Good thread

[Unmatchable]

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/DisplayMessages.cfm?TID=351487&P=22&FID=1&c=1

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/DisplayMessages.cfm?TID=351122&P=51&FID=1&c=1

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/DisplayMessages.cfm?TID=333342&P=177&FID=1&c=1

[Merryprankster]

These are good why? If it's just that "Yes, there's bad Muay Thai out there," and "Yes, people who take BJJ can be beat"--especially by other guys who are fighters, I don't really see why this is so great.

It's like watching the John Marsh vs. Random Kung Fu guy thread. Not very useful.

On the MT thing, yup, there's bad Thai Boxing out there--but everybody knows where to go for top quality training too. I think that's THE difference between arts with a strong competitive circuit and those that don't have one. It's easy to see, for instance, that Fairtex is awesome--they have a great record of winning fighters!

[Unmatchable]

What about by reputation alone?

[Merryprankster]

As it MT by reputation alone? The reps pretty good. precisely because there is a history and record of competitive fighting.

Still means there will be bad gyms. Just like there are bad boxing gyms and bad BJJ gyms.

But that's exactly it--you can't claim "We're so great!!" because the follow up question is "what have you produced?"

[Unmatchable]

What's wrong with learning CMA(kungfu) by reputation alone?

[LEGEND]

Reputation is built through competition. For example, if you want good Brazillian Jujitusu in the DC, MD, Va area...it's hard to go wrong with LLOYD IRVIN or YAMASAKI. They have a team that wins constantly in tournament. TKD in MD had the BLUE DRAGON team that amass numerous victories in WTF...if u want to get good in TKD...that was the place to be.

[LEGEND]

CMA by reputation alone? Like Shaolin KF is better than Wing Chun KF? Problem with a lot of CMA reputation is that it's based on unconfirmed history that usually turns about to be BULL SHIET.

However, certain CMA schools do produce excellent students. Go to those. Training in CMA alone is not enough. I train grappling at a karate school...I would be much better going to YAMASAKI or LLOYDs...cause the competition is much higher...and instruction is better quality...

[Merryprankster]

Ummm... the same problem I just said. The difference is that MT and BJJ gyms can point to verifiable, recognized accomplishments.

Tell me--what are the best WC schools on the east coast?

What criteria are you using to judge?

[backbreaker]

I saw live a fighter from one of the best muay thai gym's in the country ( canada) who was fat and not that great, he got kicked in the face by a tae kwon do spinning back kick and lost . Then , that same night another fighter from that same gym fought his first fight, and looked like a real thai and destroyed his opponent. Different gym's I think , are more lenient about letting new fighters fight quickly, so I guess even in the same gym there are varying factors from fighter to fighter

[LEGEND]

Merry has the CORRECT. It's hard to judge CMA programs( wing chun, shaolin, etc... )through competition other than SAN SHOU or SAN DA tourneys...which hardly exist.

[Unmatchable]

I'm not talking about reputation of my style is better than yours, like wing chun is better than tai chi. I'm talking about reputation of teachers who had fighting background and produce good results. Even though alot of CMA teachers might have been good fighters that doesn't mean they will teach you everything openly or are themselves good teachers however.

[Merryprankster]

In fact, more precisely, people ARE picking on reputation.

It's just that the reputation of CMA right now isn't so hot because of the number of charlatans out there, and the reputation it's built up over time, aren't so hot.

[Merryprankster]

You're interested in CMA. What criteria are you going to use to pick a school? How do you make that decision?

[Unmatchable]

You can also spar some people at the school to check the skill. Alot of internal guys seem like charlatans and sell mystical bull**** but sopposevly they keep the good stuff to a select few. Like Vincent Chu.

