Hey Uncle Tim,

Can you give an overview on how the more famous internal 'badboys' looked at what a proper mindset was for fighting.

Grazie tanto,
Macaco fino
(founder of the deadly lost art of...Giocco Stretto)

Well, one can only go by what the old time masters wrote, and what their students passed down but I'll give you a couple of examples. Cheng Ting Hua (of Ba Gua Zhang fame) placed a strong emphasis on caution when engaging a strange opponent. He recommended testing before going in for the decisive technique. Good advice in that he was talking about fighting professional martial artists (professional meaning they trained and fought for a living). The potential for injury was very real. Men like Li Cun Yi and Zhang Zhao Dong had intersting personalities. They were all for straight forward, in your face aggressive technique, but were adamant about never using underhanded tactics (it is interesting that they also make a point of telling their students to guard against dirty fighting tricks; obviously they had seen a few in their time). The older experts that I have met, who were real fighters, for the most part have similar attitudes about the fight; namely, never hesitate, and never hold back.
Tim

And what does Uncle Tim advise? It would seem like Cheng Tinghua would agree with the stereotypical taijiquan fighting approach of waiting for the opponent to commit. This would seem to distinguish Cheng from the other mainline of Dong Haichuan's baguazhang, namely Yin Fu and his descendants, who (at least in the applications by modern-day Yin Fu stylists) seem all for sudden, ever-changing and ever-surprising in-your-face multiple-front attacks.

How would Luo De Xiu answer this question? The xingyiquan and other Hung Bros. training he engaged in while young was not the most patient of arts. Now, I've only seen the two videotapes that Luo made in cooperation with Dan Miller. In the demonstrations that Luo did on one of them, with some young kid named Cartmell, he doesn't really seem to engage in too much "testing." But his Gao-style baguazhang comes out of the Cheng Ting-hua lineage . . . albeit clearly influenced by xingyiquan (I think we can include Luo among "the masters of old"; his fighting and teaching career reaches ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE SEVENTIES ;-] ).

A real fight is like a gunfight. Would you shoot first or wait for your enemy to shoot first?

Well, Tim, I think a gunfight is not an accurate metaphor for a fist fight. A bullet is going to be much faster than any kind of defense, and is frequently going to be much faster even than the shooter's intention (guns frequently go off before the holder really intends them too). Working with people who use guns for protection and arrest, I appreciate the difference.

I'm trying to flesh out your initial (July 8) response to Macaco's question, where you characterized Cheng Ting-hua's approach to a stranger as cautious, wanting to test him out before making a committed attack. This is perhaps analogous to a Western boxer flicking out a few jabs to test an opponent's responses. Or, as in Western boxing, some baguazhang applications I've seen in different Cheng Ting-hua styles, and in amateur competitive wrestling, a feinting attack may also (and simultaneously) be used to provoke a particular response or draw a committed attack from the opponent (setting up the defender's response).

Some (very) high-level aikijujutsu practitioners are able to blend well with unrehearsed full-bore attacks. Their art does make use of stinging blows (atemi) to vulnerable points to draw a certain response or to stun the opponent in order to be able to apply a hold (and it works: I've been on the receiving end of atemi-hold combinations). Aikido, while probably not of the same martial caliber as aikijujutsu, works on the basic premise of waiting for, then blending with, an attack (joining centers, cf. your discussion of double-weighting in another thread).

Interestingly, Robert Terwilliger in the book "Angry White Pyjamas" (a great read, for those who haven't seen it)describes how one of the top expatriate Yoshinkai aikido instructors in Japan decided to enter a fighting competition in which one of the Gracie brothers (I think it was Royce, but I'm not sure) was also competing. It was held in Japan, and I can't remember whether it was affiliated with the UFC or not. Anyways, Gracie basically drew this aikidoka into attacking him using one of aikido's "irimi" (entering) techniques. Once Gracie had him committed, he was able to smoothly sidestep, apply a hold, and do what those Brazilian boys do so well. I think you can find a number of examples in the UFC fights where Gracie was able to draw out a committed attack from the opponent, which made the opponent vulnerable to his response.

So no, Tim, in a real no-gun fight situation, I wouldn't necessarily hit first. It doesn't mean I would simply stand there in some new-age fantasy daze, waiting for my qi to envelope my opponent and carry him away. A guard position, footwork, looking for or creating the opening.

My usual opening gambit, though, is to offer the guy a beer and ask him where he had that excellent tattoo done.

