How can i phrase this i really want to know !

[Kin Tama]

Grammaton cleric, you are right i was hostile in my opening post , but i explained this on a couple of occasions, reason being i dont like hearing other style bashing and "this style is the best" Also when i hear claims and i see other wise like i said before it dissapoints/angers me. Ironically the last couple of posts have been about practsing what you preach and put your money where your mouth is which is what i had originally pointed the finger at wahnam in general about for not seeing this in video demonstrations and even more i would like to see this in competition.
I admit wholeheartedly if i saw this in a high ranking competition, any mixed martial arts style competition, of a half decent calibre.
Im not talking about i want to see it on the ufc but any one of the preliminary style grappling and stand up fighting competitions they host world wide now, using the sparring outlined in the video clips . I would not only eat my words but i would promote shaolin wahnam to everybody i knew who wanted to learn traditional kung fu. I would forever be saying well look at shaolin wahnams student so and so , they did it , in fact they are the first to do it in 15 years.
Why do i say this , because i have heard it so many times and am dissapointed that i have never seen it.


Look at any of the other forums, kung fu online bullshido wle.com and all you ever see is people bashing why kung fu doesnt work and how no one fights to prove it. I believe the reason this bashing occurs is because of how so many schools promote their concept of the unbeatable internal kung fu master who is too dangerous to fight.

About subtle insults back and forth, i think they are there whether intended or wether just because of heated discussion. Either way it adds flavour after all martial arts is about fighting without fighting .

[Andrew]

Ok Kin -- you are obviously extremely high level compared to everyone in Shaolin Wahnam. So let's set up a free sparring session - full force, full speed of course - between you and a Shaolin Wahnam member of our choice. If you win, we will pay all costs involved - both yours and ours - and publicise the video. If our member wins, you pay all the costs involved - both yours and ours - and we publicise the video too. That way you can prove all you have stated to the world.

So if what you have been saying is all true, you have nothing to lose.

What do you say?

Andrew

[humblefist]

Hello All,

Beware! Long post ahead!

I have been following this thread with some interest, although it seems to have deviated from its original intent.

Original Intent

This original intent I interpreted was Kin Tama questioning the tactics displayed in the video clips (for instance pointing out that moving back and forward exchanging punches and blocks seemed to be inefficient and pointless to him as he would just move out to one side avoiding the initial attack and counter attack with a decisive finishing move).

My understanding is that the clips show various progressions of the Wahnam training program, and the sparring shows various skills being trained such as spacing and timing, spontaneous change, footwork adjustment, safety first, flowing movement and force, etc. None of these clips seemed to be based on one person attempting to beat the other person at all costs, but were showing various skills being trained in a more co-operative environment.

As I understand it, what Kin Tama is referring to is the third of three levels of responses available when someone attacks you with, for instance, a punch:
1) Defense then counterattack
2) Simultaneous Defense and counterattack
3) No defense direct counter

Now I’m no Kungfu master, and dissecting video clips of various random moments of training is not the route I would suggest for verifying these skills.

So;

1) It would seem Kin Tama is skeptical of whether any members of Shaolin Wahnam can apply these skills in a manner he expects, which is a fundamental problem as perhaps his expectations are different from the actual result.
2) He is also skeptical because he does not see these things demonstrated in the video clips (this is not to say they are not there, I’m sure I can see several examples off all three of the above levels demonstrated),
3) and I believe as he has not seen them himself before in person (by Shaolin Wahnam members).

So therefore there is a stalemate, as the Shaolin Wahnam members basically feel that
a) They do experience these things
b) They do not need to convince anyone
c) if you would like to discuss this with them then some maybe willing to do so but please take note that this is the Shaolin Wahnam forum so if you wish to be welcome here and have polite discussion them behave in an appropriate manner, i.e. be polite and humble as you are seeking information and answers from them. (This is only logical to me).

(note, while reviewing this post, before posting, I saw Sifu Andrews post about a possible solution that could end the stalemate)

Next, the internal/external force issues that have been raised (again).