[David Jamieson]

Kinda hard to judge genuine Thai Muay Thai these days too seeing as it has been grossly commercialized and there are few of the old time schools left and little punch/kick/elbow /knee camps popping up all over the place.

oh, and ever martial arts hall opening these days it seems wants in on teh "mma" action. :rolleyes:

there are values in every martial art. There is something of use, but lately, the crud floats on top more than the cream it seems.

where have you gone joe dimaggio?! LOL

i was actually kind of shocked to find out about how a greater percentage of all Muay thai bouts in thailand these days are carried out with all bets and the trappings by children of 8-9 and 10 years old. wtf??? that is messed up right there I tell ya.

and most so called "traditional muay thai" schools don't have any of the other arts tied to this ritualistic fighting style such as grabi-grabong, archery, etc. just kick boxing with elbows and knees and guys who don't have a clue as to why they are performing the ritual danceto garuda at the beginning of the match. In fact, the Muay Thai guys I know don't know why they do the dance and never formally learned what it is or about. They do it just like they see it on tv to be seen as "authentic" lol.

cheers

[Unmatchable]

In Russia there are mma type fights with young kids as well. It's like a **** fight with humans. And the cage (not ring) reinforces that.

[backbreaker]

Originally posted by Unmatchable
What's wrong with learning CMA(kungfu) by reputation alone?


My opinion about that is that you don't really know for yourself. You're just going by what others say. I don't think there's really anything wrong with it and it might be a valid reputation, and it might not.( a reputation for actual combat or street survival probably means something) But at some point you want your own understanding. People who start doing mma fighting might start doing it originally due to the reputation but not totally; they also saw the fighters themselves and had an impression of them. They might like bjj and think it looked the most effective , they might like muay thai and think it's the best. No art is the best. As you get more advanced you'll have more and more understanding. I think people were talking about this on another thread, that some styles , for how well known they are, don't have much footage of the techniques, or any matches on film. I just go by what I've learnt and what I see, and what I personally am inclined to think.

[Merryprankster]

You can also spar some people at the school to check the skill. Alot of internal guys seem like charlatans and sell mystical bull**** but sopposevly they keep the good stuff to a select few. Like Vincent Chu.

And you're going to do that if you're new to the arts how?

Reputations of gyms are built on who they have produced as fighters. It's a measurable criterion. MOST CMAs do not have this advantage. It's very hit or miss.

[David Jamieson]

merry- i think you're referring to the cma's you are aware of in the usa?

there are actually kungu schools that produce prolific fighters out there in the world.


just a for instance:

http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200004/27/eng20000427_39873.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/14/eng20021014_104997.shtml

http://www.ec-shopping.com/mall/c101/s25736/kickboxing/home.asp

http://www.cungle.com/IKF_china_newsDec03.pdf


-anyway, just a smattering of some "proven" fighters coming from cma.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Yes, I was referring to here. I thought I had made that distinction, but if I hadn't, oops on me.

[KC Elbows]

Aside from some martial arts circles, I don't think other people think about this stuff that much. Oddly, another group I know that looks down on kung fu is one group of light contact tkd guys out here. Because some of the kung fu schools don't show up at light contact competition. Now, if some guy who trains(and I've seen these guys do this) to slap the top of the head lightly for that extra point thinks kung fu sucks, fine, but I don't think the existence of his and other's like his opinions verifies that the reason kung fu has a bad rep is because some kung fu schools don't compete full contact, or at least not entirely because of that.

All arguments that start "the reason kung fu has a bad rep" need to first recognize that their argument is almost entirely based off of the views of several very small groups of people, only an even smaller group of which have any fighting ability whatsoever. Hardly a rep.

I think too many people judge based on the rep as known by their social circle. I'd also say that the rep is situational as regards kung fu, as certain schools seem to hold more respect than others, based on full contact tourneys, whereas I think there are fewer tkd and karate schools respected at all, and since the non respected kung fu styles seem to have more in common with tkd and karate schools on the whole(forms for form's sake and contact rules that are silly), I think it's more a matter of schools for martial ART versus schools for MARTIAL art, and once the sole criterion becomes "can they prove it", fencing and weapons are the only rational choice, because without ineptness, they will win every time, and since winning is the goal in this approach, all others must be losers.


