HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doug@eng.umd.edu (Douglas N. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Bruce [and others] flame
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 13:10:31 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering
Keywords: request for proof/documentation....

In article <1992Apr12.223322.5940@news.cs.indiana.edu> mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Chui) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.025331.11539@eng.umd.edu> doug@eng.umd.edu (Douglas N. Cohen) writes:
>[Ker-snip]
>>	and while we're on the subject of qualifications, would you mind
>>publically stating your personal martial arts qualifications?  for example,
>>i would be interested to see what style(s) you studied, for how long, and
>>under which instructors(s), and what levels (recognized and documented, and
>>by/from who) you attained.
>
>	I think the net.consensus is that, in general, we're not interested.
>People's posts will stand, sit, fall, burn, or take ukemi on their own merits,
>without regard to rank, etc.  I read this newsgroup to participate a
>cross-stylistic exchange of ideas about MA, not to awe or be awed by
>net.claims.of.m-a.experience.  But please, let the lively point-counterpoint
>continue...
>
>Michael Chui
>mchui@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

	i totally disagree.  when someone claims so much, then i think
that i would like to know from where these opinions and claims have their
basis.  if i am wrong, and if someone *know* more about something than
i (regardless of age or experience) i want to learn.  i i know that when
someone says something, and that their credientials are valid, i will have
the confidence to listen to that person, quote that person, and feel that i 
can send some else to that person and know that they will be given useful
and *factual* information or help.
	marty has made many claims of expertise in several relevant areas,
of interest to me, and others, and some of what he says (NOT ALL) is not
what i understand to be the facts, or valid.  i challenge this.  if he
can successfully defend that challenge, i *I* will be the *FIRST* to 
acknowledge *and* publically appologize, and learn.  if he cannot prove
what he says is fact, then possibly he will learn to express opinions as
opinions and NOT as facts.
	another opinion, worth what you paid for it!
	        =======	i categorically state this with all my opinions,
			as well as putting something in the header that
			that i am expressing opinion, observation or humor.
	and, as always, i am/at:

	     doug:  <doug@eng.umd.edu> : <doug@lpf.umd.edu>

	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< a ghost in the machine >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Ouch! Groin kick
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:45:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr11.164546.14936
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences

In article <92101.171114U58294@uicvm.uic.edu> U58294@uicvm.uic.edu (Yvonne A. McLean) writes:
>Guys, the funniest is real life.  Some of the best laugh I get is watching guys
> reactions to a groin hit.  I once accidentally hit my boyfriend in the groin,
>he hit the wall, rolled from one end of a king size bed to the end, hit the flo
>or.  I did not stop laughing for the entire night.

I doubt you'll find many men who like this kind of comment. The reason it looks
so funny is because it's increadibly painful and scary. Do you enjoy watching
other people in intense pain? Maybe you should try hanging around an
emergency ward for a while. I'm sure you'ld get a real lot of enjoyment 
out of it.

Sorry if I sound too harsh. As a tall guy who bangs his head fairly often, 
sometimes in public, I have developed a supreme disgust for people who laugh
because someone in front of them just got hurt. In fact, it's about the only
thing that can make me loose my temper.

	Ed Hartnett

PS - What the hell, it's a sore spot for me (no pun intended).
From: dsmythe@netcom.com (Dave Smythe)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Dim Mak ankle sweep and general lethargy...
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:00:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom._=1j-gd.dsmythe
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <0dvOKtC00UoJ1PzAls@andrew.cmu.edu> Stephen Chan <sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	For example, can the Barfing Dragon Punch beat the Dim Mak
>Ankle Sweep? Can I accidentally kill someone while giving them a foot
>massage?

You know, this is precisely the sort of question that makes me skeptical
about the Dim Mak claims (I didn't say Dim Mak isn't real, BTW).  It seems
to me that if there are 108 or 72 or even 36 places around the body that
are REAL BAD PLACES to get hit, considering that we get hit all over the
place during normal class sparring, shouldn't we be experiencing some
deleterious side-effects from the pressure-point strikes?  Is the area
affected actually that small (hence statistically unlikely to be struck)?
I've heard the size of most points is about that of a quarter.
Or, perhaps the points have to be struck "just so", with a certain amount
of force, for instance (ruling out massage accidents), or maybe in a
certain order (making the chance event of an accident even more remote).

How about this: maybe it *does* affect us, but we don't attribute the ill
effects to the actual events that caused them.  Maybe the reason I feel
sluggish or wired the next day (or three days later) is that some Ch'i
meridian was affected or something from an innocent strike.
Sure, some of the spots are obvious; they hurt like the dickens or your
arms falls asleep or some other obvious effect is noticed (like you
start screaming in pain :-).  But, what about those others...