Selective Breaking

I have watched the videos, both the Shaolin Wahnam breaking videos and the ones posted by Kin Tama.

I will try and explain why I think that the feeling is that the ones posted by Kin Tama are considered 'external'. Please note here that they maybe breaks using internal force, but they are not conclusive demonstrations of someone breaking with internal force in my opinion.

Break 1 concrete blocks with spacers
Break 2 is baseball bat broken with the forearm near the base
Break 3 is a stack of boards or something similar with spacers broken by a fist/palm, then a baseball bat with the forearm, then a baseball bat (i think) with the shin.

All off these breaks can be explained by Newtonian physics, simply mass and acceleration, and admittedly technique, results in the breaks. You could do the same with a hammer. This is not to say that the persons are not powerful, nor that they are not skillful. But all these breaks can be done with external force, albeit I expect with some conditioning or they will have some nasty bruises!

The example on the Shaolin Wahnam site where Sifu Ronan breaks the bottom brick is different for several reasons;

According to Newtonian physics (and assuming the bricks are the same which most modern bricks are for all intents and purposes if taken from the same batch) this break is not possible. For example, can you recreate this with a hammer? No.

As the force of an impact moves through an object it dissipates, this is basic physics, and so if the second brick breaks the first will break first! There is no Newtonian physics explanation for sending force through the first brick without influencing it (breaking it) and having it appear in the second brick and break it.

Now, using more modern physics, such as quantum physics, it maybe possible to explain how it works but that beyond me I’m afraid!

So, simply put, either
a) Sifu Ronan used internal force to break the bottom of two bricks but not the top one
b) The clip is a hoax; the bricks were tampered with, special effects, etc.
c) Something else is happening that I haven’t though of!

Personally I believe option 'a' as I trust the integrity of the Shaolin Wahnam organization and members and I cannot think of another explanation.

Also to back this up is the record of previous masters accomplishing similar (or greater, no offence intended Sifu Ronan) feats.

Selective Breaking is what this is called in the martial arts world I believe, and it is considered a myth. Well done to Shaolin Wahnam for their myth-busting!

The video of the two masters from the 40’s

To me, and I expect to the others watching the clip, it is obvious that what is shown here is neither Crane style nor Taijiquan. This should not be held up as an example of high level Kungfu sparring, to be honest it looks more like children fighting in the playground. I really cannot think of a lot more to say about this except that it is just not an example of proper kungfu sparring, although it bears a resemblance to modern kungfu sparring! (not Shaolin Wahnam before anyone thinks that’s what I mean! I mean all the terrible sanda competitions!)

Jing, Chi and Shen

Kin Tama, I am unsure what you mean when you mention different types of Chi, and different levels without/beyond Chi? Could you explain more what you mean?

Last of all; the issue of the insults.

Insults

To me this is the least important, what matters is the heart of the matter! There is an excellent story in Sifu Wong's Complete Book of Shaolin about an instance where he almost got involved with defending his honor which could have lead to serious injury or death to some people involved, when his Sifu pointed out that as he had not committed any wrong in the first place what honor did he have to defend! That it was purely attachment to vainglory and that, as taught by the Buddha, when attacked with insults one should respond with calmness and compassion! (Sifu Wongs version is longer, more eloquent, and more enjoyable!)

So rather than wasting time with 'who called who what' or 'so and so is being insulting' all that is simply needed is simple, direct and effective answers to questions (just don’t expect an answer if you don’t ask nicely, understandably!). The thread and posts so far are enough testimony to who called who what and when that the subject is a waste of life to chat about.

I saw Sifu Andrews post as I was writing this, and I must admit it seems an excellent way to resolve the issue, but I wonder again if Sifu Wongs story is relevant here? I guess that would depend on the intention behind it. So probably not.

[julie]

Ok Kin -- you are obviously extremely high level compared to everyone in Shaolin Wahnam. So let's set up a free sparring session - full force, full speed of course - between you and a Shaolin Wahnam member of our choice. If you win, we will pay all costs involved - both yours and ours - and publicise the video. If our member wins, you pay all the costs involved - both yours and ours - and we publicise the video too. That way you can prove all you have stated to the world.

