people have different experiences, he just simply built from the base/core that he had.

Also I find it funny that you think they contradict eachother. That principle above are basic fighting principles, I can fight "freely" and still do all the stuff you mention above. What is your idea of fighting freely? Putting your hands down, slouching your back, and laying on the ground? So using some sort of posture automatically contradicts "fighting freely'? If you take certain things to heart such as: power comes from waist, use your hand and body together, have good posture, and make use of angles, you can fight freely..What do you think all the MMA guys do? Lay on the ground or flail their arms? We are physical beings, not air or a gas. Perhaps if you illustrated the Wing Chung classic fighting posture with words, rather than those general principles, it would have made your point clearer.


You claim my Bruce Lee comments are wild and unsupported? Then What are YOUR comments? Factual information...?
This topic is useless, continue.

And I do think using stances in combat efficiently is a great thing. It is not that I don't believe this, it is the fact that your idea of using stances, differs from mine.

[Daniel]

And I do think using stances in combat efficiently is a great thing. It is not that I don't believe this, it is the fact that your idea of using stances, differs from mine.

Yes, basically your idea or using stances is not using them and ours is using them.

There´s nothing wrong in not using stances, most martial arts and combat sports today are like this, and some people can be good fighters without stances (Like Bruce Lee). But if we are talking about kungfu, then if you don´t use stances is not kungfu!

[Jordan]

A Lesson on Mental Clarity and Coherent Presentation

Baguamonk1,

I am glad you responded, but rather disappointed that your post still showed a lack of mental clarity despite some earlier signs of improvement.

Let me help you. Imagine that you are not Baguamonk1, but a third person. Read my post on “Stances and Mental Clarity” (Post 50) again. Pay particular attention to the following two paragraphs:

One major issue in this Tai Chi Chuan debate concerned stances. Kaitain was of the opinion that using Tai Chi Chaun stances in combat was less effective than bouncing about as in Boxing. We in Shaolin Wahnam are of the opinion that using stances is crucial in Tai Chi Chuan as well as all other styles of kung fu.

It is quite clear to anyone with mental clarity to see that in this context and basing on what you have written in this and other threads, you are of the opinion that stances are not effective in fighting, irrespective of whether your opponent is more or less skilled than you. Using the analogy mentioned earlier, if the debate was whether eating cake was healthy, it is quite clear to anyone with mental clarity that Tom was against eating cake, even though he might not have said this in exact words.

If you find it difficult to understand these two paragraphs, it doesn’t matter. I shall further help you by summarizing the gist of the two paragraphs into the following one sentence:

“Baguamonk1 believes that in combat, using Tai Chi Chuan stances is less effective than bouncing about as in Boxing.”

Now re-read Post 51, just above, by Baguamonk1.

Can you see that this post (Post 51) is out of point?

If you can’t see the irrelevancy of Post 51 because you are not sure what this post is about, let me summarize the whole post into a few sentences as follows:

1. It is possible to bounce about.
2. If a Boxer was not rooted, he would have no power or mobility.
3. One could use Tai Chi core principles in changing a tire.
4. If a Chen Style practitioner punches speedily like a Boxer, his art will look like Boxing.
5. If you claim to use Tai Chi Chuan for combat but actually use Boxing or Kick-Boxing, then you are lame.
6. This thread should not be called “Dispelling Ignorance and Untruths” because what are discussed are opinions and not facts.
7. I can say you are ignorant if you merely sit at a Bow-Arrow Stance and wave your arms about while defending against a Boxer who bounces about.
8. Bruce Lee said something similar to the quote about the body following the hand movements, etc.
9. I can follow the quote and still fight freely.
10. It is not that Baguamonk1 does not believe in stances, but that his ideas of using stances are different from those of Shaolin Wahnam.

Now it becomes easier for you to see that the 10 points above, which form the substance of Post 51, do not address the topic mentioned in Post 50, which is “Baguamonk1 believes that in combat, using Tai Chi Chuan stances is less effective than bouncing about as in Boxing”.

Having seen this, you can now return to be Baguamonk1 and see what you should have done. Here are a few effective alternatives:

1. Prove that the statement I have made is wrong. In other words, prove that I have come to a wrong conclusion from the available background information.
2. Prove that your belief is right, i.e. using Tai Chi Chuan stances in combat is actually less effective than bouncing about as in Boxing.
3. Accept your previous mistake and thank me for pointing it out. You will most likely earn more respect this way.