Competition is great and all, but is it in any way better than a school that may not compete like crazy, but trains full contact and trains comprehensively with weapons? Or are both good, one better for competition, one better for a wider array of situations? Or something else?

I'm just fairly certain that if I, though I'm a mediocre blade fighter with maybe fifteen years of experience, came against a fifteen year experienced mma fighter, me with a knife, him without, he's an idiot not to leave given the chance. Mind you, that leads to "he's got a better chance with mma than with anything else" which leads to "so, you're saying unarmed versus weapons works well against a mediocre but competent knife fighter?"

Now, perhaps the best choice would be a competition fighter who also trains with blades or whatever weapons, but I think they're in the minority.

I mean, isn't empty hand an impractical choice, and the idea that it makes any serious difference in one's chances for survival in real situations a bit on the mythical side when compared to one's chances with weapons? I mean, isn't placing that much faith on empty hand just as silly as practicing forms endlessly, save for a very small few(peacekeepers, cops, and interns), to whom the skills are still secondary or even tertiary to their main functions?

I mean, I just think this whole approach to the argument is like mimes bickering over another way to "walk against the wind". Sure, competition allows you to go against people who are good at that set of rules, and so finding a forum that has realistic rules will allow you to train hth realistically against a higher calliber, but sparring in those same rules will confer some skill, and placing realistic weapon's training higher in priority than either will place you closer to how people are supposed to fight. Now, if you like being in the circuit, that's good, but that liking is not more reasonable than spending huge amounts of time working weapon skills. So, on one side, mma is a great approach, but basing it on fighting in the circuit does limit it in some ways. Now, kung fu approaches weapon fighting by the attributes of the weapons, so that similar objects can be used in a pinch. Traditionalists are constantly told "you cannot defend against a weapon if you don't have one", and I think that it's best not to do so, but the logical conclusion to that is that a sharp knife is better than a empty hand fighter, mma or otherwise, and so there's nothing "good" in a practical sense about making empty hand your primary focus, and so to take the position that "ring successes should be the final arbiter of what makes a good martial arts school" misses the point that humans fighting without weapons outside of the ring are generally not the smart humans, or at least not the sober ones. Ask the woolly mammoth.

Not saying that schools that turn out good ring fighters are not good at all. I'm saying that they are not all that is good.

Not that I don't like empty hand, but I recognize that no matter how much better or worse than others I am at it, it's still an anachronistic little practice of mine that I do for no better reason than I enjoy it, and so as long as no one claims that their anachromism is better at achieving anachronistic goals than mine when that is clearly not the truth, I don't really care.

Back to phrenology.

On the flip side, smack talking about ring fighters by non ring fighters is like smack talking about spear fighting by purely ring fighters: annoying, pointless, and unnecessary.


Empty hand=the method for getting to a weapon while causing the most damage when in a sticky situation where you don't have a weapon and need one. That's my definition, I don't expect others to feel the same way. To train that, I think you need to go full contact, but I also think that rounds don't necessarily add anything qualitative to that process unless you need cardio or an unlikely second chance in a fight, which happens to make for fun drama. So I try to recognize when I'm not fulfilling that process, and not claim anything great when I do something that seems devastating during that time. "Sure, that would've hurt him, but if things were so bad that we were elbowing each other, don't you think we'd have been slamming each other's head into the concrete here and struggling over the first available sharp object like two minutes ago?"

Just ranting.

[KC Elbows]

The short version: If everything that is good must be ring fighting, some skills will be lost that are still useful, or be treated with disrespect simply because they lack a gladiatorial arena, while other practitioners will be accorded more respect than they deserve because they can cheese their way to victories, when in the end, it is like rival midget gangs getting short with each other over who represents the lollypop guild.

[CrippledAvenger]

There is no reason why you can't test yourself in the ring as well as learn potentially dangerous stuff. It's like the black hands thread-- most "deadly" techniques are common sense, the caveat being you have to play live with the non-deadly techniques before you can assume you have a reasonable chance at using the dirty stuff in action.

