MHW,

You think too much. I simply participate in martial arts and sports competition because it is fun and a great form of exercise. I think most people do it for the same reason as I do. Other people may play soccer or basketball, I grapple and do kung fu. Hopefully, what I do for fun will help me in a real self defense situation (not involoving guns or bombs).

Reply: Kung fu is a thinking man’s art. I do tend to be overly passionate about it.

Reply: Most people do it for the reason you do, and that is my point. When you combine movement with concept (philosophy), your body not only remembers the movement it also remembers the concept. Using sutras (ancient concepts) in your practice allows you to use them for more than self-defense. If your instructor combines humanistic concepts (Buddhism, Taoism or western wisdom of worldly living) in your training your education has a wider application. Although fun, exercise, and self-defense are important, you can get more by adding one more facet to your training.

"Fighting arts are for soldiers, martial arts are for commanders, and kung fu is an art for emporers", what does that mean? Those things are for anybody and everybody that want to participate.

Reply: Kung fu is a thinking man’s art and emperors usually do not fight on the front lines (they are masterminds that rule by employing strategy) even though they may be highly skilled in weapons and technique.

Thank you for your post.

C&C

MHW

Sorrell,

Your post was exceptional, glad I could participate.

When it comes to personal gain at a brother’s expense, I think we should strive softer. Martial artists are well represented by your words. Kung fu artists, in my opinion, should be better rounded than athletes or martial artists; they should be role models, community leaders (ask yourself who your role models are). And a complete understanding of kung fu develops self-leadership - a prerequisite of leading others. Cooperative hand to hand is a practice of leading and following. Participating in it with sincere intent is a model of leading then following; and following then leading. I know leadership is not self-centered and a pain in the ****, but (all puns intended) isn’t it time that we provide some character for the society we live in that so desperately needs integrity and honor? Or should we all give up and focus our concerns on what car we are driving and how much fun we can have? At the end of the road, I think it is the responsibilies we fulilled, not the "fun gage" that matters most. Not that fun is unimportant.

Do any of the participants in these posts practice cooperative arts?

C&C

MHW

MHW,
"Martial arts, in my opinion only, are better rounded than fighting arts" --How do you define the term 'martial'?

"Do any of the participants in these posts practice cooperative arts" -- what do you mean?
We ALL practice cooperative arts- but most of us know that practicing cooperatively is only a method to learn the correct alignment and angles to apply techniques- we then, most of us, work noncooperatively with each other to learn how to apply those techniques against an uncoperative opponent. (while we might not go completely nuts; biting, eye-gouging, and reaching for sharpened objects to poke each other in the liver- we learn quickly that non-cooperative applications are much different than cooperative applications).

I don't practice martial arts in order to fight- but if I ever do fight, my opponent is not going to 'cooperate' with me any more than I am with him. In which case, a person who has only practiced cooperatively is in for a painful lesson. (practicing noncooperatively trains both offense and defense body useage better than any equal time spent in cooperative training... in my opinion.)

What does C&C mean?
Shane

I don't need martial arts or kung fu (if there is a difference between the two) to teach me how to live. I don't want my instructors to teach me about Buddhism, Taoism, or western wisdoms. I don't think that is what martial arts (including kung fu) is for. If I wanted to be a Buddhist (which I don't) I would go to a Buddhist temple, not my martial arts instuctor. I still don't understand why kung fu is for an emporer and how it is a thinking man's art. Are kung fu practitioners training to be emporers?

Just to reaasure you, Mon Haw Woo, (all your detractors aside) - I believe your ongoing and overall analysis and perspectives of "combat vs. sport" are quite interesting and valid.
Your thoughts have merit and are worthy of consideration - not only in the greater realm of martial arts, but for personal (martial) development as well.

Rest assured that not all the readers of this forum are illiterate and narrow-minded youth who look forward to their next confrontation - either real, or imagined.
My own humble "opinion" is that many of the posters on this forum are acting like "big fish playing in a small pond"
I sometimes wonder what would become of them once they step out into the "real" world which awaits them - outside the comfortable confines of their 'hood in So.Cal.?
They might be surprised at how "small" they really are?

I, for one, have enjoyed and benefited by the perspectives which you have offered... although I think they fall on mostly deaf ears.

