Talk:Dim Mak

The Truth About Dim Mak

• I saw this page and couldn't help but feel the need to put in a few words.

1. Dim Mak does not mean "death touch", it is Cantonese for "Cavity Press".

2. I've come to the realization as of late that Dim Mak has been part of a propaganda campaign - to hide its actual existence. If any of you here are practioners of any Chinese martial art, you'll know what the term "Closed Door System" means. In Kung Fu, Shaolin or otherwise, there are a few sets of techniques embedded in a few artforms which are highly esoteric in nature. The crap you hear about death touches on Saturday morning cereals has its origins in reality. There were ways of incapacitating or killing opponents that were stumbled upon in the early days of Kung Fu, but they were largely kept a secret, for reasons that are obvious. If everyone knew techniques like Dim Mak, the world would largely become cesspit of death and violence. That being beside the point, the Masters kept this knowledge hidden from the outside world, with only a few practioners ever venturing outside the borders. The stories of the Ninja and the arrival of Bruce Lee saw this phenomenon exposed to the western world in the late sixties and early seventies and from that point on it was marveled at and used in stories. Too many fakes have passed by the public eye claiming to know its uses and have been defrauded many times. Since its introduction to mainstream society, the belief of its actual existence has waned considerably. As a student of Lau Gar Kung Fu, learning from a Sifu who was true, I was able to witness and understand that Dim Mak and related disciplines are real. I can't help but wonder If all this hype is done on purpose. If Dim Mak is blindly dismissed as false, especially by the uninitiated, and some other martial artists not exposed to its existence, then it will decline into complete obscurity in most places outside of China. This would allow the Masters there to resume practicing it in secret as they had done millennia past, without the disturbance or disruption of potential transgressors learning of the art. It could very well be that some of the progenitors of the artform had set things in motion, as they often are in our world, sewing seeds of distrust by allowing or perhaps encouraging charlatans to claim representation of the art, only to fail in public and thus diminish the plausibility of the art. Then, others, mostly with no true martial art training would be inclined to take this as the undeniable truth that Dim Mak is fake. This would lead others not to actively seek instruction in the art, which means those that do or would practice the art shrink until the only that know it are its originators. Thus, the sphere of power has shrunken, due to reverse-propaganda and the ignorance that would ensue from it.

I think If no one would believe me when I said it is real, then whoever is spreading this propaganda would be succeeding in their plot.

I am curious though, are any of you actual Kung Fu practioners?

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)

Here is a explanation There are several types of pressure points, each of which is applied differently, and each one creates different effects.

Some points are painful, because of the prevalence of nerves in the area. For example, being
prodded in the throat is painful. The body has a pain withdrawal reflex, whereby it reacts to pain 

by moving away from it. Dim Mak make use of this. Applying pressure next to the collar bone, from above, will cause the person to move downwards (away from the pain), whereas poking them in the gap between the jaw and neck (just below the ear) will make their body want to move upwards. Pressure to the shoulder causes that side of the body to move back. A rub to the back down will cause the body to move forth. Some points react more violently to pain from changes in the pressure (Dim Mak) rather than constant pressure.

a direct attack is made on a muscle, which will contract. Examples include: a punch to the solar plexus, which impacts the diaphragm and thus affects the person's breathing ("getting the wind knocked out of you"); and (II) an attack to the outer thigh, which could cause the person to fall as their leg loses power (a "dead leg" or "charley horse").

The baroreceptor in the carotid artery is pressure-sensitive, allowing the body to control the bloodflow into the brain. Pressure against this region will 'trick' the body into thinking that blood pressure is too high, and thus will constrict and lower blood pressure - which can cause blackout. Striking veins and arteries can also cause them to shut or tear, both of which will definitely cause black-out and possible death if not treated immediately.

There are certain areas which are likely to lead to a break if struck properly. This includes the "loose rib", the philtrum and the top of the skull (soft-spot). also there are joints that, when struck, can be extended and even completely torn apart. This is a technique which can cause permanent damage and disfiguration to one's opponent, usually focusing on the elbow and the knee.

A relatively gentle strike to the Golgi tendon at the back of the elbow, for example, causes a 

reflex which immediately relaxes that tendon, allowing the elbow to more easily bend in the wrong direction. If this is immediately followed by a solid strike to the elbow joint, the elbow can be broken with significantly less effort than through brute force.

The brain is actually a very vulnerable organ, which is why it is encased in the skull. The brain floats in fluid and balances on a very flexible spine. Certain techniques can actually shake the brain in a way which causes black out. The most commonly taught technique involves a strike just below the occipital ridge, at the correct angle in the correct direction. Other areas that are susceptible to such techniques are the temples and the top of the skull.

everything stated above is true as per my knowledge, but i cant explain Energy attack in Dim Mak

Some believe that energy attack will impact the flows, and thus impact the body. This is called
"chi", "ki" or "qi". These ENERGY techniques are RUMORED to be capable of causing blackout, serious
injuries or death when used by a sufficiently skilled martial artist.