Whichever approach you adopt, you must substantiate with evidence, such as with quotes from me and other forum members. Without substantiation, not only your words carry no weight, you may be regarded as irresponsible for making unfounded allegations.

Hopefully, by now you may realize that who wins the debate is far less important than deriving benefits of mental clarity and coherent presentation from its participation. This is actually one of the objectives of our discussion forum.

I shall touch on a few of your above 10 points before continuing with my planned posts with my comments on your previous Post 47 as promised.

[Jordan]

Principles and Practice, Facts and Opinions

Baguamonk1,

To be frank, any one of my brother or sister instructors in Shaolin Wahnam could pick out every one of the 10 points in your recent post to show their ignorance, untruth or other weaknesses. If we do this, it is not because we want to belittle you (on the contrary, I honestly believe you will benefit greatly from this discussion), or that we are arrogant and want to show how clever we are in public debates.

We do this for two important reasons. One, Shaolin Wahnam members, including instructors, regard our discussion forum as an extension of our training. In this case, it provides us with opportunities to develop mental clarity, coherent presentation as well as deepen our understanding of kung fu philosophy. Two, we also use our forum to disseminate quality information.

Nevertheless, I shall not discuss all the 10 points here, I shall discuss only 3 which are more immediate to the topic in discussion.

1 If a Chen Style practitioner punches speedily like a Boxer, his art will look like Boxing.
2 If you claim to use Taijiquan for combat but actually use Boxing or Kick-Boxing, then you are lame.
3 This thread should not be called “Dispelling Ignorance and Untruths” because what are discussed are opinions and not facts.


I am very glad of the first two points above that you mentioned. They are precisely the points we in Shaolin Wahnam are trying to tell kung fu circles in particular and the public in general. So here we are in perfect agreement – at least in theory.

But in practice – please correct me if I am mistaken – judging from your posts you seem to lack the skills and techniques to put the two principles in action. In other words, although you believe that a Chen Style or any Tai Chi Chuan practitioner should use Tai Chi Chaun punches if he wishes his art to look like Taijiquan instead of Boxing, you are unable to do so in practice. So you still punch like a Boxer.

Secondly, although you believe that if you claim to use Tai Chi Chuan for combat, you should actually do so, you can’t. So you still use Kick-Boxing techniques.

What you do in this connection is actually the norm today. Most Chinese martial artists today, and as you have mentioned before, including many masters, use Boxing, Kick-Boxing and other martial art techniques for combat. Some of them are formidable fighters using non-kung fu techniques. But the issue is not whether they are formidable fighters or not; the issue is whether they use kung fu, including Tai Chi Chaun, techniques.

We in Shaolin Wahnam are very fortunate still to have the sparring methodology to use kung fu techniques for combat. As part of our effort to restore the past glory of kung fu, my Sifu is incredibly generous to share this sparring methodology with others, irrespective of whether they learn from Shaolin Wahnam. Such a generous gesture is incredible and unprecedented in kung fu history. You may therefore better understand why we respond so passionately when guests come into our forum and loudly proclaim that kung fu techniques cannot be used for fighting.

Let me make an important clarification. We are convinced that kung fu is effective for combat. But we have never claimed that we are formidable fighters. While we have full faith in the combat efficiency of kung fu, we are also aware that if our opponents are more skilful, irrespective of whether they use kung fu or other martial arts, we can be beaten. We have no illusion about that.

The third point concerns opinions and facts in our discussion. While much of our discussion involves opinions, it is based on facts.

To appreciate the difference between facts and opinions, let us have a few examples.

If you say that in combat, bouncing about is more effective than using stances, it is an opinion. There is no definite right or wrong. Bouncing about may be more effective for you and many people, but for others (and in the real world today, they will be a rare minority) using stances may be more effective.

If a practitioner bounces about and punches like a Boxer does, he is practicing Boxing, although he may (mistakenly or ignorantly) call it Tai Chi Chuan. This is a fact. If you say it is an opinion, it is a case of twisting the facts.

If you practice Tai Chi Chuan forms but use Kick-Boxing for combat, and think this is more effective than using Tai Chi Chuan techniques, this is an opinion. Many Tai Chi Chaun practitioners actually have this opinion, and they are of course entitled to it.

But if these practitioners say that Tai Chi Chuan techniques cannot be used for combat, then it is ignorance and their ignorance is a fact.

Let us take an example from a previous post. You mentioned that Bruce Lee’s understanding of Wing Chun was not incomplete because he understood Wing Chun basics, and that was all it mattered to you.