Sport fighting or sparring is not a real fight. There are rules. A real fight has no rules, just as a gunfight has no rules. In sport fighting your life is not on the line. In gunfights and real fights there's a big chance that your life is on the line. So, I don't think it's realistic to use sport fighting scenarios as examples of what takes place when you have to fight for your life. Moving first and hitting first is not the same thing. Of course there's always the moment of feeling for the opponent's intent be it a sport fight, real fight or gun fight. You have to be cautious and aware (test your opponent, then you need to gain the initiative. That is, be on the offensive and keep your opponent defensive. Even if you have to move second you have to hit first. A decisive technique that hits first and causes pain, hesitation, and defensiveness in your opponent is the key to winning a real fight.

One more thing...

>frequently going to be much faster even than the >shooter's intention (guns frequently go off >before the holder really intends them too)

In a well trained person, the intention is always ahead of the bullet because it is the intention that makes the finger squeeze the trigger. Guns going off before the holder intends is a sign of poor training and is inexcusable.

Ummm, Meynard . . . no disrespect intended, but have you ever been shot at? Have you ever fired a gun at anyone with the intent to injure or kill them? If you have not, then it's a little risky to speculate about what a gunfight is actually like. It's a very sobering experience, not much like what you might have seen in the movies.

I agree with you, though, that sport fighting is not like "real life" fights. But it is the closest that most of us are going to come in our lives, thankfully. And for those of us that have been in "real life" fights, sports fighting with a reasonable degree of contact is very good training for real fighting. Yes, there are rules, but the experience and insight gained are worth the limitations imposed by the rules. And rules can be designed to allow one to train fairly closely to what one might encounter in the "real world", the obvious exception being that sport fighting generally won't include having to deal with multiple attackers (though training for that can be arranged).

Well Tom, while I agree that sport fighting and sparring is a necessary component to help you prepare for a real fight, I still don't agree that you could substitute sport fighting examples in place of real fighting examples to illustrate the mind set of a person in a real fight. Do you also think that playing war with paintball guns is good preparation for a real gun fight? Do you feel that I could substitute a paintball skirmish for a real life gun battle to illustrate the mind set of those shooting and being shot at? I think to a point you could make that substitution, but it would be inadequate because what we were originally talking about are real fights. There are no safety parameters in a real fight. The mind set in a real fight is different because life or death is involved.

While having the luck of never been shot at or having to shot somebody for real, I have had some experience with firearms. My observations regarding people who use guns for protection and arrest is that most of them don't know how to handle their weapons properly. Unless you are a member of some elite force, most military and police men only have rudimentary understanding of weaponcraft. As you said previously "guns go off before the holder intends in to." Illustrates how most people who use guns for protection and arrest are so poorly trained. it's disgraceful. having had a background in hunting since the age of 7, been in the military(army)since 17, I'm 30 now, have experience firearms competition (3 position rifle and IPSC combat shooting), growing up in a lawless mountain province in the Philippines where carrying my rifle for protection is the norm and having had an extreme passion regarding the skill to use all things that go bang,I can guarantee you that I understand the mindset to fire a gun at anyone with intent to kill. No, it's not like the movies.

Tom,
I haven't been in a gunfight either (perish the thought!). But I have been in street fights. How many street fights have you been in? I am curious, in the real fights you have been in, how did they feel to you as compared to sports fighting competition? Did you strike first or bait your opponent, or wait for them to attack first?

Meynard, I don't think that I ever said that sport/competition fighting can substitute for real life fighting examples as illustrations of the "fighting mindset" in real life conflicts. As you point out, even in the most minimal of sport/competititve fighting events, there are still rules that limit techniques. Myonly point is that training and sparring will leave you better prepared forreal-life fights then if you haven't trained or sparred. Period. I know of or have heard of enough situations where people from sport-oriented or "traditional" martial arts mistook tournament competence or dojo sparring for ability to deal with "real" fights. If I get hit hard or surprised in a competitive setting, I feel the pain, the disorientation, maybe a little fear. But I would never confuse that with the feral madness that happens in a real threat to my life.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm interested in with this discussion is simply to find out what people thought of Tim's descirption of Cheng Ting Hua's approach. Tim said: "Cheng Ting Hua (of Ba Gua Zhang fame) place a strong emphasis on caution when engaging a strange opponent. He recommended testing before going in for the decisive technique. Good advice in that he was talking about fighting professional martial artists (professional meaning they trained and fought for a living). The potential for injury was very real."

From the responses to this thread so far, I guess most folks don't go for "testing before going in for the decisive technique." But I think there may some confusion, maybe on my part, as far as what constitutes "first strike" in a real-life fight. Each real-life fight situation varies.

At least it has for me. If someone hits me from behind with a pool cue as I'm leaning over the table, I don't intentionally hang loose meditating on whether the attacker is committed or not. If I've had some inkling of impending attack, my response has been quicker. When that pool cue came down across my shoulder, I'd already heard the guy move and begun to turn back up and around from the table. Pure luck, not some sixth-sense kind of thing. So I was already moving, and could respond more quickly (shoved the pool-cue wielder, shouldered his buddy and ran).