This is the problem I have with most kung fu schools, (and I'm learning a Chinese style myself). They don't understand what the ring is for, nor do they want to listen to why it's important. They just want to stick their fingers in their ears and holler until the issue goes away.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Unmatchable
What's wrong with learning CMA(kungfu) by reputation alone?

The same thing that's wrong with any reputation - it can be falsified. you can judge sport fighting camps by their product. Are they putting out good fighters? If so, you can be there's decent training there. with alot of TMA schools, you can't do that. Consequently, you have to judge based on what you see at the school - technique, sparring level, etc. and a newbie isn't really qualified to judge any of that.

Not to mention that too many people piggy back off of the rep of their masters. Sure, my judo coaches were nationally/world ranked, but what does that say about me? Nothing. I can say all day "my judo is awesome because one of my coaches placed second in the world championships" but that doesn't mean that my skill level is anywhere near his. Grandmaster wun dum gai is 3410.5 - 0 in challenge matches? that's great. Do YOU have that same record? Does anyone at your school have that record, including your instructors? If not, then your GM's reputation really isn't a valid way of judging your school or your ability.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
The short version: If everything that is good must be ring fighting, some skills will be lost that are still useful, or be treated with disrespect simply because they lack a gladiatorial arena, while other practitioners will be accorded more respect than they deserve because they can cheese their way to victories, when in the end, it is like rival midget gangs getting short with each other over who represents the lollypop guild.

you can go live with weapons. dog brothers, kendo guys, other kali/escrima schools, etc. do it. you can do "live" training with rubber weapons also. I don't think the competition scene in such is that that high, but ah well. Now, I distinguish that type of weapons training from learning a form and a few applications, as some schools do. you may know a sword form, but can you really wield it?

by the way:

"it is like rival midget gangs getting short with each other"

was the pun intended? that was a good one.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger
There is no reason why you can't test yourself in the ring as well as learn potentially dangerous stuff.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that anyone who believes they are "effective fighters" and others "aren't" based on empty hand skills is also performing an act of denial, because humans are not effective empty hand fighters, period. I mentioned weapons, which I was really alluding to in my second post, not deadly techniques. I agree with you, that ring fighting has its uses, I simply disagree that schools that don't ring fight are more backwards than those that do. I think both camps take what they do far more seriously than the general population does, which is natural, but the fact is the general population is correct, it is not a problem.

And since reputation is an importnat part of this discussion, I thought that was a valid point. And since effectiveness was another part, I thought it was a valid point that give an amateur training with mma or kung fu, and give another amateur training with knife, and then give advice to the two, most would tell the first amateur to avoid confrontation with the second, get away, whatever. Which makes me feel this is not a discussion about effectiveness, but preconceptions of effectiveness, or reputation, or we'd all be laughing at the open handers and loading our pistols and sharpening our blades.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by SevenStar


you can go live with weapons. dog brothers, kendo guys, other kali/escrima schools, etc. do it. you can do "live" training with rubber weapons also. I don't think the competition scene in such is that that high, but ah well. Now, I distinguish that type of weapons training from learning a form and a few applications, as some schools do. you may know a sword form, but can you really wield it?

by the way:

"it is like rival midget gangs getting short with each other"

was the pun intended? that was a good one.

Yes, intended pun, thanks.

I don't agree with your assessment of weapons training. IMO, simply having a weapon and being mildly comfortable with it makes a larger difference in your effectiveness than ring training open hand ever could. There really is not convincing precedence for humans without weapons being in any way more effective than humans with weapons in any arena. I agree, many do not really learn weapons, but they are still dangerous simply by virtue of having a weapon, whereas those who do not really learn fighting with whatever style aren't really dangerous because, and I reiterate, humans without tools are not dangerous. No amount of bad training will change the fact that they have a sharp blade that will cut, by will or by accident. No matter how stiff the competition in any venue, no fist or fighter will be as immediately deadly as the tip of that blade, except in kung fu romances and such.

