# Thread: Grand Unified Theory Of Wuxia Fiction

Yeah sorry for not reading the whole theory first, I sorta jumped in and played around with the program.
I usually do that too.

One more question - how do you achieve peace aura? So many aura's in warcraft, but first I have heard of peace aura. Personally I think should take that out cause no JY character reach peace and its pointless to compare him/her to anyone other wise. Also if there is no fight due peace aura, isn't that a draw?
I don't know how you can achieve that because no one has done it. I put that in to inform the readers of the existence of such a level. Besides there were MANY characters who caught a glimpse of such a level, including XF, so I can't take it out.

And would you not consider sweeper monk to have peace aura? The way he converted MRB and XYS - two enemies that generations of fighting prob wouldnt resolve?
I think he should be aware of the existence of this level, but he did not master it or even reach it. According to my description of this level, "all the opponents around him will lose their will to fight and cease any violent movements voluntarily". The Sweeper could not do that.

One more thing, if the percentages are low, does that indicate a high chance of drawing? Does your equation taking draws into account, cause theoretically the greats should have equal scores (or very similar) with their respective numbers pumped in (or do we assume their variables are all the same).
Yes, my equation does take draws into consideration. I can try to adjust the constants to make it more even, but that's going to take some time.

btw its the first time i saw this, so i will prob have nightmares tonight about Z3F and YG defeating Sweeper and XF.
I did warn you in the preface.

Anyway, if anyone is wondering, I took the title "Grand Unified Theory" from physics. It's slightly below the Theory of Everything, which explains ALL the 4 Forces of nature. But that's kind of off-topic so I'll just stop here.

2. My basic quibble with your maths are:-

1) I do not know how and what basis do you rank your characters. The levels suggested are titles similar to things like first-class fighter which is era dependent rather than era-adjusted. And based on what physical/combat feats would you rank those fighters?

2) I do not know how and how well the correlation of your ranking works with era adjustment

3) I do not know if certain characters like Ah Qing or SPT who are heads above their peers but historically in JY's world may or may not be equal to the greats would be either be under-rated or over-rated by your ranking.

4) And on what basis is style and also philosophy have a higher power than inner power and techniques? Based on what we know, in JY's world, Inner power reigns supreme, followed by techniques.

Yours,
Han Solo

3. Reply to Han Solo's quibble:

I'll try to answer as best as I can:

1) I do not know how and what basis do you rank your characters. The levels suggested are titles similar to things like first-class fighter which is era dependent rather than era-adjusted. And based on what physical/combat feats would you rank those fighters?
The ranking system is supposed to be era-independent. In fact it's also supposed to be 'author-independent'. I think it would be better if there are examples to illustrate the different levels. But I'll leave the examples to the expert readers like Lav, Athena and yourself to fill in.

2) I do not know how and how well the correlation of your ranking works with era adjustment
See above.

3) I do not know if certain characters like Ah Qing or SPT who are heads above their peers but historically in JY's world may or may not be equal to the greats would be either be under-rated or over-rated by your ranking.
For such cases, in order to rank them as accurately as possible, I would suggest that you rank such characters separately.

4) And on what basis is style and also philosophy have a higher power than inner power and techniques? Based on what we know, in JY's world, Inner power reigns supreme, followed by techniques.
See THE MARTIAL ARTS RANKING SYSTEM. I did explain why Styles and Philosophy are better than Techniques and Internal power (usually) and I also stated their mathematical relationship there as well as in THE MATHEMATICS BEHIND THE RANKING SYSTEM.

The second point ~ But we also know GL characters are (on the average) better than JY characters, right? How else can we explain why they're stronger despite people like Xu Zhu being walking nuclear reactors?

4. Originally Posted by IcyFox

The ranking system is supposed to be era-independent. In fact it's also supposed to be 'author-independent'. I think it would be better if there are examples to illustrate the different levels. But I'll leave the examples to the expert readers like Lav, Athena and yourself to fill in.

