Talk:Dim Mak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Someone need to explain to me how Dim Mak translate to "Death Touch", because Dim Mak doesn't translate to death touch in any way. What the literal translation should be "touch point". I'm really interested in the origin of the name "Death Touch". If anyone know, please leave a message on my talk page. Lightblade 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Kill Bill

Maybe add a reference to the Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart Technique? Krapitino 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

"Critics argue that Qi and meridians do not exist, and so Dim Mak is a purely fictional technique created as an evil counterpart to the equally invalid medical arts of acupuncture and accupressure."

This more concerns the concept of Qi and meridians themselves, and should be placed in that article. There's not even any mentioning or discussion of the concept of Dim Mak. It's quite possible that whoever added this was hoping that it wouldn't be noticed by placing it in a smaller, less-viewed article. While I'm at it, I would like to point out that the referrenced article makes no effort to give details as to its experimentation and expects you to arbitrarily accept the accuracy of their experimentation methods at face value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.188.183 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


about the referenced article - the linked article is an essay on the science involved, but it itself is well cited. Its purpose was to use the writings of Dr. George A. Ulett to explain the findings and conclusion published in the May 4, 2005 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on acupuncture which can be found here. and the open-ended conclusion.

As for the issue of relevance, I'll agree that the speculation I made that Dim Mak is the evil counterpart to the benevolent practice of acupuncture and acupressure is my own. But, being a fictional martial art, I think some leniency in this regard is ok. I cited that article to debunk the basis of Dim Mak - the magical notions of qi and meridians.

What isn't ok is making that kind of speculation on my motives for my contribution especially without reading the article I cited. 74.100.35.184 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my teachers considered dim mak to be a real, but lost, technique. They also considered the practise to be dishonourable, and even criminal. Finding much about that in English is another matter, though. The best we can do as far as notability is cite productions in the wuxia genre. Please see WP:REF. --Fire Star 火星 05:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Your teachers are idiots. Are we supposed to trust the word of some backwater McDojo losers over what modern scientific medicine considers actually possible? No way. -84.186.204.75 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


There is one very clear reason why Dim Mak is only citable as a wuxia fiction. That reason is that it actually is a wuxia fiction. There are countless reasons it is an impossible martial art. Next time, try asking a doctor or surgeon, instead of your sensei. Twisted Wrister 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive re-write needed

This article is very poorly done and needs to be extensivley re-written, preferably by people who actually know what they are talking about. It seems that the intention here has been to discredit the whole philosophy of Dim Mak, by equating it only with qi and meridians.

The correct approach is understand it in modern physiological terms, ie. based on the array of plexus (nerve bundles) throughout the body. The best known of these is the solar plexus, and many people have experienced that a blow to this nerve bundle (in the abdomen) can temoparily paralyse the diaphragm.

I can assure you (including people like twisted wrister) that Dim Mak is very real, in the sense that by striking certain parts of the body, normal body functions can be interrupted. The location and function of many of these plexus is documented.Logicman1966 01:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be improved a lot. Most of it as it stands can just be removed, to strictly comply with Wikipedia policy. That is the problem with reporting an art that has been a closely guarded secret for hundreds if not thousands of years. All most of us have to report is rumour and innuendo. What we need are real secondary sources, and you have them, that would be great. --Fire Star 火星 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Pressure points are real (I know at least 40), nerve clusters are real, and both are taught about openly in nearly all martial arts as a means of inflicting pain and distraction or enhancing a grappling technique. But Dim Mak is as fictonal as its reputation. If you are too medically ignorant and superstitious to understand that disease and death cannot be inflicted with a poke of the finger, consider instead its stupendous military value which has gone totally ignored for "hundreds if not thousands of years". Marvel at how you have survived having a belt-buckle that was too large! Be amazed that no one has been killed by sleeping on a small object! Tell your friends how you narrowly escaped death by wearing tight-fitting clothes! Gawk in amazement as your diabetes is cured by a needle wound! Buy my snake oil and it will cure all your ills and make your penis enormous! 3 easy payments of 29.95!

idiots.

The Dim Mak article does need a rewrite. It should read simply "Dim Mak is a fictional wuxia martial art where a user can inflict death, paralysis or disease with a skillfully placed touch. It was first used as a literary device in China back in the 70's or perhaps the 60's at the earliest."