My contention was that your statement showed your ignorance. I would call this a fact, not an opinion.

I did not merely make a statement even though it was a statement of fact. I substantiated it with evidence. I explained that using stances and low kicks were basics in Wing Chun, but Bruce Lee discarded stances and his kicks were typically high. Moreover a performance of Jeet Kune Do, Bruce Lee’s art, whether in solo or in combat, was basically different from a performance of Wing Chun. But you were ignorant of all these facts. Hence, in this case dispelling ignorance involved facts, not opinions.

[Jordan]

Confusing Cause with Effect

Baguamonk1,

As I said, I am not going to respond in this thread anymore. It is a useless thread to me, but to you guys it is well worth it. I hope it has brought you insight, and allows the integrity of the Wahnam ideals to remain intact.

Whether you wish to respond or not is your right and privilege, though I hope you would, because far from being useless, it would benefit you much.

While our effort in this thread is worth it -- otherwise we would not waste our time here -- you are mistaken to think that it has brought us insight and allowed the integrity of the Wahnam ideals to remain intact.

You have confused “root and branch”, which is a kung fu term meaning cause and effect. Our having insight is the “root” or cause. Because of our insight, we can see the fallacies of your posts, whereas you can’t. It is not the other way round; it is not due to your posts that we develop insight.

However, your posts revealed that you lacked this insight. As a result you made some untrue statements. But, as I mentioned before, I believe your untrue statements are not intentional, they are due to your ignorance.

How does one develop insight? In our case, it is from our mental clarity. We developed mental clarity from the training of our Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Shaolin Kung fu, and Wahnam Tai Chi Chaun as internal arts. If you train a genuine internal art, you should develop mental clarity. If you read the posts by Shaolin Wahnam members, including students, you can see that they all exhibit mental clarity. If you practice three internal arts, and still lack mental clarity, you should start to examine what has gone wrong.

Thank you for your wish for the integrity of our Shaolin Wahnam ideals remaining intact. From your post I can sense you are sincere, and we appreciate that. But thanking you is one thing, dispelling ignorance is another.

Irrespective of whether you have posted and irrespective of what you post, the integrity of our Shaolin Wahnam ideals will still remain intact. Here again you have confused root and branch, or cause and effect. Our integrity is the cause not the effect of our response to your posts. It is because of our integrity that we respond the way we do; it is not because of your posts that we start to have integrity.

[Jordan]

Let’s Join Hands to Restore the Glory of Kung fu

Baguamonk1,

And I laugh at above post, saying that I "concluded" that I thought Chinese Martial Arts was a joke as a whole..Oh wow, no wonder I don't take this thread seriously.

You do not take this thread seriously because you lack understanding. I believe you may actually learn something having read my explanation. The choice is yours. Either use this opportunity to improve yourself or continue to laugh.

Although you did not use the exact words to say “Chinese martial arts were a joke”, your posts suggested so.

The following quotes from you are all taken from a single post.

It is my opinion that most of Taiji out there is "dance" and even high level masters aren't competent in the art of fighting.

I personally think Taiji needs to evolve, not just taiji, but CMA in general.

And yes, an internal strike, is still in some-way shape or form a "physical" form of striking.

Also as to what some people have said about "boxing" and "muscular" training, there is nothing wrong with balancing things out with muscular training.

All I was trying to say about "boxing" was that if you were to use IMA body mechanics to strike in certain ways quickly and decisvely in a real situation, it might not look too different from your typical fight.

There is nothing wrong with "bouncing" footwork so long as it is trained and for a purpose.

In case you don’t remember, this post is from the Tai Chi Chaun thread in which you came to defend Kaitan long after the debate had ended. A significant point in this debate was that Kaitan advocated bouncing around and using boxing and wrestling techniques over Tai Chi Chaun stances and techniques. He also thought that internal force was unreal. Our position was clear – we advocated using stances and Tai Chi Chaun patterns, and that using internal force was very real.

Kaitan basically said our Tai Chi Chaun techniques were ineffective, and even offered to show us how ineffective they were in person. Jamie, Robin and Ronan were more than happy to accept Kaitan's offer, but in the end this did not take place.

As you stepped in to defend Kaitan, you logically suggested you shared his views that bouncing around and using boxing or wrestling techniques were superior to Tai Chi Chaun, and that internal force was not real. The quotes above enforce this view of yours and suggest that Chinese Martial Arts are not as they were, which is another way of saying they are a joke.

