I was speaking solely in terms of meridan and associated theory. I certainly have principles I and my friends/instructors have worked out, are demonstratable and repeatable, that underly our techniques and they are part of the instruction, at a certain point of training.

The underlying meridian theory is more interesting when you really look at how some of the chinese systems approach it.

My friend who's studied Northern Eagle Claw over 30 years, and believe me they really work 'vital points' with their locks and strikes, tells me that meridian theory has nothing to do with the system. His instructor, Shum Leung, shows a chart of points to strike (front and back) in his book and that's all there is.

The system works the pain, but does so through specific hands on training, the intense 2 person sets that lead into eagle claw sparring, anything goes and a round is never over till it's locked, and each round must use a different lock.

As tactical in their way as my instruction is in mine. No underlying theory, just pain when it works right, and continual practice to make it happen.

And as to where to hit and why, anyplace that you can get to. Everyplace you strike has an effect of some sort. Practice and Experience give you clues, but if we're only talking about impact, there is almost no place that cannot be used, and striking is rarely a simple single technique.

Are you suggesting that some places are more appropriate to strike and are a better choice than another place? Is that a distinction that should be made?

Edited by Victor Smith (05/31/06 04:40 PM)
victor smith bushi no te isshinryu offering free instruction for 30 years