So if what you have been saying is all true, you have nothing to lose.

What do you say?

Andrew

Dear Sifu Andrew,

No...this is not a good idea. To me, it seems like it is not a friendly sparring...
A Shaolin disciple is obliged to be humane, compassionate and spread love, and to realize everlasting peace and happiness for all people.

Best wishes,
Julie

[Kin Tama]

Dear Sifu Andrew your offer is VEEEEEEEERY tempting, (In the back of my mind i hear these things saying instant fame,if you win. Imagine i could set up a website and charge 1500 dollars a lesson too the man who brought down shaolin wahnam ) J/k but seriously i would be tempted not because i would want an excuse to fight but its an excuse to meet shaolin wahnam personally.
Also i dont like the thought of people saying he refused the challenge far from it, this is one more thing that makes it tempting to say yes.

But i would decline for a couple of reasons.

1 I dont feel i have anything to prove, I know where i stand and where shaolin wahnam stands and for me it would serve no purpose. If i win we havent accomplished anything, also it serves no purpose towards the reputation of the shaolin wahnam school in fact i dont think sifu wong would like this either. Also my reputation isnt at stake the whole of shaolin wahnams is.
If i lose , i never claimed to be a top world contender in fighting so doesnt really bother me. Im not the one who makes claims of martial arts comparison.

2 I wouldnt want anyone to get hurt (its ok to say we chose a member, but how do you think that member feels he doesnt even know who i am how heavy i am or what the heII is going on. )
Also the fact that the warrior project is ongoing indicates that the shaolin wahnam students have no experience in fighting anyone else neither are they ready or they would be already competing.


The bullshido forum accepts this sort of challenge however, i could nominate a member like you said nominate a member and they agree to the concept of paying the fees if they lose the pool money together etc, as it has been done time and time again, I would rather not see wahnam fight someone and lose so lets not get anyone else involved. Unless this challenge is only aimed at me as you dont like me

Lastly if shaolin wahnam were to lose how do you think i would feel as well as the rest of the martial arts community , its bad enough we get enough of a bashing from mma, if this occured we would really never hear the end of it.

On another note i would have no problem when the warrior project is complete and students have been chosen to compete in events to also go and compete in these events. As this isnt putting the whole of wahnam at stake, its a simple competition.


Humble fist, good post i dont know if you are a shaolin wahnam student i see its your first post, but you are the first person who has actually understood my point of why i believe the concept and methodology in the sparring is lacking !!!!! After 10 pages you grasped my point tottaly and in your 3 points you outline exactly why there is a stale mate In a tottally non one sided manner may i add.

In the second part of your post the only thing i could add is i had never thought of the concept of demonstrating something with a hammer to see if it was external or internal ! Using newtonian physics as you say the reason i claim the bottom brick could break is because the two bricks together absorb all the force as one, since the force is spread out equally throughout the whole mass i.e 2 bricks, the weakest point is the bottom of the 2 bricks since this point is suspended in air whereas the top of the brick is all compact it doesnt have anywhere to "give way" for example the concept of why an archway doesnt fall it has a key stone in the middle that holds the top in.
I would believe if this demonstration were done placing the bottom brick on the floor it would be more convincing as an internal demo.

About jing chi and shen, one of the problems we have i believe in explaining this concept is the matter of translation a lot of people use the word jing to mean a multiple of things,
however when i was talking to someone more knowledgeable on the subject he said to me jing he says is sperm, jieng he says is like essence your physical body is jing everything you see is jing, , hence why meridians are called jing luo.
And jin means power, when you strike you produce power in other words the action of moving your arm to punch and putting together force impulse mass strength speeed is in english power in chinese it is called jin. (The confusion arises because people call everything Jing online or in books)
Thats why there are different types of jin for example cun jin (inch punch power) dou jin (shaking explosive power) fa jin is releasing energy out wards expolsively, or you could say putting power into your action.In china they say fa li often meaning emitting strength.

