PDA

View Full Version : Is the mystique gone?



Merryprankster
10-10-2001, 04:10 PM
I have a question, and if you choose to take it as trolling, that is your business.

It seems to me that there is a lot more interest in the competitive sports as martial arts these days, then there ever has been before.

When I wrestled in high school, for instance, neither me nor my teammates thought of what we were doing as a martial art. Yet, at its foundation, it is. Same with boxing. I will make clear that as they are practiced, they are martial SPORTS, which is yet another subset of martial art, but the term martial art is nonetheless inclusive.

My question then, is this: Up until recently, CMA, KMA, JMA, etc... never had to defend themselves to the public as workable self defense. "He knows Karate/is a black belt," was enough to get taken seriously in a lot of situations, regardless of actual style or skill level.

What, when, why, and how did it change?

I think the following occurred:

1. MMA events showed "traditional" martial artists getting their asses handed to them by "non-traditional" (sport) artists. I am NOT vouching for the skill level of the participants, so please don't talk about how much the traditional artists sucked and your sifu would do better. I'm ONLY trying to say that this is what people SAW.
While this is not enough to make a style vs style comparison, many people took it that way. They didn't say "Royce Gracie is very good," they said "BJJ, muay thai, wrestling etc is cool, and other arts suck."

2. The success of grapplers made people sit up and take notice. Punching and kicking, which most people consider "martial arts," had failed to win frequent and decisive victories over grapplers the majority of the time. My point being that even if the wins are split 50/50, grappling could no longer be ignored or discounted. The public is now aware of this range of fighting, and is skeptical of claims made by "striking only," arts (in their eyes...I'm fully aware that throwing is an integral part of many arts."

The above lead to a loss of mystique for traditional arts, which now means that their entire way of DOING things is questioned and justification is now asked for.

Thoughts?

Mr. Nemo
10-10-2001, 04:22 PM
Good riddance, I say.

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 04:34 PM
Merryprankster,

Not surprisingly, I agree. The martial arts have been demystified, I think. And I think that's ultimately for the best.

As you said, recent competition formats have served as an eye opener on several fronts. Not to discredit certain arts, but to expose the arts, overall, to a higher degree of scrutiny.

It's kind of a volatile subject because, with that sort of scrutiny, people are bound to uncover things that they would rather have left alone.

I remember the first time I got taken down in a sparring match. By a veritable newbie. But he was a scrapper. And he new he was stronger than me. So he dived in and took me down. Didn't know what to do once we were there, but then neither did I. First I was angry with him. Then with myself for being unprepared. And I think that's the situation that lots of us got into. We have been working with a common understanding. Strikers strike. Grapplers grapple. Then NHB came along and showed us what would happen when the twain shall meet.

(Yeah, I know this wasn't the first time it ever happened, but it was my first real exposure to the idea. The first time it sunk in.)

Initially, grapplers were overwhelmingly dominant. Now, things are a little more balanced. Not because grapplers are losing to strikers. But because those distinctions are blurring more. People are both integrating elements of each format into their personal practices and/or finding elements within their own styles to address needs they didn't perceive before.

Take some of the kickers from early on. They'd launch into spinning kicks right off the bat. In striking, they could get away with it. Cover up, and even if the opponent does close distance, he's going to box you. So as long as your guard is up, all's well. But suddenly, they were in a position where keeping your hands up wasn't enough. The grapplers didn't care whether the kicker was guarding his face. They wanted his legs. And down he went.

But over the years, people have learned. They've had to change and improve their setups. Take Maurice Smith. He learned enough grappling to survive (though not enough to dominate on the ground) and learned to better set up his strikes against a grappler. Open with punching so that you can keep your feet under you and maintain your footwork. Then when the opening is there, in with the kick. Wear the opponent down a bit, then unleash the big gun. That sort of thing.

(I'm talking from the striking side predominantly because I don't really understand the grappling side. Yet.)

I believe that the experience hasn't invalidated any art. Only improved it by asking it to step up and address (or redress) needs that had gone unaddressed for a long while. It expands the art in a way. Or revitalizes elements of it that had faded a little. Same probably holds true from the other direction. People like Dan Severn had the skills to take a person down but then didn't know how to finish it. By many wrestling formats, I believe, his job was done when the opponent hit the floor on his back. But this was different. And he learned.

So, yeah. It did demystify the arts in a way. It showed us application in a way that I, for one, hadn't seen before. And it sharpened the distinction between real practitioners and casual participants (even those who teach).

I don't believe that only those styles that compete are valid. Far from it. But I appreciate NHB for reminding us of what's real. Not real as in what wins on the street. But it stripped away the bravado. If 'real' for a practitioner is a holistic health practice, then I applaud that reality. If it's a celebration (capoeira, for example), I applaud that too. If it's fighting, same deal. But I appreciate the impetus to look at what we do with fresh eyes. Not to tow the party line or buy into the marketing. But to look honestly at what we do and ask ourselves whether it's real, whatever 'real' is for each of us.


Stuart B.

LEGEND
10-10-2001, 05:05 PM
I think what disturbed people the most was watching a thug like TANK ABBOTT decimate MARTIAL ARTIST out there. TANK ABBOTT although may not be truly skilled in one asset is the REASON why we train. He's a badass and he enjoys hurting people. Eventually there were several that kick his ass...but watching a common bar room brawler kick ass woke a lot of people up.

A

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 05:17 PM
Legend,

Too right, my friend.


Stuart B.

Snake
10-10-2001, 05:22 PM
I would agree with a lot of what has already been said on this thread, however it is also my opinion that the vast majority of the general public still has no idea what mixed martial arts, bjj, or even UFC are all about. On the other hand, most people I talk to do know, at least in the general sense, what kungfu/karate/TKD are and still respect them in the same manner that they always have. My friends who don't study MA at all have never seen a MMA event have no clue who the Gracies are or what bjj is, however, they do ask about my kung fu training and how it is alike or different from other traditional martial arts.

I think we in this forum tend to forget from time to time that we have a greater interest in martial arts in general than the average person, and have far more knowledge on the subject. Heck, I have people in my class who have never watched a MMA event and don't know a thing about bjj. I just feel that those of us on this board, and others like it, are in the minority on topics such as these. Just my thoughts.

Snake

shaolinboxer
10-10-2001, 05:23 PM
I don't think this is as relevant to Martial Arts in general as most people seem to think.

Yes, there are many people in persuit of a well rounded capacity for combat, but relative to the martial arts community as a whole it is a very small percentage.

Most people who wanted to learn tai chi are still practicing tai chi, non-CMA are as popular as ever if not more so (tae kwon do, aikido, the many schools of karate), reputable kung fu masters still have a lot to offer and people still WANT to learn kung fu.

I think the influence of MMA has been strongest on those who are interested in open (meaning fewer limitations) competition.

It seems to me the next big thing creeping up is going to be "reality fighting", like Krav Maga and Systema (and just wait until the US military creates their own system and offeres a version to the public). It will again mystify the martial arts, because you can't really fully execute these techniques without hurting anyone so you will have to trust that they work. And then people will wonder, where did all of this come from? And they will return to tradtional marital arts.

The cycle continues....