Total surprise from behind resulted in longer delays in responding. One time the attacker grabbed me in an immensely strong bear hug and had my feet off the floor. Before I could even bring myself to respond, he'd slammed me on the ground and kicked me in the stomach. Fortunately for me, he left. And he didn't have any colleagues around who wanted a piece of me.

A couple of other times I remember, when I had a few more years and a little more training in me, I was able to get loose, once with an elbow and once with a sloppy hip throw, both times after dropping my center of gravity down. On these two occasions the attacker had company, but I was able to turn around the attacker and get him between me and his friends before I ran.

I don't put notches on my gun or marks on my black belt for the number of fights I've been in, Tim. There have been maybe a couple of dozen situations where reasonable people would agree I was about to get the shit kicked out of me. Most of these were indoors, in bars or other holes of social iniquity. At least half of the time I was able to sweet-talk or bluff the way out for me, or friends and me. A fair number of the remainder were surprise attacks from behind. In none of the frontal-attack situations did I go charging in, testosterone on full blast. And it's a lucky thing, because the incidence of knives, bottles, pool cues and irritated groups of hostile individuals tends to be rather high in that kind of situation.

As far as gunfights go, I agree with Meynard that there are probably a lot of police and military forces with totally inadequate training in "combat" use of firearms. Special Forces (Navy SEALs and Army Rangers) friends have commented that their respective services' basic training really did not equip them all that well for use of guns under pressure. The Special Forces tend to do more specialized training in that respect. As for police, the number of cases of police overkill (most recently, 41 shots killing the NYC gentleman) is well-documented.

In your question about the gunfight, Tim, maybe you were thinking about a "High Noon" kind of confrontation, where a quick draw matters. But outside of the competition venue, that kind of a real-life fight situation is not necessarily all that common.

Hi Tom -
Can you give us a little bio of yourself? You have talked about your training and fights. You say you have a Black belt. I suspect you have trained in Japanese arts where belts are awarded. How often do you train? Do you own a studio or do you train somewhere? Why have you been in so many street fights? I have heard you are interested in coming to Lo's seminar. I would like to meet you.

Dear Interested and Humbled:

Sorry, I don't respond to people who don't use their real names on chat rooms. But although I would be interested in coming to Luo De Xiu's seminar, I can't free up the time or money (unfortunately).

As far as my black belt goes, it's just a white belt gone grimy, issued by the I Dont Noh ryu.

To everything you said, it figures. I figured you wouldn't show up to the seminar for sure. You couldn't live up to the Tom you created. You are a fabricated blow hard. You answered my question on why you get into so many fights. Ass----- always get into a lot of fights. Tom what is the difference if I made up a handle like Jim compared to what I did? Do you believe Macaco Fino is a real name? I want to see if you ever continue to respond to him. I'm sure you will make an exception since he is non-threatening. You think the Internet is full of truth? Look in the mirror.

Okay, okay, okay...

You guys caught me.
My friends call me Macaco fino -
But you guys can call me Joe Bellone -

Actually, for those well versed in Mandarian can call me Shou Hou Zi -

or

You can call me what my mommy calls me - Hairy Monkey... ;)

Seriously, thanks for the compliment Jim. I think that the internet can be extremely helpful in learning different perspectives. It also can be pretty negative. Just like when I compete, my motto is be gracious in winning, be gracious in losing and while you're at it have a little fun.

good training,
Macaco fino

Tom -
Bob and myself have normal names. Will you give us your bio?
Thank You

Thanks Fred,
So many people use the name Bob for comedy skits, I appreciate being classed with normal folk! And once again Tom, I am interested in your answer, I shared mine with you....

To all my friends on the discussion board:
It's good to state your opinions, it's fine to disagree with other's opinions, it's even cool (and entertaining) to argue with each other, but no name calling ok? I have enough trouble just keeping up with Macaco Fino's nicknames.
Tim

Bob -
He said you had a normal name. He didn't say your normal folk. I know better

Sorry Rupert, I got a little excited! I thought this was my chance at normality. I guess it's back to therapy for me.

Hmmmm . . . ever since Jim answered on my behalf on 7-24, the level of discourse in this thread continues to go downhill. So I'll end my participation in the thread with this posting. I'd like to thank Jim for his revealing temper tantrum, and Bob and Rupert for their levity. And of course Tim for his attempts at moderation ;-] .

Jim, I don't have to account for my life to you or anyone else. "Ass----- always get into a lot of fights." Truer words were never spoken, Jim--especially "ass-----" with quick tempers. You might want to consider a course in anger management.

The experiences I related earlier in this thread are true. If you choose to regard them as fabrications, that's your problem. They were offered simply in response to Tim's query about whether I'd been in "streetfights," and as personal examples to illustrate my questions. These confrontations happened, and I tried to learn from them. That's all.