Scary Monster

[edit] Extensive Pruning/Complete Rewrite

Ok, so I took it upon myself to actually delete most of the bullshit that was part of this article. The basic assumption is that as long as Dim Mak isn't considered authoritatively proven it doesn't exist. Also. there shouldn't be three (yes, there were three) paragraphs about traditional Chinese medicine and qi. That stuff was removed, and is going to STAY removed. The two paragraphs that were left over are those that actually defined Dim Mak in understandable terms, modified and fleshed out by me.

I removed everything from the article but the basic factoids: Dim Mak as a concept of applied manipulation of pressure points, isn't considered proven, if interested refer to Traditional Chinese Medicine and Chi.

All crystal wavers and wannabe-ninjas who are annoyed at this can take it to the administrators, I think the article is much better for it. -TheOtherStephan 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People who claim to practice Dim Mak are proven to be frauds

I had added a link to George Dillman. He claims to be a practitioner of Dim Mak. He has REPEATEDLY been shown to be a FRAUD.

Here he is proven to be a fraud by National Geographic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6CPTb5qMkE

Here is a student of his who is proven to be a fraud on a local Fox channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar1yXYOsxQk

Here is another similar video of this not working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN787VmJiL8

Here is some other guy who claims to be able to do Dim Mak and there is video of his students flying thru the air without him even touching them. Then in the second video he tries it on some random kid who proceeds to KNOCK HIS TEETH OUT! http://www.yachigusaryu.com/blog/2007/02/no-touch-knockout-fraud-exposed.html

Search the net, there are plenty more articles.

Oh, and I got a spanking from some moderator that says I better not spam this page any more because he will BAN me forever.

Gee thanks dude. I took the time to provide factual information that contributes to this article, and you instantly threaten me with a permanent ban. IF YOU WANT THIS ENTIRE SITE TO BE WRITTEN ONLY BY PROFESSIONALS, then keep that up, that is all that will be left, and Wikipedia will be dead. How about encouraging participation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by USAjp22 (talk • contribs)

That wasn't a moderator who left the warning on your page, it was an anonymous IP with only 2 edits to its credit with no more power to ban you than you have to ban him. You can safely remove the warning if you'd like. I am a moderator and I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing.
The question for me is, does Dillman actually say that he does Dim Mak or does he call it something else? Dim Mak is a branch of chin na which its practitioners claim to kill people. Chin na is supposed to be pressure point work for submission. If Dillman doesn't use the words Dim Mak he shouldn't be mentioned in the article itself but I can see having him in as a related link. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon 13:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you VERY MUCH for the feedback/clarification! Actually, there is already a Wikipedia entry (which I had nothing to do with) on George Dillman. That article doesn't refer to Dim Mak, but if you watch the videos on him, that is what they say he is doing. The article refers to "Knockout" Chi -- which may be the same thing as Dim Mak. Anyway... there seems to be some work done to clear all this up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by USAjp22 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This heading is inaccurate; it says "people", but the material only refers to George Dillman. If you are interested to learn more about Dim Mak you should refer to Dr Michael Kelly or Dr Pier Tsui-Po, both these men are practicioners and have informative web sites. Sweep away the silly hype and extravagant Hollywood-esque myths, and you will begin to see the real truth.Logicman1966 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard both sides of the issue. Honestly, I'm going to see if I can have Dr Yang Jwing-Ming perform a minor one on me, if it would work on a total, complete 100% non-believer (not that I'm that though) would you believe it? Have Michael Kelly or Dr Pier Tsui-Po or Dr Yang do one on you then decide. The snare (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, I believe there is a difference in degree between pressure point fighting per se and Dim Mak. In Hong Kong popular culture at least, Dim Mak is claimed to kill people, and is said to be used for assassinations or revenge, while pressure point chin na is just for fighting and is more merciful. Dim Mak is a form of chin na, but not all chin na is Dim Mak. Be careful you don't ask the guy to kill you! ;-) --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Accupressure-derived qinna is of questionable efficacy, especially under actual combat conditions. For those who reference "the accupressure qinna worked on me" I'd like to ask: did you attempt to resist, at all? It's easy to escape from purely accupressure based qinna. The series of large and small joint manipulation that is ALSO called qinna on the other hand can be quite effective. Dillman and his no-touch KO's are something else altogether... and of much greater questionability than even the qinna people. The problem is that there is a matrix of concepts, some legendary, some fraudulent, some peripheral and some core with nomenclature that obscures both their relationship to each other and their differences. This ambiguity has caused no end of grief in the martial arts community; especially when it is exploited by frauds with their no-touch qi hokum.Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)