For this viewpoint, I fully expect the illiterati to attack me - vehemently and in force...
But as your (unelected) President once said... "Bring 'em on"

Hello MHW

>Reply: I have used it t protect, provide and to communicate. I have used it to hurt people who did not deserve it, (just to see if it would work) entertaining my own vanity. I was wrong to do that. I regret it.<

so, you did not compete, but you testet you and your art in a different way. despite the fact, that you regret now some of you previous behaviour, do you think you would be as good in your art as you are now, if you had not tested yourself in these non-cooperative situations?

Thank you Xi Feng,

Competition in sports is seeking to win the prize. Competition in general can be a helpful tool, like almost anything else. I believe there is no such thing as combat sports. It’s either one or the other. If you have experienced both, you know for yourself. It’s like believing the contestants on Survivor are really vagabonds on an island trying to survive.

The ancient way of kung fu blends character development fostering the maturity needed to wield power humanely and creating the courage to do so when facing inequity. If we as kung fu artists would journey into our daily lives as adventure warriors in search of the experience of eliminating disturbance and seeking equity in our own ways, we would have a sense of justice attached with daily living. But you must first learn how to crawl before you learn how to walk and we who have learned to protect, must learn how to walk before we can run. In this case running is applying our kung fu to daily life.

How do we strengthen the world passively? By strengthening ourselves. How do we strengthen the world actively? By applying ourselves to things outside of us that are not strictly to our advantage. Selfishness is a good thing, if it facilitates selflessness. Aw but who among us wants to take the chance of giving something up without being assured of a reward? That takes courage. And after you have had enough experience, and you come to know, you find that there is nothing more rewarding than being of assistance to others. Ask your martial arts teacher. (I doubt if he is in it for the money.)
My reward has been your post. My risk was all the time I have spent composing these posts. But if I have assisted you in anyway, it was worth every second.

Here is something for you Xi Feng

26

Mental patience is calmness.
Physical patience is stillness.
Stillness commands the mind.
Calmness controls the body.

In physical conflict,
do not act until it is
the right time to strike.
In mental contention,
do not answer until it is
the right time to respond.

Artfulness is never frivolous
in thought or action.

To be mentally or physically uprooted,
by your self or others,
is to lose control and command
of others and your self.
Confidence in character
is command and control.

ARTFULNESS

one

Commanding your mind requires faith in stillness; stillness allows you to be calm. Controlling your body requires trust in calmness; calmness allows you to be still. Artful use of mind and body requires strengthening the link between the mental and the physical, awakening the heart.

two

The art of advantage requires you to dictate external timing, so you may strike at the right moment. The art of humanity requires you to dictate internal correctness and maintain character by not being coerced or seduced to respond improperly to temptation.

three

Artfulness is based on the personal development of the mind and body. Artful actions may appear contrary to rule, yet they are always in charge. Artful actions are not reactions, even though they might appear to be.

four

The artful one does not lose mental or physical balance. Command and control resides in confidence in character.


Shane,

Thank you for your reply.

"C&C" Means confidence in character.

Confidence in character is the ability to remain true to your self-definition under the most coercive circumstances.

Koojo,

Thank you for your post.

Emperors are leaders. If you have a great kung fu teacher, you are learning self-leadership. If you are not learning self-leadership, how to play your own game, not your instructor’s, do not worry there are many good kung fu teachers, but there are only a few great ones. You are not at a complete disadvantage.

As far as thinking man's art, it means that you use combat as a last resort. You use your mind first, your weapons second (money, associates political pull) and your physical body last.

Can you give us some suggestion where we might find human development sources? What are some of your favorites? It seems the majority look to television and sports figures and actors as authorities (nauseating).


P. S. Thank you Tim for providing this service to the community.

MHW, your philosophy is fine, just why not have various training methods to go with it? Cooperation is fine for practicing dangerous techniques (gotta practice them too or they won't be in your arsenal), but non-cooperative "sparring" (I hate that word) develops another aspect, just as crucial. In fact, by resisting, your partner is actually "cooperating" to help improve your skills. If your training partners are serious minded, you won't need to worry about ego-driven attitudes. And this can all be personal training, you don't have to run the tourney circuit for plastic trophies.

My last post was not aimed at you, just that the derision you elicited was to be expected. When looking for "real" fighters among the MA schools in my area, none were to be found. Yet, they are legion on internet forums. Every other new poster seems to argue the same type of things (sometimes just a matter of semantics). I guess I'm getting jaded to it all. Face it, in this day and age, a serious "warrior", though practicing various things, is going to train more with his M-16 or AK than anything else. And there is no reason that a philosophy of brotherhood can't be his motivitation.