Has the reputation, and condition of these arts severely been comprimised??

Yes. When you speak as an authority and with more than 80% of Chinese martial art practitioners practicing their arts as a dance or gymnastics, your comments only worsen the reputation and condition of these arts. It is exactly this reason why we speak out so strongly, to spread the truth.

Yes. I never SAID all, but there is a vast majority of BS out there, and anyone who can't see that is dellusional.

If your view is that genuine Chinese martial arts, such as Tai Chi Chaun, use stances in combat, develop internal force and are combat effective, but due to various reasons this essence is now lost to most practitioners, then your view is the same as ours. If this is the case, we should then unite to restore the glory of Chinese martial arts.

Many in Shaolin Wahnam have direct experience of this essence. We employ stances in combat, use internal force and are combat efficient thanks to the techniques found in our art. And instead of hiding this gem, which was once a secret, we actually want to share it with the rest of the world, to those who are deserving, including you if you wish.

But your previous posts did not convey this view. Instead, you conveyed the view that Chinese martial arts were a joke, and not effective for combat in their current form. Hence, those who practice Chinese martial arts, like Tai Chi Chaun, must borrow techniques from Boxing, Kick-Boxing, Wrestling and other martial arts if they wish to fight well.

However, we shall be very glad if, after reading my explanation, you have changed your view. We should then join hands to restore the glory of kung fu.

[Baguamonk1]

I hope you get paid to do this, because its nonsense.

Everything you say is your own personal opinions on things I have said. Go prove that your opinions, or views on things are fact.

As Kevin said, it is not even worth it replying to anything, because it will only make it worse, You will continue no matter what I say. Using clever misdirection (as other people claim I do), clever use of words and vocabulary to try and debunk everything I say.

It is my opinion, DEAL WITH IT. If you're high and mighty pre-conceptions of what Shaolin, or Taiji is seem to crumble to the ground, then so be it, that is your fault. Not mine.

Why does something have to "look like taijiquan" to be taijiquan. You're Shaolin Wahnam taijiquan looks nothing like any other taijiquan style I have seen, and yet I still consider it Taijiquan. A punch is a punch, I don't care how exotic or sophisticated the art, it is likely there is a punch similar looking in one art, to the next. Fajing is fast, in case you did not know. And it isn't always Chen Xiao Wang-looking fajing, sometimes it doesn't look much different from a normal punch at all (again to the untrained eye).

This is a positive Bias towards everything that is Wahnam material, or gospel/beliefs, and a Bias against anything that doesn't fit it. As evidenced not just by me, but by every other "outsider" who posts here. Just calm down, go spend your day doing something else than jabbering endless nonsense, and quit talking about me as if I am not here. Baguamonk this, Baguamonk that, do you actually take yourself seriously? This isn't a court of law, this is an internet forum. Yes I know its ultra-famous and you guys are world class kung fu experts, but even so....

Its not even worth reading your supposed case study anymore. Its boring, and you are spewing the same things over and over. Have fun typing for long periods at a time about something that has no bearing or meaning to me, and probably none to your students.

I said wrestling techniques were superior to taijiquan? See what I mean, this thread is absolute nonsense, again you are putting words in my mouth "But your posts infer this according to the background information, we can prove it blah blah blah" BS, and you know it. I was saying taijiquan could be used with "Wrestling" hell they call Shuai Jou wrestling. Peng, Lu, Al, Lieh, etc. can ALL be used in wrestling, so can tingjing and fali. If you don't know that, then I call YOU ignorant. You are desperate.

[Nick Jones]

Baguamonk,

Imagine for a minute that you had been taught an extremely precious art. Imagine that after practicing this art for a while you discovered many wonderful benefits; your health improved dramatically, you discovered a new 'you' free from all your old insecurities and worries and were able to become the person you had always dreamt you could be. Imagine that your family and friends started to notice how much brighter you were and began to reflect this through their own actions; more smiling more laughter more love.

Imagine that everything about this art provided these benefits to you. Every aspect of the way you moved, breathed, and focused while performing this art, built a subtle force within you that was the catalyst for all these wonderful changes. Imagine that you fell in love with this art for it's beauty and poetry of movement, not to mention the effectiveness that it provided you with in all aspects of your daily life. Imagine you that you not only wished to help other people by spreading this art, but that you had vowed to do so, so that they could derive some of the benefits that you had.

Imagine this art was called Taijiqaun.