Unfortunately, that would made it subjective, rather than objective, which is what i imagined is what you try to do with the system.

For such cases, in order to rank them as accurately as possible, I would suggest that you rank such characters separately.
It may be selfish for me, but do you mind running a simulation of how Ah Qing would rank vs someone like Sweeps on your system.

See THE MARTIAL ARTS RANKING SYSTEM. I did explain why Styles and Philosophy are better than Techniques and Internal power (usually) and I also stated their mathematical relationship there as well as in THE MATHEMATICS BEHIND THE RANKING SYSTEM.

The second point ~ But we also know GL characters are (on the average) better than JY characters, right? How else can we explain why they're stronger despite people like Xu Zhu being walking nuclear reactors?
There's no empirical evidence that they are better.

The comparison of GL vs JY fighters are incomplete. A lot of ppl, whether due to their exposure to GL, do rank JY fighters as stronger.

Han Solo

Unfortunately, that would made it subjective, rather than objective, which is what i imagined is what you try to do with the system.
My main objective is to create a Grand Unified Theory on martial arts and its relationship with Wuxia fiction. If there are separate ranking systems for different eras or different authors then I would not be able to fufill that objective. This debate is similar to the pros and cons of platform-independent programming languages (like Java) so you might want to read up on that.

It may be selfish for me, but do you mind running a simulation of how Ah Qing would rank vs someone like Sweeps on your system.
It's not selfish. You are just requesting for something the program was meant to do. But you have to provide the parameters for Ah Qing because I'm not too familiar with her character. BTW, I used "9, 9, 5, 6" for the Sweeper Monk in the preliminary round, if I remember correctly.

Or if you prefer you can run it yourself. The program can be downloaded here:

There's no empirical evidence that they are better.
The comparison of GL vs JY fighters are incomplete. A lot of ppl, whether due to their exposure to GL, do rank JY fighters as stronger.
Just see the survivor games. Which side usually won?

6. Originally Posted by IcyFox

My main objective is to create a Grand Unified Theory on martial arts and its relationship with Wuxia fiction. If there are separate ranking systems for different eras or different authors then I would not be able to fufill that objective. This debate is similar to the pros and cons of platform-independent programming languages (like Java) so you might want to read up on that.
I may not have been getting through to you or have i confused myself?
The problem is the variables in the equation and how you assign the values to the various levels.

The ideal is obviously an era-independent or era-adjusted stat and also an author-adjusted stat.

To do that, a ranking level that takes account into the level of martial ability i.e. how far, how hard or how fast their abilities takes them needs to be used.

This would in some respect enables us to say that
A is faster than B because A was able to run from city x to city Z carrying 4 ppl in the same time as person b. etc etc.

It's not selfish. You are just requesting for something the program was meant to do. But you have to provide the parameters for Ah Qing because I'm not too familiar with her character. BTW, I used "9, 9, 5, 6" for the Sweeper Monk in the preliminary round, if I remember correctly.

Or if you prefer you can run it yourself. The program can be downloaded here:
Read here, if only to use bliss's interpretation of Ah Qing's ability rather than my estimation. Thanks.

Just see the survivo[quoter games. Which side usually won?
They are games. Did you ever have anyone saying that the strongest won the game? Never.

Han Solo

I may not have been getting through to you or have i confused myself?
A bit of both, I guess.

The problem is the variables in the equation and how you assign the values to the various levels.
I explained this in some of my previous posts. Check my replies to yittz for details.

The ideal is obviously an era-independent or era-adjusted stat and also an author-adjusted stat.

To do that, a ranking level that takes account into the level of martial ability i.e. how far, how hard or how fast their abilities takes them needs to be used.
Let me think of a way to explain this clearly. I'll pass this for now.
(Which isn't such a good idea... But nevermind.)

Read here, if only to use bliss's interpretation of Ah Qing's ability rather than my estimation. Thanks.
Huh? Read what? Below that sentence was a quote of my own post.