MHW,

you didn't answer my question (any of them actually)- in regards to your statement- "Martial arts are better rounded than fighting arts"

I ask--How do you define the term 'martial'?

MHW,

Your concept of Kung Fu teachers as teaching self-leadership and character development is an admirable ideal.

However, having spent quite a few years living and training where Kung Fu was invented, I'm not clear on how your formed your ideas about Kung Fu as being somehow superior to any other discipline of self development.

I think everyone posting here will agree that, with very few exceptions, the vast majority of people practice martial arts for more than just self defense and fighting skills. But why would practicing Kung Fu (and specifically your method of Kung Fu) be superior for self development than any other type of martial art. Do you have some kind of ethnic bias or is it that you've never practiced any other type of martial art?

Can't Thai Boxing be the art of emperors as well?

You asked:
"One more question. So what are you going to practice fighting arts until you are 40, 50. 60, 70? And if you do, is it worth it to attain great skills and miss the ultimate attainment (becoming a great human)."

Yes, I would very much like to practice fighting arts until I am very old, like my San Soo teacher Jimmy Woo, or many of my teachers in China (or Helio Gracie, who grapples everyday at the age of 90).

One more question, why would practicing martial arts and achieving great skills preclude me from becoming a great human? Is practicing Kung Fu your way the only way to become a great human?
It may just be my personal bias, but I consider all the teachers I mentioned above to be great humans.

My last post was not aimed at you, just that the derision you elicited was to be expected. When looking for "real" fighters among the MA schools in my area, none were to be found. Yet, they are legion on internet forums. Every other new poster seems to argue the same type of things (sometimes just a matter of semantics). I guess I'm getting jaded to it all. Face it, in this day and age, a serious "warrior", though practicing various things, is going to train more with his M-16 or AK than anything else. And there is no reason that a philosophy of brotherhood can't be his motivitation.

Kenneth, cool- I can see you are real.

I have had many things aimed at me. Criticism, positive or negative, founded or unfounded, is the raw material from which cooperation is formed. The greatest warriors are unknown and remain hidden directors of the opponent’s fate. I appreciate your reasoning, candor and couth.

Yeah, non-co-op is cool. All these things have their place and time. But, tell me, can you use what you have learned (no matter how you have learned it), for more than fighting. And if you cannot, (from your common sense, I would guess you can more than most), wouldn’t it be an advantage to have all those hours (you have probably spent more hours practicing than doctors or lawyers spend in college) practicing be useful for more than the protection ability and for more than in-studio training.

Tim, here are my replies to ALL your statements and questions. Thank you for your cooperation.


Your concept of Kung Fu teachers as teaching self-leadership and character development is an admirable ideal.

Reply: It is more than an ideal, it is real.


However, having spent quite a few years living and training where Kung Fu was invented, I'm not clear on how your formed your ideas about Kung Fu as being somehow superior to any other discipline of self development.

Reply: Its ancient tradition makes it more than a legitimate path. Did I say it was superior? That sounds like a term somebody with a competitive mind set would say. It is not superior or inferior; it is what I know; nothing more or nothing less. Historically kung fu is a path that is steeped in the tradition of personal development. Only recently (considering its ancient beginnings) has it been used for only for its fighting techniques. The kung fu artist was most likely the community doctor, pharmacist, nutritionist, psychologist / counselor, arbitrator and spiritualist. It is common knowledge that this art came from monasteries. Do you think the monks were not practicing personal development, character building and moral and ethical studies. Surely you know this.

I think everyone posting here will agree that, with very few exceptions, the vast majority of people practice martial arts for more than just self defense and fighting skills.

Reply: Besides self-defense and fighting skills, what do you practice it for? Personal development? If so, of what?

But why would practicing Kung Fu (and specifically your method of Kung Fu) be superior for self development than any other type of martial art. Do you have some kind of ethnic bias or is it that you've never practiced any other type of martial art?

Reply: There’s that “superior” word again. Ethnic bias? Why you seem to be insinuating that my ego is at risk. I left that puppy at the door a long time ago. Jack of all trades, master of none or jack of all trades master of all. What does it matter? Can you use what you know for more than fighting? Please answer at least that question. You took a pass on some others.

Can't Thai Boxing be the art of emperors as well?