Now why does confusion arise because in the old classics it says convert jing to chi chi to shen, and in other classics it says after a lot of practise when you have chi it will condense and manifest as jing. So people say wait a minute am i changing jing to chi or the other way round. No what is meant is the second jing should be jin i.e power the first is jing essence.
This is what i meant by a lot of things that look external are high level chi kung that has become natural the chi is part and parcel of the power of that person its no longer called on or feels like chi.

What i meant by levels , its a bit hard to explain i used the example of the radio station but i will try it differently.
If we take a look at emotions they all have a different FEEL to them even though we cant see the emotions, if you sit next to someone who is happy sad grumpy you will feel a different vibe off them, some people may some may not be able to feel this some are more sensitive, now all these emotions being different occupy a level of the spectrum i was talking about.
Whether you percieve it as chi being emitted , or shen , or the mind affecting the way chi flows etc. Each emotion has a distinct flavour to it. This is what i mean by there is a spectrum, and when you are tapped into one part of it you see only that part.
I hope this makes sense, the other way you can see it is through the i ching , this interaction of energies that creates the world, each specific energy has different quality to it, this quality is even further behind the scenes of chi, what creates this quality etc etc.
Like feeling the chi of a tree and that of a rock, its so distinct its on a different wavelength this is like a simple example because these things are within the normal field of chi that we sense.


Lastly on the point of insults and sifu wongs story, i believe that there is a time to fight and not to fight, now i dont want to sound holier than thou and go aum i am a peaceful person and i want to show my spirituality brothers and thus lets have tea instead of fighting no i dont believe in doing this. Neither am i trying to show a higher level of being.
On one hand we are told that if someone insults your honour you should fight on the other hand we are told that we must be peaceful.
Do i feel that someone insulted my honour not really , but do i feel my ego going SAY YES FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT and i think its important to distinguish between the ego and honour. And ego is a bad thing.
But i believe that there is a reason to fight and not to and one thing i believe is one shouldnt fight out of anger. But when theres a reason then its all good to test oneself in sport to improve the peoples interest in martial arts in good faith or to defend someones life , etc

[Andrew]

humblefist - your first post and an excellent one. Thanks.

No...this is not a good idea. To me, it seems like it is not a friendly sparring...
A Shaolin disciple is obliged to be humane, compassionate and spread love, and to realize everlasting peace and happiness for all people.

Dear Julie, I can assure you that a Shaolin Wahnam member would fulfil the obligations you mention. I can also assure you that at least the Shaolin Wahnam member would maintain friendliness in such a sparring session. This is less a challenge and more offering an opportunity for Kin to experience our low level arts for himself. He wants proof and I cannot think of another way to provide it. We could offer video material of one of our members fighting with Mike Tyson and he would say -- "yeah, yeah-- how much did you pay him?" or "He's not in form" or........

Kin - Another long post with a mix of everything possible --- not really much on the topic at hand.

Please understand why I made the suggestion I did and do not try and read things into it which were not there.

1 I dont feel i have anything to prove

And nor do we!

I know where i stand and where shaolin wahnam stands and for me it would serve no purpose.

I don't think you really understand where we stand.

If i win we havent accomplished anything, also it serves no purpose towards the reputation of the shaolin wahnam school in fact i dont think sifu wong would like this either. Also my reputation isnt at stake the whole of shaolin wahnams is

Wrong. Our reputation is not at stake at all. What makes you say that?

If i lose , i never claimed to be a top world contender in fighting so doesnt really bother me. Im not the one who makes claims of martial arts comparison

LOL. Now you ARE being funnny. You tell us that our Instructors are low level and that what we do is no good . You then post links to video material you say IS good ..... and then say you are making no claims or comparisons.

2 I wouldnt want anyone to get hurt (its ok to say we chose a member, but how do you think that member feels he doesnt even know who i am how heavy i am or what the heII is going on. )

If it makes a difference -- how heavy you are etc. -- then our Art is pretty poor!