What do you think?

D

-- 
========================================================================
Dave Smythe   N6XLP    dsmythe@netcom.com (also dsmythe@cs.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
From: barry@citr.uq.oz.au (Barry Kitson)
Subject: Re: Multiple attackers
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:42:59 GMT

tac@cs.brown.edu (Ted A. Camus) writes:

>barry@citr.uq.oz.au (Barry Kitson) writes:
>>Why Foo didn't step around U just as Nage did (while
>>striking of course :^) isn't all that clear to me.  
>  The difference was that Foo would be merely dodging Uke, while Nage
>  was actively *controlling* Uke during the movement.  It is always
>  possible to run around your opponents; Nage would want to do this too,
>  if convenient.  

	No, Foo should ALSO be controlling U.  Surely if Nage can do it
with Aikido, someone of similar competence in Foo-do can do the same
(by definition ;^) .

>  Nage also has the option of *throwing* one attacker into another;
>  this is different from running around until they happen to 
>  conveniently line up.

	True, so Foo shouldn't just run around.  Foo should control 
his opponent with strikes and good use of distances (i.e. threats of
strikes if U doesn't shift.  This can be pretty subtle :^) .

>>If they are of
>>the same ability, (and assuming they can't just run up or down the
>>screen) then Foo should be circling U just as Nage did (except
>>that Foo would do better to step to the closed side to avoid the
>>left punch or kick which Nage is walking into ;^) .  

>  Again, Nage wasn't merely circling U, (s)he was actively turning them
>  with shihonage; a left punch or kick is not possible by Uke.

	If Nage is fast enough to perform this technique in response to
a realistic punch, then maybe it will be all over before U gets off the
next shot.  But to do this, Nage must be pretty good!  If someone
grabbed my right arm and wandered down my open side I would certainly
be trying some nasty things with my left arm and leg (/knee).  What 
exactly is shihonage anyway? :^) 

>  Let me know if you have a GIF viewer, I can send you a GIF of this
>  particular version of shihonage.  (If 10/50/100 KB is too big, let me
>  know and I'll reduce the resolution.)

	Send away.  (compressed and uuencoded :^)

>>Foo should keep U between himself/herself and V,

>  Running and/or dodging is one method, available to anyone;
>  throwing is another, available only to a grappling-experienced artist.

	As striking and blocking is only "available" to striking-
experienced artists. ;^)

>>Now, you are in a crowded bar

>  Unlikely, I don't like beer ;-)

	Ok, a crowded bus :^)

		Barry.

 _____________________________________________________________________
| Barry KITSON              | TRL of AOTC                   ||   \_() |
| Voice: +61 7 365 4469     | C/- CiTR                     //,____#_\ |
| Fax:   +61 7 365 4399     | The University of Queensland \|   __\   |
| email: b.kitson@trl.oz.au | St Lucia 4072 AUSTRALIA       \|  `     |
|_____ Proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader. _____|
From: jquarant@mipos3.intel.com (James Quarant)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Which is most effective? Point/Edge weapons.
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:19:53 GMT
Organization: Intel

+In article <1992Apr5.040743.23510@cs.brown.edu> tac@cs.brown.edu (Ted A. Camus) writes:
+>
+>   A good, but subtle example is Smith's description of the Chinese long
+>   double-edged sword.  He writes to the effect that "the Chinese learned
+>   (as later did the European fencers) that the point of the sword was more
+>   effective in attacking and keeping the opponent at bay than the cutting
+>   edge."
+>
+>   Oh really?  I guess a couple dozen generations of Samurai just couldn't
+>   figure it out huh?  The reason that the Chinese and Europeans often (note
+>   I say often) preferred straight swords is because they never developed
+>   the cutting edge technology (no pun intended) that the Japanese smiths
+>   did.  A katana or tachi can slash the wrist of a fencer in a sweeping
+>   motion before the tip of a long sword would be able to reach the
+>   kenjutsuka's body.
+
+Excuse me, but why does the fencer have to go after the body?  Epee
+fencers can attack any part of the body (knees and hands are nice
+targets to start with) and sabre fencers, although restricted to
+above the waist, can also attack the hands (painful!).  I'm positive
+the samurai used the tip every so often, but did they develop a whole
+system based around it?  You might flip through "The English
+Masters-of-Arms", a history of English broadsword and its competition
+with the "unmanly" new fencing style used by the French and Spaniards.
+
+Dakin
+burdickd@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

True.  In fact, at my old fencing club we pitted a sabre against an epee
(using epee targets, ie. a touch *anywhere* scored).  The sabre and epee
fencers were always arguing which was the most effective weapon--the
point weapon or the edge weapon.  We found that the epee won 75% of the
time.  Typically, as soon as the sabreist took his point off target to
deliver a cut, the epeeist could simply thrust into the sabreist's
attacking arm.  If the epee  thrust missed, then the sabreist often
scored.  Even then, the epee blade was plenty strong enough to parry
sabre cuts.