Reply: Does Thai Boxing build self-leadership? If it does, I guess it can.

You asked:
"One more question. So what are you going to practice fighting arts until you are 40, 50. 60, 70? And if you do, is it worth it to attain great skills and miss the ultimate attainment (becoming a great human)."

Yes, I would very much like to practice fighting arts until I am very old, like my San Soo teacher Jimmy Woo, or many of my teachers in China (or Helio Gracie, who grapples everyday at the age of 90).

Reply: That’s an admirable ideal. In my opinion (which it seems like you are tiring of) fighting arts are a practice of fighting technique, absent of teaching communication and provision ability. Kung fu teaches completeness; in the beginning one learns that the mind controls the body and later learns the body (through deep feeling) commands the mind. When one knows how to adjust both inner and outer position, he advances calmly though life (artfully).

Reply: Your kung fu san soo teacher once asked his students to refer to him as Jimmy H. Woo (as there are many other Jimmy Woo (another semi- famous martial artist in the 70's was named Jimmy Woo). When was the last time you saw Heilo? A true gentleman and ambassador of good will, like Rorion. However, he does not grapple non-cooperative martial arts at his age.

Reply: Jimmy H. Woo did not practice non-cooperative kung fu. His intensity training was done on the street. Jimmy H. Woo also referred to Choi li hofut hung kung fu san soo as “Chinese street fighting.”

One more question, why would practicing martial arts and achieving great skills preclude me from becoming a great human?

Is practicing Kung Fu your way the only way to become a great human?

Reply: It is not my intention to offend anybody. And ultimately, I am only a man and it is others decision to be offended or not. To answer your question - of course not! I am not trying to convert anybody, I am trying to expose the possibilities that lie in philosophical excellence, and it is my opinion that teaching lethal technique without teaching humanistic values is contributing to the student’s possible negligence.

It may just be my personal bias, but I consider all the teachers I mentioned above to be great humans.

Reply: I have met Heilo on several occasions and I knew Jimmy H. Woo quite well. He was a second father to me. Mon Ha Woo was the name on the passport Jimmy H. Woo used to enter the United States. His English teacher knew that he would find resistance to the name “Mon” so she asked if she could call him “Jimmy.” The name stuck and Mon Haw Woo became know as Jimmy H. Woo. (Chan Sui Dek in China). I can’t vouch for Heilo, although the feeling I got from his warm smile and genuine hug was that he is a fine man with a big heart ( I couldn’t communicate verbally with him as he spoke mostly Portuguese).

However, I can vouch for Jimmy H. Woo who everyday between top belt lessons and lower belt lesson took time to teach philosophy and psychology of body and mind along with ethics, and common sense. He built complete warriors. All you have to do is compare the characters that graduated from his tutelage to almost all other “martial artist” or “fighting artist.”
Learning kung fu from Jimmy H. Woo taught you completeness, you were a fighting artist first, a martial artist second and ultimately a kung fu artist. He said to me and others many times, if you can’t use what you know outside the kung fu studio to make your life better, your education was not practical. Jimmy was, and strived to teach all his students to be lethal humanitarians.

Some how I think you knew that. Something I learned in El Monte – questions aren’t really question if you know the answers. They are just set-ups to make you look good. Jimmy loved you to ask questions, but he discouaged his students from asking questions they new the answers to.

Confidence in Character,

MHW

Hi All,

I wanted to adress the question as to whether Kings practiced Muay Thai. The answer is - absolutely not. At least not as we know the art today.

The current Thai dynasty is called the Chakri dynasty and has had 1 Chinese general followed by 9 kings so far. Before that it was the Ayutthaya preceded by 3 other major kingdoms and a few minor ones. The oldest dynasty, the Lanna, was founded by a Chinese general from the end of the Song Dynasty named Lu, Jongyi, who was fleeing the Mongolians. He unified northern Siam and founded his kingdom in current Chiang Mai. He controlled 5 states.

He and nearly every subsequent king were warrior kings. That is until the son of a chinese merchant named General Taaksin and the first Chakri King founded the current dynasty. These two also could be found on the battlefield until the late 1700's. After that Thai politics and warfare changed. Their style of warfare was bladed weapons used either on foot or on horseback. The artform they practiced is called Phahayut or Saattraayut.