Also the fact that the warrior project is ongoing indicates that the shaolin wahnam students have no experience in fighting anyone else neither are they ready or they would be already competing.

Again a bad and incorrect assumption.

The rest of your post seems to be a confused ramble I'm afraid.

But ok -- let's forget the friendly sparring.

Andrew

[humblefist]

Hey Kin Tama,

i dont know if you are a shaolin wahnam student

Im not. But perhaps one day i will be.

but you are the first person who has actually understood my point of why i believe the concept and methodology in the sparring is lacking !!!!! After 10 pages you grasped my point tottaly and in your 3 points you outline exactly why there is a stale mate In a tottally non one sided manner may i add.

Thanks, I think I grasped your point after your first post (not very humble of me there!) but I felt that as this thread was drifting from that point it would help to go 'back to basics' as I am keen as well to see these points discussed. I hope I was 'non one sided' in my manner as that is what I aimed to be; I’m not interested in my opinions on this issue but I am interested in the Shaolin Wahnam opinions/explanations. Basically I like to learn and I figure if I lay it out and ask nicely they will explain and I will learn!

In the second part of your post the only thing i could add is i had never thought of the concept of demonstrating something with a hammer to see if it was external or internal !

This doesn’t prove whether the break was made with internal force or external force but shows whether you can do it with external/internal force. For example if you take those two bricks however you hit them with the hammer you are never going to break the bottom one only, although you may break the top one or both of them, showing such a break is not possible with external force.

Using newtonian physics as you say the reason i claim the bottom brick could break is because the two bricks together absorb all the force as one, since the force is spread out equally throughout the whole mass i.e 2 bricks, the weakest point is the bottom of the 2 bricks since this point is suspended in air whereas the top of the brick is all compact it doesnt have anywhere to "give way" for example the concept of why an archway doesnt fall it has a key stone in the middle that holds the top in.

I don’t believe you are right here because the force dissipates as it moves through the brick/bricks the force is at maximum at the point of impact, and it is not spread out equally though the two bricks: Even if using just one brick the force dissipates as it moves through it which is why when you break it it does not explode into millions of little bits but rather breaks at the point of impact in the direction the force travels (unless your in a movie!). I don’t know the math to calculate how much it dissipates by before it reaches the second brick though, perhaps there is a physics student/teacher reading this who could help?

And as my physics is not to hot these days I have pinched someone else’s explanation of why you cannot break the bottom brick without breaking the top one;

"My Two Cents:

The short version:
I don't think you can break block 2 without breaking block 1 assuming all blocks equal. Though I'm not very imaginative, I can't see how this could be done without "cheating"(see below).

The long version:
To break a block, you need to stress the block. You stress a block by deforming it or by baking stresses into it beforehand. When somebody strikes the first block, they are supplying a force to deform the block. The higher the pressure, the greater the stress, so this strike should ideally by a larger force over a small area. This creates a concenrated region in the concrete to deform. This deformation spreads along the direction of impact but becomes less and less concentrated as the deformation is 'blunter'.

If at any stage of the journey there is a concrete block that cannot cope with the deformation, it will break. Now here's the rub:
You cannot directly deform the second block without deforming the first block at least as much. For the second block to break, the first block should have broken assuming they are identical.

Take the example to an extreme: Put a (square) egg on the first block. Can you break the first block without breaking the egg? What about a hard boiled (square) egg? Still no. Egg breaks first. Shale block? Nope, it would still break first. Now finally use a concrete block. If I am supplying enough pressure to break the second block, the first block should be feeling at least the same pressure if the blocks are flush and smooth.

How to cheat:
(1) Otherwise weaken or bake stresses into the second block (already mentioned). Metal and glass workers know that you have to relieve stress to increase strength. Or you could make a hollow brick.
(2) Make block 1 with a pointy bottom.