That's why I think this whole discussion is ironic- it is based on effectiveness, but misses the point that humans fight effectively with weapons, and generally never choose to fight otherwise except for sport or for posture, and never really with anything but other humans. It's the mma romance. It does have valid logic behind part of it, but not for most practitioners, only for those who have real need to that specific set of contact skills, not those who choose to do so because they like it.

As for myself, I learned sword technique by technique, no forms. simply drilling with swords, same with what spear I have, knife, etc. I'm nothing special, but I'm still armed. The logic extends to guns as well.

Really, if effectiveness of training is the issue, which would you give better odds to, a 5 year bjj/muay thai practitioner, or a 5 year kali practitioner with a knife?

Competition has become a catch phrase that has its virtues, but even the most strident mma voices seem to laugh at the idea of reliably beating armed people while unarmed. Which is the same thing I'm saying, except I'm putting it in the context of "If kung fu is outdated, what makes the styles that popularly comprise mma not the same?" And since competition is not as high among weapons practitioners, are you saying that the open hand competitor will beat armed people more often than not?

So, whose thinking is most outdated? The kung fu school that fails to implement live training, or the mma school that focusses on ring fighting but has no weapon skills? Whose thinking is more anachronistic, and where is it a virtue to be "least anachronistic"?

God, my fingers are bleeding. Make me stop.

[KC Elbows]

One last one, then salmon time.

Something else commonly paired with this argument is "mma turns out good fighters faster", and if that were at all a criterion, open hand would be seen as slower than every other option available, regardless of competition. Since it does not and cannot turn out good fighters faster than just arming people, then maybe, just maybe, this argument is the mmaists way of saying "I like what I'm doing better than what you're doing", which is fine, but not really a discussion point, just the mma version of "my techniques are too deadly".

Now, if the approach was "train full contact, train weapons", I could buy that argument, but by placing all emphasis on the ring circuits, it seems to me to be an attitude that only perpetuates ring circuits and open hand where it supports ring circuits.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by KC Elbows

I don't agree with your assessment of weapons training. IMO, simply having a weapon and being mildly comfortable with it makes a larger difference in your effectiveness than ring training open hand ever could. There really is not convincing precedence for humans without weapons being in any way more effective than humans with weapons in any arena. I agree, many do not really learn weapons, but they are still dangerous simply by virtue of having a weapon, whereas those who do not really learn fighting with whatever style aren't really dangerous because, and I reiterate, humans without tools are not dangerous. No amount of bad training will change the fact that they have a sharp blade that will cut, by will or by accident. No matter how stiff the competition in any venue, no fist or fighter will be as immediately deadly as the tip of that blade, except in kung fu romances and such.

I agree with that. That's not what I was addressing. My post was geared towards the whole reputation thing. That was a good post though.

[KC Elbows]

Irrespective, I know more forms than you.

[Chang Style Novice]

"and never really with anything but other humans. "

Um...have you been sparring with Romulans and Wookiees again, KC?:D

[KC Elbows]

That's rediculous. Everyone knows wookies aren't real, and humans can't beat Romulans. Because of their cloaking devices. They're like vulcans, you know.

[Chang Style Novice]

I gotta nice pair of elf-skin boots for a really great price the other day...

Seriously, though, I agree with your thesis here. If humans are serious about wanting to get dangerous, we use our capacity as tool making critters to do it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never seen the first 10 minutes of "2001: A Space Oddessy."

[KC Elbows]

Kudos for the Kubrick plug. I can think of no follow up.

[Merryprankster]

I don't think anybody is arguing about who is more dangerous or not. The issue really boils down to one of reputation about what you want to do. Assuming you want to learn to fight empty handed, you have many options and clearly people pick via reputation. The problem in CMA--at least in the U.S.--is that there are so many different ideas about good and bad. In other words, what yardstick do I use to judge?

Combat athletics are pretty straightforward--who did you train and what are their records and what circuit are they competing on?

