Most Under-rated Martial Art

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by kingoftheforest

Shi is THE acknowledged top fighting monk of the Shoalin temple.

He is their top and foremost fighting monk and is recognized by the Shoalin community as the foremost authority on the Shoalin fighting system. He is proven in armed and unarmed combat.

Well, it should be easy for you to provide some verification of this then. Record of fights or something of the sort?

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by kingoftheforest

You can look him up if you want. I know some people who act like researching things on their own is a waste of their time and would rather have the answer given to them on a platter than to find it their self.

Now, now, you know that's not how it works. Laziness has nothing to do with it. If YOU put a claim out there it is on YOU to back it up or accept that it (like you) has no credibility.

[Mike Brewer]

In the language of debate, that's what prima faciae means. If you make an argument, then you must also make sure that your argument addresses the idea or statement that's in dispute. You can't just go off and make claims and then not support them. It's called "burden of proof." When you make a point and meet your burden of proof, we can either accept it or refute it, at which point we have to meet what's called the "burden of rejoinder."

I point this out not to pick a fight or inject anything scholarly into a good old fashioned playground fight, but because it is irritating in the extreme to try and have a discussion when one side or the other is unwilling to engage in discussion or debate over direct questions. When one side makes statements and provides no evidence to back up claims, then there's no discussion - it's just lecturing.

I think being thin skinned and defensive when questioned is a sign of very weak foundations. It's a sign that beliefs have not been tested, and a fear on the part of the believer that if they are tested, they won't hold. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I like to welcome debate, and why I'm often more than willing to put my personal opinions and beliefs in the public view. If they're rigorously criticized and they pass the litmus test, then I can have that much more faith in my conclusions. If they don't pass muster, then I've learned something. Either way, it's a win for me. When you lack that confidence, or when you lack the will to put your arguments into the fire, you're practicing faith, not reason. You're accepting superstition instead of experimentation. Worst of all, you're denying yourself the opportunity to explore your own views.

For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information.

Likewise, for KOTF to make a statement such as "Shi is the top fighting monk of the Shaolin Temple and is proven in armed and unarmed combat" requires some level of qualification. Many of us didn't know that the Shaolin monks competed, for example. Most of us realize that they are not out on modern-day battlefields using their skills to fight in wars, so it leaves a very legitimate place to ask - how is he "proven?" Has he had to kill people in battle? Or are the Shaolin arts something that have become sporterized, allowing him to prove himself in other ways? If that's the case, then we have to go all the way back to how sportified combat isn't a valid method of assessment for the real deal.

As for statements about being too lazy to research? That's just a patently absurd statement. In a discussion like this, sources are important. There are criteria that need to be met in order for both sides to reach any kind of agreement. By asking questions, someone like me is able to determine what sources YOU see as credible. That allows me to gear my research to a common mindset and context, and it helps make sure we're talking about the same things. It actually takes a lot of effort to do this, by the way, as any schmuck can Google something and come up with 87 million wrong or irrelevant answers to just about anything. Narrowing the focus and trying to make sure we're speaking the smae language is the opposite of lazy - it is me going to extra effort to insure my points are relevant from your point of view.

My thought on this is very, very simple. If it's worth discussing it, then let's all drop the bullshit defensiveness and discuss it. Let's be confident and humble enough to accept that people can question what we believe without it being a personal attack on us as people. Let's accept that people can listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we believe it, and still disagree. Most of all, Jesus Christ, can we just have a fucking discussion without it turning into a fight over who's dumber? I'd donate a kidney if we could figure out a way to all just grow up a little and risk being wrong from time to time in the interests of furthering the collective knowledge pool here.

[eXcessiveForce]

Originally Posted by kingoftheforest

Shi is THE acknowledged top fighting monk of the Shoalin temple.

He is their top and foremost fighting monk and is recognized by the Shoalin community as the foremost authority on the Shoalin fighting system. He is proven in armed and unarmed combat.

So yeah I mean really he isn't anybody special. You can look him up if you want. I know some people who act like researching things on their own is a waste of their time and would rather have the answer given to them on a platter than to find it their self.

Those people are usually the most ignorant. I also know I am allowed my opinion and till I find something to change it it will be thus so. But isn't that what this thread is about opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. Some people just don't want to think that they could be wrong and that's fine. I was young once too so I know how it is to feel like you have all the answers and you are certain your right.