I'm a martial arts practitioner with about two decades of experience in various arts, including Hung Gar, Xingyiquan and Shuai Jiao. I practice the neigong set called the "iron wire" nightly. I read wuxia - my wife translates Chinese literature into English as a hobby and I'm her proof-reader. I am also a rational sceptic. Trust me when I say that, although I have met and even been lucky enough to be trained by and even cross hands with, some very talented martial artists both in Canada and China I have yet to see any magical qi powers outside the boundaries of Jin Yong's beautiful stories.Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kill Bill

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

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)

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

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)

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)

I am curious... How many of the people that say Dim Mak is fraudulant or that it not real even practice one of the INTERNAL Martial Arts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdydave (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, quite a few, also teh idea of scientific method is that you can flow someone else's results if you think you can prove it works contact James Randi and you can earn $1,000,000 --Nate1481 08:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dim Mak in Mandarin

is diǎnmò. correct this. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Slip-Sliding To NPOV town.

The entirety of the "purported effects" section seems to be predicated upon the assumption that Dim Mak is possible and is not just a fictional element of Wuxia stories. This is not good. Furthermore it reads like it was taken from a single source but no citations are given. Citations badly needed. I will be advising the appropriate noticeboards.Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak Disambiguation

I created a disambiguation for Dim Mak. This page needs a lot of work. I will probably continue later on. Ryt 007 (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture

This section was un-encyclopedic, inaccurate, and basically useless. I removed it.Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

After I ditched the YouTube video, promotional links for selling cheesy "Secrets of the Orient" scam books, etc, we are left with one very marginal source. If we had any others, I'd take that off, as it is very questionable. The article has been tagged for 18 months for better sourcing! Suggest merge with Touch of Death unless much much better sourcing can be found in the very near future. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to Louie, I didn't even think to look at Straight Dope. Well done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Article looks much better now. It may be a stub but, at least, it's a much more factual stub. Good job. Thanks!Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm referencing against the Chinese Wikipedia article on Dianxue - which my wife and I partially translated. A lot of it is stuff that, if I had good enough written Chinese to edit Wikipedia I would probably clip as being unreferenced piffle (like the bit about Bruce Lee being interested in it) but I took what I could from that article and spliced it into this.Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

some styles

Yes, but which styles? Is there any evidence that "Dim Mak" has any pedigree within Chinese martial arts prior to its modern syncretism with American pop culture due to Bruce Lee in the 1960s? --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a heck of a lot. It turns up in 20th century Wuxia novels from China first. And then it finds its way to America through individuals like Count Dante and his spiritual successor, Ashida Kim. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

so it appears this is how we should address this topic. We need to pinpoint the Wuxia novels that came up with the concept, and then trace its progress within American bullshido. Which will make the removed "popular culture" material relevant after all, seeing that this isn't, by all appearances, an actual topic of Chinese martial arts. --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. The wuxia genre is big and heavily cross-pollenated. I removed the pop-culture section largely because there was not a single reference to the wuxia genre on it. Furthermore the issue with Dim Mak is confounded by the oral tradition in a lot of martial arts. I may not be aware of some non-wuxia source for the urban legend. (in other words, I might be totally wrong about where the story comes from... but the farthest back I can trace it is Jin Yong, Gu Long and company. They predate Count Dante slightly and are, to their credit, some of the most delightful fantasy authors ever to write.)Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

it is delightful to talk to somebody with a solid grasp on the matter. If you could produce references to Wuxia literature by either of the authors you name, this would be extremely helpful in putting this into perspective. The question would appear to be, at this point, what are we going to do about the Touch of Death article? Should it remain separate from Dim Mak? And what about Kyūshojutsu? The latter seems to be the bona fide practice of hitting people in selected spots that are particularly vulnerable (you don't need to be a magical Wuxia master to realize that hitting people in the throat is pretty effective). --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord, they are a dime a dozen. Let me talk to my wife for some specific examples. She can read the original texts whereas I depend on translations (mostly hers, lol). Oh, and by the way, I dropped an enquiry on textual references to Dim Mak preceeding Liang Yusheng and Jin Yong (they are authors who were early adopters of the modern iteration of the style) on the Wuxia talk page.Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I found one in the book my wife is working on right now... In Xiao Ao Jianghu the character Yu Canghai uses a technique called the "heart shattering palm" which destroys the heart of the victim without marking his skin. But that was published in 1967.Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An update: I spoke to my wife and she confirmed that Dian Xue (Dim Mak + accupressure strikes to paralyze and silence) was used by characters in all of Jin Yong's books, she doesn't have the same knowledge base on Liang Yusheng. She is uncertain if there was any precedent for Dian Xue before 20th century wuxia novels but FWIW says that Jin Yong has been quoted as saying that all the actual styles in his novels were 100% fictional and created by him within the context of the story.Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture OK?

It's an advert for Count Dante referencing Dim Mak. As Count Dante is dead I think this is probably public domain but I'm not sure. Is it ok to put this on the page?Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

it's not public domain but we can probably argue fair use for it. Also, it would be useful to know where the advert was originally published. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I noticed that somebody suggested a merger with Touch of Death, so I read the article and agree the two should probably be merged. Then I checked the edit history, and saw that the article had already been merged, and that the IP edit that unmerged the two was also the same edit that suggested the merge (by placing the merger template). Now I'm thoroughly confused. Why was this done?

Is there any reason why these should be separate articles? I get that the literal meaning is not "death touch" but this point is already addressed in Touch of Death and in any case, there's no reason we can't have a redirect.

-- Joren (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, just realized that the IP edit was simply reverting to before the merger. I have in turn reverted the article back to the redirect page which was in place for several months prior to the recent IP edit. Unless a reason is specified here on the talk page, I see no rationale for splitting the two articles. -- Joren (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)