Phahayut covered combat strategy, troop supply and reenforcent, armed and un-armed combat. Saattraayut refers to the hands-on training of armed and unarmed combat. Fighting on the battlefield was not limited to men. There are countless battles of old Siam where women along with other villagers played a key role on the battlefield. Probably the most famous are the battles of Bang Rajan villiagers against the Burmese invaders at the end of the Ayutthaya Dynasty.

The training progression of armed combat to unarmed went something like this:

Double sticks
Single stick
Double broadsword
Single broadsword
Empty hand

Followed by various other specialty weapons, shields, forearm guards, etc. You learned the basic weapons then proceeded to specialized ones. The goal was to become very proficient in the shortest time possible. Most of the training drills were cooperative 2-man sets. These varied in length starting with a Mae Mai series and ended with a Luuk Mai series and a deadly finishing blow. Around 5 - 10 strikes in a Mae Mai series followed each followed by an increasingly complex Luuk Mai exchange.

The theory was that you have a weapon in each hand (or both hands on one weapon as in the case of the long stick/spear). If you lost one now you're fighting with a single weapon. If you lost that, you're fighting empty-handed. Many of the empty-hand techniques were for use against an armed opponent. This type of training is still available, although preserved as more of a cultural performing art rather than for fighting, and is known by its modern name of Krabii-Krabong (Broadsword & Stick).

Muay Thai began as an off-shoot of the empty-hand-trainig against an unarmed opponent. It's earliest forms contained complex clinches and a number of throws from those clinches. Some of the Burmese arts have kept this flavor. In empty-hand combat often the fighter would literally jump into, lunge or climb up his opponent via stepping on the opp's thigh, grasp the head or catch the torso with the other leg and rain elbow strikes from above thus bringing the opp down to the ground.

Whether weapons or empty hand, the basic package of fundamentals (called Mae Mai - mother tricks) is first learned. This is followed my the specialized techniques or skills (Luuk Mai as mentioned in a previous post).

Although the practice of the Siamese King fighting on the battlefield alongside his soldiers ended in the late 1700's each king continued to practice a ritualized sword & stick play that is still part of most elementary and middle-school P.E. curriculae to this day.

Yes, Kings trained in Siamese fighting arts yet it hadn't yet become the Muay Thai we now think of as the primary fighting art/sport of Thailand. Hope I'm not rambling.

- Erik

MHW,

Unless a modern MA practicioner had REALLY bad parents, or other role models, his Kung Fu teacher need spend very little time teaching him how to be a good human being.

I'm sure that the nature of the KF teacher as a moral parent arose from the fact that most learners were illiterate, uncouth, rapscallions who lived on the fringes of society; monks included (until they took their vows).

A teacher's role as such need not be scheduled to have the desired effect.


Sorrel

Sorrel,

Most peole spend more (learning time) time with their kung fu teacher then their parents. Count up the hours in a week you spend training. Do you spend the equal amount of time learning from your parents?

Since many households by neccesity or choice, have both parents working, their children's psycholoical development suffers. This creates a lot of remedial work and leads naturally to children or young adults, searching for other avenues of security and development, ie martial arts.

If you have good parents, take time to honor them and show your appreciation for you have been blessed. There are mltitudes who have not been blessed as you have been.

C&C

MHW

Cool post Erik. Where did you learn all that stuff, Thailand? I loved Chang Rai, although I bet it has changer alot. The food was awsome.

Gado gado,

C&C MHW

One day a master tailor was challenged to a sword fight to the death by a samurai. The master tailor had never picked up a sword before . On the day of the fight he approached the samurai and raised his sword. The samurai observed the master tailor whose spirit was clear and full, could find no way to attack and gave up.

The tailor had already mastered death and thus was free to live life.

Rumbrae, why did realizing that the tailor's spirit was "clear and full" prevent the samurai from cutting him down?

I can't recall and tell the story well, I read it decades ago and wish I could just copy and paste. I do remember that the master tailor had conquered his fear of death, but not through any MA. He was a master in his own right. Just like Musashi says there are masters each of their own trade. The tailor had mastered himself. This is what the samurai saw.

True samurai of their time ended a bout instantly. That was their trade. To make a minor mistake was fatal. One must see the clearing through the forest before he can move, or he will die. The samurai could not find any clearing, so he wisely gave up.

There are stories of samurai learning this from master caligraphers, etc.

In those days in Japan, true samurai were masters of themselves. Just like what MHW says its about personal development and what you can extend into every aspect of your life. The tailor could extend his personal development into martial arts, and, to top it off his life work is of creation, beauty, and bringing joy to others. That is not only a true master but also a life well spent.