I also know what it's like to train n MMA's and in non-sport arts. This is where I draw my opinions from. Experience. Other people on this forum have had different experiences and have formed different opinions. I can respect that. But mine will remain the same till I seem something that proves to me otherwise.

KOTF out.

Is this the shaolin temple in georgia

[Mike Brewer]

For reference, is this the Shi De Jian to whom you are referring?

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

[TTEscrima]

The one and only.





He is recognized as a living treasure of Shaolin and a fighting monk, the training they go through isn't for the faint of heart.


Worlds Least Popular Martial Art - Watch more free videos

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by eXcessiveForce

Is this the shaolin temple in georgia

??? Am I missing something here? There's one in Orlando. although it's technically Wah Lum not Shi Lum.

[TTEscrima]

Here's an excellent look at Chen style Tai Chi.

[TTEscrima]

[Tant01]

It's interesting to see the silat (like) body smashing counters...

Press on, eh...

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by Tant01

It's interesting to see the silat (like) body smashing counters...

Press on, eh...

Good observation!! The arts have definite overlap, Muslim arts (and teachers) influenced the CMA's and Chinese CMA's influenced Silat.

[DickHardman]

ttescrima is boarspear right??

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

In the language of debate, that's what prima faciae means. If you make an argument, then you must also make sure that your argument addresses the idea or statement that's in dispute. You can't just go off and make claims and then not support them. It's called "burden of proof." When you make a point and meet your burden of proof, we can either accept it or refute it, at which point we have to meet what's called the "burden of rejoinder."

I point this out not to pick a fight or inject anything scholarly into a good old fashioned playground fight, but because it is irritating in the extreme to try and have a discussion when one side or the other is unwilling to engage in discussion or debate over direct questions. When one side makes statements and provides no evidence to back up claims, then there's no discussion - it's just lecturing.

I think being thin skinned and defensive when questioned is a sign of very weak foundations. It's a sign that beliefs have not been tested, and a fear on the part of the believer that if they are tested, they won't hold. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I like to welcome debate, and why I'm often more than willing to put my personal opinions and beliefs in the public view. If they're rigorously criticized and they pass the litmus test, then I can have that much more faith in my conclusions. If they don't pass muster, then I've learned something. Either way, it's a win for me. When you lack that confidence, or when you lack the will to put your arguments into the fire, you're practicing faith, not reason. You're accepting superstition instead of experimentation. Worst of all, you're denying yourself the opportunity to explore your own views.

For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information.

Likewise, for KOTF to make a statement such as "Shi is the top fighting monk of the Shaolin Temple and is proven in armed and unarmed combat" requires some level of qualification. Many of us didn't know that the Shaolin monks competed, for example. Most of us realize that they are not out on modern-day battlefields using their skills to fight in wars, so it leaves a very legitimate place to ask - how is he "proven?" Has he had to kill people in battle? Or are the Shaolin arts something that have become sporterized, allowing him to prove himself in other ways? If that's the case, then we have to go all the way back to how sportified combat isn't a valid method of assessment for the real deal.

As for statements about being too lazy to research? That's just a patently absurd statement. In a discussion like this, sources are important. There are criteria that need to be met in order for both sides to reach any kind of agreement. By asking questions, someone like me is able to determine what sources YOU see as credible. That allows me to gear my research to a common mindset and context, and it helps make sure we're talking about the same things. It actually takes a lot of effort to do this, by the way, as any schmuck can Google something and come up with 87 million wrong or irrelevant answers to just about anything. Narrowing the focus and trying to make sure we're speaking the smae language is the opposite of lazy - it is me going to extra effort to insure my points are relevant from your point of view.

My thought on this is very, very simple. If it's worth discussing it, then let's all drop the bullshit defensiveness and discuss it. Let's be confident and humble enough to accept that people can question what we believe without it being a personal attack on us as people. Let's accept that people can listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we believe it, and still disagree. Most of all, Jesus Christ, can we just have a fucking discussion without it turning into a fight over who's dumber? I'd donate a kidney if we could figure out a way to all just grow up a little and risk being wrong from time to time in the interests of furthering the collective knowledge pool here.

Prove it -

[TTEscrima]

Originally Posted by DickHardman

ttescrima is boarspear right??

No, but I've been a student and friend of the family since the 60's.

[Mike Brewer]

Originally Posted by DickHardman

ttescrima is boarspear right??

No. They just live in the same house. Take it easy, detective. This one's already been covered.