Now imagine 2 million other people also practiced this 'Taijiquan' only they didnt derive the benefits you did, in fact every time you claimed you recieved such joyous benefits they laughed at you and told you that you were talking nonsense. Imagine they told you this art which you loved and had experienced a myriad of joys from was incomplete and needed to borrow movements from other arts if it was to work. Imagine they openly scoffed at you when you mentioned this force that you built in your practice that brought so much happiness to you and your loved ones. Imagine they came to the place that you had chosen to inform people of this art to tell you that your claims about the art were delusional and that they're version, that didnt provide these benefits, was the correct form of this art. Imagine that despite these claims these people were unwilling to prove them and often unwilling even to identify themselves, prefering to make the claims behind a mask of anonymity.

Imagine that interested people would come to find out about your art only to find other people sniggering over your claims and so they lost hope and the chance of enjoying the many benefits of your art.

Imagine you were duty bound to debunk these false claims and spread the true art in all its beauty to as many people irrespective of race, class, or religion, so that they could share your benefits. Imagine that rather than feel malice towards those who made the false claims and spread misinformation you actually felt pity as you knew what they were missing. Imagine that rather than mocking or judging them you sincerely wished to help, by explaining they're misconceptions of your art..

Imagine all of this and maybe you will understand the reason for this thread.

If you do so then I suggest you reread this quote from my Sifu:

However, we shall be very glad if, after reading my explanation, you have changed your view. We should then join hands to restore the glory of kung fu.

Shaolin Salute.

[Antonius]

Dear Baguamonk,

First of all, how about giving us a name? If you want to be addressed more directly, then a name would probably help. You've been on our forum for a while, but we don't even know your name.

I'm Anthony, by the way.

Have fun typing for long periods at a time about something that has no bearing or meaning to me, and probably none to your students.

It may have no meaning to you. That's your choice. But don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that it is meaningless to his students? I'm on the other side of the pond from Jordan, but even my students are benefitting from his posts.

Jordan's stance is quite clear. Like all of us in Shaolin Wahnam, he is dedicated to restoring the former glory of Kung Fu. We feel strongly that internal froce is real, that traditional techniques can be used in combat, and that Kung Fu does not need to borrow techniques from other martial arts.

Your stance is not clear. For the most part, you seem to disagree with the core beliefs of our school. You say that a punch need not look like Taijiquan to be Taijiquan, but we disagree. Of course, there are many styles of Taijiquan, and a lot of variety there, but a Taijiquan punch must have certain core principles (like stances). These principles simply cannot be used with a Western boxing punch.

So if you agree with us, or if we are misinterpreting your beliefs, then why not make your stance clearer?

Warm regards,

[Grimlock]

I'm on the other side of the pond from Jordan, but even my students are benefitting from his posts.

Agreed, Sifu. I am certainly benefitting from Sisook Jordan's posts -thank you, Sisook.

Baguamonk,
I have been generally staying out of the threads you are in because many of my much wiser brothers and sisters are already engaged in discussion with you, and I would just be a distraction. Nevertheless, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for continuing to post in this thread. From my admittedly low vantage point, I think that while you obviously see my Sisook's posts as provocative, they have still helped you to clarify some of your positions, if only a bit. But there are still many points you've made that I am unclear on. For instance, your last paragraph in your most recent post.

I only practice Shaolinquan, not Taijiquan or Shuai Jiao, so I am admittedly ignorant about the latter two. But aren't they separate arts? If so, do they use the exact same principles? I would think that if you use a Taijiquan technique, you should use Taijiquan principles. If you use a Shuai Jiao technique, you should use Shuai Jiao principles.

This different principles for different arts bit is something I'm currently experiencing. For the past few months, I've been learning and practicing Shaolinquan kicks. Before I started practicing Shaolinquan, I practiced Taekwondo for 6 years (with a little break in between ). It would be very easy for me to say, "This Shaolinquan kick I'm learning, 'Happy Bird Hops up Branch', is kinda like a Taekwondo sidekick. So 'Happy Bird' = sidekick." And then go practicing sidekicks as Happy Birds. But if I did that, I would not be practicing Happy Birds -I'd be practicing sidekicks. There are subtle differences between the two (many of which I'm still finding). Ultimately, Taekwondo sidekicks use Taekwondo principles, and Happy Birds use Shaolinquan principles. It really makes all the difference. And it's not just semantics -despite their similar appearances, the two kicks are quite different.