Ok maybe put it like this:

(1) Everything there experiences a deformation (read: bends, crushes, contorts).
(2)The more a force is concentrated to a small area (read: the higher pressure) the more the deformation.
(3)The amount of deformation at any point depends on the distance from the impact since the force is spread as it goes deeper thereby reducing the pressure at any given point.
(4)At any point in the stack if a block can't handle the deformation asked for, it will crack.
(5)Since any given deformation will be greatest near the point of striking, this will be expected to be the most vulnerable to breaking.

EDIT: Word on "deform". This is not to say it will be a permanent deformation. You either break a block or you don't. If you don't deform a brick enough, it springs back to its original shape after the pressure is removed. This is the ouch factor from when you fail in breaking it."

What I believe is most important here is point (3) above, how the stress dissipates from the point of impact as it moves through the stack and therefore shows you could not break brick two before brick one breaks.

I would believe if this demonstration were done placing the bottom brick on the floor it would be more convincing as an internal demo.

I agree this would be more convincing to some people, but then others would still find fault, and from a physics perspective it does not make a difference.


Thanks for your explanation of what you think/mean about the Jing/Chi/Shen stuff, I’m not really qualified to respond, perhaps some of the Shaolin Wahnam people will, but thanks for explaining your ideas to me more fully.

[Andrew]

humblefist --- you might find Question 1 from Feb 2004 Q&A interesting.

Andrew

[humblefist]

Do Jeh Saai Barnett Sifu!

Thanks for this information and for your earlier kind words on my first post that I missed until now.

So as I now understand it chi, or energy, may have many 'faces' and maybe experienced or expressed in many ways (from a purely martial view point (although these skills have more than a purely martial function): fa jing, cosmos palm, golden bell, etc) but it is the same chi regardless.

Sifu Wong's explanation of jing is most illuminating!

[Kin Tama]

Wahnam ch im getting pretty tired of this backwards and forwards thread, getting nowhere tbh so i will put an end to it, your system made the claims of why they believed that shaolin kungfu was the greatest martial art, as well as style bashing.
So i said i dont find this the case judging from your videos. Prove it fighting a variation of fighters in a mma style competition,Using your techniques.Since im sure if i said any other competition you would complain about gloves. Otherwise why style bash.

As for stating not having anything to prove i think shaolin wahnam has everything to prove for making pages upon pages of remarks about other styles.

10 pages summed up to 10 lines.

I on the other hand do not style bash. So i dont feel i have anything to prove. Neither on forums nor in rl nor on my self proclaimed greatness website. I am REPLYING to a multitude of questions which do. Stating why i believed that all these statements were wrong. Including both why the chi kung is so great as well as the applications.

When sifu wong was asked to prove this, his answer was i am of a greater lineage than you you have no right to challenge me.I am your senior. At least he posted the question.

Is the invitation you made to me to come and fight open to anyone at anytime ? Like shaolin wahnams stance towards challengers ? Or is it just out of anger that you said it as you didnt like the way the debate was going, knowing i would probably say no because had i wanted to fight i would have said it in the opening comment. Hence why it has been changed to friendly sparring ? As stated earlier i had no problem going into a school when it was feasible to exchange views i believe it was a student/instructor from scotland i said this to.

[FluffElemental]

And around we go

I don't comment often but sometimes I simply have to. This has been a fantastic thread and I have learnt a great deal because of it. It's introduced some new people to the forum and it has made a world of difference to my understanding.

But dear Kin Tama I do feel that you will be leaving this thread no wiser and no better off, which is a shame. You came here saying the videos were bad and that you wanted to know what drew people to Shaolin Wahnam. People talked to you and told you their stories. You read the replies and commented but did you listen? Certainly you have not come here with an open mind. You seem to have decided upon your point of view before speaking and since then have not been willing to consider an alternative viewpoint.

I am sorry for you that you have not learned anything from anyone here.

On another note, welcome Humble Fist I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

[humblefist]

Hi FluffElemental,

Thanks for the welcome.

I too hope I find the answers I am looking for, and will look for in the future no doubt, although a part of me seems to acknowledge that more often than not I gain more from the act of learning than just the facts of the answer.