JQ
jquarant@mipos3.intel.com
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Aikido teaching styles
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:21:29 GMT

In <1992Apr15.214545.23522@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>My own observationof "touchy-feely" teachers has nothing to do with Ki
>Society or Tohei Sensei but with Americans (Californians, in large part)
>whose interpretation of aikido does not include teaching a solid
>functional background but instead a sort of New Age psychobabble.

I must take exception to this, as an American, Californian, and
Aikidoka...our dojo does not engage in "New Age psychobabble" and a
good number of other dojos in the area do not either...I believe that
Chiba for one is in San Diego.  There is also Sensei Toms of Aiki-kai
in San Diego as well, who is a close disciple of Saito Sensei -- a
strict Iwama style.

Yes, there are dojos that take a less than solid approach, that do not
emphasize what we think of as the basics.  Some of them are
nevertheless very good dojos.  Others fall into the category of
"touchy-feely".  But they are found all over.  We have had students in
our dojo from other places and countries, and some of them were
clearly taught with different standards where their 2nd or 1st kyu was
more equivalent to our 3rd kyu levels.  The worst was one woman from
Oregon or Washington who sported a brown belt and would have barely
qualified for our 5th kyu.

In any case, arguing over this, and in particular making
generalizations about this, really strikes me as an exercise in
futility...

Regards,
--Cindy
--
Cindy Tittle Moore       "For a beginner, there are about 100 stages of the
                          technique.  A talented beginner can expect a 90%
UCI Aikido Club           chance of success for each stage, and therefore a
Crawford Hall             (.9)^100 ~= 0 chance of success in performing the
University of California  technique properly."    -- Chris L. Kuszmaul
Irvine, CA 92717
From: scheid@danzan.EBay.Sun.COM (David Scheid)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Dim Mak ankle sweep and general lethargy..
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:48:51 GMT
Reply-To: scheid@danzan.EBay.Sun.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: danzan.ebay.sun.com

In article dsmythe@netcom.com, dsmythe@netcom.com (Dave Smythe) writes:

>You know, this is precisely the sort of question that makes me skeptical
>about the Dim Mak claims (I didn't say Dim Mak isn't real, BTW).  It seems
>to me that if there are 108 or 72 or even 36 places around the body that
>are REAL BAD PLACES to get hit, considering that we get hit all over the
>place during normal class sparring, shouldn't we be experiencing some
>deleterious side-effects from the pressure-point strikes?  

There are 108 pts., 36 are considered prime targets. Some catalogers will
expand the list to include all kinds of accupunture points, but most
have no martial application and many are so close to one another as to be
indistinguishable from the listed prime point. If struck, you will know.
Remember, they are classed by: Numbing/incapacition; KO; and death. Because
of differences in anatomy and nervous response, some people will suffer
the next higher class instead of the target class. Thus, a KO for most
will kill some. 

The young kid who was killed last summer in San Jose while playing "thump"
with his buddy is an example of someone being killed by a "Dim Mak" strike.
The Drs. could not find a mark on the teen. He was dead, nevertheless.

>Is the area
>affected actually that small (hence statistically unlikely to be struck)?

Yes.

>I've heard the size of most points is about that of a quarter.

About as big as the tip of your little finger.

>Or, perhaps the points have to be struck "just so", with a certain amount
>of force, for instance (ruling out massage accidents), or maybe in a
>certain order (making the chance event of an accident even more remote).

This is also true. Proper type of strike and angle. Force of strike also
changes response of opponent.

>How about this: maybe it *does* affect us, but we don't attribute the ill
>effects to the actual events that caused them.  Maybe the reason I feel
>sluggish or wired the next day (or three days later) is that some Ch'i
>meridian was affected or something from an innocent strike.

Could be. 

>Sure, some of the spots are obvious; they hurt like the dickens or your
>arms falls asleep or some other obvious effect is noticed (like you
>start screaming in pain :-).  But, what about those others...

Again, there are three classes (I'm not very big on the "delayed stuff",
but there are some strikes which will come back to haunt someone, though
I doubt as many as some would care to indicate).