They are games. Did you ever have anyone saying that the strongest won the game? Never.
You did talk about readers' opinions. The games reflect that very clearly. Anyway the strongest in the JY canon never won as well.

OK, to settle the JY vs. GL issue, I would suggest we get experts like TigerWong to give their opinion.

8. icyfoxxy u deserve a Nobel Prize with all these bold theories..

9. Originally Posted by Noisulli
icyfoxxy u deserve a Nobel Prize with all these bold theories..

Unfortunately there's no Nobel category for Wuxia.

10. Originally Posted by IcyFox

Huh? Read what? Below that sentence was a quote of my own post.
Sorry, meant for you to use bliss's opinion of ah ching to run a sim of ah ching's score vs those of a sweeper monk.

You did talk about readers' opinions. The games reflect that very clearly. Anyway the strongest in the JY canon never won as well.

OK, to settle the JY vs. GL issue, I would suggest we get experts like TigerWong to give their opinion.
The problem again is reader's opinion is subjective. And i thought that you aim to create an objective system?

Han Solo

11. Originally Posted by Han Solo
Sorry, meant for you to use bliss's opinion of ah ching to run a sim of ah ching's score vs those of a sweeper monk.
Can you provide a link for that?

The problem again is reader's opinion is subjective. And i thought that you aim to create an objective system?
I'm asking experts to give evidence. How we use the evidence is a different story.

http://www.spcnet.tv/forums/showthre...ighlight=ching

Ah Qing vs. Sweeper Monk

If we can regard everything Bliss said about Ah Qing to be true, I would put her levels at:
Techniques - 10
Internal - 9
Styles - 9
Philosophy - 3 (Not sure...)

So against Sweeper Monk (9, 9, 5, 6):
Probablity of Ah Qing winning : 0.980385 %
Probability of Sweeper Monk winning : 0.968985 %

So I would say the outcome is a draw.

On the other hand,

DGQB (9, 9, 10, 3) vs. Ah Qing
Prob. of DGQB winning : 1.95435 %
Prob. of Ah Qing winning : 1.90957 %

The outcome is still a draw.

14. Hey IcyFox, why don't you make this thread sticky, its quite informative and useful to us wuxia fanatics...

15. Originally Posted by Extremer88
Hey IcyFox, why don't you make this thread sticky, its quite informative and useful to us wuxia fanatics...
Only the Mods or Admin staff could do that. Ken will probably make it sticky if this thread receives a huge amounts of hits, so start bumping.

Just joking.

Edit : Last reply for the day. Have to prepare for tomorrow's engagement.

16. Using your program, how would the 5 original Greats do against one another?

17. Originally Posted by IcyFox
Qigong can also serve the purpose of Neigong and vice versa, but the results may not be as rewarding as training in Qigong or Neigong for their original purposes. But this varies from individual to individual so it really depends on the practitioner to decide what's best for himself.
When you said "...but the results may not be as rewarding as training in Qigong or Neigong for their original purposes...", I disagree because, in the real martial art, they are usually (or many times) mixed together and cannot be easily separated.

So, what is the orignal purpose of Qigong? In my opinion, Qigong concerns the good Qi cultivation in the body. For what? Well...it could be many things. Health is one of them but not all. It could be for enlightenment, peaceful mind, fighting, etc. Health is only one aspect of Qigong. Neigong is about training the (internal) strength (for fighting application) which required a good-strong Qi. In my opinion, many Qigong sets for fighting are Neigong. And the Neigong training could be considered as one type of Qigong. Also, Qigong for health could be useful for Qigong/Neigong for fighting. Basically, when you try to make it "too" clear, it is unrealistic.