It seems the action/participation in the search for knowledge often has the wonderful byproduct of wisdom, produced by experience that may be wholly unrelated to the question or answer!

Kin Tama,

It would be a shame to see you leave due to a difference of opinion with the forum owners, surely holding a different opinion on certain matters does not preclude you from further debate on these or other issues? Do you have further questions? I enjoy the things I read here, providing they remain polite, and I’m sure many others gain from the exchange of points of view.

Sifu Barnett,

I am interested to hear your response to Kin Tama’s suggestion of a challenge (perhaps the wrong term, if so please forgive me Kin Tama, perhaps I should say competition).
If Shaolin Wahnam are ‘challenged’ by, for instance, a representative of the Bullshido forum (distasteful name and implications of said name aside) and the costs were covered as you previously suggested would Shaolin Wahnam accept the ‘challenge’?

I am not asking for reasons why or why not, although feel free to expand upon them, as I feel you have the right to accept or decline for whatever reasons you feel.
I would be most interested in such an ‘event’ as I am sure many others would be.

[grammatoncleric]

hi Kin Tama,

Sorry man I found it strange that you state you don't believe that Shaolin Whanam Kung fu can be use for fighting but you reject an opportuinty to have your claim tested. Personally it suggests to me that you don't reallly want first hand experience.

Not to blow my own trumpet but when I was filled with doubt about something I would ask my teacher of whatever art to hit me, or show me(always politely) I walked away convinced whenever I got what I asked for.

Really Kin Tama, not to sound insulting but you sound like friends and people I know who asked if the things I experienced were really true when I attended the Chi Kung course with Sifu Wong. I told them if they really wanted to find out they can easily do it they just have to risk time and money by travelling to Malaysia, they declined, when I told them Sifu Wong was coming to Kent they couldn't even be bothered then. Right then I realised they only gave lip service to trying to find out if something was true or false, they weren't willing to risk anything, or they didn't want to have their current views tested.

My advice Although I obviously don't know you or your situation is to take up the very generous offer, to have your doubts tested. Your opinion was strong enough to question them publicly, but not strong enough to take up an opportunity to have your views challenged first hand.

What have you got to lose, if you lose you win, you learned something first hand, if you win you verified your beliefs and get alot of money. I think even if they handed the Bullshido person's ass to them you'd still have doubts because you haven't experienced it first hand.

Regards,
never pass up an opportunity to learn

Marcus

[Andrew]

If Shaolin Wahnam are ‘challenged’ by, for instance, a representative of the Bullshido forum (distasteful name and implications of said name aside) and the costs were covered as you previously suggested would Shaolin Wahnam accept the ‘challenge’?

I sincerely doubt such a challenge would be accepted. It is pretty much like getting tested by Rand from what I have read --- whatever the outcome you lose. The "challenge" for Kin Tama was a classic use of Shaolin Strategy for (t)his specific situation. It was not out of anger nor any other emotion. The strategy worked perfectly. I will not attempt to explain the strategy used, but needless to say that those who search for it will most certainly find it.

I am preparing a longer explanation of our Combat Philosophy with reference to the "terrible low standard in the videos" and will post it later on.

Andrew

[Andrew]

A Discussion of Shaolin Kung Fu Combat Philosophy

As promised, here is a a "short" discussion of Shaolin Kung Fu combat philosophy

I am not sure if Kin Tama will learn anything (or if he wants to) from what I am about to present, but nevertheless I hope at least others will find this useful.

For those who only have time to skim I have highlighted some important parts of this somewhat long post.


I would like to empasize that what I am going to explain here are actually Kung Fu secrets. But as a token of goodwill and our sincere effort to share, Sifu Wong has kindly consented to my explanations being made public.

Kin Tama has repeatedly stated that our sparring in the videos is of a "horrendously low standard", I don’t know for sure on what grounds his opinion was formed as his writing has been so confusing. I assume he formed his opinion based on the following three points which he stated at various times:
- the sparring was slow
- the combatants only moved backward and forward
- they did not move to one side and counter-strike

Not only are his three points incorrect, they also show the shallowness of his own combat philosophy. Let me use the free sparring clip between my Sihing Kai and Sije Emiko as a reference for illustration.