---
Dave Scheid - All Disclaimers Apply
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: multiple opponents; combat vs. self-defense
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:33:56 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <8211@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> poore@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (David Poore) writes:
>In article <barry.703210860@citr.uq.oz.au> barry@citr.uq.oz.au (Barry Kitson) writes:
>>keeping one of them between yourself and the rest of the group.  If you
>>can hit him/her (pick the weakest one :^) and end his/her day, then
>                           ^^^^^^^
>Funny, my teacher always recommends the opposite. Take the biggest,
>strongest, baddest, loudest, etc. first, in hopes of taking out the
>ringleader.

This seems like pretty good advice. You're going to *have* to fight the
nastiest one anyway...you might as well do it before you get too banged up.
If you wait until you're tired, hurt, etc., you're just handing the big guy
another advantage. Besides, if you waste Goliath early, the rest of the 
Philistines will probably think twice about continuing.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
From: radner@cray.com (Lauren Radner)
Subject: Re: Real Martial Artists
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:23:17 CDT

In article <1992Apr11.183634.28400@cs.rose-hulman.edu> acharya@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:

>	what is a "thorick chow tape"? was it a tai chi tape that was
>mentioned a while (month or two) ago?

... no... it's a video of Thorick eating a really big meal (an internal art...)


-Lauren



Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Which Style To Take
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:25:47 GMT
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu's message of 6 Apr 92 23:18:52 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.231852.23476@uwm.edu> ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) writes:

   tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) says:

[snip]

   >TAE-KWON-DO - seems to have the benefit of drawing from karate's tradition,
   >	 but is modernised.  (That could be a good thing or a bad thing).
   >	 Its kicking emphasis make it *look* effective.
   >	 But it also seems to be a hard art - inflexible.
   >
   >	 A major plus (for me) for TKD, is its breaking requirements.  
   >

   TKD is an influence of Chinese and Japanese culture, though mainly
   japanese from the times of the occupation.  

I'm guessing you meant to say "was influenced by", not "is an influence
of", which would mean that TKD has had some kind of effect on Chinese
and Japanese culture.  

   It seems modernized because it
   is quite modernized (i.e developed in this century).  I'm sure a TKD
   student here could fill you up here a little better.  As for it's
   effectiveness, I can go by the many TKD I've sparred and worked with,
   and personally I don't see the hand techniques or punches as being
   that effective, and unless you are 5'4" or below, alot of the kicks are
   easily telegraphed.  Now again, this is by personal experience with
   TKD people from Korea and local.

Strange as it may seem, from everything I've heard "traditional" taekwondo
is mostly to be found outside Korea these days, which makes sense if you
consider history and politics and whatnot.  I've heard that you will mostly
find sport techniques there (i.e., a relatively small arsenal of kicks, 
and little real work on hand techniques).  So I wouldn't judge the 
effectiveness of taekwondo based on what you've seen -- it sounds like
you've been looking at sport taekwondo.
--


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mary Malmros     | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
 mary@cayman.com  | Phone 617-494-1999  Fax 617-494-5167  AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH
From: karsten@nic.gac.edu (Karsten Hendrick)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Multiple attackers
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:57:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: gacvx2.1992Apr16.155728.996

> 
> 	Now, you are in a crowded bar, with your back to the bar,
> your girlfriend on you left and a stranger on your right.  The person
> (6 inches) in front is obviously about to punch a few holes in you,  
> (He has just informed you of this fact, and has cocked his right fist 
> behind his ear. :^)  Here comes the punch, what will you do?
> 
> 	Time for atemi... (Hey, just like TKD!! ;^) 

No way!  Time for innovation (just like common sense!).
Duck the punch, grab the stranger, and toss the 
stranger at the person in front of you.  Let him and the
stranger fight it out while you and your girlfriend get
the hell out.

Karsten Hendrick
karsten@nic.gac.edu
karsten@lavatch.gac.edu
From: karsten@nic.gac.edu (Karsten Hendrick)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Bruce Lee on...
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:06:13 GMT

In article <43325@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>  writes:

> Besides this, I think virtually everyone has annointed Bruce Lee with a
> god-hood of which he is undeserving.  He was a good martial artist.  I think
> there are many who are much better.  

I'm not trying to hardtime you or anything, this is just curiosity.
Which martial artists do you consider to be exemplary fighters?

Karsten Hendrick
karsten@nic.gac.edu
karsten@lavatch.gac.edu
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Ouch! Groin kick
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:38:22 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <92101.171114U58294@uicvm.uic.edu> U58294@uicvm.uic.edu (Yvonne A. McLean) writes:

>Guys, the funniest is real life.  Some of the best laugh I get is watching guys
> reactions to a groin hit.  I once accidentally hit my boyfriend in the groin,
>he hit the wall, rolled from one end of a king size bed to the end, hit the flo
>or.  I did not stop laughing for the entire night.

Did he laugh??!!!??? ;)
--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|