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

Waidan
10-10-2001, 05:26 PM
As for the de-mystifying of traditional MA, I don't think there's any question it's a good thing. Note, however, that I don't feel the arts themselves needed to be "exposed", but rather the artists.

TMAs exist because they work. A fighting style will die with it's creator if it can't prove itself on the street/battlefield/whatever. However, in our increasingly "civilized" society, practitioners have gotten away from the training and methods required to properly perform their material. MMA has helped to show us this.

It bears mentioning that what happens in the ring is not indicative of how things go down in RL. There are many x-factors in a real-world conflict that cannot be implemented in a ring. This is important, because if we take UFC (for example)as the benchmark for fighting prowess, we may be trading one illusion for another.

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 05:34 PM
Snake,

Good point. The general public's perception of martial arts may well be influenced more strongly by Billy Blanks than by Tank Abbott. But even that serves to demystify the arts somewhat.

Think about, say, five years ago. If someone said they practiced kickboxing, I'd have thought that they trained and fought in the ring. Now, I generally assume that they're referring to an aerobics class.

Things like tae bo have made martial arts more accessible to the general public. But I think Merryprankster made a very good point. If you're talking about the general public, you're talking about public perception. So while we, as actual practitioners, may understand that tae bo doesn't represent the totality, or even more than a small sample, of martial arts, the general public doesn't know that.

Lyle has a good point as well. With recent events being what they are, the next wave may well be reality based. 'Military' arts like Krav Maga. But, again, that will be the image rather than the reality. The image will be on practicality rather than Eastern esoterics. But it'll be an image all the same.

I think that anytime you introduce new people, nonpractitioners, or casual practitioners, you're going to run into issues regarding mystification. An understanding of the truth of the matter comes with time and experience. (How much of each, I've yet to determine.)


Stuart B.

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 05:34 PM
Waidan,

Agreed. Nicely said.


Stuart B.

Snake
10-10-2001, 05:50 PM
ap Oweyn,

I had never even thought about the "Cardio Kickboxing" craze that has hit the country over the past few years. You make some very good points. I totally agree with you that Billy Blanks has probably done more to demystify martial arts than anything that the UFC/Mixed Martial Arts have. The scary thing is that people who are taking a tae bo actually think they are learning something they can use in self defense, but mostly they are setting themselves up for a false sense of security. At least those getting into mma are learning techiniques to defend themselves effectively!

My thoughts on this were mainly based on Merryprankster's opening of the thread and his focus on MMA events and grappling. I would venture to guess that many more people have used tae bo or one of it's imitators, either through video or an aerobics class at their gym, then have ever heard or seen a MMA event.

Snake

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 05:58 PM
Snake,

It's a bit scary, isn't it. I have no problems with tae bo as a practice. I don't even have a problem using it in conjuncture with the term 'martial arts.' I don't think it is one, but it is peripherally related.

But self defense? Good God, no.

Yeah, Merryprankster's original point related largely to NHB. And I have to agree that the impact of that is largely limited to us within the community. But I guess we're as much in need of demystification as anyone outside the community. Perhaps more so.

Thanks Snake.


Stuart B.

Chris McKinley
10-10-2001, 08:05 PM
Kudos to all who have posted so far. This is perhaps the most intelligent, insightful, respectful and objective discussion of this topic I think I've seen in KFO. It's nice to see folks from 'both sides' of the issue able to discuss the matter as fellow martial artists.

I find what has happened in the last ten years to be similar to other such demystifying periods throughout history. As an example, throughout their history, the Chinese had rightfully developed pride in the martial arts they had developed over many hundreds of years, arts which were proven either in military battles or in civilian ones. However, as tends to happen with human nature, some of them let it go to their heads and became arrogant and complacent about it in certain areas, and their arts became more flowery and watered down. As the Chinese began to increase travel and migration across the Indonesian peninsula, they encountered the people of Indonesia. Again as part of human nature, fights occurred. Generally speaking, the Chinese assumed their famous arts would make quick work of the more 'primitive' people of Indonesia.

However, what they found was that the indigenous arts of Pentjak Silat, continually battle-tested on a daily basis, made quick work of the Chinese. After numerous humiliating defeats, some of these migrating Chinese sat back and took stock of the situation. They knew their own arts' reputations were well-deserved and that they were viable forms of combat, yet they were puzzled as to why these arts hadn't seem to hold up in actual combat with the Indonesians. They humbled themselves and realized that it wasn't their arts that had failed them, but that they had failed their arts.

Many of these Chinese practitioners had become too esoteric, 'artsy', metaphorical, and philosophical in their practice to the point of imbalance. Their arts had degenerated into formal, courtly versions of themselves as the practitioners had become caught up in a culturally self-congratulating loop of teachers and students. Those Chinese who had the humility to recognize this went back and scraped both the rust and the decorative lacy frills off of their arts and began to practice for real. They came back to Indonesia with the real thing, the genuine Chinese arts of old which had earned the fearsome reputation in the first place. These arts proved once again why they were to be respected, as these rejuvenated arts and artists began to experience victories once again. The battle versions of these great Chinese arts became the foundation for the various Kuntao arts of Indonesia, known for their devastating effectiveness and even cruelty in combat.

Another example of arrogance leading to crushing defeat was the Boxer Rebellion. In this example, the practitioners used legitimately effective Chinese martial arts, not flowery nonsense. However, they assumed that this genuine ability would allow them to prevail over the range weapons of the foreign enemy. As history shows, at those times where the Boxers were able to close to H2H range, they usually prevailed unquestionably. However, because they weren't able to control the range at which the fight took place, they were eventually gunned down and their rebellion was quelled.

The reverse has also happened. In WWII, American soldiers invading Japanese held islands found that their range weapons, i.e., the M-1 carbine etc., didn't give them the advantage they expected when confronted at close range with fanatical Japanese soldiers able to use their bayonets, swords, knives and empty-hand martial arts training. More often than not, the Japanese soldier enjoyed the advantage at that range.

Perhaps what is to be learned is that realism in combat training is vital, but so is the ability to fight at whatever range one finds oneself.

apoweyn
10-10-2001, 08:54 PM
Cheers Chris. Just goes to show what we can manage when we aren't busy calling each other 'arsemonkey' all the time.

In addition to the Japanese, there were the Filipinos, who are credited with giving the Marines their nickname, the leathernecks. And with the adoption of the .45 caliber sidearm. (So the story goes)


Stuart B.

Chris McKinley
10-10-2001, 09:18 PM
Sorry folks, more thoughts :p . Regarding NHB in the 90's to present: it has been observed by some traditional martial artists that the so-called NHB events of the last ten years have become a sometimes low-brow, often lowest-common-denominator, public thugfest devoid even of lip service to martial morality. Perhaps worse than the spectacles themselves is the mindset which this form of entertainment has fostered among both its adherents and its observing fans. A brash, loudmouthed arrogance totally disrespectful of other martial traditions, sometimes even of those traditions from which they originated. To be fair, this mindset was more often to be found in the beginners and fans than in the top-caliber fighters themselves; such fighters often proving humble, respectful and friendly in person.