What have you become if you can't do that?

Mon Haw Woo,

In answer to your questions:

"Because you asked me personal questions and I did my best to answer, let me ask you a few. Have you ever struck a man with the intention of maiming him, and wondering if you went to far (killing him)? Have you ever felt bone snap or joints pop when the limb was in your hand with the intention of injuring? Have you ever used a sharp weapon and been sprayed and soaked by blood? Have you ever heard a man beg for mercy or whimper semiconsciously in a pool of blood, crying for a loved one? Have you ever woke up in the hospital or walked away from someone knowing that they would be? Is that what you mean by real? It changes you."

First, I'll decline to respond to your dramatic question about fights in which I've been involved. Whether or not I'm a bad ass street fighter is irrelevant to our conversation.

"Can you use what you know for more than fighting? Please answer at least that question."

Of course. Everyone that practices martial arts (even the competitive ones) are engaging in a type of self-cultivation (whether they understand it directly or not). Any student that has the discipline to put in hours of hard training, work with his fellow students and listen to his teacher is concurrently developing his character, whether the teacher quotes the Dao De Jing or not.

"Your kung fu san soo teacher once asked his students to refer to him as Jimmy H. Woo (as there are many other Jimmy Woo (another semi- famous martial artist in the 70's was named Jimmy Woo)."

We always called him "Jimmy." The other "Jimmy Woo" you refer to is James Wing Woo (who is still teaching in L.A.).

"The kung fu artist was most likely the community doctor, pharmacist, nutritionist, psychologist / counselor, arbitrator and spiritualist. It is common knowledge that this art came from monasteries. Do you think the monks were not practicing personal development, character building and moral and ethical studies. Surely you know this."

Wow. The Kung Fu artist (until about 70 years ago) was most likely to be a professional soldier, bodyguard, convoy guard or thug (although in the Nineteenth Century, a small percentage of Chinese martial arts teachers did also practice "jie gu," or bone setting. A very few of them were actually trained doctors of TCM).
With all you learned from Jimmy you know that the actual name of the art of Kung Fu San Soo, "Choy Li Ho Fut Hung" are the names of the families (not monks) that developed the various aspects of the style (with "fut" or "Buddha" refering to the psychology of the art). All martial arts associated with Chan temples in China were originally brought in by fighters, not created by monks. Fighters that shave their heads and hide in temples are not "monks." Buddhist monks are pacifists.

To be sure, questions are not really questions if you know the answers.

This thread is hard to follow Agrhhhh.

Rumbre,
I think the story goes the taylor went to a retired master swordman to get ready for the chalenge. the master showed him how to do the tea ceremony. at first the taylor was not able to do this well because he wanted to learn sword techniques so could not concentate. over time he became absorbed in the ceremony. On the day of the challenge the taylor went to the feild absorbed and concentrated when the samurai saw this he thaught he had made a mistake in chalenging the man as he had the look of a seasoned warrior. the moral of the story is to concentrate and become absorbed into your practice of MA.

Sorrel,
TCMA teachers who taught for a living taught all people willing to pay. the reasons people learnt MA then is the same as now. The rich would hire bodyguards and learn some fighting techniques of them. Poorer people learn when they could somtimes off traveling masters. They may have joined the army or secret societies and learned kung fu skills there. When teachers took indoor students and they called the teacher sifu. these students represented the school both inside and outside the school. So the teacher would be as directly responsible for their behaviour as that persons perants. so all the chinese ideals of feiel piety aplied to the student. including taking their teachers moral view.

Tim,
quite right on the choy li fut lineague/history. Do you know why they miss out the other part of the title nowdays. Is it just out of convinience.
I have always felt medical training eastern/western should be learnt by kung fu teachers. Because if you are practicing real MA then there is a chance somone will get hurt and you should have the training to prevent that person from dying or be able to deal with injuries quickly and effectivly. After all these people quite literaly put their lives in your hands. The DDJ is a good book but quoting from it kind of defeats the purpose action over words. true emotion over conditioned response.

Mon Haw Woo,
I am confused are you then jimmy wu who's pasport was Mon Haw Woo. Or are you just using the name. if the second case if he is still alive did you ask if you could use this name. I think it might be seen as disrepectful. I know what you are thinking who am I to talk not a realised man of the north right.