As far as whether the number of confrontations seems excessive, we all live different lives, Jim. With your temper, I'm glad for you that you haven't found yourself in some of the situations I've survived. Some happened in bad news bars, some in a professional capacity, some travelling overseas. If you paid attention, you'll note that I wrote earlier that "(a)t least half of the time I was able to sweet-talk or bluff the way out for me, or friends and me. A fair number of the remainder were surprise attacks from behind. In none of the frontal-attack situations did I go charging in, testosterone on full blast."

In "street" confrontations, I've never solicited a fight, I've never challenged anybody, I've never consciously tried to bait anyone into taking a swing . . . and I've never swung first. Note that I'm not claiming that moving first would not have been effective. It's just the circumstances of the situation I've been in.

As far as my martial arts experience goes, I've had formal training in karate, aikijujutsu,wrestling and Yang style taijiquan. I've played around with xingyiquan and baguazhang, enough to be interested in pursuing more.

As far as not coming to the Luo seminar, Jim, I have my own really good reasons, and being afraid to meet you or anyone else on this thread sure as hell isn't among them. But lost revenue and time for previous commitments are.

Eric and Tim will provide a great seminar. I don't know anyone else who has the combination of their training experience, interest in figuring things out, and the ability to communicate those lessons.

Tim has already helped answer my original question, whether baguazhang, xingyiquan and taijiquan really differ in their "mindset" during actual fighting. I initially asked the question because these arts are continually represented as having/cultivating distinct mindsets, both in theoretical writings and actual teaching. Tim's sharing what HIS teachers in the Chinese internal martial arts actually emphasized is really interesting to me, and actually makes a whole lot of sense. Tim's reply is over in the thread on "Chen style taijiquan "versus" xingyiquan", under "Off Topic."

Jim, I look in the mirror every morning when I shave, and I don't mind what I see there. Sure, it could be prettier, but I can live with it.

Take care.

Tom

Tom,

Next time you find yourself facing an opponent you're unable to sweet talk or bluff- just keep talking... they'll get bored and go away.

I read your whole discussion expecting some interesting bit to show up... what a let down.

Yo, Sum Guye, I kinda like what's been happening here. No one else seems to be talking about their street fighting experience. Maybe no one besides Tim has any, and you're all a bunch of blowhards.

Jim:

If that was you who was "Interested and Humbled," I apologize for losing my temper. I see your point now, that lots of people write under assumed names. So it probably sounded pretty damned condescending when I said I don't respond to posts under assumed names. As maybe you can tell, when I get pissed off, I write . . . and write . . . or talk . . . and talk. Sum Guye is right on: if I couldn't sweet talk or bluff them to death, I'd try to bore them to death. But it seems that technique only works in chat rooms.

Anyways, for any macho posturing or name calling I've engaged in on this thread, sorry.

Sum Dude: ease up. Go have a beer or work out. Sum Guye is entitled to be bored if he wants. Although it's not my job to entertain people here, everybody has the right to their opinion.

Other Sum,

Excuse me for being unclear, I too enjoy Tim's discussion board very much. Or, in terms you might better relate to: "I totally dig it, it's rad".

I felt compelled to voice my disappointment with Tom's verbose pontification, writing on for pages without saying much of anything. It was a selfish maneuver on my part.

However, I haven't blown hard or soft about squat. You, on the other hand, have gotten your feathers ruffled and made a snide generalization about all of Tim's students, (which is laughably inaccurate), for no reason I can ascertain.

The next time I post I'll document a fight or two
I've been in. (Though its not going to be a schnazy as sweet talking or getting
pool-cued from behind... I've never hung out in gay bars).

Tom -
Warning: This may bore the rest of you. Jim/Interested & Humbled/Fred/Rupert they were all me. As far as a quick temper is concerned, I responded to you the next day. This gave me ample time to think of how I was going to respond to you. Which makes me feel even dumber. I hope you accept my apology. I really didn't expect the reply I received. Most people I know even in the martial arts world do not seem to have a reason to fight even in skanky bars. I was more interested on how the fights evolved rather than what you did. I should have been more articulate. Many people on this discussion board had a genuine interest in your background as you can see. The way you responded showed us (me?) that you had something to hide on such a simple question. I should have left off the humble maybe? Tim humbles me though. If I ask a professional for advice I look at the persons background or credentials to see if they are believable. I'm sure you checked out Tim's background and this is why you continue to stay in this discussion board. We can trace most people in this discussion board to a place of training. We know the backgrounds of many of their instructors. This makes what they have to say more credible and interesting. You seem to spend quite a bit of time in discussion boards. I was interested in knowing your background to get a feel of how much of what you said was woven from another discussion board/books/videos or from your own thoughts and life experience. I also can also enjoy a how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin type story as well as the next guy.