(It is stated in the explanatory notes to the video clip that Kai is a former international all styles free sparring champion and Emiko a former international Wushu champion. Kin Tama directly insulted them by implying that their titles were questionable. Could this give us an idea of character?

But let’s move on.)

We were actually surprised when Kin Tama said the sparring of these two international champions was slow and of a low level. To us their sparring was fast and of a very high level. We therefore concluded that either Kin Tama had no sparring experience or simply wanted to find faults

Speed is not necessarily related to big flashy movements but to the speed and efficiency at which a move is neutralised or initiated / completed. What looks fast is often actually slow and vice-versa. Often force is also sacrificed for apparent speed. Even the “fastest” moves are useless if there is no force to back them up! Experienced exponents look beyond the “obvious” and “superficial” and therefore see what is really there.

Kai and Emiko were very fast at times although there were little movements and their speed not obvious - two further important secrets in combat philosophy - because they employed the tactic of "flowing over the bridge". For example, when Kai attacked Emiko she "leaned" (not blocked) her forearm over his attacking arm to deflect it away and simultaneously counter-attacked. This was using the principle of "starting later but arriving earlier".

A less experienced fighter would have been hit at a time just when, or just before, he had completed his own attack. But Kai is a very experienced fighter. He used the same tactic of "flowing over the bridge" to deflect Emiko's counter-attack. This was much faster than blocking or moving away as well as being far less conspicuous. Simultaneously Kai gripped Emiko's wrist and struck at her ribs with his other hand. A lesser fighter would not know what to do. They would not be able to block with either hand, nor to be away to dodge. Note that Kai was attacking on two fronts - a strike at the ribs as well as the less conspicuous tiger claw grip on vital points on the wrist.

However, Emiko is also a very good fighter. She turned her wrist and pulled back her elbow employing the pattern called "Hiding Flowers in the Sleeves". With just one move she neutralised both of Kai's attacks. Once again she immediately counter-attacked.

It is also not true that Kai and Emiko “merely moved backward and forward”. In fact they stayed at their stances and employed excellent body work, which was much faster than bouncing about or moving sideways to counter-attack - something that Kin Tama obviously does not know or even see.

The tactics Kai and Emiko employed are far superior to moving sideways to counter-attack. Moving sideways is not only slower, it also offers a weakness for the opponent to exploit. It takes two movements - one to move sideways, and another to strike. While in the process of moving, before the moving leg touches the ground, it also offers an innate opportunity for a counter-strike. Lesser fighters may not be able to exploit, or even notice, such an advantage but experienced fighters like Kai and Emiko can.

It would be much safer for defence and more effective for attack to use footwork, bodywork and hand movement. In Kung Fu terminology this is “the three harmonies” - the harmony of the legs, body and hands. Again refering to the example in the video clip - as the opponent attacks, you needn’t move back nor sideways. By appropriately adjusting your bodywork you can deflect the on-coming attack, simultaneously counter-attacking and striking the opponent when he least expects it --- all in a single movement.

There are many other “open secrets” even in this short video clip. Rather than describe all of them, I would like to briefly mention two or three.

Kai's use of his leg to deflect Emiko's attack to his groin was excellent. Emiko distracted Kai at the top whilst kicking him below. Kai sensed the kick without having to look at it and, thus, effectively brushed it away. Kai attacked Emiko's throat when she was in a low stance which made it difficult for her to move away. But Emiko avoided the attack by “merely” turning her head. All these examples of attack and defence are also demonstrations of speed.

It is also interesting to note the big difference in size between Kai and Emiko (which becomes more obvious at the end of the clip). This indicates that size is not an important factor in real Kung Fu fighting. But, when Kin Tama declined the offer of free sparring to show his high level, he implied that being heavy would be an advantage. This further revealed his lack of Kung Fu combat philosophy.

Andrew