This doesn't mean that there aren't bad schools. But it does mean that if you are serious about it, you'll know where to go to get what you want. Everybody agrees, for instance, that Ralph Gracie is one of the best sport BJJ guys on the west coast. CMA people in the U.S. can't even get a consensus on whether or not San Shou/San Da is chinese or even a good idea.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Irrespective, I know more forms than you.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Irrespective, I know more forms than you.

[MonkeySlap Too]

The funny thing is, this argument has been going on since the first death of Western Martial Arts - go check out the book 'Secrets of The sword' this text is a few hundred years old, and it touches on the same arguments you hear today in regards to sport vs. combat.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Irrespective, I know more forms than you.

Doubtful. After learning about 20 shaolin forms, I mastered karate, picking up 30 shotokan kata, then spent a few years in tang soo do. That was about the time that I met scotty, who beamed me up so that I could train with spock. I learned 4 vulcan forms then single handedly took down the klingon army, forcing them to share their forms with me. The way they learn is matrix - style; they plug you into a system and upload everything into your brain. within two weeks, I learned every form from every MA spanning three galaxies. I am thankful to the klingons, but now I've got this d@mned hole at the base of my skull...

[norther practitioner]

elf-skin boots

elf-skin?

Where do I find elf-skin boots.. better yet, where do I find the elf, 'cause I could bring that whole freak show thing to the next level if i could find em.

[David Jamieson]

MS2-

I believe you are referring to Paradoxes of Defense - by George Silver - 1599 (http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/silver/contents_body.htm)

I don't think western martial arts were ever lost, we just take a lot of them for granted and societally have gotten multiculturalism in this respect sometime following world war two.

After all, I think the earliest --BROAD-- encounters with asian martial arts started with the American Air Force in the late 1940's.

Here is the actual factuals on da matta



The expansion of karate to the western hemisphere began as early as 1948. At that time the US Air Force arranged for a series of martial arts demonstrations at their installations overseas in Tachikawa, Kisarazu, Tokorozawa and Yokosuka. Isao Obata and Masatoshi Nakayama conducted the karate demonstrations. The demonstrations brought interest to many airman and soon karate and judo clubs were established on the installations. In 1951, Strategic Air Command (SAC) under the command of General Curtis P. LeMay hired Mel Bruno, a judo man to organize and direct a physical training program in martial arts for SAC personnel. This program was successful and by 1953 the Air Force decided to expand the concept and sponsor a six-month tour to selected installations in the U.S.

The tour included ten of the highest-ranking judo men and three premier karate men from the JKA to include, Isao Obata, Toshio Kamate and Hidetaka Nishiyama. This tour brought awareness to the American public as to the existence of karate and further provided an opportunity for Mr. Nakayama and Mr. Nishiyama to export the art to the western hemisphere. Both of these men committed themselves to spreading karate to the rest of the world and within the western hemisphere found to do so with the United States Air Force.


Granted there was Kungfu in Chinatowns throughout the western world that was being taught and learned. But except in possibly the extreme rare cases (of which I know of non) a non-chinese might learn the martial arts.

Also some military personel knew of and perhaps had learned other asian martial arts. And there are depictions of the martial arts in western film as early as the mid 1930's. Jimmy cagney in Rising Sun comes to mind :-)

So, in the big picture, our entire society in a --BROAD-- sense was wholly unaware of these arts outside of the academic community and western martial arts were practiced at about the same numbers as there are asian martial arts practitioners now.
Boxing, Wrestling, Swordplay and of course specialized military systems have always been in practice. Swordplay is making a resurgence of late. I think it's too bad that it has to fall to the LOTR geek crowd to get any press and get all "medieval" to have many practitioners. But certainly the sport versions of the older arts have been in practice all along.

cheers

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by SevenStar


Doubtful. After learning about 20 shaolin forms, I mastered karate, picking up 30 shotokan kata, then spent a few years in tang soo do. That was about the time that I met scotty, who beamed me up so that I could train with spock. I learned 4 vulcan forms then single handedly took down the klingon army, forcing them to share their forms with me. The way they learn is matrix - style; they plug you into a system and upload everything into your brain. within two weeks, I learned every form from every MA spanning three galaxies. I am thankful to the klingons, but now I've got this d@mned hole at the base of my skull...