Young lions looking to make a name for themselves in the NHB ranks often emulated the 'professional wrestling'-style bravado of the talented Gracie family, too often without yet putting in the years of practice it takes to be able to credibly make such claims. Traditional and other martial artists observed 18 yr. old punk kids with 6 months of BJJ training and no real fight experience of their own talking a level of trash as if they were top-level NHB competitors and lecturing real combat veterans on the futility of whatever they might be doing (as long as it wasn't grappling) in a real fight scenario. The absurdity of such lectures and the total lack of credibility of the lecturer caused many to discount, across-the-board, anything which NHB proponents might be saying, lumping them all into the same basket. Such dismissals were made all the easier by the seemingly mindless cookie-cutter nature of the propaganda being spewed by these young greenhorn but enthusiastic NHB advocates.

Unfortunately, the non-NHBers made the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many were unable or unwilling to look past the vulgar, skin-deep disrespectful messenger to see the clear and overwhelming message: that many if not most traditional martial artists in the U.S. were either training in an unrealistic manner which failed against a resisting opponent, assuming that they would be able to control the range at which the fight occurred, relying too much on the past reputation of their arts, or perhaps all of the above.

All of the legitimate critique of NHB aside, it is perhaps the most valuable thing to happen to traditional martial arts practice in the U.S. thus far. As has been stated recently, sometimes your enemies will be more truthful with you than your friends will. The worst of what is NHB, as repugnant as it may be to some traditionalists or other combat veterans, still allowed them to discover and repair the weaknesses in their combat training from the comfort of their easy chair rather than face-to-face against an opponent in the street intent on taking their lives.

Personally, I've experienced training on both sides of the issue, having seen the whole argument of 'striking VERSUS grappling', even of 'traditional VERSUS MMA', as a false one. I've been a mixed martial artist since long before the term became fashionable, so I strongly and personally empathize with proponents of the MMA approach, at least in principle. I also appreciate the intent to create a crucible for effective combat training in the form of NHB events. The good intentions are definitely there. However, I've also experienced the value of traditional training. I've seen the superior ethical development it offers (with respectful exception to the unbelievable work ethic of top-level NHB fighters--nobody works harder). I've even seen the technical superiority traditional training can sometimes offer if one is patient enough to develop it. Hint: that's the reason I think even the most hardcore NHB purist would benefit in terms of real fighting skill from, for instance, extended training in arts like Taijiquan or Aikido.

I would also offer a third major faction to the mix, that of the non-NHB/MMA artist who trains for realistic life-or-death combat. Such people are, in some respects, no closer to the stereotype of traditional martial artists than are the current Pride or UFC contenders. In other words, those training for NHB events or in MMA schools aren't the ONLY folks interested purely in a 'use only what really works' approach to combat. Examples of such people would be those in law enforcement, the FBI, military and Special Operations personnel, etc. to varying degrees.

I've seen so-called traditionalists who could, and have, destroyed intermediate MMA guys. I've seen newbie-to-intermediate MMA guys who could, and have, waxed certain so-called masters of traditional martial arts without breaking a sweat. I've seen people who proudly label themselves traditional martial artists who had more grappling experience/trophies etc. than some professional NHB fighters. I've met MMA fighters who have more traditional martial ethics/Budo code etc. than certain traditional masters that I've met.

The very best on both sides of the issue, and those that eventually rise to the top, are those who put their egos aside, keep an open mind, and remain willing to learn, no matter the source of learning.

Snake
10-10-2001, 09:20 PM
More good posts on this topic!

Perhaps we are in another one of those periods that Chris has talked about. If nothing else, the rise of mixed martial arts has made many people take a serious look at their art and what they want to get out of it. Also, MMA have changed the way many people train mixing in not only various styles, but other training techniques that may have been neglected in the past. Things may have become demystified, but perhaps we are in the midst of a rennisance (Spelling?) in the way that modern and traditional martial arts are being thought about and trained in.

As for me, I really do like some of the training methods of mixed martial arts, and I am a former wrestler, so I have some understanding of the "ground game", but I love learning my art and working hard to get better at it. For me that is enough, for others, perhaps they need more.

Snake

Budokan
10-10-2001, 09:22 PM
Decent thread, but I'm not totally convinced that martial arts has been in anyway demystified among the general public. I'm not sure the argument holds up because there has been other fads out there that the public jumped on (judo, karate, kung fu, ninjas, etc) but they only did that because they're lemmings anyway and aren't capable of thinking for themselves. Once the fad moves on so do they.

I'm afraid we're looking at this through the rose-colored glasses of people who actually KNOW something about MA...and are thinking they have been demystified. Well, yes, to those of us who practice and are familiar with MA, it is demystified. But to the general head-up-the-a$$ public? I dunno if I buy into that one.

My two yen.

K. Mark Hoover

Mr. Nemo
10-10-2001, 09:27 PM
Everyone on this thread is correct.

Moderators, lock this thread now before some moron messes it all up.

Budokan
10-10-2001, 09:28 PM
I second Mr. Nemo.

K. Mark Hoover

Ralek
10-10-2001, 09:30 PM
It can be generally summed up that doing styles based on forms and stances such as kung fu are a bunch of shet.

I am the Grand Ultimate Fist

Budokan
10-10-2001, 09:36 PM
Well, f*ck this thread. Thanks Rolls.

K. Mark Hoover

DelicateSound
10-10-2001, 09:38 PM
Mr.Nemo is right....

Always some arse coming in to trash a decent page.

Anyway, good points from everyone, it's good that some martial artists can realise the benefits of cross-training without degenerating into "My art is better than yours.." :p

He is the Grand Ultimate S h i t

Snake
10-10-2001, 10:48 PM
Budokan, I agree with you and was trying to say so in my first post, but you did a better job of getting that message across. As I said, my friends and family who are not into martial arts still hold it in a certain mystical light. And none of them have a clue about MMA events/bjj etc. My guess is that if they did, they would lump them into the same category as the more traditional arts in many regards.

Oh, by the way, I second Budokan, who seconded Mr. Nemo

Snake

origenx
10-10-2001, 11:33 PM
Mystique is only a byproduct of ignorance.

Chris McKinley
10-11-2001, 10:02 AM
ttt

SifuAbel
10-11-2001, 10:56 AM
I second snake that seconded budokan that seconded nemo. I think, what does that come up to?

Are you immortal?

sifuabel@yahoo.
com

Crimson Phoenix
10-11-2001, 01:27 PM
Mystique might be gone, but not mystifications...Gawd, if only you could read french and get your hands on one of Henry Plee's books/chronicles...his work is incredibly stimulating and enlightening...

Merryprankster
10-11-2001, 04:00 PM
Ralek,

I'm not going to take this thread too off-topic, but has it ever occurred to you that a form is analogous to shadow boxing or shadow wrestling, all of which are highly recommended by all coaches in these sports?

How about the guard position.... seems like a stance to me. A wrestling stance is practiced over and over and over again, to make sure the basics are down and the hand position is proper and weight is in the right place... same with boxing.

Now, on to more of this thread I guess.

I agree that most people don't know BJJ from Karate, or vice versa, but even we want to just keep it within the martial arts world, I definitely think that the demystification has taken place... Look at the "ninja" craze of the mid-eighties. That was all ABOUT mystification. With that comes almost deification of the lineage founder/instructor, which tends to lead to some very silly things.

I am aware that some people have what borders on hero worship for the Gracies, but by and large, I think you'll find that as a whole, the BJJ community, and ESPECIALLY MMA types are less interested in that sort of thing, and far more interested in who can instruct well and perform well... Joe Moreira, The Machados, Lloyd Irvin (shameless plug), Roy Harris, Yamasaki etc., are all highly regarded schools that don't have the Gracie name.

Then too, is the very western attitude of the sport. Far East arts tend to attract their fair share of people that are simply Sinophiles, Japanophiles, etc., and who simply regard anything Asian as superior. They change respect for elders and ancestors (in a martial sense) into practically cultlike devotion. If they do well enough from a martial point, they open a school and teach this same sort of stuff to other people willing to listen, and it perpetuates itself. Western tradition has far less of that.

Example: Rorian Gracie has attempted to say that only Torrance Gracie and affiliated schools teach "pure water" jiujitsu. This may or may not be the case. However, most of the people on the forums I've visited see this as kind of silly. I don't mean to disparage him or his fighters; after all it's his business, it's just the general feeling I get.

Now check out the very different perspective Aikido has on Ueshiba (sp?) or the different arguments bandied about on "who teaches the real (insert style here)," on this forum, with quite a good deal of seriousness.

I also think the spiritual aspect of Asian arts tends to mystify them. Again, very little of that in Western Tradition... hence the thuggery so many of you guys complain about in BJJ and MMA guys ;) So it's got its good points and bad. Not making a value judgment because that's an individual choice, just stating an opinion.

shaolinboxer
10-11-2001, 04:18 PM
BJJ, IMO, is the mystical style of the day.

Saying you practice BJJ serves as instant proof of the validity of your technique.

It serves as a basis for comparison...if you practice style X and BJJ, it is assumed X must work since your BJJ training will reveal any possible flaws or illusions.

Thankfully, this is fading.

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

Ralek
10-11-2001, 04:23 PM
MerryPrankster. BJJ/wrestling/and boxing are not BASED on stances and forms.

The guard is not a stance. A stance is when your legs are bent and spread apart and you are squatting like your taking a shet. This is no good for fighting. The guard position is an actual practical position to help nulify strikes.

Boxers do shadow boxing. They are not doing suicidal stances when they do this. And they dont' spend hours perfecting their shadow boxing in hopes of it making them a better fighter. They just do it once and a while for a few minutes sort of thing. Boxing is not and definatly NOT BASED on shadow boxing. However some traditional styles..... let's say shotokan karate ARE based on these kata things.

I am the Grand Ultimate Fist

Ralek
10-11-2001, 04:25 PM
Styles that are BASED on stances and forms are a bunch of shet. It's true.

I am the Grand Ultimate Fist

Jaguar Wong
10-11-2001, 05:25 PM
"A stance is when your legs are bent and spread apart and you are squatting......"

Is this the actual dictionary definition of a "stance". Boxing coaches spend time making sure their boxers are using proper footwork and posture to utilize their speed and power. Boxers do have a stance (for example a southpaw stance), it's just not the same as some of the stances in other styles and sports (like Basketball's Triple Threat stance :)).

and yes, I agree a style that is soley based on forms/kata are useless. But that generally only happens when that style is taught incorrecly, or is incomplete. A lot of traditional schools use focus mit and pad work (Master Toddy's favorite BTW), as well as heavy bags, and sparring along with 1 and 2 step drills, but not all schools, and not all students do this stuff. which is what's hurting the effectiveness of a lot of the more traditional styles.

Jaguar Wong

Ryu
10-11-2001, 05:55 PM
Here's a different kind of question...
Do you think the general public is now more skilled to fight....or at least has a better concept of fighting now that all the MMA has been around?

Ryu

http://www.jkdu.co.za/pics/logos/jkduhpma1.gif


"One who takes pride in shallow knowledge or understanding is like a monkey who delights in adorning itself with garbage."

Tigerstyle
10-11-2001, 06:30 PM
I think only slightly if at all, Ryu. Because it seems that in general it's agreed that the public at large hasn't been exposed to NHB/MMA. There's probably a few exceptions here or there that learn a little from watching UFC and NHB videos ( ;) ), but I think the general public is seeing Jet Li more than Tito Ortiz.

Snake
10-11-2001, 07:17 PM
I agree with Tigerstyle, Jackie Chan Jet Li are much better known in the general public than any of the UFC/NHB guys.

On the other hand, any one can pick up a Gracie CD-ROM or play Tekken to pick up some skills...
:rolleyes:

Snake

Universal Stance
10-11-2001, 07:35 PM
I picked up Street Fighter and now I can throw a chi ball that everyone can see. UUuuummm.. I don't want to say Hadoken all the time... Kamehameha sounds nicer. :D

I take a Universal Stance regarding the Martial Arts.

"**** it's cold out here to be practicing."

Kung Lek
10-11-2001, 08:14 PM
It seems that a lot of what martial arts were about has been hidden from the so called "uninitiated". There is a reason for this.

For one, the teacher must assess whether or not the potential student is capable of doing what is to be taught and whether or not they pose a threat to others if they are taught.

And so, over time this determinantion can be made, provided there is not a failure of character judgement on the teachers part. Which occurs also simply because people change and with that so do their individual lives.

sport is sport and it is generally common to all.
anyone can learn sport and enjoy it simply for what it is.

art is art and is not common to all. It contains depth and a necessity for depth of understanding to express it.

there is martial sport, martial art and martial reality.

martial sport will be fun for the interested and may lead them into a more artistic pursuit of it wherein they will develop the artistic expression.

martial art lends itself to the next thing , martial reality because of the depth and breadth of study.

martial reality is the reality of life and death combat. sport training cannot help you here because of the variables involved IE:multiple opponents, disparity of arms (one person has a knife, the other does not and so on).

Martial Art on the other hand does in many ways prepare you for martial reality in as much as it explores the what ifs of reality.
What if there is a gun, what if there is a club, what if there is a knife and so on. these what ifs are broken down into sections of study and then these sections are practiced with an eye towards the possibility of their occurance in a combat situation.

Martial sport is developed and defined within the parameters of the rules of the particular sport.
there are rules to kickboxing, boxing, wrestling and so on that automatically remove the reality of true combat.

If you want an excellent example of martial reality, look into the boxer rebellion in china.
The incident covers all three of the above concepts.

Now, just to be fair and truthful, I understand that any time someone "says" something, there will be someone who can declare it wrong and argue from a point that will indeed show that what was said is wrong.

So, this is just my opinion. take it for what it's worth or leave it.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

shaolinboxer
10-11-2001, 08:48 PM
So then how do you define martial art?

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

Silumkid
10-11-2001, 09:12 PM
Personally, I think the demystification of martial arts can't be nailed down to one or two things. There are a lot of contributing factors.

1) Bad martial art movies! Once there were a few good ones, everybody used m/a for better action but it didn't always work. Really, can any more case need be made than Charlie's Angels? Exploitation films, etc. etc.
2) Charlatans! It has been posted on here before and I won't go specific but we all know of or personally know someone who claims black belt status or grandmaster status when they promoted themselves to such rank and their skills are poor.
3) Ourselves! Martial art schools are businesses and to make a profit, you need customers. How many customers would Microsoft have if they marketed their software as "You must be an experienced computer networking genius to even read our owner's manuals!"
4) Reality! (also relates to charlatans, NOT related to so-called reality events) How many times have you known a person who talks about what great fighters they are, then get their asses handed to them in a schoolyard scuffle or a drunken bar brawl? Anybody can buy a black belt, rent a space, make up a name and teach some moves. But a textbook martial artist is only that.

We are trained in wushu; we must protect the Temple!

Universal Stance
10-11-2001, 09:14 PM
I've grow up believing that the martial arts was much more about fighting. It was about the history of the style--both its origins and its evolution--, its life-enhancing qualities from the exponent, and its helpfulness towards and for others. This was especially instilled in me with karate but I've found a few kung fu teacher preaching the same thing--including mine. This is of course in addition to the martial aspects of it, but its considered secondary to the others.

I was also taught about martial skills which has fighting as it's primary purposes. The others aspects take a back seat (if they exist at all). I read another post on how BJJ doesn't have much of a history (I don't know if this is true or not) so if would fit into this category.

Some styles developed from martial skills to martial "arts". What comes to mind is Japanese Aiki-jujutsu and Jujutsu. Both are martial in nature but later practitioners wanted to add a more spiritually to them (as in the definition of my understanding of "martial arts" noted above. Thus was created aikido and judo. (I know some judo stylist aren't spiritual but it was mostly like that when I was interested in judo)

Not to troll or insult but I don't understand how one can get this indepth development if they're constantly switch styles to better their martial prowlness. Hence, MMA.

I think MA in general are not so demystified thanks to the KF movies popping up all over the place. People know (or at least kinda) what is fake. Some people are amazed simply because they know that they can do it themselves. I've been involved in the "martial arts" (generally speaking) for 17 years and I'm still amazed at the things the shaolin team perform.

Just for the record, I very much enjoy MMA as I kinda do it myself. I do however, wish to gain the spiritual of it all so I'm commiting the rest of my life to my kungfu/wushu studies which by the was has a great history.

I take a Universal Stance regarding the Martial Arts.

"**** it's cold out here to be practicing."

Universal Stance
10-11-2001, 10:31 PM
I think judo was created to make a sport out of jujutsu. So that would keep it a martial skill. Sorry... :D

I had to recheck my sources on that one.

I take a Universal Stance regarding the Martial Arts.

"**** it's cold out here to be practicing."

old jong
10-12-2001, 02:33 AM
It is true that judo is sport jujitsu.It was made this way to make the practice "safe" and to promote a good physical and spiritual(in the oriental sense) education.
Karate was a true martial art and every strike was intended to kill or seriously hurt the opponent(S).They made it into a sport under the influence of university students in Japan and the TAG game began!...It never was the same after.I seriously believe that an Okinawan karateka in the pre-Japanese era would be a formidable opponent even for the very best in MMA today. They had their whole body turned into a weapon and could use it.
I think the same for all traditionnal MAs...If...You train the right way and if you look for effectiveness instead of style or look.
Let the trolling begins

Les paroles s'envolent.
Les écrits restent!...

Scarletmantis
10-12-2001, 05:58 AM
"Some people are amazed simply because they know they can do it themselves."

LOL! Just yesterday I was cutting down a dead tree in my backyard. It was pretty stubborn and would'nt fall, so I kicked it down with a front heel kick (it was cut 3/4 of the way through).

The guy helping me said "That wasn't a kung fu kick!". I asked him what he thought a kung fu kick should look like. He said "You're supposed to fly through the air first!". He was quite indignant. :p

"Master, here is a stick. Please beat me for my insolence." - KC Elbows

Merryprankster
10-13-2001, 01:21 AM
I don't believe Kano's intent was to create a sport of Judo. In fact, I believe he OPPOSED the use of Judo as a sport.

Better yet, hop on the undergrounds judo Forum, and talk to Coach Tripp. You'll get much better information.

Judo as Kano intended is very much a "traditional" MA.

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 06:19 AM
"Here's a different kind of question...
Do you think the general public is now more skilled to fight....or at least has a better concept of fighting now that all the MMA has been around?"

I don't think they are now more skilled, but I do believe they have a better concept of fighting nowadays. They see what's working in the streets, they see MA get whooped by street fighters and they see Jet Li and Jackie Chan on TV. They know that's fake, and having a friend that trains in a style that only focuses on forms, the seeing him get beat makes them think "What good is that, if you can't use it?" All of these factors contribute to the demystification of the martial arts. When a person can walk into a boxing gym or MT school and in a year be able to defend himself as good or better than traditional stylists with many years of training (NOTE: I know that doesn't apply to all traditional styles and schools), then he thinks twice about traditional styles, and definitely would not train in such a style, as he wants to learn to defend himself NOW. Yes, I know, boxing and MT are sports, but nobody can deny the effectiveness of their techniques, and nobody can say that it doesn't work on the street. On the other hand, many will argue that traditional styles do not work, as they have seen them beaten too many times.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 06:25 AM
"Not to troll or insult but I don't understand how one can get this indepth development if they're constantly switch styles to better their martial prowlness. Hence, MMA."

True, but not everyone wants that spiritual development. Someone else might say, "Not to troll or insult, but I don't understand how one can learn to fight as effectively while working on all of that spiritual development, hence MMA."

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

Braden
10-13-2001, 06:46 AM
"When a person can walk into a boxing gym or MT school and in a year be able to defend himself as good or better than traditional stylists with many years of training (NOTE: I know that doesn't apply to all traditional styles and schools), then he thinks twice about traditional styles, and definitely would not train in such a style, as he wants to learn to defend himself NOW."

I could say the exact same thing with traditional and "boxing gym or MT" reversed. BTW, since when are boxing and MT not traditional? Both are much older than the "traditional" style I study. As for Universal Stance's post on MMA guys, who says none of them are dedicated to one or more styles? Is MMA defined as someone who absolutely will not spend longer than X months in any given style? I don't think so. Are BJJ practitioners really less spiritually developed than "traditional" stylists? I don't know about that. The Machado's attitude is magnitudes better than some die-hard taiji practitioners I know, for example; as is the Dog Brother's.

The more I hear this debate, the more it sounds like people making up completely arbitrary and meaningless categories to fulfill some need to validate what they do. And that goes for both sides.

Mr. Nemo
10-13-2001, 07:00 AM
"The more I hear this debate, the more it sounds like people making up completely arbitrary and meaningless categories to fulfill some need to validate what they do. And that goes for both sides."

Braden is correct.

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 07:03 AM
they are definitely traditional but are not classified in the same category with karate and kung fu to the general public.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 07:08 AM
"The more I hear this debate, the more it sounds like people making up completely arbitrary and meaningless categories to fulfill some need to validate what they do. And that goes for both sides."

Was that directed at me? I currently train in kung fu, so I'm not validating anything I do. But you can't deny that the above listed styles aren't effective, and you can't deny that they can be made effective in many cases a shorter amount of time due to the nature of the training. The main thing being the contact. There are psychological as well as physical factors involved in taking shots like that, and those that don't do it are not prepared for it.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

Jaguar Wong
10-13-2001, 07:29 AM
I think that was directed at the people that assume all MMA practitioners are "style-hopping", looking for the fastest way to kill. :) I've seen those types of people everywhere, in all styles, but none of them ever seem to reach a level of mastery, or sometimes even a level of comprehension of the stuff they're learning.

Braden makes a great point (that some don't think about when they hear the term MMA, or crosstraining), when he says how do you know the MMA guy doesn't spend the majority of his time learning bjj, while supplimenting his style with elements from other styles.

I know lots of kung fu guys that have more than one style in their resume, that's cross training, and chances are, they've ALL got a base style, and the rest are there to understand, or suppliment what they're learning. Tai Chi is a popular "add-on" when one is also training in a more external style. In that regard, I don't see what's wrong with a bjj guy learning boxing on the side, or even a ba gua guy learning Machado bjj, like someone here we know ;)

Jaguar Wong

toddbringewatt
10-13-2001, 02:36 PM
In my opinion, Kung Fu has the potential to do some very magical things in the way of fighting that these ring sports simply will never be able to.

Kung Fu as a technology for fighting and for self-improvement is becoming lost.

As it becomes lost, "mcdojoed" and "proven ineffective" by ring sports (in the ring oddly enough -- see list of Kung Fu crippling rules at UFC-type web site of your choice here) it falls and falls in esteem by the world culture at large.

Those who love this art have a duty to seek it out, codify it and pass it on.

In all its beautiful mystique, may it never die.

As a side note, I think Kung Fu is simply one more casuality in "modern science's" relentless war against the notion of the spirit. Some people just want to see anything that has to do with man's essentially spiritual nature die (and I do mean "supernatural" in a loose sense here when I say "spiritual", i.e. that which is beyond matter, energy, space, and time).

True Kung Fu and religion as a whole still recognize the spiritual nature of man. But they are definitely under attack by some of the more "reasonable" men of science.

Interestingly enough, many of the real hard-core scientists, especially physicists end up coming back around to a notion of something spiritual after enough study of things such as matter, energy, space and time. Paradoxical but true, and the men who do this are truly enlightened beings indeed.

Anyway, I digress. Go Kung Fu! Mystical as ever!

P.S. Jedi's are real.
:) :)

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

HuangKaiVun
10-13-2001, 02:40 PM
if the magic is gone, QUIT.

Go do something else.

Taoist Disciple
10-13-2001, 03:36 PM
GO KUNG FU! :)

I don't write things here.

toddbringewatt
10-13-2001, 04:52 PM
:)

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Braden
10-13-2001, 05:28 PM
7* - No, not directed at you. Just a general comment.

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 07:13 PM
" In my opinion, Kung Fu has the potential to do some very magical things in the way of fighting that these ring sports simply will never be able to."

That's the main thing I was talking about. It has the POTENTIAL. A person may train for tens of years before they can properly use fajing. Since they are in a style that utilizes fajing, they may eventually master it, but how long will that take? By training in boxing or MT, I can work the bag everyday, spar at least once a week, bet superior conditioning and learn to knock someone out now, not several years later. Look at Will Smith. In four months he packed on 30 pounds of mucle and knocked out one of his sparring partners - who was a former pro boxer. he ran 5 miles every morning, trained for three hours and lifted weights in the afternoon. I don't think that someone with a training regimen similar in length and time to that one would fully understand amd be able to apply fajing, for example, or many other concepts behind CMA in four months. The boxing classes here are three hours long (at least last time I checked, meaining they get to put in much more training than the average CMA or JMA, and that time is spent training, not on spiritual development, forms, etc..

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

Braden
10-13-2001, 07:34 PM
But to play devil's advocate, the average person cannot put on 30 lbs of muscle in 4 months. Do they have less of a right to defend themselves? What about middle-aged and older people? Women? People who've had health problems?

There are alot of problems with using professional fighters and other gifted athletes as examples in these kinds of arguments.

Merryprankster
10-13-2001, 09:09 PM
I agree Braden; using gifted people as an example of how to do things is not necessarily the wisest move. Here is an irony for you:

All martial arts talk about how they use proper training to enable a smaller, slower, weaker person to defeat a more athletic one.

And YET, styles were generally founded by persons who were exceptionally gifted fighters! Generally speaking they were somehow above average, possibly even legendary in their skills and abilities.

You can argue that "hard work," made them the way they were, and "understanding," but is not the ability to engage in exceptionally hard work and attain that level of understanding in and of itself extraordinary?

Kimura practiced 9 hrs a day! How many of you could honestly do that day in and day out... it's not a matter of conditioning at that point, it's something admirable and extraordinary...

Why should we fight the same way these above average individuals did?

I don't actually believe my point has that much validity, but it's an interesting thought.

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 09:52 PM
gifted people?? He's a freakin comdeian. I'd imagine he's no more gifted than me or you. I was using the training as an example. The muscle was not even intended to be part of the point of the post. the knockout was. He knocked out a former pro boxer in those four months. With four months of several hour a day training in tai chi, I'm willing to bet that at the end of the four months I still wouldn't be able to properly apply fajing, or be able to use my qi in an altercation. That was the point of the last post. And even though it's a sport, it's still remarkable for the street.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

Mr. Nemo
10-13-2001, 10:09 PM
"With four months of several hour a day training in tai chi, I'm willing to bet that at the end of the four months I still wouldn't be able to properly apply fajing, or be able to use my qi in an altercation."

Maybe not, but with four months of several hours a day training in tai chi, you should be a pretty good fighter by that time, even if you cant fajing. This is, of course, providing that you have a fighting focus in your training.

SevenStar
10-13-2001, 10:39 PM
"This is, of course, providing that you have a fighting focus in your training."

YES!!!! But it's not the focus of a lot of cma and jma training that I and many others have seen.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

toddbringewatt
10-14-2001, 02:15 AM
How about 3 hours everyday (as with Will Smith) for 4 months with some of the best Tai Chi guys around? I'm sure Will Smith had some of the best boxing guys.

What would happen then?

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

shog
10-16-2001, 06:18 PM
I would say yes that much of it is gone. But now the danger lies in those already practicing the Martial Arts, and the ongoing traditional of style bashing. I do whatever it takes, but up until recently have always focused on a particular system, whether it be Korean Hapkido, TKD, TSD, or Japanese Shotokan, or Okinawan Goju Ryu. But still on the side, I have always complimented my training with knee strikes, elbow strikes, boxing, basic Japanese Jujutsu, and kickboxing. So if doing all this makes one a MMA then so be it...but the concept is not a new one. One needs only to take a look back in history to see that the Masters did just that as well...they took from many things, and using their own experiences, along with the historical presentations of what has or has not worked, developed a particular method of Martial Art. If we all the the saying that the world is more than just black and white, and that many times we are in the gray area, then too we must accept that there is no one answer for everyone, and that no one human being or style they represent, has all the answers.

It comes down to individualism. An individual is a person of and within themself. A person with an open mind, and a positive attitude. A person who considers success a product of proper training and repetitive goal-obtainment along the way. It comes down to not judging others by what you know, rather accepting those things that make of us succeed in our own lives, using our own personal measuring systems in regards to the values we have. That is just one reason why what might work for one may not work for another, and why we should not place value statements upon what other people do.

I also agree with many that this thread has turned out to be a positive one so far.

Chris B.

Shogerijutsu/Shintai-Do Website (http://www.shogerijutsu.freehosting.net)

PaleDragon
10-16-2001, 07:22 PM
barely anyone i know knows the difference between karate and kung fu

Universal Stance
10-16-2001, 07:27 PM
First, sorry for taking so long to reply.

"True, but not everyone wants that spiritual development. Someone else might say, 'Not to troll or insult, but I don't understand how one can learn to fight as effectively while working on all of that spiritual development, hence MMA.'"
- Sevenstar

"As for Universal Stance's post on MMA guys, who says none of them are dedicated to one or more styles? Is MMA defined as someone who absolutely will not spend longer than X months in any given style? I don't think so."
- Braden

I think you guys are absolutely right. Some people don't want to train with all that spiritual stuff but some do. Neither side needs to knock the other because of preferences. Braden you are right about many MMA's have a base style. A lot don't.

MMA's are taught how to fight right away as oppose to a dedicated traditionalist (there are excepts like some forms of mantis, wing chun, MT, etc.) who wants more out of the system. Don't knock us. MMA's learn how to fight (and tend to be rather aggressive in nature); traditionalist learn how not to (who if is studying the spirtual side of the art is not aggressive in nature). Every single style that requires years and years of learning will always tell you that (if the teacher maintains the system's core princples). Even WC which trains you to fight from day 1, a very aggressive system, in the end teachs you how not to fight.

Not to flame or anything but a lot of the guys in this and other forums who are contemporary MMAs (those who don't really have a completed (as in they finished) base system) are the ones issuing challenges to everyone. Any traditionalist who accepts the challenge is simply tired of the verbal abuse for their life-long chosen decision.

Now to add to what I posted before, I think it is that spiritual side of the traditional systems that will continue to mystify people looking from the outside in. In other words, it's the chi development and the feats of agility, and dexterity that takes years and years of training, that capture so many people's attention. Unfortunately thanks to NHBs, Bruce Lee (with his classical mess speeches), and MMAs it's becoming a dying art.

IMHO, MMAs will never capture the imagination that CMAs (classical, traditional) because it's too scientific, modern, and if you're a non-violent person, boring and barbaric.

I take a Universal Stance regarding the Martial Arts.

"**** it's cold out here to be practicing."

SevenStar
10-17-2001, 08:00 AM
and bruce, mr. nemo answered that already earlier in this thread

"Maybe not, but with four months of several hours a day training in tai chi, you should be a pretty good fighter by that time, even if you cant fajing. This is, of course, providing that you have a fighting focus in your training."

I guess it depends on who these good guys you are talking about are and how they are training you. However, I'd still give it to the boxer if the two had a fight, mainly because of the contact involved in training.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

Taixuquan99
11-09-2011, 11:39 PM
Amazing that this conversation devolved over the years. Here is a group debating, not necessarily agreeing, but not wasting time picking minor points apart to make each other eat crow, and everyone ignoring the more extreme statements, not ascribing them to everyone in the "other camp". In fact, there really is no other camp in the whole conversation.

This shows a total devolution in content of the mma/tma debate, not advancement. Hardly surprising.

You could never have this thread happen now. And yet, each thread on this ends up having less actual content.

Can't really argue that the current paradigm is an improvement.

RWilson
11-10-2011, 06:40 AM
Amazing that this conversation devolved over the years. Here is a group debating, not necessarily agreeing, but not wasting time picking minor points apart to make each other eat crow, and everyone ignoring the more extreme statements, not ascribing them to everyone in the "other camp". In fact, there really is no other camp in the whole conversation.

This shows a total devolution in content of the mma/tma debate, not advancement. Hardly surprising.

You could never have this thread happen now. And yet, each thread on this ends up having less actual content.

Can't really argue that the current paradigm is an improvement.



The whole time I was reading through the thread I thought(who are the people? I have never seen them post).

sanjuro_ronin
11-10-2011, 06:58 AM
Amazing that this conversation devolved over the years. Here is a group debating, not necessarily agreeing, but not wasting time picking minor points apart to make each other eat crow, and everyone ignoring the more extreme statements, not ascribing them to everyone in the "other camp". In fact, there really is no other camp in the whole conversation.

This shows a total devolution in content of the mma/tma debate, not advancement. Hardly surprising.

You could never have this thread happen now. And yet, each thread on this ends up having less actual content.

Can't really argue that the current paradigm is an improvement.

Very true,
The seriousness of ANY discussion gets lost far to quickly.
Why?

RWilson
11-10-2011, 07:06 AM
Very true,
The seriousness of ANY discussion gets lost far to quickly.
Why?

Because there are a lOt of tmaists that are angry they believed a false fantasy about Kung fuey. And a lot of tmaists, who still believe the hype, get defensive over the topic. What typically happens when offense and defense meet in a hockey game? A fight breaks out.

Golden Arms
11-10-2011, 09:27 AM
I was reading this forum back then LOL. It was a place with a higher quantity of knowledgeable and serious practitioners posting back in the day, but also the same old stuff relating to people blindly trolling with what is popular.

At that time the "internet truth" was that high kicks were suicide, and strikers AND wrestlers had no chance if someone knew BJJ. Its been funny to watch some of those same people adopt MMA as the new "internet truth" of being the only thing that works, and then to watch as MMA began to include increasing amounts of high kicks, GnP and wrestlers.

I can say it is nice not to read a thread every other day about how the Gracies could choke out anyone, anywhere in the world as well.

RWilson
11-10-2011, 09:55 AM
I was reading this forum back then LOL. It was a place with a higher quantity of knowledgeable and serious practitioners posting back in the day, but also the same old stuff relating to people blindly trolling with what is popular.

At that time the "internet truth" was that high kicks were suicide, and strikers AND wrestlers had no chance if someone knew BJJ. Its been funny to watch some of those same people adopt MMA as the new "internet truth" of being the only thing that works, and then to watch as MMA began to include increasing amounts of high kicks, GnP and wrestlers.

I can say its nice to to read a thread every other day about how the Gracies could choke out anyone, anywhere in the world as well.



All those "truths" you mentioned are variations of the same truth: MMA is in danger only from other mma styles. MMA is not in danger of getting beaten by people who do form fairy based Kung fu.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 10:43 AM
Point absolutely proven. Who has already crapped up the thread? Not the mma guys who were posting on it originally, not the tma guys who were posting on it originally, nor the tma guys posting on it now, nor a reasonable mma poster, but a so-called mma guy who is trolling it.

Good time to lock the thread, imo. For posterity.:D

Stock arguments are for morons.

Golden Arms
11-10-2011, 11:04 AM
All those "truths" you mentioned are variations of the same truth: MMA is in danger only from other mma styles. MMA is not in danger of getting beaten by people who do form fairy based Kung fu.

Show me the average man that can outrun a bullet in the back while he is eating dinner, or easily handle a knife wielding attacker with intent, from any style. Until then, get out of your one size fits all, duelist mentality and realize that anyone can be taken out, and almost anything if trained correctly can become dangerous.

I have never been a fan of TKD for example, but there are quite a few bodyguards in Saudi, Iran, and various other areas of the world that have trained to really use it and its a good bet they could give a person a bad day pretty quickly.

Or to make it more simple:

It has always been the fighter, not the style.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 11:10 AM
Show me the average man that can outrun a bullet in the back while he is eating dinner, or easily handle a knife wielding attacker with intent, from any style. Until then, get out of your one size fits all, duelist mentality and realize that anyone can be taken out, and almost anything if trained correctly can become dangerous.

I have never been a fan of TKD for example, but there are quite a few bodyguards in Saudi, Iran, and various other areas of the world that have trained to really use it and its a good bet they could give a person a bad day pretty quickly.

Or to make it more simple:

It has always been the fighter, not the style.

He's only here to argue. If he were a greasy chronic masturbator obsessed with Britanny Spears, you have essentially just lip synced that you are not that innocent.

Fa Xing
11-10-2011, 11:13 AM
I have never been a fan of TKD for example, but there are quite a few bodyguards in Saudi, Iran, and various other areas of the world that have trained to really use it and its a good bet they could give a person a bad day pretty quickly.

Or to make it more simple:

It has always been the fighter, not the style.

I've met some of those guys living here in LA, scary mofos indeed!

sanjuro_ronin
11-10-2011, 11:21 AM
Show me the average man that can outrun a bullet in the back while he is eating dinner, or easily handle a knife wielding attacker with intent, from any style. Until then, get out of your one size fits all, duelist mentality and realize that anyone can be taken out, and almost anything if trained correctly can become dangerous.

I have never been a fan of TKD for example, but there are quite a few bodyguards in Saudi, Iran, and various other areas of the world that have trained to really use it and its a good bet they could give a person a bad day pretty quickly.

Or to make it more simple:

It has always been the fighter, not the style.

In my time in TKD I have met some seriously dangerous mofu's.
We had this bag, it was a 200lbs sand bag, what boxers used to call a "marciano bag" and we had boxers train with us too, a couple were pros ( friends if my TKD teacher at the time) and they would wail on that baby with boxing gloves and even though they were both over 200lbs, that bag gave better than it got.
Then we had the pleasure of meeting this short, stocky filipino that was visiting and he rocked that bag, BAREHANDED ( and barefooted) in such a way that we were in awe.

Fighters are fighters regardless of system and a good fighter can make ANY system work.

RWilson
11-10-2011, 11:40 AM
In my time in TKD I have met some seriously dangerous mofu's.
We had this bag, it was a 200lbs sand bag, what boxers used to call a "marciano bag" and we had boxers train with us too, a couple were pros ( friends if my TKD teacher at the time) and they would wail on that baby with boxing gloves and even though they were both over 200lbs, that bag gave better than it got.
Then we had the pleasure of meeting this short, stocky filipino that was visiting and he rocked that bag, BAREHANDED ( and barefooted) in such a way that we were in awe.

Fighters are fighters regardless of system and a good fighter can make ANY system work.

But a fighter cannot make a style work if the focus is mainly forms based training which was my point to the former kcelbows.

Kcelbows,

You knew people would "ruin" this thread yet you brought it to light of your own volition. Do not cry that it is being derailed or not kept in pristine condition when you brought it up.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 12:04 PM
Interesting to watch someone try to continue an argument based on points that were visibly resolved in the argument ten years before.

Drake
11-10-2011, 12:19 PM
Interesting to watch someone try to continue an argument based on points that were visibly resolved in the argument ten years before.

Watch out...trolls feed on this stuff. You have to starve them out with attention deprivation.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Watch out...trolls feed on this stuff. You have to starve them out with attention deprivation.

I don't recall saying anything to him. At all. On any recent thread.

That's me doing my job as a member. Don't converse with non-contributors or people who disrupt conversations, try to make room for good conversation, especially on kung fu.

Golden Arms
11-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Don't converse with non-contributors or people who disrupt conversations, try to make room for good conversation, especially on kung fu.

The last good conversation I really enjoyed on here was when Dark Chi was posting. Too bad he got banned, he sounded like he actually knew Pak Mei, a refreshing change from all the people that seem to post about it and yet don't practice it.

MightyB
11-10-2011, 12:37 PM
I miss Ralek. He was the greatest troll. Was it ever discovered if he was in fact Rolls - the original and undisputed greatest KFO Troll?

And Sifu Abel - man oh man.

Ryu was cool... Apoweyn was a little high brow for this forum.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 12:42 PM
I miss Ralek. He was the greatest troll. Was it ever discovered if he was in fact Rolls - the original and undisputed greatest KFO Troll?

And Sifu Abel - man oh man.

Ryu was cool... Apoweyn was a little high brow for this forum.

Apoweyn was cool.

Remember Old Jong?

MightyB
11-10-2011, 12:47 PM
not saying anything bad about Apoweyn - just that he came off a little high brow. Like ordering a martini in your local bar fly watering hole.

I don't remember old jong so much. What's funny is Ray reminds me of Abel a little bit. Bawang reminds me of rolls/ralek in a way too. Sevenstar still will post every once in awhile.

My buddy back then was Red5Angel.

Golden Arms
11-10-2011, 12:53 PM
not saying anything bad about Apoweyn - just that he came off a little high brow. Like ordering a martini in your local bar fly watering hole.

I don't remember old jong so much. What's funny is Ray reminds me of Abel a little bit. Bawang reminds me of rolls/ralek in a way too. Sevenstar still will post every once in awhile.

My buddy back then was Red5Angel.

I was a fan of Bean Curd's posts, always hoped to find out who he was. Also, I would put Ego_Extrodinaire as one of the all time greats. The time he got a guy to challenge him and then asked to guy to make sure that he had wheelchair access ramps at his dojo so that he could make it in the door was truly classic.

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 12:59 PM
not saying anything bad about Apoweyn

Why do you hate Apoweyn?:D


What's funny is Ray reminds me of Abel a little bit.

That's hilarious!


Bawang reminds me of rolls/ralek in a way too. Sevenstar still will post every once in awhile.

My buddy back then was Red5Angel.

He comes and trolls semi-annually, just the same "you all just do forms and break breakable boards" sort of thing.


I was a fan of Bean Curd's posts, always hoped to find out who he was. Also, I would put Ego_Extrodinaire as one of the all time greats. The time he got a guy to challenge him and then asked to guy to make sure that he had wheelchair access ramps at his dojo so that he could make it in the door was truly classic.

That was classic.

sanjuro_ronin
11-10-2011, 01:50 PM
The last good conversation I really enjoyed on here was when Dark Chi was posting. Too bad he got banned, he sounded like he actually knew Pak Mei, a refreshing change from all the people that seem to post about it and yet don't practice it.

He should have know enough to watch his mouth, LOL !

Lucas
11-10-2011, 01:56 PM
i always got a kick out of john takeshi and his judo katana bits...eye of the spiritual tiger and all that...

Taixuquan99
11-10-2011, 02:02 PM
Friend of Man was epic, with his tour de force "What woulsd I be if I were a hot women attracted to me?" thread. Post modernism at its finest.