Re: Extreme Martial Arts

Chas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>It's the standard of 'similarity' that is sometimes unreasonable.

Without it, we are left without any reasonable support for claims.

At which point it *can't* be 'traced' any further.  Regardless of the
historical truth, there is no modernly verifiable line to trace.

>As an example, 'Taiji' is supposed to date from the mid-seventeenth century-
>but it is predicated on 'loose boxing' which goes back quite a while before
>that. Is it rigorous to include that prior history of loose boxing, or does
>one only date it from the formalization period.

Depends on how well you document the change and evolution over time.

>Pagua is the same. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, it was often called
>the 'formless art'. After codification on the Chinese Mainland, did it
>'change' (substantially) or did it simply become more regimented?

It became something historians will talk about.

-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 hacker
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]