I know a form that allows me to comment the first time I quote someone, and I know all the forms you mentioned, so I know one more form than you.

MP,

I was mostly ranting in a tangent somewhat related to the topic, though I think some do argue from a point of feeling more dangerous. I also agree, there is little consensus in CMA about this, but then, the two chinese martial arts I've studied really don't belong in the same category in any way, they're just not similar enough to say "this is just variations on one style", so consensus among completely different things seems impossible.

Standardization clearly has its advantages, but I really think it's about amassing training methodology and then standardizing, and that's what I look for in a good chinese(or any ma) school. I look for progressive training, not limited to "this is what my teacher knew", full contact, and people that seem to have a lot to teach, yet don't need to make it seem like they have more than they have- people who are willing to admit it's the basics that make up the advanced anyway, and so will work the basics like a boxing coach has his guys work the jab-jab-hook. If I want to ring fight, I'll look for that, and I definitely respect that, but it's not really that high up on my list.

Monkeyslap,

Do you have any links for the historical events you were citing? I'd never heard that.

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by SevenStar

...
Grandmaster wun dum gai is 3410.5 - 0 in challenge matches? that's great. Do YOU have that same record? Does anyone at your school have that record, including your instructors? If not, then your GM's reputation really isn't a valid way of judging your school or your ability.

OMG, 3410.5 - 0 ? Assuming he only fight one challenger a day, he would be fighting 9.34 year straight. How old did you say this guy was again? :)

I assume you misplace a decimal point somewhere. But, I am prepare to be surprised. My fingers are crossed. Surprise me.

wm

[SevenStar]

rofl...

wun dum gai = one dumb guy...

That was completely made up, just to illustrate the point of masters being undefeated in challenge matches and streetfights. su dong chen, emin bozteppe (300-0, supposedly), etc.

[SevenStar]

I meant to reply to this days ago and forgot...


Originally posted by Kung Lek
Kinda hard to judge genuine Thai Muay Thai these days too seeing as it has been grossly commercialized and there are few of the old time schools left and little punch/kick/elbow /knee camps popping up all over the place.

I can agree with that, but that's actually what muay thai is. That was a component of krabi krabong, but didn't come from karabi krabong. I guess you can liken it to how many CMA contain shuai chiao, but shuai chiao is an art of it's own. muay thai stems from the original boxing style, which was muay chao something-or-another.

oh, and ever martial arts hall opening these days it seems wants in on teh "mma" action. :rolleyes:

competition will kill them off.

i was actually kind of shocked to find out about how a greater percentage of all Muay thai bouts in thailand these days are carried out with all bets and the trappings by children of 8-9 and 10 years old. wtf??? that is messed up right there I tell ya.

that's not that new. It's not uncommon for a kid to start his fighting career at 8. They are "adopted" by a coach, and they go there every day after school. The coaches are like parents to them.

and most so called "traditional muay thai" schools don't have any of the other arts tied to this ritualistic fighting style such as grabi-grabong, archery, etc. just kick boxing with elbows and knees and guys who don't have a clue as to why they are performing the ritual danceto garuda at the beginning of the match. In fact, the Muay Thai guys I know don't know why they do the dance and never formally learned what it is or about. They do it just like they see it on tv to be seen as "authentic" lol.

As for the dance, the ram muay (which we learn at my club) it's actually nothing more than a warm up and a demonstration of your control. The movements represent certain things - combat techniques, animals, weapons techniwes, etc. and usually vary from school to school. You know how you can tell the lineage of some CMA by the openening or closing? The same is true with the ram muay. The ritual you are referring to is the wai kru. It is done before the ram muay. you kneel and bow three times. the first bow is respect to your gym. the second, your parents, and the third for the divine entity that you believe in.