Let me give you one example. A person who practice a Qigong set for health. Although he is healthy, he is no fighter, i.e., he cannot be able to generate a strong force for fighting application or even cannot take any punch to his stomach. For another person who practice a specific martial Qigong set that can increase the overall strength of his body which can improve the power of any of his fighting technique. Plus this Qigong can also be able to take a hard punch to his stomach (just an example, btw). The second (martial) Qigong set can be considered it as Neigong. In fact, it is both Qigong and Neigong at the same time. However, in this specific martial system that the second person practice may consider this set as Qigong but almost never called it as Neigong (by name).

Another question is that: are there any Neigong that are not Qigong? My answer is that it is possible but I never see or hear it. Qigong definition is so general that anything (but may be not everything) could be considered it as Qigong. To me, weight lifting and running could be considered as a type of Qigong too.

When you said "...but the results may not be as rewarding as training in Qigong or Neigong for their original purposes...", I disagree because, in the real martial art, they are usually (or many times) mixed together and cannot be easily separated.

So, what is the orignal purpose of Qigong? In my opinion, Qigong concerns the good Qi cultivation in the body. For what? Well...it could be many things. Health is one of them but not all. It could be for enlightenment, peaceful mind, fighting, etc. Health is only one aspect of Qigong. Neigong is about training the (internal) strength (for fighting application) which required a good-strong Qi. In my opinion, many Qigong sets for fighting are Neigong. And the Neigong training could be considered as one type of Qigong. Also, Qigong for health could be useful for Qigong/Neigong for fighting. Basically, when you try to make it "too" clear, it is unrealistic.

OK, I think the word 'original' in this case is inappropriate. Qigong can be used to cultivate both internal strength and internal energy, and so can Neigong. The practitioner can interpret them in anyway he likes and decide what he wants to use them for.

My idea about internal energy/strength is that in order to cultivate your internal energy you should build your internal strength, and in order to train your internal strength you should refine your internal energy.

To do that you would have to practise both Qigong and Neigong in order to achieve the best results. There are some who concentrate on Qigong without paying much attention to Neigong and vice versa, so their results may be less than satisfactory. But of course it's their right to practise it in any way they want.

I'd say Qigong and Neigong are like the "chicken and egg" question.

19. Originally Posted by Dirt
Using your program, how would the 5 original Greats do against one another?
There would be many possible combinations, so I'll just pick a few.
Anyway these are just preliminary results.

HYS vs. YD
HYS winning: 1.69 %
YD winning: 1.73 %

H7G vs. HYS
H7G winning: 6.74 %
HYS winning: 7.33 %

OYF vs. YD
OYF winning: 3.62 %
YD winning: 3.79 %

Unfortunately I don't know enough about WCY to rate him properly.
If you wish you can suggest some parameters and I will compute his score accordingly.

20. Originally Posted by IcyFox
My idea about internal energy/strength is that in order to cultivate your internal energy you must build your internal strength, and in order to train your internal strength you must refine your internal energy.
To me, internal energy (Qi) is the source of internal strength (Neigong). Let consider an example. A very weak person has not much of (internal) strength. He cannot punch hard right away. If he want to punch hard, he need to improve his body condition first. He may need to have a good nutrition and do some exercise to improve his body strength (like start running, weight lifting, etc.). This part I consider that he do some "Qigong" to improve his energy. Then he will learn how to punch, how to put power into his punch, etc. This stage is "more" Neigong.

The way I explain is a bit too ideal (or a bit confused depending on how you look ) since keep punching the punching bag will increase your strength and energy. So punching can also be considered to be Qigong (especially if you learn how to coordinate your breathing with punch, etc. ) and you don't need to be very strong in order to start punching.

In case you don't understand what I try to say, the purpose of my example is that in order to cultivate your internal energy you don't need to "build" your internal strength (i.e., you don't need to build, it might come naturally but this might not enough for fighting), and in order to train your internal strength you don't need to "refine" your internal energy (i.e., you need to have energy but don't need to refine). Basically, I try to counter your statement. Of course, the counter is not absolute but it will not go strictly into what you said either.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts