PDA

View Full Version : What do we think?



scotty1
09-30-2001, 02:35 PM
I've got the impression from reading some of the threads in this forum (and just from talking to people) that some people are of the opinion that a Kung Fu exponent up against a Muay Thai style kickboxer would get flattened. I think the image in their head is of the Kung Fu guy getting steamrollered by the kickboxer. Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'm not saying this is my opinion, just one i've heard. And no "it depends on the experience of the fighters" blah blah blah.
Do you think Kung Fu can hold its own against muay thai kickboxing? I think the answer is (obviously) yes. But it would seem to me some people don't, so come on, lets be having you.

toddbringewatt
09-30-2001, 03:03 PM
Muay Thai is largly brute force. Fighting smart will always win out over pure force. Kung Fu (skill over time) IS fighting smart.

You do the math.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 03:07 PM
Have you ever done muay thai?

Largely brute force? Yes. Coupled with solid technique, training methods, and an intricacy that few people recognize.

Don't kid yourself. Muay thai is a complex and highly effective art. Some of the manipulations I've seen from the plum or frame position are brilliant.

There's no answering this "Who would win" question. It's pointless. But discounting muay thai because it's 'basic' is a bad idea based on a flawed premise.

And lest I be accused of partisanship, yeah I'm a big fan of gung fu.


Stuart B.

Stumblefist
09-30-2001, 03:19 PM
Also, kungfu has Dim Mak (the death touch); or can aerial summersault over his head, breaking his neck on the way; the one-finger throw developed by Ueshiba; project Killing Chi from a distance if one is lazy; and if we get ****ed off we'll just rip his throat or his heart out with our bare hand.
Against "Muay Thai Knees and Elbows" we've got sticky elbows and sticky knees.
I don't even think i've started the catalogue of weapons in the kungfu arsenal.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

toddbringewatt
09-30-2001, 03:45 PM
"Have you ever done muay thai?"

No. I've also never ballet danced but I know enough from observation to comment on it.

"Largely brute force? Yes."

Great. That IS my premise. You agree. So do you think that "largely brute force" is going to hold up against perfected Internal technique, i.e. Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I?

"Coupled with solid technique, training methods, and an intricacy that few people recognize."

You could say the same of wrestling, boxing, shootfighting, kickboxing, etc. Do you really believe these arts are superior or even equal to an in depth understanding and ability to apply Internal technique?

"Don't kid yourself."

Okay.

"Muay thai is a complex and highly effective art."

Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying it isn't as complex and highly effective as say Small Frame Yang T'ai Chi. And one wouldn't expect it to be given that it also takes a lot less time to master.

"Some of the manipulations I've seen from the plum or frame position are brilliant."

Cool. I'm sure you're right. Notice I didn't equate Muay Thai to the likes of just putting one's head down and charging straight and mindless like a bull.

"There's no answering this "Who would win" question."

Sure there is. The answer is Kung Fu because it is more sophisticated and effective. And I don't think a lot of practitioners who have truly studied both exhaustively would disagree with me.

"It's pointless."

The point is one promises a higher degree of self-defense capability.

"But discounting muay thai because it's 'basic' is a bad idea based on a flawed premise."

I never discounted it. I just said it doesn't stand up to Kung Fu. And not because it's "basic". Because it's MORE "basic". And it's NOT a "bad" idea as you put it. It's simply a correct idea based on the premise you agreed with in your own post: "Largely brute force? Yes." That's my premise. So if it's flawed, why did you agree?

Let the argument continue...

P.S. I agree with Stumblefist.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 03:52 PM
I still hold that it's a flawed premise. You say that, clearly, because gung fu is more intricate it is superior, yeah? That muay thai cannot compete with the internal strength of good gung fu.

Can that premise be proven? You find it self evident. Why? To my mind, no argument that's counted on to prove itself can be considered a strong one.

You didn't say that muay thai was hopeless. In fact, you were quite flattering of it. But you still believe that muay thai, the art, couldn't hold its own against gung fu, the art.

But arts don't fight. People do. So what's the premise? That any muay thai fighter couldn't beat any gung fu fighter? That a good muay thai fighter couldn't beat a good gung fu player? That a muay thai fighter of 20 years couldn't beat a xingyi fighter of 20 years?

Where does the theory end? And what proves it?

I'm not claiming I know the answer. I'm not claiming that muay thai would win. I'm not claiming anything except that it's not as simple as A > B.


Stuart B.

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 03:55 PM
One more thing. Yeah, I do believe in the ability of wrestling, boxing, kickboxing, and shootfighting to beat internal strength.

Just as I believe in the opposite.

I believe that when theory and reality meet, they seldom look alike.


Stuart B.

ShaolinTiger00
09-30-2001, 04:28 PM
Well said Stuart.

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 04:30 PM
Cheers. :)

Stumblefist
09-30-2001, 06:07 PM
I've done Muay Thai!
I've done it in my Chinatown club. (also a little in Thailand).
Point is: basic kungfu can absorb anything, we can take in anything and use it because we provide the basics for all fighting arts.
Do Muay Thai people bring in kungfu techniques?
No. They can't.
They have a limited perspective.

We can eat them, they can't eat us.
We are sponge, they are water.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

Shaolindynasty
09-30-2001, 06:33 PM
People are lumping all Kungfu in one style, it's not. There are hundreds of CMA and to tell you the truth I think alot of them COULDN'T stand up to Muay Thai. CMA's tend to forget that the techniques are the simplist ones and they always argue that they are superior cause they have "more complexity". Some styles can beat Muay Thai some are equal and some will lose (if he fighters were clones of each other). People shouldn't just say Kungfu is weak they should say what paticular style they feel is weak cause the styles differ drastically.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 06:47 PM
Stumblefist,

No offense, but you've done muay thai in your Chinatown club? That's a kung fu club, yeah? And "a little" in Thailand? Do you consider yourself a fair representation of the capabilities and limitations of muay thai? I would not, in your place. That's all I'm saying.

Kung fu can absorb muay thai but not vice versa? And that guarantees your success? That's two flawed assumptions, to my mind.

One: why couldn't a practitioner of muay thai learn concepts from kung fu? And integrate them into his kickboxing? Why could a kung fu fighter do so?

I suspect you're working off of the notion that muay thai, as a ring sport, doesn't use kung fu techniques. Independent of whether that's true or not, what's to stop a proponent of muay thai from using techniques outside of muay thai as well? Not in the ring, but in real life.

In the ring, muay thai has proven itself repeatedly, yes?

Two: If kung fu absorbs muay thai, then it can defeat it. I don't buy that. Not wholesale. Even taking into account the sanda/muay thai matches, sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other.

I think that attempts to paint things in black and white are security measures. We don't like the idea that we don't know whether we'd win or no, so we come up with a formula that answers the question.

But formulas don't fight either. Still just people.


Stuart B.

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 06:49 PM
Shaolindynasty,

I don't think they should even say that much. Two people fight. One wins. (If that.)

No bigger truths. No sweeping revelations. Just the event and the outcome.


Stuart B.

EARTH DRAGON
09-30-2001, 06:56 PM
this is a ridiculous disscussion becuse it doesnt matter what style is better it depends on the fighter!
if 2 equally skilled fighters fought then obviously kung fu would win, it has much more in its arsenal and much more complexed and indepth basis, but again a kung fu practioner can be beat up by a street fighter, wrestler or boy scout if they trained harder, so the question should be what stlye is better for you if you want to fight! the answer is whatever practioner trained harder

http://www.kungfuUSA.net

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 07:02 PM
There you have it. Though even between two equally skilled practitioners, no conclusion is foregone.


Stuart B.

Silumkid
09-30-2001, 07:08 PM
As far as whether or not Muay Thai uses kungfu techniques or not, my internal teacher says that Muay Thai is a "watered down version of White Crane". I didn't press him on it, but I do plan on asking him for more information about this. Anyhow, his point was "Everyone fears the Thai, but why? It's only technique".

A hammer only works well if I use it correctly.

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

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 07:14 PM
It's a good question. Why fear the Thai? I think it's as irrational to assume that a thai boxer would win as it is to assume that a gung fu fighter would win.

Why do it at all? Why come up with these hypothetical matches? What do we get out of them?

Entertainment? Okay, game on. Security? It's false security. Two idealized fighters from two idealized styles meeting on an idealized battlefield will tell you nothing about your life, right?

So why dream up these scenarios?


Stuart B.

Stumblefist
09-30-2001, 07:47 PM
Ap O. Ok I don't want a big thing of this but, but:
------------
"Do you consider yourself a fair representation of the capabilities and limitations of muay thai?"

No, how much i've done is not important, what's important is that i understand that my KF basics provide everything for MT practice and more. That is what most good kungfu styles do: provide the basics for almost all sports and fighting arts.

"Kung fu can absorb muay thai but not vice versa? And that guarantees your success? That's two flawed assumptions, to my mind."

It obviously can't GUARANTEE sucess. The first statement is not an assumtion but from experience.

"One: why couldn't a practitioner of muay thai learn concepts from kung fu? And integrate them into his kickboxing? Why could a kung fu fighter do so?"
Because kungfu basics are WHOLE BODY basics including external and internal. MT are not. KF basics have a much broader base, you can even consider MT to be part of KF like one of the other posts suggests (crane). But you cannot consider KF to be a part of MT.

"I suspect you're working off of the notion that muay thai, as a ring sport, doesn't use kung fu techniques."

They don't use them , and i trained with them enough to see their basics. and i will say i've had a lot of experience to be able to understand and evaluate martial art basics.

"Independent of whether that's true or not, what's to stop a proponent of muay thai from using techniques outside of muay thai as well? Not in the ring, but in real life."

He will have to start learning KF basics and training methods. KF conversely already has his.

Most MT fighters in Thailand are simply MT fighters.

"In the ring, muay thai has proven itself repeatedly, yes?"

Look at the Baji vs Muay Thai thread in Internal arts at at the picture posted there. And i don't know about "in the ring" who's ring?, who's rules?
and what participants? I don't know if you can get the two different arts (a real representation) to fight.

"Two: If kung fu absorbs muay thai, then it can defeat it. I don't buy that. Not wholesale. Even taking into account the sanda/muay thai matches, sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other."

Sanda represents kungfu? Haha or should i say
:mad: :mad:

(Sanda vs Muay thai) with the rules of both of those groups represents kungfu fighting? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
..............
All the same i grant you, these guys are fierce fighters.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

ShaolinTiger00
09-30-2001, 08:01 PM
Why fear the Thai?

Actually a simple reason.

Muay Thai men are warriors of attrition. Hit a thai guy. hit him again. hit him again. He'll still be there. Watch a thai fight. they will stand toe to toe and exchange blows. Very few traditional martial artists train with this extreme conditioning, endurance and full contact experience that a seasoned veteran of muay thai has in his favor. take away the rules of a ring and you have a man very capable of absorbing punishment and continuing to fight and dish out his own until he is the one left standing.

What do I know... I'm just a kickboxer, what could I know about effective fighting? :rolleyes:

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 08:30 PM
Stumblefist,

Honestly, I don't know whether sanda represents gung fu. I guess not. I'm not that familiar with sanda. No need to roll your eyes though. I just wanted to acknowledge that matches had taken place between thai and chinese stylists. And that the chinese stylists had met with a certain level of success.

How do you know that gung fu basics provide you with everything for muay thai practice and more if you admit that you only have a limited knowledge of muay thai? Outside of the theoretical statement that "that is what most good kungfu styles do."

Actually, I'm getting argumentative for the sake of it. And I don't want that. So I'm sorry.

"It obviously can't GUARANTEE success. The first statement is not an assumtion but from experience."

Okay, that's exactly my point. My only point. That nothing guarantees success. This thread has featured statements like "obviously, this" and "clearly, that." And in reality, it's not obvious or clear. Two abstract fighters don't reveal anything about reality, no matter how much we'd like them to.

Gung fu features WHOLE BODY basics? Okay. Muay thai doesn't. Personally, I don't really adhere to that definition of internal and external. But that may be due to lack of experience. So let's assume that there is a profound difference between internal and external. And that muay thai doesn't possess internal. Many styles don't. So, logically, gung fu could defeat any and all of those styles because, on paper, there's more to it.

Do you believe that? Personally, I do not. I mean, listen to it. Gung fu could beat muay thai. Who is 'gung fu'? Who is 'muay thai'? They're not people. They're abstractions. And they don't exist outside of the people who train them. So who are we really talking about?


Stuart B.

Mr. Nemo
09-30-2001, 08:31 PM
Well, totally discounting muay thai is obviously dumb, there are some kicka$$ thai fighters. That said, I've watched thai fights, know a little about the art, and had the option to go to a thai gym and chose bagua instead.

It depends on the fighter, but I feel like bagua has more tools to work with. I've never done it, but I would assume trying to stand and trade with a thai boxer is pretty dumb. I say, throw'em to the ground and then kick'em and stomp on'em while they're down there.

But of course I think bagua is the best, because it's my art. Everyone thinks their own art is the best, mostly cause it's the one they know most about.

I think the best weapon thai boxing has is its very intuitive, straightforward approach towards training. From the beginning, they're using their art in live situations, under pressure and having to worry about getting hit back. If bagua trains the same way, I give the edge to the bagua guy.

Dragon Warrior
09-30-2001, 08:32 PM
my sigung beat a kickboxer in the ring at the age of 40, while the kickboxer was in his prime(22-24). He knocked him out in the second round. Also, in the first round he knocked him down with a solid punch. I have the fight on tape but i dont know how to put it on the computer. This was about 3.5 years ago.

A couple months later he fought a muy thai fighter in an exhibition match. The muy thai fighter started swinging as hard as he could, so my sigung knocked him out. He got up but decided to quit because he hurt his shoulder. That was a wise decision because my sigung was about to beat the **** out of him. I also have this fight on tape.

He has a professional fighting record of 15-0 with 10 ko's. He's retired now.

I wish i knew how to put the fights on the computer so you guys could see them. Anyway, there goes the theory of kickboxing walking right over kung fu.

For years, religion did nothing but divide. (killa priest)

Religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom. (killa priest)

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 08:38 PM
Dragon Warrior,

I hope you don't think I was putting forth the theory that kickboxing will walk over kung fu. I went to great lengths to emphasize that that was not my opinion.


Mr. Nemo,

Well said.

Braden
09-30-2001, 08:40 PM
I'm a hardcore bagua guy, but I have the utmost respect for muay thai. It is a fabulous art.

If given the choice between one of the external chinese arts (with the possible exceptions of bajiquan and six harmony mantis) and muay thai, I would be training in muay thai.

A good, traditionally trained Muay Thai fighter is extremely technical and does not throw his center around the way you see so many of them here do. Their sensitivity in the clinch is also remarkable.

Dragon Warrior
09-30-2001, 08:44 PM
nah, i wasnt thinking that at all. I was just saying that that theory is totally false

For years, religion did nothing but divide. (killa priest)

Religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom. (killa priest)

apoweyn
09-30-2001, 08:46 PM
Dragon Warrior,

Cool. I agree with you completely.

Regards,

Stuart B.

SevenStar
09-30-2001, 09:00 PM
Please, PLEASE ask him about that.

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

Kung Lek
09-30-2001, 09:42 PM
Once again, it's about the stylist and not the style.

I've sparred a muay thai guy and his centre was way to high to withstand the strike of southern kung fu.

However, that is not to discount Muay Thai, it's a good ring fighting style.

It really does depend on the practitioners and their levels of understanding and ability to properly apply their arts in a realistic situation.

Kinda like Kramer from Seinfeld in the Kiddy Karate class. Kramer knows nothing but he's going in and beating on these kids no matter what level.

:D

peace

Kung Lek

ShaolinTiger00
09-30-2001, 09:52 PM
I've sparred a muay thai guy and his centre was way to high to withstand the strike of southern kung fu.

However, that is not to discount Muay Thai, it's a good ring fighting style.

My BullSh1t meter just went off. BEEP BEEP BEEP


:rolleyes:

muay thai is a good style Anywhere. Kung Lek has shown his ignorance of fighting in previous posts.
BTW, how are those teeth holding out? :D

Jaguar Wong
09-30-2001, 10:30 PM
After some discussions with a Muay Thai instructor here in Vegas (Master Toddy, I'm not sure of how well known he is, but he trains Marvin "the Beast" Eastman of 'King of the Cage' fame), I've learned that the actual fighting strategies are much more complex than I ever would have imagined.

First of all, the man respects all styles, and he feels that it's not the style that makes a champion, it's their heart (he'll train anyone, but the only people that he'll let compete are the ones that show that they have the desire). that's all just flavor text in IMO, so I'll just move on to my point :)

We discussed the use of "simple" techniques like punches, front kicks, and of course the roundhouse kick. First, he told me that the direction that he will take a fighter is based on how they "move" in everyday life. He'll actually watch things like how balanced they are when the walk, or how nimble they are at little things like turning the pages of a book, or picking up coins. If they show really good hand-eye coordination, he'll focus on their punching ability, and if they have strong balance he'll focus on front kicks, and clinching, etc... I didn't get deep enough to find out how he determines other attributes for things like the roundhouse, elbows, knees, etc.

But he did show me many different applications and targets for "simple" techniques like roundhouse kicks, and the front kick. Little things like watching how your opponent positions his arm while using his legs to block your kicks, that way you can switch your target and take out his weapons (repeated kicks to the elbows) when he's expecting the leg or head kicks.

One of his Female fighters (who took home a gold in her weight division of an amateur Muay Thai tournament in Thailand last spring) is known for her front kick (she KO's most of her opponents with front kicks to the face).

I always had respect for the style, but for some reason, I have that much more. :)

On a side note. He brought in some tapes of a bare-knuckle Muay Thai event they hold once a year in Thailand that also had some other "regular" bouts on there. Anyway, there was a small/medium Thai fighter (he was the current light or middle weight champion, I'm not sure which) fighting against a larger opponent from Denmark. Around the middle of the fight, the Thai blocked a kick and his shoulder popped out of joint. Rather than stopping, he was using his front kicks to keep the guy back while he attempted to pop his shoulder back in!

This lasted to the end of the round when the guy's corner man popped it back in for him. Then around the middle of the next round, the same thing happened, but when he was cornered, he got frustrated, and just started unloading roundhouse kicks on the Danish fighter, who just blocked as many as he could before verbally quitting. The repeated roundhouse kicks actually ended up breaking the other guy's forearm, so he had to quit.

.....that was humbling for me to watch :)

Jaguar Wong

Shaolindynasty
09-30-2001, 10:40 PM
Muay Thai is good and some Kungfu styles are good so who cares? I am sure every one has there reasons for choseing what they did. Muay Thai is to much of a power thing for me it just doesn't suit me well, but I have a friend who would do better in Muay Thai than my style of Kungfu cause he is alot stronger than me. The conditioning is a major factor of Muay Thai so they usually beat the part time weekend warriors of Kungfu(even some of the Hong Kong fighters were only weekend warriors. I think it is reasonable to say that a pro of ANY style can beat a part time guy. After all it's what they do.

Sorry re read my post and I kind of jumped around abit but it sums up my view.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

jimmy23
09-30-2001, 10:41 PM
" you can even consider MT to be part of KF like one of the other posts suggests (crane)"

THis is bool sheet, as Wallid would say.

Jaguar, master Toddy is a brilliant MT coach, Id love to have the chance to train under him.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

taba
10-01-2001, 01:06 AM
given that believe a conditioned man with 100 perfected kf techniques could defeat a conditioned man with 10 perfected mt techniques...

and conditioned man with 10 perfected mt techniques could defeat a (unconditioned) man with 1000 (imperfect) kf techniques...

should not best spend initial training on limited mt techniques to perfection and conditioning rather than many kf techniques?

likewise, there not point of diminishing returns to those limited techniques and conditioning at which point should begin to add kf techniques?

or, hard/external style first, then soft/internal?

does not answer mt v kf debate? mt dominates in initially, kf after time?

Silumkid
10-01-2001, 01:21 AM
SevenStar,

When I get the chance to get to him, rest assured I will inquire about this. He has mentioned it in the past and I am curious about it.

I think the problem here is a basic one. Generalization. Sure, Mauy Thai pros train hard, **** hard...but not every Muay Thai fighter trains this way, just as not every kungfu fighter trains internally, combatively, etc. In some cases, no matter how hard one trains, one still can't take a punch...the "glass jaw" syndrome.

If one can make their style work effectively and have the will to do so, you will likely win out no matter what styles are "represented".

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

Silumkid
10-01-2001, 01:25 AM
By the way, I don't know if it was directed at me or not, but my teacher does not discount ANY style. But it made me think of something...if a person tells you he is a "(blank) fighter" and you really fear him because of that, aren't you already defeated?

Just a thought...

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

toddbringewatt
10-01-2001, 02:39 AM
"I still hold that it's a flawed premise."

That Muay Thai relies upon "largely brute force"? Impossible. It simply does. Fact. AND you already agreed with it. Are you taking that back now?

"You say that, clearly, because gung fu is more intricate it is superior, yeah?"

No. Never said it. Read my post again. I DID say that Muay Thai is MORE BASIC than Kung Fu. Kung Fu is far more SOPHISTICATED. The more sophisticated (in the direction of efficiency and effectiveness of technique) any art finds itself the better able it is to win, period. This is true of any discipline, physical, academic, industrial, military, etc.

"That muay thai cannot compete with the internal strength of good gung fu."

Yes.

"Can that premise be proven?"

Yes. Look at history. Superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict. AND in most large scale conflicts for that matter. Look at Vietnam's military history. Examples throughout history and across the globe are innumerable.

Another way to prove it would be to take the best Muay Thai fighter one could find and have him fight to the death, no rules against a high-level master of: pick any Internal art.

I know who I'm betting on.

"You find it self evident. Why?"

I DON'T find it self-evident. I find it HISTORICALLY and EMPIRICALLY evident.

"To my mind, no argument that's counted on to prove itself can be considered a strong one."

Well said. I agree. In philosophy we call this an informal fallacy. Its particular name is "begging the question". For instance, "Fonzie is cool because he is cool."

"You didn't say that muay thai was hopeless. In fact, you were quite flattering of it."

Yep.

"But you still believe that muay thai, the art, couldn't hold its own against gung fu, the art."

Yep.

"But arts don't fight. People do."

No kidding. I was assuming we were all aware of this and so when speaking of one art vs. the other I also assumed naturally we are speaking in terms of equally ability on the part of the exponents.

"So what's the premise?"

Muay Thai relies upon "largely brute force." That's it. That's the premise.

The second premise is that brute force loses against superior technique.

The third premise is that Kung Fu has superior technique in the way of its Internal aspects (at least).

The conclusion then would be that Muay Thai as a whole is an inferior fighting art relative to Kung Fu as a whole.

"That any muay thai fighter couldn't beat any gung fu fighter?"

Don't be silly. No. This is not the premise. And it is a ridiculous and false statement and everybody knows it.

"That a good muay thai fighter couldn't beat a good gung fu player?"

No. This is not the premise either. And as a workable statement it is far too vague to be of any use.

"That a muay thai fighter of 20 years couldn't beat a xingyi fighter of 20 years?"

No. Not the premise either. But as a statement it's probably true if both men are of comperable ability, intelligence, etc. and had trained and fought for equal lengths of time.

"Where does the theory end?"

It ends in direct observation of phenomena within the physical universe.

"And what proves it?"

Phenomena within the physical universe consistently indicating that technique is senior to brute force.

"I'm not claiming I know the answer."

That's fine. I understand that.

"I'm not claiming that muay thai would win."

It wouldn't.

"I'm not claiming anything except that it's not as simple as A > B."

But it IS as simple as A > B. It's as simple as sound deductive logic. Plug in my above three premises and conclusion to the following:

B is: relies upon "largely brute force." A is: "superior technique."

The first premise states that Muay Thai has the quality of B.

The second premise states that B is inferior to A.

The third premise states that Kung Fu has the quality of A.

Logic dictates then that therefore:

Kung Fu being representative of A is superior to Muay Thai being representative of B. In other words: A > B.

Now within the premises above there is inductive reasoning. That is to say that because nature can be observed to demonstrate that superior technique usually wins out over brute force then it is probably also true that this will translate to the arena of the specific: Kung Fu vs. Muay Thai.

Now maybe you think that Muay Thai has superior technique to Kung Fu. That it is more refined than Kung Fu in this manner. If that is your position then we have an argument. And I still think you're wrong. But at least we have an argument.

But you can't agree that Muay Thai is largely a brute force activity; agree that technique is senior to brute force; agree that Kung Fu has superior technique AND conclude that neither art is senior to the other in terms of effective fighting. That's just not logically sound. Plainly it's an absurd conclusion.

Perhaps you don't agree that superior technique is senior to brute force. If so then again we would have an arguement. And again I would disagree but at least we would have an argument.

So what say you?

"One more thing. Yeah, I do believe in the ability of wrestling, boxing, kickboxing, and shootfighting to beat internal strength."

I'm not talking about Internal strength. I'm talking about Internal technique, that is, pitting skill, leverage, superior concepts of physics, etc. against brute force. I'm not talking about chi, etc.

"Just as I believe in the opposite."

You think brute force wins out over superior technique?

"I believe that when theory and reality meet, they seldom look alike."

I believe that when sound theory well studied meets reality they should look identical. Otherwise the theory was ill-crafted by its originator or misunderstood by its exponent. Workable theory equals results. No results equals crap theory or incompetent practitioner.

I believe Internal Kung Fu IS workable theory that equals results in the hands of a skilled practictioner.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

straight blast
10-01-2001, 02:56 AM
As an ex Muay Thai exponent (2 1/2 years hard core) I would have to say that it is an awesome art for learning quickly and becoming proficient quickly. I even had the Muay Thai ego thing happening 'cos I could easily defeat my friends (Hapkido, Aikido, Kempo & TKD) in sparring.
UNTIL
One day I was chatting with one of my two MT instructors about the other arts when one of them said "Have you heard of Wing Chun?" and offered to spar me. As a kickboxer I've taken a fair few good leg kicks in my time, but when my Kru walloped me out of a roundkick with a stop-hit jam kick to my thigh I could barely walk for three days. Turns out he's done a lot of Wing Chun over the past decade.
I am now learning Wing Chun. And not just from that isolated incident either. I was not the world's greatest MT stylist, but I knew how to fight. I'm happy that I've found a way that suits me personally better. ;)

"Through strength, learn gentleness. Through gentleness, strength will prevail"

Mr. Nemo
10-01-2001, 03:06 AM
Bruce Leroy = patronizing

Watchman
10-01-2001, 03:08 AM
I just read through this thread and noticed you mentioning some video clips you'd like to digitize.

If you are interested I wouldn't mind volunteering my time and equipment to do this for you. All you would need to do is mail me a video tape of the footage you'd like digitized and I can convert it and either email it out, or put it on a zip disk and mail it out to you, whichever you would prefer.

Email me if it's something you'd like to do and I'll give you my mailing address.

Jaguar Wong,

I didn't know Master Toddy was in Vegas! :eek:

I'd like to check out some of that bareknuckle footage.

toddbringewatt
10-01-2001, 03:20 AM
Mr. Nemo,

I'm sorry. I don't intend to patronize anyone. I'm sorry I came off that way in my post.

What you may be picking up on is my frustration with having to defend against good arguments that attack things I never really said in the first place and having to keep putting attention back on what I really did say and rephrase it in such a way that it will actually land as intended this time.

I'll try to take more responsibility for that.

I also get frustrated with being accused of doing and thinking things I would never do or think.

And maybe the A > B thing was a bit snotty but I'm sick of dealing with the popular modern attitude that everything is really all so relative that nothing can ever really be understood or categorized or known in any real way -- that nothing can be better than anything else and that there is no right or wrong and everyone's opinion is really equal to everyone elses opinion in terms of its value and worth and judgement really isn't impossible, blah, blah, blah.

Some things ARE simple. Some thing CAN be understood for what they are.

But you know what? I'll try to take more responsiblity for that too.

Anyway, take it easy. Have a good one and may the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

rogue
10-01-2001, 04:47 AM
"Superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict. AND in most large scale conflicts for that matter."

Didn't in the Civil War, umm I mean the War between the states. ;)

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushing the hijackers.

Never forget

Grappling-Insanity
10-01-2001, 06:06 AM
Bruce man you got some funny logic. I dont think you really understand fighting that much. Just because they have better technique does NOT mean they will do better. I think some one with good technique PLUS good conditioning is better dont you???. And I hate to break it to you but Muay Thai DOES have good technique. I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches...

toddbringewatt
10-01-2001, 10:03 AM
Grappling Insanity,

"Bruce man you got some funny logic. I dont think you really understand fighting that much. Just because they have better technique does NOT mean they will do better."

I'll ignore the insult and simply take up your point. I think you misunderstood something and I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. No, it doesn't "mean they'll do better" as you put it. My point was much more qualified than that. What I'm saying is all other things being equal, superior technique is senior to brute force. In fact the more force the more force there is to take advantage of in terms of redirection (one simple example of Internal principle, i.e. the princliple of redirection).

"I think some one with good technique PLUS good conditioning is better dont you???."

Yes. I do think so. That is why I gave my premises in an "all things being equal" context. Conditioning is one of the factors which would need to be equal for the logic to hold up.

"And I hate to break it to you but Muay Thai DOES have good technique."

I don't recall saying it didn't. In fact I have very high priase for Muay Thai as a fighting art. If you read my posts again you'll find I attempted to make that clear in several places.

"I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches..."

I assume you are drawing some kind of conclusion based on this. Do you think that's fair given you are only talking about one experience with one exponent of only one art (of which there are literally hundreds in Kung Fu)?

Moreover, the points I have been making on this issue have been with regard to the Internal arts such as Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I, etc. Though Wing Chun does operate on quite a bit of Internal philosophy, e.g. "don't fight force with force," etc.

Anyway, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. But this should clear it up. Let me know if you have any further comments or questions. I'd be happy to discuss them.

Rogue,

You're opening an awful big can of worms with the Civil War comment. Are you sure you want to get into the nitty gritty of it?

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

taba
10-01-2001, 10:08 AM
bruce,

you not recognize fighting ability as function of technique X attributes?

does not suggest an opportunity cost for every kf technique learned beyond basics? at least initially?

toddbringewatt
10-01-2001, 10:23 AM
taba,

Yes, fighting ability would be included in the equation of "all other things being equal."

Think about two clones with identical spirits if you will who have trained in both Muay Thai and the Internal arts their whole lives by the same teacher who held nothing back from either of them. Let's say they had fully mastered each style as much as is humanly possible.

Now they face each other. One can only use his Muay Thai techniques. The other is free to use any and every Internal technique at his disposal. They must fight to the death, no rules and they both try there utmost to win under the above limitations.

Who is going to win?

I'm putting forth that it will be the Internal fellow based on his superior techniques. That's basically what I am saying here with all this. Make sense?

Perhaps a better senario would be the same as the above with the exception that one clone trained only in Muay Thai and the other clone trained only in Internal Arts.

But you get what I'm driving at here.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

scotty1
10-01-2001, 11:17 AM
Alright, that's enough now.
Good debate everyone, now lets talk about something else.

Wongsifu
10-01-2001, 01:55 PM
**** im off for 2 days and i miss whole threads already , well heres my 2 cents...

The way i see it muay thai is a brilliant martial art however it is becoming very *******ized very quickly , just like what happened to kung fu,
the essence of muay thai is to have shins like iron, nowadays most people dotn train this so the martial art loses out, just lke kung fu, people practise tai ji without energy , practise things like hung gar without iron forearms,practise many northern shaolin styles without their respective training methods like iron broom(iron shin) or arts of leaping and jump9ing.

I have heard from more than 1 teacher of previous generation china , i,e not the modern wushu era say 50 years ago, that
muay thai is one of the most formidable arts you could ever fight against , and furthermore many many people who went on to become great kung fu fighters began learning muay thai or "siamese boxing"

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

apoweyn
10-01-2001, 04:49 PM
Bruce Leroy,

I don't know whether we have an argument or not. I don't particularly like arguments. But I did disagree with the initial post, so I suppose this was inevitable.

I agreed (or meant to agree) that muay thai features a large amount of brute force. I did not mean to imply that muay thai relies on brute force. I believe that it relies on far, far more than that. Solid conditioning, training in infinite variations on well trained basics, strategies and tactics constantly tested versus a resisting opponent, and so on. I believe that your characterization is not an accurate depiction of muay thai. That's all. I believe that it's far more technically intricate than you give credit. And I believe that a person should spend a significant amount of time in a style (read: years) before presuming to understand the full scope of that style's potential.

That muay thai <u>relies</u> on anything isn't fact. It's opinion. Your opinion. Based on your experience of muay thai. Mine is different. That's all I can offer.

Some muay thai fighters will rely on brute strength, others on speed, others on good solid combinations, others on evasive skills, and so on. That's what I mean by people fighting, not skills. There are no archetypal practitioners. I'm sorry if my relativism offends you, but I believe in it.

Whether muay thai is more basic than gung fu is a judgment call based on how you define sophistication. Personally, I regard a synthesis of conditioning, experience versus a resisting opponent, and the ability to consistently apply techniques in slightly different ways (from different angles, to different targets, from different footwork positions, etc.) as sophistication.

I'm sorry if I've misquoted you. It was not my intention to accuse you of saying or implying something you did not. It was a misunderstanding on my part, and for that, I apologize.

"The more sophisticated (in the direction of efficiency and effectiveness of technique) any art finds itself the better able it is to win, period. This is true of any discipline, physical, academic, industrial, military, etc."

Agreed. And muay thai techniques can readily be applied in a way that is efficient and effective. As you said, that makes it able to win, period. But you never contested muay thai's effectiveness, so we have no argument here, I don't think.

You asked me to look at history for evidence that "superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict." I don't know whether this is true. But assuming that it is, the validity of this argument still rests on your assertion that muay thai is reliant on brute force and that gung fu's technique is therefore superior. I know that this is your position, but yes I disagree.

If you are using this logic to support a very specific argument (that gung fu will beat muay thai), then the history you're citing will need to be equally specific, because I cannot agree with the conditions you set. I do not agree that muay thai is based predominantly on strength. Therefore the argument that technique beats strength is irrelevant, to my mind. So any historical examples would need to show gung fu fighters defeating muay thai fighters. And what's more, since my premise was never that gung fu cannot beat muay thai, but only that it's impossible to say until after the fact, you would need to show me that, historically, no muay thai exponent had ever beaten a gung fu fighter.

I know that there are competitions showing one thing and another. And I know that no competition can show the true value of either style (perhaps gung fu in particular). So let's discount competition examples and look for historical examples of actual mortal combat. No rules. Just two individuals fighting.

Personally, I don't have any. And I'm assuming that you don't either, otherwise we wouldn't be fussing about with these theoretical match ups.

"Another way to prove it would be to take the best Muay Thai fighter one could find and have him fight to the death, no rules against a high-level master of: pick any Internal art."

Yes. That would be a strong argument. But it isn't going to happen. I know who you're going to bet on too. But that's an opinion based on a conviction. I do not, however, know who I would bet on. I'm not representing muay thai. Just the uncertainty of the outcome.

"I DON'T find it self-evident. I find it HISTORICALLY and EMPIRICALLY evident."

Based on what? As I mentioned above, without specific examples of gung fu constantly defeating muay thai, I don't see how this is historically or empirically evident. I'm not trying to be a *******. I just don't see it.

So, again, our first premise is that muay thai relies on brute force. I don't agree. I agree that it's capable of brute force, as gung fu is. I'd even agree that it is characterized by the brute strength of its techniques. But not that it relies upon them. The second premise is that brute force loses against superior technique. Sometimes, yes. Always? No.

Ten of the greatest guerilla fighters ever versus 100,000 basic trainees with standard issue equipment. Who would win? Frankly, I don't know. Anything's possible, I suppose. But the example does give me reason to doubt that superior technique can, without exception, defeat brute strength.

But that's an empty argument on my part, come to think of it, because my whole point is that muay thai is not just brute strength anyway.

"The third premise is that Kung Fu has superior technique in the way of its Internal aspects (at least)."

Okay. But now we have qualifiers. "In the way of its internal aspects, at least." That begs the question, do internal aspects win fights? Are said internal aspects completely absent in muay thai? (If we're talking about full body coordination, I'd say not.) And are there historical and empirical examples to back that statement?

"The conclusion then would be that Muay Thai as a whole is an inferior fighting art relative to Kung Fu as a whole."

It would be if I accepted the premises, yes.

So the assertion is that the epitome of gung fu could defeat the epitome of muay thai? If muay thai is, on the whole, an inferior style, and two individuals could epitomize said styles, then presumably the muay thai exponent would be, on the whole, inferior to the gung fu exponent. Yes?

Problems: No two people exist. Not to my knowledge anyway. And if they did, would they fight? And if they fought, would one match decide the issue? If not, how many? Best out of three? Five? Or would one be dead the first time?

I don't know who would win. You feel that you do know. That is the crux of our disagreement.

So the theory ends in the "direct observation of phenomena within the physical universe." That is exactly my point. But since such events have not taken place, or if they have we have not observed them, then the theory persists. Your premises are based on theories. The fact that we're arguing them proves that. If they were observable fact, we couldn't be having a debate. You'd say, "Sifu Chou has beaten the crap out of Ajarn Chai every time they've fought." And I'd say, "Yeah, you're right. Guess that seals it."

"Phenomena within the physical universe consistently indicate that technique is senior to brute force."

Again, that rests on the assumption that one style represents one attribute and the other style the other attribute. That is not the case, to my mind. But for the sake of argument, phenomena actually indicate that sometimes brute force wins and sometimes technique wins. Sometimes you're the tornado and sometimes you're the well-designed coastal town.

[long quote]

"But it IS as simple as A > B. It's as simple as sound deductive logic. Plug in my above three premises and conclusion to the following:

B is: relies upon "largely brute force." A is: "superior technique."

The first premise states that Muay Thai has the quality of B.

The second premise states that B is inferior to A.

The third premise states that Kung Fu has the quality of A.

Logic dictates then that therefore:

Kung Fu being representative of A is superior to Muay Thai being representative of B. In other words: A > B.

But if I disagree with the premises, then plugging my premises into your equation results in a different outcome. And the fact that I'm even capable of having different premises insinuates that it's not as self evident as it seems to you. (Either that or I'm a dolt, which you have every right to believe.)

"Now within the premises above there is inductive reasoning. That is to say that because nature can be observed to demonstrate that superior technique usually wins out over brute force then it is probably also true that this will translate to the arena of the specific: Kung Fu vs. Muay Thai."

Within those premises, yes. But the premises are false, in my opinion.

"Now maybe you think that Muay Thai has superior technique to Kung Fu. That it is more refined than Kung Fu in this manner. If that is your position then we have an argument. And I still think you're wrong. But at least we have an argument."

Yep. That's about where we stand.

"But you can't agree that Muay Thai is largely a brute force activity; agree that technique is senior to brute force; agree that Kung Fu has superior technique AND conclude that neither art is senior to the other in terms of effective fighting. That's just not logically sound. Plainly it's an absurd conclusion."

True. But that's not what I did.

"Perhaps you don't agree that superior technique is senior to brute force. If so then again we would have an arguement. And again I would disagree but at least we would have an argument."

Right again. Technique can be superior to brute strength. But personally, I'd like to get the opinion of some gladiators and lions on the inevitability of that one. Perhaps some bullfighters and bulls, just for good measure. Unless, of course, we chalk up the occassional goring of a bullfighter up to superior technique on the part of the bull.

"I'm not talking about Internal strength. I'm talking about Internal technique, that is, pitting skill, leverage, superior concepts of physics, etc. against brute force. I'm not talking about chi, etc."

Then I'm afraid you might have a woefully inaccurate picture of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, etc. Rest assured that they are every bit as faithful to the concepts of skill, leverage, physics, etc. as gung fu if done properly.

"I believe that when sound theory well studied meets reality they should look identical. Otherwise the theory was ill-crafted by its originator or misunderstood by its exponent. Workable theory equals results."

I agree. And how do scientists determine whether a theory is workable? They test it. So how do we test your theory? Pit the two ultimate representatives of their respective styles against one another (assuming they exist in the first place) and wait til one of them is dead. Not going to happen.

"I believe Internal Kung Fu IS workable theory that equals results in the hands of a skilled practictioner."

I agree. Always have. But I still don't accept it as a foregone conclusion. Gung fu is workable. I believe that wholeheartedly.

[long quote]

Think about two clones with identical spirits if you will who have trained in both Muay Thai and the Internal arts their whole lives by the same teacher who held nothing back from either of them. Let's say they had fully mastered each style as much as is humanly possible.

Now they face each other. One can only use his Muay Thai techniques. The other is free to use any and every Internal technique at his disposal. They must fight to the death, no rules and they both try there utmost to win under the above limitations.

Who is going to win?

They don't exist. They never will. So I'm unclear on what this line of reasoning does for us in the real world. Observation and empirical evidence presumably has to be based on conditions in reality. Otherwise, the results do not translate. Since this scenario cannot be tested in reality, what use is it?

Please don't take this personally. I will try to do likewise.

Regards,


Stuart B.

jimmy23
10-01-2001, 05:01 PM
From Bruce Leroys posts he doesnt seem to understand muay thai at all, at all.

"The way i see it muay thai is a brilliant martial art however it is becoming very *******ized very quickly"

WongSifu makes an excellent point


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Shaolindynasty
10-01-2001, 05:13 PM
Actually the "hard" techs of Muay Thai would be classified in Kungfu as Iron body training, that IS an internal technique. On a seperate note, cma's are starting to give "internal" styles the unquestioned fear that they once gave Muay Thai. To tell the truth while I respect Tai Chi, Ba gua and hsing yi I don't fear them I have only heard about fights involving practitioners of these arts not seen them first hand. Are the internal arts good martial ats? Yes. Are they superior to Muay Thai and Shaolin? No. As far as effectivness Muay Thai does have alot more capable fighters than Tai Chi(I think the other 2 internal styles are still geared towards fighting aren't they?). As far as basterdized arts, we were taught by the people of the arts origin is it's basterdized it's their fault(I don't think they are though)

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

rogue
10-01-2001, 06:23 PM
Anybody remember the name of the great internal master that put the slap down on Tank Abbott? ;)

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushi

Merryprankster
10-01-2001, 08:24 PM
Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.

Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements.

These are ring sports. Competitors have to be in excellent shape BECAUSE of that. Olympic caliber wrestlers, Good/Great pro boxers and Good/Great MT fighters are stronger and faster than the vast majority of the people out there because they train to win against other people that are also going to come in prepared to win, and who have a similar level of technical ability. Consequently these athletes work to be a little stronger, a little faster, a little tougher than the opponent, because, if all other things are equal, that might provide the edge they need for victory.

What that therefore LOOKS like to somebody who doesn't train in these arts is that they look like brute force. They aren't. I assure you that a 135 lb olympic caliber wrestler would make mincemeat out of me under wrestling rules, and I weigh 190 and wrestled for 5 years. How is that brute force?

My buddy is 170 and a bit weaker than me, and not as fast, but I'd say he catches me at least 66% of the time with a takedown. He's just slicker than I am. His finishes are better. He reads my balance through the most minute of my body movements and knows exactly where to go. Brute force?

Rhadi Ferguson throws me like a rag doll (US National Judo Champ), but it's not because of his explosive power. That alone I could handle. His timing is impeccable, his gripfighting superb, his sensitivity exquisite. He has all that muscle and conditioning because the PEOPLE HE COMPETES AGAINST ARE JUST AS SKILLED. So, to the untrained eye, it looks like two big guys grunting around, trying to push and pull.

IF Wing Chun ever became a ring sport, you'd see the same evolution towards incredible physical condition at decent levels of competition. Why? Because the people competing have great technique, and being in shape might be the difference between victory and defeat.

And you know what? To anybody who didn't do wing chun, it'd just look like "the stronger, faster guy wins."

apoweyn
10-01-2001, 08:56 PM
Well said.


Stuart B.

Shaolindynasty
10-01-2001, 09:21 PM
That's what I have been trying to tell you :D

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Braden
10-01-2001, 09:26 PM
Iron body is NOT an internal practice if you get it through external conditioning.

Shaolindynasty
10-01-2001, 09:41 PM
I have taken chinese medicine classes and one thing I learned in that the Chinese have a different veiw of the body than we do. A common veiw of qigong in the west is slow moving "soft" movements but did you know that they also consider weight lifting, bag training, pushups, situps etc. are all qigong. The principle that links them is that where the blood goes the qi goes. Therefore any exercise that brings blood to a paticular area is qigong(working with the qi). Internal and external are halves of one whole you can't have one without the other. Any movement you do whether cirle walking or kicking a bag is BOTH internal and external. That is the point I was trying to make

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Braden
10-01-2001, 09:49 PM
I didn't say it wasn't qigong. I said it wasn't internal.

Actually, those kinds of body conditionings are contrary to the principles of the internal arts.

The same goes for so-called "hard qigongs."

Shaolindynasty
10-01-2001, 09:59 PM
They contridicte the Taoist styles NOT Buddhist ones which are just as internal.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Braden
10-01-2001, 10:01 PM
Sorry, I was going by the actual convention for the definition for the word internal.

I guess if you define internal as any practice where your blood moves, you're quite right, pretty much everything IS internal. I guess I just don't see the value of that kind of definition.

Jaguar Wong
10-01-2001, 10:31 PM
Watchman,
Yes Master Toddy teaches here in Vegas (I think he just opened his second location here). I don't have the bareknuckle footage :( I was designing his new website where I used to work, but I would rather not discuss further events about that former employer. I haven't seen Toddy since March of last year, but I'm sure he still remembers me and my bro (we're twins).

He's a very nice guy, and so are his fighters (nice gals in the case of his female fighters).

As far as Bruce Leroy's comment:
Superior technique is senior to brute strength.

I can't agree more, but I think you have a different idea of what Muay Thai's techniques are like. Their technique is superior to most martial artists, because they practice perfecting and using them against other resisting opponents, as well as how to issue power properly. The average Thai fighter is much smaller than the average American Kung Fu guy (I'm also larger than I should be ;)), but they can cause just as much damage if not more than a larger opponent, because they refine their techniques. Thus in most cases, their technique is superior, because of their training methods.

Something tells me that people think that the more that's involved in a technique (like how many locks you have to flow through to open them up for a strike), the more superior it must be. I have seen some Hsing I guys with superior technique, but they look much more basic than the stuff I'm doing (Northern Shaolin). Superior technique in my eyes is the precise execution of a technique, and that is what Boxers, Muay Thai fighters, and many other "sport fighters" are trying to achive.

I also hear stories of great masters that learned very basic techniques, but then they started mastering the more advanced stuff that they were using to win thier fights, but then they would reach a level where all they needed was a handful of solid techniques to "defeat any challenger". That to me says that the superior execution of simple techniques is senior to sloppy execution of any complicated technique.

Another thing, what looks like brute strength to some, looks like using strength to enhance superior technique to others. I hardly see the high level Thai fighters as thugs with thick necks, just running over their opponents. It's through their training that they can rely on one or two solid techniques and stand up with the big boys.

Jaguar Wong

toddbringewatt
10-01-2001, 11:28 PM
ap Oweyn,

Well, let's see.

Let's cut through all the crap here for a moment and look at what we're left with.

I get from your posts that it is your position that it is impossible to apply inductive reasoning to the knowlege of the entire past 7 million years of human existence and experience on this Earth and draw a simple conclusion as to whether Muay Thai (an approach to fighting which can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) is inferior, superior or equal to Kung Fu (another approach to fighting which also can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) as an approach to fighting. Is this about it? There's just no way to know?

I need to know if this is your position before I carry this any further.

Merryprankster,

"Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.
Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements."

Fully agreed. ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement.

If you disagree with this? Fine. I don't care to argue it with you. My conclusions take off from there.

As for the rest of your post, I would respond with, "obviously." Nothing new to me here. But it really has nothing to do with what I've actually put forth. I'm talking about an "all other things being equal" senario. As far as what are the unequal factors? One person has mastered Muay Thai, the other Kung Fu. That is all. Of course Muay Thai HAS technique. I never proposed it relies ENTIRELY on brute force.

But once again, here is the crux of the matter:

"Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.
Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements."

Fully agreed. ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement.

If you disagree with this? Fine. I don't care to argue it with you. My conclusions take off from there.

Braden,

I agree with you.

Jaguar Wong,

I agree with EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAID! AND WELL SAID BY THE WAY!

I only take exception to: "I think you have a different idea of what Muay Thai's techniques are like." No. I don't think I do. Again. I agreed with EVERYTHING you said.

The things that DO make Muay Thai fighters superior when they clean house against Kung Fu guys is exactly what you mentioned: to paraphrase, CONDITIONING and EXPERIENCE FIGHTING. These things are most powerful tools.

BUT they are not the only tools. UNDERSTANDING and the ABILITY to APPLY INTERNAL TECHNIQUE through DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL are also powerful tools. And it is my belief that this alone can overcome ANY amount of CONDITIONING and yes even EXPERIENCE on the part of an opponent who is not familiar with Internal technique or has LESS Internal technique than the Internal practioner, given the Internal practitioner's techniques are drilled to perfection.

Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

That is about the long and short of what I think on the subject.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Kung Lek
10-01-2001, 11:36 PM
ShaolinTiger00-

Let me reiterate, I have sparred a muay Thai practitioner and his centre was too high and he could not withstand the strikes of southern kung fu.

so if you want to be all persnickety about what you know, feel free, but you don't know me, or what I have or have not done.

so in other words, you just feel free to keep those comments to yourself.

Muay Thai is a good ring sport and the athletes in thailand condition themselves continually. an admirable trait in a fighter.

I have been a practitioner for most of my life since boyhood. How long have you trained and fought?

Nothing personal, but you guys calling BS all the time are usually the ones who have their mouths filled with it.

regards

Kung Lek

rogue
10-01-2001, 11:42 PM
"ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement."

Which may or may not matter in an actual fight.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushi

Wongsifu
10-01-2001, 11:43 PM
can i just stick my nose in for a minute ...

iron body can be external / internal / soft or hard ...
example you can massage yourself on the belly all day and you iwll get a level 1 of iron body and its not internal or chi kung its just soft external...
on the other hand you cn beat yourself whilst breathing into the body part you are beating , which would be internal and yet hard ...

its just that usually people bundle hard with external and soft with internal

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

Braden
10-01-2001, 11:46 PM
Wongsifu - I agree completely that there are internal and external methods of iron body skills.

Any method derived from beating yourself however, no matter how much it is coupled with imagery, breathing, whatever, is an external method.

The internal iron body methods do not involve the practitioner beating himself, just as the internal iron palm methods do not involve the practitioner hitting things with his palm.

LEGEND
10-01-2001, 11:48 PM
Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

Well if that's the case then how come many KF practioner ALMOST ALWAYs get decapitated in the CMA san shou tourneys( BALTIMORE ) I go to??? Your not making a lot of sense...u're pulling a mind vs. matter and lol...if that was the case ALWAYs...then u can have guys like SUGAR SHANE MOSELY ko MIKE TYSON. But unfortunately reality kicks in. Cause maybe SUGAR can win 1 our of the 10 times they fought but sayin ALWAYs...NOPE. This type of thinking should not be BOUGHT...it is the same type of thinking that the BOXER REBELLION instill in many CHINESE fighters who ended up getting SHOT UP thinking that they could deflect bullets!

A

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 12:57 AM
Rogue,

If all other factors remain equal, it will be the DECIDING thing that matters in a real fight.

P.S. I LOVE that flag. Where did you find it?

Legend,

I'm not talking about ring fighting. I'm talking about fighting for one's life. And I'm talking about a MASTER (classical definition found in any decent dictionary) of Internal Arts.

I guarantee you won't find any true masters in the ring.

Also, I never said anything about mind vs. matter.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Wongsifu
10-02-2001, 01:36 AM
doughboy are you loaded ??? or do you **** it out ??
boy that must be fun i just read your profile ... I dont have enough money to buy jow !!! sometimes
:D

Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

is soo god**** rite !!!! wwho said this i cant find it in the posts only references to it !!!
give the man a pat on the back ...
who is the man
give ihm a medal...
!!!!

braden ... what im trying to say is there is also soft and hard arts ... gang rou .. not only internal and external ...

example i do soft internal iron body its only postures with breathing

but i also do hard internal , which is hitting yourself with breathing excersises...

on the other hand when i hit the bag , its all external i just hit the bag and apply jow ..

do you get what i mean by the difference between external and internal and hard and soft ...

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

Tigerstyle
10-02-2001, 01:44 AM
I'm gonna agree with Bruce Leroy (c'mon guys, he posseses the power of The Glow! ;) ), because if all other factors are equal it would seem that having a couple more techniques to rely on would be the deciding factor.

BUT

The thread said "a Kung Fu exponent up against a Muay Thai style kickboxer". It doesn't necessarily say "The Grandest(real word?) Master of each style, equal in every way except for style of choice, against each other in an area void of random factors". The question could be "average" practitioners of each style.

One of the major strengths of Muay Thai is the heavy emphasis on physical conditioning. Taking it out of the equation is like saying that the amount of physical conditioning in kung fu schools in general is the same as that of Muay Thai schools in general.

If I say to the KFO members "Raise your hand if you practice kung fu," lots of hands would go up (and Ralek would pipe in with a "witty" remark). If I then added, "Keep your hand up if you train at the the same level as a competitive professional (or even amateur) athlete." Many hands would come down. Of course some hands would stay up (props to those hands, too), but if I were to say the same thing to the Muay Thay people here, a higher percentage of hands would still be up after statement two.

Heavy conditioning and constantly drilled "basic" techniques shouldn't just be dismissed as random factors, because they are likely to be stressed more in a Muay Thai boxer's training than that of a Kung Fu fighter.

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 01:54 AM
Wongsifu,

That was me. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Tigerstyle,

Thanks for the props. You're wise to respect the GLOW!

By the way, nice point about average vs. average. I think Muay Thai wipes the floor with Kung Fu in that regard. I think the average Kung Fu fighter couldn't hope to hold his weight against the average Muay Thai guy. But in 20 years that could change drastically, as Muay Thai becomes more popular and McDojoed the way Kung Fu has over the years.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Jaguar Wong
10-02-2001, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BUT they are not the only tools. UNDERSTANDING and the ABILITY to APPLY INTERNAL TECHNIQUE through DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL are also powerful tools. And it is my belief that this alone can overcome ANY amount of CONDITIONING and yes even EXPERIENCE on the part of an opponent who is not familiar with Internal technique or has LESS Internal technique than the Internal practioner, given the Internal practitioner's techniques are drilled to perfection.
[/quote]

I do agree with you there. But you're saying that just because someone DRILLS the use of an internal technique, they can defeat someone that DRILLS the use of an external technique, just becuase the internal technique is more sophisticated in regards to body mechanics. He's still got to land the technique for it to work :).

I know how devastating some of Kung Fu's strikes are, I used to train with a Sifu who knocked the wind out of me through a kicking shield with an elbow strike (the same kicking shields that I absorb repeated roundhouse kicks, and spinning back kicks with from larger/stronger students). I know he developed this power by drilling it over and over again, because he was totally relaxed when he did it (he said it wasn't full power either, but that's just what he said, I make no judgements about that), in fact, he was talking to me as he did it.

But, that doesn't mean someone with precise technical ability with weapons like roundhouse kicks, and the overhand right will always be defeated by it, because they don't have much exposure to it. after all, if they're controlling range they can avoid it without even realizing it. Of course, that battle could go either way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique. [/quote]

Again, great point, but after talking to Master Toddy, he trains his guys the same way. They are taught HOW to kick, and HOW to punch. He has them perform the same basic technqiues over and over again until they do it right. His big thing is accuracy, and precision with penetrating execution of all strikes. He doesn't worry about weight training, his guys usually do that on their own. He is teaching them the same way he was taught, which is the same way most camps teach it in Thailand, but I'm no expert, I am just babbling from what he told me. *grain of salt and all :)*

Jaguar Wong

Jaguar Wong
10-02-2001, 02:08 AM
and Tigerstyle,
I know what you're trying to say with the whole "all things being equal" remark, but sometimes (I stress sometimes), that would be like having an old wild west gunfight, and betting on the guy with two guns. The guy with one gun (less techniques, but equally honed reflexes), can still survive.

All I'm saying is that you can't always be sure of an outcome, because of the theories presented on paper. Life is weird that way.

Jaguar Wong

Wongsifu
10-02-2001, 02:08 AM
no bruce leeroy , i wasnt being sarcastic ....
you see hardly any real amrtial artists are left around here .. but i have noticed that when i train with a real master..
yeah like the one in the last dragon .. who glows and all...
I have noticed that he transmitts his power to you just through teaching ....
this is why a short time with a real master is amazing , he makes you fight and react like he does just because the auras of the two people interact ...

so like you said when oyu fight , its not you its like a universal power of all of the teachers and their teachers who have taught you .....

i have heard that power is more complete when the teacher passes away ... but i dont knmow

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 02:12 AM
Jaguar Wong,

You have excellent points. Well said. I tend to agree with you on all accounts but one. I just happen to be of the opinion that the techniques being taught in Muay Thai, though deadly effective, are not as refined, sublime, sophisticated, etc. or resultantly as effective as those of the Internal Arts.

Thanks for your viewpoints. Sharp guy.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 02:16 AM
Thanks, Wongsifu. Yeah, that's cool. I think you're right. And well put.

That's an interesting datum about the teacher dying. Where did you hear that?

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

chokeyouout2
10-02-2001, 02:22 AM
We will never find out because noone who does kong phooey will ever fight.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

chokeyouout2
10-02-2001, 02:27 AM
So,I am a good fighter if someone tells me so?Thats hilarious.What ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight?


Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

Braden
10-02-2001, 02:34 AM
WongSifu - I agree with you, it is just that what you call 'hard internal' I would simply call 'external', because those practices conflict with the principles of 'internal' (by the standard definition) arts. So your nomenclature could be misleading.

Vasco - For people who don't fight, the chinese sanda team sure fared pretty well against the thais.

Grappling-Insanity
10-02-2001, 02:56 AM
Bruce I didnt mean to insult you earlier but I still think what I said is true. Doing drills is NOT fighting. I can do drills all day and maybe it will highten my reflex's, maybe I'll learn a technique and get to be a little bit better as a fighter. But if I go out and spar for a hour I learn SO MUCH more!!. Sparing is the best way to learn how to fight. To see how your take a punch and just keep on going. To have the air knocked out of your lungs so hard you can barely stand, but you gotta keep jabbing your way out. THIS IS HOW YOU LEARN HOW TO FIGHT EFFECTIVLEY!!

Most internal styles dont really spar all that much, no offense guys I know some do. But it all boils down to the fact that Muay Thai guys usually train harder (usually!). I mean you want to train harder so you dont get your a$$ kicked next time you spar!.

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 03:03 AM
"Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. "

so, all the experience of boxing coaches passerd down through the years and generations does not count? What attitude you have! Do you think a muay thai coach (or boxing or wrestling or bjj coach) just made the style up? Muay thai is a battlefield art, one reason it has survived in its current form.

I cant believe some of the asserttions being made here.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

rogue
10-02-2001, 03:42 AM
Bruce,
There are just too many variables to account for such as technique, experience, fatigue, mental state, speed, environmental factors, and so on, and that's the point, things will never be equal. Does brute strength always beat technique? Of course not, but sometimes it's enough and does. Heck sometimes blind stupid luck is enough to win a fight.


PS You have good taste in flags!

Do a search on "Gadsden flags", you'll get a whole bunch of sites with various sized gif & jpegs and different versions.

Gadsden (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-gads.gif)

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushing hijackers.

iron thread
10-02-2001, 03:55 AM
"I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches..."

What idiot was this that kept doing chain punches?

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 04:03 AM
Okay. Here we go...

vasco de gama,

"So,I am a good fighter if someone tells me so?Thats hilarious.What ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight?"

No you're not a good fighter because someone tells you so. That IS hilarious. As for what ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight? Nothing. I'm not necessarily against it. But ring fighting is not real fighting. Real fighting is when you attack or are attacked for real.

Grappling Insanity,

"Bruce I didnt mean to insult you earlier but I still think what I said is true."

Thanks. None taken.

"Doing drills is NOT fighting."

You're right. It's training to fight.

"I can do drills all day and maybe it will highten my reflex's, maybe I'll learn a technique and get to be a little bit better as a fighter."

You're underestimating the power of drill here.

"But if I go out and spar for a hour I learn SO MUCH more!!."

That's your opinion. Maybe you haven't drilled much. Maybe the drills you've done haven't been that good. I don't know. Though I will say you learn quite a bit by sparring, yes.

"Sparing is the best way to learn how to fight."

If you're going to limit your technique to that which doesn't maim or kill, yes, I agree.

"To see how your take a punch and just keep on going. To have the air knocked out of your lungs so hard you can barely stand, but you gotta keep jabbing your way out. THIS IS HOW YOU LEARN HOW TO FIGHT EFFECTIVLEY!!"

This does teach you how to fight more effectively if you can learn from it and alter your technique appropriately, yes. But getting hit is not necessary to learning how to fight anymore than getting in a car wreck teaches you how to race.

The whole point of martial arts is to avoid being hit.

"Most internal styles dont really spar all that much, no offense guys I know some do. But it all boils down to the fact that Muay Thai guys usually train harder (usually!)."

Yes, Internal styles don't spar that much. No offense taken. And yes, Muay Thai guys do usually train harder. I would say that this is true.

"I mean you want to train harder so you dont get your a$$ kicked next time you spar!."

Unless you don't plan on sparring.

jimmy23,

"so, all the experience of boxing coaches passerd down through the years and generations does not count? What attitude you have! Do you think a muay thai coach (or boxing or wrestling or bjj coach) just made the style up? Muay thai is a battlefield art, one reason it has survived in its current form."

What you've done here is taken my comment completely out of context. I suggest you read it again. This time in context with the evolution of posts leading up to and after it.

Of course the experience of boxing coaches count. It just doesn't add up to the experience of 2000 years of warfare. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude but perhaps you should examine your own. I don't think Muay Thai coaches or boxing or wrestling or BJJ coaches "made the style up." I just don't think it comes from as deep an understanding as what is present in the foundation of styles such as Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I, etc. And I have a great deal of respect for Muay Thai as a battlefield art.

By the way, a famous Muay Thai coach who teaches out here in Monterey Park, California is also a Wing Chun master. He believes that a good Wing Chun fighter can take a good Muay Thai fighter.

So, I'm not just pulling wild crap out of my ass here. There is an awful lot of agreement on the point I am making here by a lot of people within the larger MA community.

For what it's worth.

P.S. If you can't believe some of the assertions being made here, jimmy, then perhaps it is not simply that we're all morons and that you're a genius. Take a moment and try to understand some of these assertions with a little more perspective and a little more respect for the context in which they are delivered.

rogue,

I agree with everything you just said. If you look carefully, however, it does not refute any of the assertions I've been making on the subject.

And thanks for the compliment of my taste in flags. Where did you find that thing. It rocks!

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 04:19 AM
I cant believe some of the assetions made here because they all seem to come from a "kwoon warrior" point of view.

Drills are ok to develop certain aspects of skills, but are no substitute for hard, dynamic sparring . Why is this? Becuase in a drill you agree upon the distance, the rules, and the level of what you can do. MUCH more restrictive than ring or cage fighting, or the training to do either.

"But getting hit is not necessary to learning how to fight "

Wrong, sorry. Get into a fight and get nailed, see how you react physiologically, and mentally. If you havent experienced this, likely youll freeze.

"I just don't think it comes from as deep an understanding as what is present in the foundation of styles"

Understanding of combat occurs at many levels. The chaos and unpredictability of a fight is why "war arts" tend to keep the number of technicques to a minimum. Just because an art is more "complex" doesnt mean its more effective. In my expereince, the opposite is often true.

"By the way, a famous Muay Thai coach who teaches out here in Monterey Park, California is also a Wing Chun master. He believes that a good Wing Chun fighter can take a good Muay Thai fighter"

Well, i would have to disagree with him, in general. Although, in my experience , wing chun fighters tend to be competant if they are trained properly, more so than most of the internal stylists ive met.

Of course, Im a mixed martial artist with a good deal of street experince, so i guess my opinion doesnt count as much as handed down traditions.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

rogue
10-02-2001, 04:21 AM
Bruce, click on the Gadsden link in my prior post.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

Shaolindynasty
10-02-2001, 04:37 AM
I agree with Jimmy23 especially about the complex techniques. For all you hard core traditionalists remember all those sories and legends about people learning a SINGLE technique to the point of mastery then becomeing a hugly powerful fighter. I think on some levels the "limited" techniques of Muay Thai give them an advantage on average. For instance if you have a Muay Thai guy and a Kungfu guy who both train only twice a week or somthing like that I would deffinately put my money on the Muay Thai fighter. Most styles of Kungfu are too vast in technique to be studied part time, it was designed for people who needed it not people who want a hobby. Muay Thai is equally as serious but has less technique to worry about so the student would actually get more out of a smaller time since that time is focused on a smaller range of movements. Which is why it takes so long to gain proficency in Kungfu but fighting skills come in the first months of Muay Thai. I highly respect Muay Thai(not fear it)but at the same time I also respect Kungfu, Karate, TKD, JKD, boxing, capeoria, fencing, wrestleing, BJJ, JJJ, Judo, Kali, Savate etc. Because good fighters have come from ALL these different methods, I am truley open. I have chosen my paticular style to train in but I still respect every one else(not falsely like alot of people on this board) I enjoy watching other styles, not to point out their flaws or to stroke my ego by saying my style is better but because I enjoy all "fighting type" activities. Even if the techiques and methods are different the mindset of the fighter is the same.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Archangel
10-02-2001, 04:40 AM
I really don't know if your trolling or not. Can you answer a few questions.

1) how do you test your theories

2) If you don't test them how do you know they work

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 04:40 AM
let me add that I have seen people from allstyles that could fight very well. I met an internal stylist once who was frighteningly good (Su Dong-Chen). But, these were the exceptions to the rule.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 04:48 AM
jimmy,

Much of what you say is true, but not necessarily contrary to what I've put forth here.

As for the rest of it, it sounds to me like a lot of propaganda I've heard on the subject before. Not a lot of convincing argument. This for instance smacks of it:

"Drills are ok to develop certain aspects of skills, but are no substitute for hard, dynamic sparring . Why is this? Becuase in a drill you agree upon the distance, the rules, and the level of what you can do. MUCH more restrictive than ring or cage fighting, or the training to do either."

Sounds to me like you've had little experience with two-man drills aimed at maiming and killing, where your partner is sufficiently skilled in acrobatics to allow you the freedom to throw and yank him around the room like a rag doll -- very close to full contact.

Perhaps you've had the wrong experience with the wrong drills. But you're severely underestimating the value of drills here. That's for sure.

As for the comment about getting hit and freezing? I've been hit plenty of times (HARD) and have never had a problem with freezing at all. I've even had experience with this in actual combat and I came out on top.

And what I'm saying (with regard to not needing to be hit) is that if you have the discipline to train in an effective form of combat, you may not ever get hit to begin with. So, no problem. If you disagree, fine. Let's leave it at that. I've said my piece on the matter.

"Understanding of combat occurs at many levels. The chaos and unpredictability of a fight is why "war arts" tend to keep the number of technicques to a minimum. Just because an art is more "complex" doesnt mean its more effective. In my expereince, the opposite is often true."

I agree. I'm not talking about complexity.

"Of course, Im a mixed martial artist with a good deal of street experince, so i guess my opinion doesnt count as much as handed down traditions."

And you're either awfully naive or awfully arrogant to think your opinion does count as much. You're only one fighter in a sea fighters throughout history. And I'm sure many of them had much more to offer on the subject than you do now, currently and personally.

rogue,

Thanks for the link.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Shaolindynasty
10-02-2001, 04:52 AM
I view sparring as a test for the stuff I drilled and learned. Oh and by the way people wouldn't be so hard on internal stylists if they didn't always come off so arrogant(the younger generations) an experienced internal stylist knows that there are alot of styles and fighters equal to them.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 05:03 AM
you know though, its funny. Master Su , an interanl stylist, told me that due to all the interpetations of the different arts, to how much has been kept secret then lost, to technicques not being understood fully when they are passed down,or from a paticular practitioners interpetation, that we really dont know exactly what was done in the past. We have a gross idea from pictures and text, but this does not capture the essence of a style and is in no way a substitute for the actual presence of those long dead.

In other words, Su ( an internal stylist, tai chi, bagua, and hsing i) straight out said that one must develop ones own style, that every style is re invented with each generation. Boy, he must be arrogant too eh? Despite his reputation as an internal stylist who is very effective at combat.

"And you're either awfully naive or awfully arrogant to think your opinion does count as much. You're only one fighter in a sea fighters throughout history"

Actually, there is a long line of boxing, muay thai, ju jutsu and wrestling practicioners who agree with me and my general approach. Oh wait, they dont have title like gandmaster so their opinion isnt as valid.
Again, to simplify, you dont know how the old timers really looked, and just like a rumor that is passed from person to another, changing at each stop, styles also lose and gain attributes over time. If you think you train the way a 5th century monk did, well, Id be willing to bet thats wishful thinking on your part.

"Sounds to me like you've had little experience with two-man drills aimed at maiming and killing"

What are these drills? How do you know they will really maim or kill, or even work consistently against a fighter who doesnt move like someone from your school? Im a skeptic when it comes to claims like this, and using an appeal to authority (" masters did this in the past" ) is as fallacious when discussing combat as it is in a philosophical discussion.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[This message was edited by jimmy23 on 10-02-01 at 08:29 PM.]

Shaolindynasty
10-02-2001, 05:13 AM
A true traditionalist is really bound by tradition. Learn the methods then basically you have to see them through your own eyes. If the practitioner on any art feels like they can't match the previous generation at his best than what is the point of even training. Personally through the things I have read about the Chinese and Japanese historical social order, the teacher often held back "secrets" and made the students feel they could never measure up not because they were unworthy but to ensure their status.

But back to the original topic.....

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 05:27 AM
Shaolin, although I dont move like an internal stylist, I learned more from Su in a week (an intense week lol) about how the body moves than in years of previous study. As a mixed martial artist, I learn a LOT faster now, because Su understood the principles of human motion, and shared them freely.

Its funny, but he brought a student here with him , and was very angry at the kid. When i asked why, he told me it was becuase the kid mimicked perfectly every motion and combination Su taught him. Su saw this as an insult to his teaching, that the kid (I say kid , he was 21) should have taken the teachings and adapted them, made them different, made them his own. He said that if we respected him(Su), we would do the same.

I have never forgotten that lesson.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Nutt'nhunny
10-02-2001, 05:39 AM
who did your master su ever fight? Mike Patterson faught full contact matches in Taiwan and his students do well too.


check out this xing I site, I think it's

www.xingster.com (http://www.xingster.com)

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 05:43 AM
in the early 70s Su won the Taiwan Open twice, the first time after only two years of training. He isnt "my" master, I call him that out of respect only, and its a title he laughs at.

Who did Mike Patterson fight, what organization, what was his record? And most importantly, what does he have to do with the last few posts ive made? If you want to quote fighters, I have a whole buttload i can qoute :)


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Nutt'nhunny
10-02-2001, 05:51 AM
so he didn't just do forms?

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 05:54 AM
lol that was an adult hosting site you linked.

No, Su didnt just do forms.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Braden
10-02-2001, 09:05 AM
Jimmy - the perspective you're describing from Mr. Su is one that is "hard-coded" into the traditional mindset of the internal arts (taiji, xingyi, bagua, liuhopafa, yiquan).

jimmy23
10-02-2001, 10:02 AM
I felt it was worth mentioning since it was said earlier that to have ones own perspective is arrogant, since the "wisdom of thousands of years" of warriors have gone into the forms. I just wanted to make clear that even among the more "traditional" arts there are those who encourage you to think for yourself and not blindly follow what is put in front of you.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Braden
10-02-2001, 10:39 AM
Yeah. I agree it's kind of silly. I consider myself a traditionalist, and there's alot to say for trusting the wisdom of your elders. I could never have designed the wonderful training tools I have been given, and I've yet to even begin to probe their depths. But thinking that this takes a back seat to thinking for yourself and making the art your own is, I believe, missing the point. I would go so far as to say that if you are unwilling to 'play' with what you are given in the chinese internal arts and let it find it's own way into your body, you will never get very far. The 'classics' of the internal arts of filled with stories to make sure we remember this. The 'do things exactly as your teacher did them' seems to be a philosophy of the chinese external arts (as well as arts from other cultures). It's one of the things that turns me off of them, although I'm sure that every good teacher, regardless of style, sees the value of what we're discussing.

On a somewhat related note... I haven't really been following this thread word for word. But did someone say that internal chinese art techniques are complicated? I think Mr. Leroy asserted somewhere that they contained intricate principles, and someone else misinterpreted him to mean the techniques were complicated (though I could be wrong; again, I haven't read all the posts). Just, as an internal arts practitioner, I think it's worth clarifying that all of our techniques are ridiculously simple (and few in number, insofar as that way of thinking can be attributed to internal methods). The internal arts are definitely about the making of the stuff, rather than the stuff itself (when to punch, rather than a million ways how to punch, to paraphrase someone else).

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 11:57 AM
jimmy,

Please refer to my previous posts for reference to your most recent questions. The answers are there.

Braden,

You wrote,

"I haven't really been following this thread word for word. But did someone say that internal chinese art techniques are complicated? I think Mr. Leroy asserted somewhere that they contained intricate principles, and someone else misinterpreted him to mean the techniques were complicated (though I could be wrong; again, I haven't read all the posts)."

You're not wrong Braden. This particular thread is rife with this sort of misrepresentation. I appreciate your awareness and careful attention to academic detail. Well done!

I've also enjoyed all of your posts on this thread. A great thinker.

Archangel,

You wrote,

"Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't know if your trolling or not. Can you answer a few questions.

1) how do you test your theories

2) If you don't test them how do you know they work"

These are EXCELLENT questions!

As to 1): bluntly, there is no way to truly test maiming and killing without maiming and killing.

As to 2): plainly, one must rely on his or her knowledge of physics, physiology, athletics, biology and a keen awareness of how much force is required by experience applying the techniques to a live human body who communicates back when pressure begins to exceed safety limits, pain tolorances, etc. This and experiencing the recieving end of the techniques with a trusted and trained partner as well.

Also the effects of these sorts of actions are well documented in military field manuals, journals, and various martial treatises. Also one must use his ability to judge human character to decide whether or not an instructor, teacher, author, etc. is lying to me or not about his direct empirical experiences. And let us not also forget the value of plain common sense in these matters. You don't have to actually break someone's nose to know you are capable of rendering the result for example.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions. And as to trolling, I think if you follow the thread from the beginning you'll be able to easily make up you own mind on the matter.

All the best,

P.S. Archangel, to answer your above questions more thoroughly I give a detailed account of my inductive reasoning on the matter in my original and successive posts. Have at it. Let me know what you think.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

toddbringewatt
10-02-2001, 12:12 PM
Another thought on the subject...

You know, one might argue that Muay Thai is really more of an approach to training than anything else. An approach to training techniques that were there long before its inception as a style.

One might argue Kung Fu has everything Muay Thai has and more.

One might argue Muay Thai is a streamlined version of a limited range of techniques already found in Kung Fu.

Perhaps the success of Muay Thai has more to do with the quote: "I do not fear the 1000 techniques you know. I fear the one technique you have practiced 1000 times."

Food for thought.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Wongsifu
10-02-2001, 02:20 PM
you know i find this post rather amusing as 90% of the people who are posting in the thread either dont know the story of real muay thai or dont know about real traditional kung fu .
they make assumptions about the other style that are tottaly off !!!

I cant keep up with the conversation as most of it involves dissecting the words that each other are saying !!!


most people assume that in muay thai it involves lots of sparring al the time, this couldnt be further from the truth, this is the americanised version how you lear watered down MT /kickboxing, in thailand up to quite a few years ago when the fighters go to competition the fighting is so rigorous , the winner needs at least 3 weeeks to a month off training just to repair his body , not mentioning the loser... And believe it or not most of their time is spent on conditioning and practising drills...
Ironic isnt it its just like traditional kung fu.....

The minute thailand starts to do their modern methods of fighting and dont train your shins unless you are youngre than 13 years old because of calcium defcieny and **** like that what happens , the lose to sanda guys....

If you really think muay thai sparred so much can you imagine eating those elbowws to the temple every day ? you would make tyson look like bloody einstein!!

Drills are important they can be a substitute for sparring to an extent .... and they are needed more than sparring is...

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

apoweyn
10-02-2001, 03:13 PM
Bruce Leroy,

I spent about an hour addressing the points you made in what I'd hoped was a respectful, thoughtful, and thorough manner.

And if all you got from that was the following:

I get from your posts that it is your position that it is impossible to apply inductive reasoning to the knowlege of the entire past 7 million years of human existence and experience on this Earth and draw a simple conclusion as to whether Muay Thai (an approach to fighting which can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) is inferior, superior or equal to Kung Fu (another approach to fighting which also can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) as an approach to fighting. Is this about it? There's just no way to know?

... then yes, we're done. I'm disappointed, but we're done.


Stuart B.

Jaguar Wong
10-02-2001, 05:21 PM
Wow, this is a good thread so far, not the best, but it's pretty good still.

As far as drills...when I took my one bjj class they had drills there: pass the guard, taking turns. work for dominant positions, mount or side mount taking turns. I wish we did an escape from dominant positions drill that night :). That was the only class that I took (the rest I learned from a friend that studies at that school), and we did techniques, and drills, with only about 15 - 20 minutes of "sparring" which we started on our knees. That was only a beginner class, though.

The drills I've seen in some Southern and Hsing I schools had some sense of freedom similar to the drills in the bjj class. things like one side attacks (just punches), and the other defends while attempting to maintain balance, and distance, without running backwards (ala Ralek's Tekken Fist style :p). I didn't see much sparring in the Hsing I classes, but the Hung Gar Sifu used to spar with me all the time. The Hsing I sifu (the same guy that knocked the wind out of me with the elbow through the kicking shield) doesn't dissagree, or hate sparring, he just doesn't use it as much as drills (he's been in a good number of scraps, but he also does Southern Praying Mantis, and I think that's where his fight stories came from).

I don't know what the point was of that post, though :)

Braden, I think I mentioned that the internal techniques were more complicated. I don't belive that personally (Hsing I's drilling fist looks pretty simple to me :)), I was just bringing up a point that some people believe this, and I wasn't sure if I read Bruce Leroy's post correctly, so I had to ask. While I agree that they are not complicated, I also agree that they are sometimes more intricate as far as body mechanics go, and take much more drilling to learn to execute properly.

People do have the patience to develop this, but they are rare, and unfortunately they often find an inadequate teacher that doesn't have the patience to teach them this way. That's why it's more common for people with this level of dedication to find a dedicated Muay Thai coach, rather than an Americanized Internal Sifu. When I say Americanized, I appologize if people think that means Americans will never reach that level, it's just that it was easier to use that term, becuase you guys have some idea what it means. After all, the Hsing I/SPM and the Hung Gar sifu I mentioned above were both Americans, and both found that teacher that had the patience to teach them the hard way.

Jaguar Wong

Mr. Nemo
10-02-2001, 05:57 PM
I've never heard of this Su Dong-Chen guy, but he sounds like a pretty smart guy to me. In fact, he sounds a lot like my sifu...

Drills and relying on "2000 years of warfare experience" aren't enough to make you into a competent fighter, you have to spar with a live opponent. Live sparring (and live drills with limitations to develop specific skills) is what makes the difference between a guy that can explain how something is done and a guy that can do it.

What's more, I think your Su Dong-Chen is right about reinventing the art for each fighter/generation. Forms are an imperfect way of passing down an art, they don't capture everything. A teacher can capture everything, but they're bound to change it just a little bit. In the end, you have to figure out how to get your art to work for yourself.

Grappling-Insanity
10-02-2001, 06:19 PM
Well the Muay Thai I've seen has been alot of full out sparring. And from watching the fights and seeing how much dammage they take they ARE conditioned.

BTW to the guy asked about the WC guy sparring, I did'nt mean all chain punches just alot of basic hand techs.

Shaolindynasty
10-02-2001, 07:29 PM
In the Thai Boxing Dynamite book the guy who trained in Thailand said at his camp in Thailand they rarely ever sparred full contact, he said the Thais explained to him that sparring was a timing exercise and that they felt if you wanted to hit full power hit the bag. They do have alot of fights though and to tell the truth full contact fighting and ring sports are really similar. On the other hand I remember reading an article on a on a southern style with two cousins one lived in the USA and one China, well they decided to spar and as soon as they started the one from China threw a finger jab at his cousins eyes barely missing cutting near his eye(the american moved his head to dodge)The american asked what was his problem and the Chinese said "If you fight you fight for real". So I think emphasise on sparring doesn't differ with style but differs more based on the individual school.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Wongsifu
10-02-2001, 08:21 PM
thank you shaolin dynasty !!

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

Merryprankster
10-02-2001, 08:28 PM
Bruce,

Agreed that what I wrote was obvious. However, it's not to a lot of people. I singled out what you wrote because it seemed to me that you were using those arts/sports as examples of "brute strength wins." Your post demonstrated that wasn't your intent. You did point to them as less sophisticated than Kung Fu, and especially internal Kung Fu. On this, I respectfully disagree with you. I regard them as neither more nor less sophisticated or evolved. Just different.

To me, the most important aspect of "self-defense" is being in shape. Actual combat (as well as competative ring combat) places a tremendous amount of stress on the body through adrenaline dump. If you have not experienced this, then it will become extremely hard for you to function (universal you, not directed at anybody), regardless of how many drills you have done. Evidence indicates that people who are in shape control and use to their advantage the adrenaline dump far more effectively than those who haven't. I challenge anybody who goes to a tournament to remain "keyed up" the entire time. I find that I personally am in need of a nap after my first bout, even though I have competed enough times that I don't go out there like a maniac, or forget everything I know.

I think people here are running around with very different definitions of what sparring is and what drilling is. My girlfriend and I got into a rather nasty argument over this. It turned out what she considered "sparring" was putting on kenpo gear and using a specific competition format that limited her follow-ups because of the point format.

I consider sparring to be the controlled use of all your weapons, perhaps with a "win" in mind (ie, submission in BJJ or pin in wrestling), or perhaps not (ie, MT sparring where we are wearing pads and beating on each other, but not making it a point to try and injure the opponent).

You can imagine her annoyance when I said that "Sparring is the only way to know if you can pull off what you've learned."

"Drilling" to me is controlled use of a specific weapon or two. I might "drill" one guard pass repeatedly, in slow motion, but then I might "drill" guard passes live against an opponent who is trying to sweep and submit me. If I pass, or he/she sweeps or submits, we start back over.

I think a great many different definitions of these two words are out there, and contribute to a lot of the crankiness.

Kung Lek
10-03-2001, 12:48 AM
where i live, they show muay thai on tv at least once a week. straight from thailand.

i gotta say, there are very few of them that can actually punch well, I think an american boxer could probably teach em a thing or two about it.

the do a good poking kick and the roundhouses look good. there doesn't seem to be much else except for the occasional sweep takedown, which is usually a highlight.

peace

Kung Lek

toddbringewatt
10-03-2001, 01:14 AM
ap Oweyn,

"I spent about an hour addressing the points you made in what I'd hoped was a respectful, thoughtful, and thorough manner.

And if all you got from that was the following:"

I'm sorry to dissapoint you. That is not my intention. I appreciate your concerted effort to detail a respectful, thoughtful and thorough response. Thank you.

I simply need to know your answer to the question before I invest anymore energy in this direction. That's all. If you'll answer it we can perhaps continue.

Jaguar Wong,

Great post!

Mr. Nemo,

"Drills and relying on "2000 years of warfare experience" aren't enough to make you into a competent fighter, you have to spar with a live opponent. Live sparring (and live drills with limitations to develop specific skills) is what makes the difference between a guy that can explain how something is done and a guy that can do it."

Just a point of clarification. The kind of drills I was referring to as relying on 2000 years of warfare experience ARE live drills with limitations to develop specific skills.

"What's more, I think your Su Dong-Chen is right about reinventing the art for each fighter/generation. Forms are an imperfect way of passing down an art, they don't capture everything. A teacher can capture everything, but they're bound to change it just a little bit. In the end, you have to figure out how to get your art to work for yourself."

I think you're probably right about forms as a complete way to transfer an art. You at least also need drills. As far as changing things and figuring out how to get your art to work for yourself: Why change it if it worked the first time? In other words, if it worked for your teacher it should work for you. You have two arms and two legs. Principles should translate fine. I think people don't spend enough time trying to duplicate what their teacher did before trying to expand their art. If they really duplicated the teacher to begin with they may find they have no need to expand or change anything. It may be cliche but I believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Shaolin Dynasty,

Great stuff!

Merryprankster,

Fair enough. Understood.

Just one comment on the "adrenaline" issue. The adrenal glands are nothing but an organ in the body that respond to emotion.

If you remain calm in the midst of a combat situation (which is much of what the internal arts train, especially Tai Chi in my opinion) then there will be no adrenaline dump. Also, as for staying in shape, yes it is important but bodies wither with age. Old skinny guys who smoke that know how to fight whoop a$$ all the time. So really I don't see being in shape as so much of a corner stone. The corner stone in my opinion as it is with any subject is knowledge. With knowledge comes the ability to truly be responsible for an activity and with responsibility comes the ability to control. Knowledge, responsibility and control. These are the factors. They are intricately related but I believe it all starts with knowledge. Of course the trick is getting the correct and appropriate knowledge.

Good luck to us all.

Also, Merryprankster, your commentary on and theory regarding the confusion surrounding the definitions of words (in this case "drill" and "spar") contains perhaps more wisdom than any of the content in this thread so far. Well said and well done on spotting it! Very helpful!

Kung Lek,

Thanks for the TV report. Interesting.

:)

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

rogue
10-03-2001, 04:45 AM
"If you fight you fight for real".

Why do the idiots that say that, always say it after you start sparring with them? :rolleyes:

Merryprankster, excellent point about sparring vs drills.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

Shaolindynasty
10-03-2001, 04:47 AM
"Why do the idiots that say that, always say it after you start sparring with them?"

It's more fun that way hehehe :p

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Braden
10-03-2001, 05:34 AM
Prankster - Sparring by any reasonable definition is simply a kind of drill. I don't see any rational reason for division between the two. You say sparring is using all of your weapons, but if you train in a good self-defense art, surely you have some weapons which you can not use against a sparring partner. I'm not talking mystical dim mak here, but pretty straightforward stuff like stomping their temple after a sweep. So sparring, just like any other drill, employs limited methods for the sake of improving those skills. As you alluded to in your post, even among things you would call 'sparring', there is a reasonably wide variety of goals, methods, and limitations.

Bruce - While I agree with most of what you say, I think there are some important ways that "what worked for your teacher should work for you" is practically false. For one thing, people have different characteristics (physical and otherwise) which lend themselves to different movements. Even as a beginner, I know the spirit of many of my movements (even in as abstracted a training method as form work) is very different from that of my teacher; and this is how it should be. The internal chinese arts, as I understand them, emphasize this idea; and indeed we have seen a rapid evolution and wide variety of their methods (hopefully while maintaining the principles). More importantly though, to really learn many of the important skills in the internal arts, you have to make them your own. This does not mean doing them differently than your teacher does. It is simply that you cannot learn them by copying what you are given; you have to play with the methods, let them find their place in your own body, before you have really learnt them. I've found that, after this process of 'making them your own' you do indeed find they end up the same as your teacher. Hrmm... no one ever said there was an easy answer to this concerns.

rogue
10-03-2001, 05:46 AM
ShaolinD, you incorigable scamp! :mad:

BTW, I hope you know that I wasn't calling you an idiot, but the person in your story.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

Mr. Nemo
10-03-2001, 05:53 AM
"Just a point of clarification. The kind of drills I was referring to as relying on 2000 years of warfare experience ARE live drills with limitations to develop specific skills."

Ok. And you consider sparring to be a kind of drill, apparently. Sorry, I got mixed up with terms.

"I think you're probably right about forms as a complete way to transfer an art. You at least also need drills. As far as changing things and figuring out how to get your art to work for yourself: Why change it if it worked the first time? In other words, if it worked for your teacher it should work for you. You have two arms and two legs. Principles should translate fine. I think people don't spend enough time trying to duplicate what their teacher did before trying to expand their art. If they really duplicated the teacher to begin with they may find they have no need to expand or change anything. It may be cliche but I believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Another thing I didn't really phrase right. I don't mean you should change the moves, the training, or the principles, or any of that, unless you actually do figure out a way you like better.

What I meant was that when it comes to fighting, you have to find your style - just like there are different styles of boxing, there are different styles of bagua. And really, the only way to find your own style is to spar.

chokeyouout2
10-03-2001, 05:57 AM
Iv'e seen lots of PKA and WKA matches but no Kung fu guy ever entered.Similar to no Kung Fu guys enter well you know the story.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

ope
10-03-2001, 05:59 AM
actually it is said that adrenaline raises your chi, and that your soposed to be able to control the flow of adrenaline.. to the point where you make it flow even when your calm.. remmeber its all in the mind.. a person can make themselfs angry or scared without a threat even being present to get the adrenaline flowing.. from my expereince i am usualy calm at the begining, my adrenaline starts flowing when i get the first hit..

vasco de gama

i sometimes wonder the same thing.. i know some kung fu schools take part in tournaments but believe it or not they point fight.. and i hate point fighting i think its totaly worthless.. there was a tournament our school used to take part where they had fighting it wasnt really point fighting it was judged more like boxing matches one year a student in our school decided to actually use system and badley injured his oponent they never invited us back.. they claim we fight to "wild"..

toddbringewatt
10-03-2001, 01:59 PM
Braden,

Your communication addressed to merryprankster is fully brilliant. Excellent point about drill/sparring. True! And bravo on the limitation of techniques even in "sparring".

As to your commentary on my thoughts, I agree. There are some practical difficulties with what I said. But for the most part I believe they are fairly minor compared to the overall value in truly making sure one has DUPLICATED what has been instructed before worrying about changing/expanding/"doing what FEELS more appropriate", etc. And I agree EMPHATICALLY with your statement about making what is learned "one's own" before considering he can truly use it with any kind of effectiveness. Yes, I think this is crucial.

Mr. Nemo,

Well taken. I fully agree with you and well put!

ope,

"actually it is said that adrenaline raises your chi,..."

Hard to know what to think about this. I think one should be able to control his chi well enough without having to worry about adrenaline flow however.

"...and that your soposed to be able to control the flow of adrenaline.."

One definitely can and does (by control of emotion at least and by direct control at best).

"...to the point where you make it flow even when your calm.."

Interesting option. Interesting possibilities.

"...remmeber its all in the mind.."

That's certainly true.

"...a person can make themselfs angry or scared without a threat even being present to get the adrenaline flowing.."

True, true.

"from my expereince i am usualy calm at the begining, my adrenaline starts flowing when i get the first hit.."

Can't blame you. Pretty natural reaction.

Thanks for the thoughts on this, ope.

To everyone,

I'm really pleased with the evolution this thread has taken. I think we've got a pretty prime example of the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) here.

What started out as a question led to the proposal of a theory, which led in turn to the proposal of counter-theory and which then inturn led to finally -- after much haggling and clarification on the part of an obviously highly intelligent group of interested and passionate gentlemen -- a synthesis. And I think a fine and beautifully reached synthesis at that.

I would have to say the turning point in reaching the crucial end-point in this evolution was the stunningly insightful contribution made by Braden to the effect that there had been an ongoing confusion regarding the terms "spar" and "drill". Everything seemed to come together quite nicely after that had been indicated.

I think the thread (read chronologically) provides a wonderful academic look at not only the contributions of both Muay Thai and Kung Fu to the martial arts and their respective strengths/weakness, but also an edifying look at the martial arts in general for both novice and veteran alike.

Well done everyone! This has been a real pleasure. :)

Of course, don't let me stop anyone from having anything further to add.

All the best,

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[This message was edited by Bruce Leroy on 10-04-01 at 05:09 AM.]

[This message was edited by Bruce Leroy on 10-04-01 at 05:09 AM.]

nightair
10-03-2001, 06:03 PM
i've studied both. and if a kung fu master went up against a master of mui thai the kick boxer would lose so **** quick. That shouldn't even be a question of what style would dominate. :D

chokeyouout2
10-03-2001, 06:07 PM
Since kf master is a master in his mind he will never have to fight.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

Kung Lek
10-03-2001, 07:56 PM
vasco, you've taken a beaten from a kung fu beginner haven't you.

I can tell by that bitter lemony thing going on in all your hate on posts about Kung fu.

How old was the little girl that kicked your arse?
Bwahahahahahaha.

sorry, can't be moderate on this dude. He talks such lamo jack.

peace

Kung Lek

Braden
10-03-2001, 09:27 PM
Regarding the point of adrenaline and the internal arts, I have also been taught that the internal arts emphasize a fighting mindset which excludes the regular adrenaline dump. If you have ever heard the word 'sung' thrown around (probably to mean 'relaxation'), you have been introduced to this concept. 'Sung' is just as mental a characteristic as physical, and describes a mindset (one different than the adrenaline rush) used in good internal arts fighting. Although it may be an exercise in hyperbole, or at least stereotyping, it has been said that one of the differences between external and internal fighting mindset is that the external practitioner's face will be twisted with rage, while an internal practitioner's expression will be blank or even a slight, relaxed smile. Not that raw, animal instincts are separate from the internal mindset, just that we try to get at them via a much different route.

Or at least, that's the impression I'm under. ;)

Shaolindynasty
10-03-2001, 10:33 PM
Alot of people even external stylists often screw this up. It's more of projecting your spirit or intention, looking feircely with the eyes to help focus your intention. You should still be calm on the inside. It's kind of like a tiger, before a tiger strikes it slows it's breathing and calms it's self but you couldn't tell by looking at it's face. It is also supposed to have a phsycological advantage by scareing a lesser opponent by "showing your power" . Internalists are just that internal, it seems they keep their power hidden until they actually use it, great if you would like to kick some @$$.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

Merryprankster
10-03-2001, 11:22 PM
Concern noted Braden.

I'm not trying to start an argument with that. I'm trying to solve them :) Yes, sparring has rules. Drilling tends to have more. I think there is a continuum that goes from slow motion technique drilling to full-speed work.

You can try to tell me that drilling and sparring are the same thing, but I simply won't believe you.

Drills are designed to improve a specific aspect of your game. It doesn't matter what you are GOOD at, you have to work on the drill.

Sparring allows YOU to put the pieces together in a way that provides you the best opportunity for success.

toddbringewatt
10-03-2001, 11:43 PM
Merryprankster,

In Braden's defense, I don't think he was saying sparring and drilling are the same thing exactly.

With regard to the rest of your post, nicely put. Provides even more clarification on the difference between "spar" and "drill". I agree with you.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
10-04-2001, 04:03 PM
Bruce Leroy,

Okay, let's start over, yeah?

The answer to your question: No, I'm not saying that we can deny empirical evidence. I'm saying that we don't have any empirical evidence that kung fu is a superior art to muay thai. That two paragons of these styles would do battle and that the kung fu fighter would always win. There's just no evidence.

There's evidence that technique beats raw power. There's evidence that sometimes technique is unable to beat raw power. There's evidence that kung fu has a lot of technique. There's evidence that muay thai has a lot of technique (in my experience). But there is no evidence that the technical complexity of kung fu gives it an inherent advantage over muay thai. Nor that muay thai has an inherent advantage over kung fu.

Yes, I believe wholeheartedly that you just don't know until after the fact. Each fact. Each altercation. No exceptions. Trying to predict the outcome of a physical altercation between two creatures as psychologically and physically complex as trained human beings is very hit or miss, to my mind. The arts, kung fu and muay thai, are not fixed things. They are as fluid and unpredictable as the individuals through whom they are expressed.

You asked me whether I was denying obvious empirical evidence, and I'm telling you that I don't see it. If you could give me specific and concrete examples that kung fu's complexity gives it an advantage over muay thai, then I'd have no choice but to agree.

Whatever you and I may make of each other's perspectives, I would like to say that you're a good writer. (I noticed in your profile that you're a screenwriter.)


Stuart B.

jameswebsteruk
10-04-2001, 06:27 PM
I also dont see why more complex techniques would necessarily beat simple techniques, or why a fighter with more techniques would necessarily have an advantage over one with fewer.

And with regard to the tradition thing, the idea that people hundreds or thousands of years ago managed to come up with various "perfect" fighting methods which have somehow become *******ized over the resulting years is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

There is no evidence that humans have changed their physical or mental capabilities over the last 10000 years (with the possibly exception of height, although that may be due to improved diet).

How did these people manage to come up with these "perfect" systems in the first place?
By doing exactly what we are doing now, constantly trying, testing, and CHANGING what they have learned in real situations.
I think we sometimes forget that.

If someone today can create or adapt a fighting system so that it is effective, then that person has just as much authority than some mythical thousand old KF master. IMHO, of course. :)

What did the Zen Master say to the hot dog vendor?
Make me one with everything.

apoweyn
10-04-2001, 07:40 PM
Frank,

I agree. Nicely said. Dug the zen joke too.

I think part of the problem is the idea of perfection. We're reasoning as if a person learns a roundhouse kick. And then they have it. Like it's a fixed quantity.

But it really isn't a fixed quantity. I learned the roundhouse kick in 1984, give or take. And I'm still learning about it now. Different delivery methods. How different hip angles, footwork maneuvers, and so on affect the power, speed, placement, and versatility of the kick. And then there's the question of how physical development (strength, flexibility, etc.) affects the potential of a given technique.

So, to my mind, it's not so much a question of knowing three kicks (yeah, I know muay thai teachers sometimes teach more than three, but you get the idea) while another stylist might know eight kicking techniques. It's a question of how much time you spend coming to grips with all the different facets of a technique. All its possibilities.

I do believe that there's a lot to the saying quoted earlier in this thread. Something to the effect that I don't fear the man who's practiced 1,000 techniques once, but the man who's practiced one technique 1,000 times. It's not repetition. It's investigation. And that, in my opinion, leads to sophistication. When you're tweaking small details to yield different results (angle of the hip alters power, telegraphing, etc.), that's sophistication. That's technique.

But that's my opinion. Nothing more.


Stuart B.


Stuart B.

KC Elbows
10-04-2001, 08:00 PM
I tend to agree with ap oweyn here. To say that muay thai is inferior because it has fewer techniques is unrealistic. Kung fu practitioners have many moves to choose from in their forms, but I have yet to see a stylist who, in fighting, makes regular use of every move from every form. They tend to use those which suit them best more in order to become highly skilled at them. Thus, in Kung Fu, two different fighters with equal skills from the same system would fight completely differently, as their specialties would be different.

In muay thai, there are fewer techniques, so the fighters will have strong skills in those techniques. I would think it would make it easier to prepare for a fight against the muay thai guy, as you basically know the bulk of the techniques you are facing. However, if the techniques needed to neutralize the muay thai guy were not your specialties, you would have to start working the moves in your system that apply, and you would be playing catch up while the muay thai guy just continues honing the skills he already emphasized.

In our system, my teachers teacher(can't remember the right chinese word for it here) used one move all the time. Kick, he used that move. Punch, he used that move. Clinch, he used that move. He just adapted it universally, and could transfer from many techniques into that one. He knew and had skill in many techniques in the system, but he had that move so refined that he could find his way to it no matter what.

toddbringewatt
10-06-2001, 01:00 AM
ap Oweyn,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you need direct empirical evidence that strictly and specifically demonstrates that one art is superior to the other before you could know. And you're also saying that any possibility of witnessing such evidence is practically impossible. If that IS your position then why bother discussing it?

If this is not your position, then you tell me what set of circumnstances (that ARE possible to duplicate in the physical universe) WOULD provide the empirical evidence you need.

If you can answer the above then we can continue. Otherwise this is just going to go back and forth with you denying each time that I have any "real empirical evidence" which you would find acceptable.

Ball's in your court.

To everyone,

Somehow this discussion has denigrated into a disagreement about Kung Fu's "complexity" and "number of techniques" providing any advantage over Muay Thai. This has been an ongoing alteration of the concept that Kung Fu's techniques are more "SOPHISTICATED" in the way of "EFFICACY AGAINST BRUTE FORCE".

Here's an example of what I mean when I'm talking about SOPHISTICATION (NOT COMPLEXITY) in the direction of EFFICACY AGAINST BRUTE FORCE:

If someone much bigger and stronger than you, in the extreme (some Sumo wrestler or WWF guy let's say) -- Let's say someone like this were to attack you in a viscious, all-out, frontal assault (his intention being to just snatch you up and pound and smash and squash and snap and tear and pummel you into obvlivion) -- Let's say he thought you raped his daughter or something of that nature. Guess what, in all likelyhood you're going to die. Period. Unless you are an extremely high-level martial artist.

Now. Is Muay Thai going to do it? I say not a chance in hell. Because no matter how powerful your roundhouse (unless you're as big and strong as he is), no matter how well timed your punches are, no matter how refined and effective you are in the clinch, no matter how many tournaments you've won (I don't care if you're the best Muay Thai fighter in the world -- again, unless you're of comparable size) you are going to get creamed and creamed good. You're strikes and maneuvering and blocking are going to collapse under the sheer force of this guy's near unstoppable brutish attack.

Okay. I think I'll probably get broad agreement with the above senario. Now. What does the trained (albiet, the HIGHLY trained Interal arts practioner which would be necessary in this case) Kung Fu fighter have at his disposal?

He has Interally developed short-range shock power. He has a thorough knowledge of nerve point manipulation. He has highly developed and efficient finger strikes and the knowledge of which vital points he'll need to pulverize in order to bring this beast down. He has the grappling and evasionary knowledge necessary to turn this hulking attacker's own size and force into a debilitating fall/throw. And to address the issue of number of techniques, yes, the MORE techniques one has at his disposal and CAN USE EFFECTIVELY because he has MASTERED them, the better off one will be in this type of senario.

The above listed techniques by the way are a cursory example of what an Internal arts practitioner has at his disposal.

So, is complexity of techique going to help out at all in this situation? GOD NO!!! But SOPHISTICATION sure as hell will. Do you see the difference here. This is what I'm talking about, not complexity.

And finally, will sheer quantity of technique help? I sure hope I've mastered as many helpful tricks as possible if I ever find myself staring down the frightening girth of a man three times my size. And I'm sure you would too.

While the Muay Thai fighter is perfecting his roundhouse and numbing and toughening his shins, the Internal fighter is training to stay alive. And even he is going to have a rough time of it if Andre the Giant decides to throw down.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


:)

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

Royal Dragon
10-06-2001, 01:30 AM
You know boys, I think there is an error here. I think when MOST Kung Fu fighteres talk "Complexity" they really mean sophistication. In my opinion (IMO), this is a simple communication issue, NOT a fight skill issue.

A Kung Fu practitioner DOES have many more techniques AND skills at his disposal than the Muy Tai fighter. That my friends is NOT the issue. The issue is wether or not the Kung Fu fighter has MASTERED the PRINCIPALS behind those technique, or just memorised a bunch of them. You see, a master of principal can INVENT new techniques "On the fly" so to speak If need be, the memorisor is stuck in a rut.

Then, ontop of your fighting techniques, you ALSO must be good at STRATAGY!!! This is the ability to USE those techniques in a sucsessfull mannor. If your going up agianst a Muy Tai Fighter, and you have mastered the princiupals your skills are based on, then theortically, you now need to work on a few specific Stratagys that would take advantage of Muy Tai's weakneses.

Due to the fact that Kung Fu is far less limiting, there is no reason why a properly traind exponent should'nt flatten any Muy Tai fighter he goes up against.

Also, as far as simplicity goes, our Southern Tai Tzu system is "Cave Man simple". It has a fast direct level'em ASAP philosiphy. Or Northern Tai Tzu Long Fist system, Six Stepp Monkey Boxing and the closed door internal system are far more sophisticated. This allows us a chioce of using brute force and simple effective skills, or more sophisticated techniques depending on what suites the situation. MOST Kung Fu schools offer courses in multiple arts, and have these types of skills abvaliabe.

If we have two fighters, of similar ability, with identical number of hours training time, The Kung Fu fighter's going to win on a much higher percentage of the time. Maybe not ALL the time, but a much higher percentage of the time.

Comments anyone?

Royal Dragon


"Chi is Chinese for Spinach"

Check out the Royal Dragon Web site

http://www.Royaldragon.4dw.com

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 03:41 AM
I'm with ap Oweyn on this.

Reasonable evidence would be a series of competitions where "champions" of each style could come together, develop an agreed upon set of rules, and have a series of fights. I would say a minimum of 10 fights. Repeat this for several years running. Then take a look at the score for each side.

If the internal stylists were dominating the MT guys year after year, well, I think you’d have your answer. If the margin were narrow, then I would say that no style would have been shown to be “inherently” superior to the other.

A couple of probable objections to this setup:
Regarding the rules, there is a presumption that this is not a fight to the death. I expect there will be all kinds of disagreements here. Since MT is a ring style, selecting which of their techniques are permissible wouldn’t be a problem. It might be more complex for the internal fighters. Without being an internal stylist myself, I can’t really say what would work, although I would venture that if these stylists’ techniques are so vastly more effective (as Leroy suggests) then it seems plausible that they would be able to win without using their more “deadly” techniques (eye gouges, fishhooks, biting).

Additionally, groundfighting should be set aside for the purposes of this competition. I think most people on this board would agree that we have been talking mostly about striking, standing grappling, and throwing, not groundfighting. The question of the (in)effectiveness of pure muay thai against groundfighting styles has already been established.

People might say that this still isn’t a fair test. Well, it’s not an ideal test, true, but I think over a series of years we would be able to get a pretty good sense of what each style had to offer. At a minimum, the claims for the vast capabilities of the internal arts could be given more credibility.

[This message was edited by gfhegel21 on 10-06-01 at 07:04 PM.]

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 04:01 AM
I would answer Leroy's query with another query. What evidence do you find to be persuasive in establishing the superiority of kung fu over muay thai in combat? Can you point to a solid record of internal fighters meeting muay thai fighters on roughly equal terms and dominating them as you suggest they would? When I say "point to," I mean that in principle people on this board should be able to ascertain whether or not they occurred, under what conditions, and the outcome.

I think ap Oweyn's position is probably similar to my own. Muay thai fighters/partisans claim the style is good for fighting. Internal arts partisans contend that their style is even better for fighting. Muay thai (and other styles) put their style on the line frequently, in the ring. There is very little public information on internal arts' fighting effectiveness. Perhaps their style is devastating. But where are they? Whey don't they seem to have a demonstrated, well-established record of dominating less sophisticated styles like muay thai?

Undoubtedly, people who have trained in either style have lost and won fights from time to time. The point is, historically, it seems to me if these internal arts are so superior evidence for this superiority (in the form of muay thai stylist after muay thai stylist getting schooled) should be readily available.

rogue
10-06-2001, 04:19 AM
I agree with you and Apowyne, but to be fair Tai Chi master William CC Cheung(?) does have his students compete in the ring, as does Lama Pai instructor David Ross.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 04:27 AM
Excellent. That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

Relevant questions become:
Under what rules do they fight? What is their record? Would Leroy consider their fights a legitimate demonstration of internal techniques and training (i.e., to what extent are they San Shou or whatever in addition to their internal training).

I've been reading this page:
http://members.tripod.com/~crane69/index.html
which details full-contact bouts between Chinese martial artists and various other styles. A lot of people on this board seem to dog on these type fighters. The Chinese fighters were largely San Da or San Shou or various combinations thereof; I'm aware that some people claim these are not authentic Chinese martial arts.

Still, while not necessarily conclusive, these competitions I think are valuable in contributing to understanding the pros and cons of the various styles and training methods.

As you probably know, the Chinese fighters have been doing rather well.

Braden
10-06-2001, 09:07 AM
gfhegel - Check out the koushu competition details at www.hsing-i.com (http://www.hsing-i.com) . The site is hosted by an ex-coach of koushu fighters who trained his men in the internal chinese arts. Their record is posted there, and you'll find it to be remarkable. Muay Thai fighters were present at the international and national competitions. The rules are also detailed.

Any questions?

toddbringewatt
10-06-2001, 09:18 AM
Royal Dragon,

This is NOT sarcasm:

YOU ARE A GENIUS!

Braden,

Pretty ****ing evidence against the Muay Thai crowd. Nice find.

gfhegel,

I don't believe one needs to do a science experiment every time he wants to know something.

I know what it takes to win fights because I've been in them and because I understand physics, biology, physiology and human reaction.

Because I know these things and because I've studied many of the basic techniques of both Kung Fu and Muay Thai -- and because I've observed both Muay Thai and Kung Fu for myself (in addition to studying the subjects academically) -- I have more than enough data to draw a perfectly logical inductive conclusion:

That Kung Fu is a far more effective tool for self-defense than Muay Thai.

This is a conclusion possible to know without actually seeing one vs. the other.

I know for instance that a Lamborghini Diablo is a far more effective tool for auto racing than a Volkswagon beetle. Have I actually seen two race? No. But I know enough about each to say the Diablo would probably win (EVERY TIME!).

It IS possible to know things without direct scientifically processed empirical evidence. It is my opinion that anyone who has thoroughly observed both arts -- and has a decent understanding of physics, biology, physiology and what it's like to be in a real fight -- would easily come to the conclusion that Kung Fu is obviously better suited for real fighting (including being attacked by someone far bigger, stronger and crazier than you).

In the worst case senario one would certainly be able to make one conclusion or the other as a common sense judgement without feeling he needs to rely on "science" as it were.

In summation, requisite knowlege of relevant subjects (such as fighting in general, rudimentary physics, rudimentary physiology, rudimentary biology, and a rudimentary understanding of human reaction) plus a direct observation of both Kung Fu and Muay Thai plus common sense equals the conclusion that:

In a street fight, where my life was on the line vs. a gigantic, vicious attacker? I'd rather be a Kung Fu master than a Muay Thai champion (any day).

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

toddbringewatt
10-06-2001, 10:54 AM
I'm sorry, ap Oweyn. I just realized I completely forgot to acknowledge your compliment to me about my writing in your earlier post.

Thank you! I think the same of you! :)


"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

jimmy23
10-06-2001, 03:23 PM
"I know for instance that a Lamborghini Diablo is a far more effective tool for auto racing than a Volkswagon beetle"

Apples and oranges. I know a bear can beat chihuahua also, what that has to do with hand to hand combat Im not sure.

" someone much bigger and stronger than you, in the extreme (some Sumo wrestler or WWF guy let's say) -- Let's say someone like this were to attack you in a viscious, all-out, frontal assault (his intention being to just snatch you up and pound and smash and squash and snap and tear and pummel you into obvlivion) -- Let's say he thought you raped his daughter or something of that nature. Guess what, in all likelyhood you're going to die. Period. Unless you are an extremely high-level martial artist"

Since this is our model, well, Ive seen western syle boxers (low level ones) demolish bigger men in the street,ones that were big, strong, fast, and coked up. More than once.A solid offensive boxer is a dangerous foe. And this was without muay thai kicks or elbows, just straight boxing.

Maybe Im so skeptical because i spent a lot of years as a bouncer in a lot of nasty dives. Ive seen (and been in ) a heck of a lot of fights, and i have no sense of mysticism about what seperates a good fighter from a bad one. THe statement like the one you make above just shows , in my opinion, naivete. BTW, a 155 pound MMA stylist recently choked out a WWF performer at the King of the Cage event, in the audience , when a fight broke out between them. WHat does this prove? Nothing, except that MMA type training(not the point of discussion here I know) can be effective even in situations of extreme physical disparity.

I dont see that link as ****ing evidence at all. If these are world class kou shou fighters, how many world class muay thai fighters are there(how many world class muay thai fighters have "actual ability" in "weapons of a Chinese persuasion", which is required to enter the World event?). No word on how long one can work out of the clinch, and strikes with the shin are illegal(acccording to the rules posted at the site).

I dont see one event, in a closed envirament, as ****ing evidence.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Braden
10-06-2001, 03:46 PM
You can work the clinch as long as you want. Strikes with the shin ARE allowed. Only one of the ratings listed on that site were from a world competition, the rest required no familiarity with chinese methods - and you'll note the internal chinese fighters did just as well.

I'd love to hear about a tournament fitting the specifications listed in this thread where Muay Thai fighters won.

jimmy23
10-06-2001, 03:51 PM
"In International competitions, strikes with the Hands, Feet, Elbows and Knees are allowed. However, in National competitions, the Elbow and Knee strikes are deleted. (No head butting in either structure.)"

No shins mentioned here. As for the events where muay thai tends to win, well, try every other event . You dont see internal fighters in Thailand fighting (where the rules are similar, but a tad less restrictive), nor do you see them here in america (as a general rule) , nor in the European muay thai circuit. Where are all the internal winners, then? In their own tournamnets only, it appears.

If Im wrong, then correct me. Im sure there are some rare exceptions to this rule, but i have yet to find them.

One more question that isnt addressed on the web site, is this continous fighting or are there breaks after each point? Are gis required to worn? Just curious.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Braden
10-06-2001, 03:55 PM
It wasn't an exhaustive list. Strikes with the forearm, shoulder, and hip are allowed, for example, as are strikes with the shin.

You are wrong. The venues you mention do not allow sweeps, takedowns, throwing, or much standing grappling.

jimmy23
10-06-2001, 03:57 PM
Muay Thai in thailand allows all of those attacks(but no groundfighting). American and european events amy or may not depending on the promoter and location.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

Braden
10-06-2001, 04:19 PM
From the World Muay Thai Council (www.wmtc.nu) (http://www.wmtc.nu)).
Check the rules link, then scroll down to "scoring practice." There are only four ways of getting points:

"correct Thai boxing style," "aggresive and dominating Muay Thai skill," "actively dominating an opponent," and "use of traditional Thai style of defense and counter-attack."

Does this sound like a scoring practice that evens the field between all fighting styles? It's all entirely subjective, and three of the four ways of scoring points are directly related to the fighter's skill in traditional Muay Thai, not any fighting method.

Other tidbit - striking arms or legs doesn't count.

Scroll down to "Fouls and Strikes Violating the Rules."

"Wrestling, back or arm locks or any similar judo or wrestling hold."

So what exactly are the standing grappling methods you mentioned were allowed?

Braden
10-06-2001, 04:30 PM
Oh, just found a rewrite of that same document with some elaboration. http://www.jabsystems.com/mt.rule.htm

Fouls:

"Wrestling", "throwing down an opponent", "feinting to fall" (that one is just wierd).

Well, looks like throws and takedowns AREN'T allowed. I bet I can find something about sweeps if I keep looking.

Braden
10-06-2001, 04:35 PM
Aha, amateaur muay thai rules (http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/RulesMT.htm)

"Sweeps are not allowed."

I knew it was out there. :) More wierdness... side kicks are not allowed. You're not allowed taking multiple steps if you catch an opponent's leg.

Oh good... they list the professional rules at the bottom of the page, and they're the same.

rogue
10-06-2001, 05:17 PM
"I know for instance that a Lamborghini Diablo is a far more effective tool for auto racing than a Volkswagon beetle. Have I actually seen two race? No. But I know enough about each to say the Diablo would probably win (EVERY TIME!)."

How about a potholed track covered in 4 to 6 inches of snow with a temp down around 20 degrees f? Still think the Diablo would win?

With all the additional aerodynamics of the Diablo what you end up with is $100,000 snow shovel. And not a very good one at that.

Same thing with martial arts, sometimes a little is enough.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 07:00 PM
I'm impressed at the breadth of their rules. The "international" rules are a lot like MMA without the groundfighting.

Still, it's hard to get much from their web page in terms of the history of the fighters, which MT guys showed up, etc. Still need more information, for instance:

Are these amateur or pro events?
Names (or at least some information) of the muay thai fighters that fought.
Information on how the bouts were resolved; i.e., were they close, were they by decision, etc..

I'm not saying that these competitions DON'T show the effectiveness of internal styles. Instead, I'm asking for more information. Not enough on that page.

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 07:42 PM
By the way, IKF rules are compromise rules. Although mt fighters engage in competition under these rules, and thus must accept the consequences of the outcomes, the full range of MT techniques is not allowed.

Does it illustrate the capabilities of MT-style training? Sort of. But there may be better, such as the fights at the website I listed above.

I find Leroy's evidence unpersuasive.

The analogy between automobiles and martial arts styles is fallacious. It works, perhaps in a loose sense, but definitely not the sense in which you are using it. I suppose the notion is “cars are to racing as styles are to fighting.” This is a gross oversimplification, and there are many obvious problems with this analogy to start with, some of which have already been mentioned.

More broadly, the notion that you can gather knowledge of the outcome of potential fights in the same way you can make knowledge claims about the outcome of hypothetical races is similarly flawed. We have a lot of information of car race outcomes from actual races that have taken place. If you had never seen (or never received credible information regarding) knowledge of the outcome of the race would be much more uncertain. Thus, you are not basing your knowledge of the capabilities of the vehicles but on the basis of empirical testing by others. Your claim to knowledge is still reliant on widely known and frequently repeated empirical tests of the principles involved. The same cannot be said for martial arts, although you claim in any event that you could predict the outcome without knowledge of any empirical tests, firsthand or otherwise.

I am not taking issue with the broader question of whether it is possible to know something without firsthand or secondhand empirical experience. I AM taking issue with the suggestion that you can draw conclusions about fight outcomes without firsthand or reliable secondhand observations.

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 07:47 PM
By the way, many people on the forum have knowledge of "fighting in general, physics, rudimentary physiology, rudimentary biology, and a rudimentary understanding of human reaction" as well as direct experience with internal kung fu styles and muay thai, and I think you will find a lot of people with this knowledge will disagree with you.

Your suggestion that just adding all this together equals "kung fu is obviously better than muay thai for fighting" (and, your implication that muay thai is to kung fu as VW beetle is to Lamborghini)is clearly not shared by others who have as much knowledge or more than yourself. I am not making a "bandwagon" argument here; they might all be wrong. Instead, I am directing you to evidence that the answer to this question is nowhere near so obvious as you suggest. Or else maybe everyone else is just nowhere near as smart as you.

Braden
10-06-2001, 10:56 PM
I'm not directly interested in Mr. Leroy's argument. I was just simply clarifying that the tournament results offered by Muay Thai proponents in these kinds of debates are false.

Muay Thai is an excellent style, however it has it's limitations (as do the internal chinese styles). Nonetheless, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, when competent fighters of both groups face each other on anything that is close to a level playing field, the Muay Thai people lose. Personally, I do not believe this to be evidence that Muay Thai is an inferior style. It's extremely good at what it does. However, if others are interested in making such arguments, they should be aware of the actual reality of the situation.

Are our observations perfect? No. People will always find a reason to excuse tournament losses rather than change their argument. And this has some validity, as the observations are NOT perfect. But they never will be.

Objectively, koushu is clearly a better format for comparing the issues brought up in this thread than the other competitions that have been mentioned. Make of this whatever you will.

If you are interested in names of the Muay Thai competitors, you'll have to contact the us-chinese koushu federation. Although you didn't say it was, it's worth noting for the reader that the absence of this data is not a ****ing point in the least.

Personally, I have my own reasons for training in bagua rather than muay thai. Among them you will NOT find "bagua is universally a better art", nor "bagua does better in tournaments."

gfhegel21
10-06-2001, 11:42 PM
Braden said:
"Nonetheless, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, when competent fighters of both groups face each other on anything that is close to a level playing field, the Muay Thai people lose."

Are you drawing this conclusion from that web page? I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not; please enlighten me, as I found the page only to list results without any explanation of how the tournaments went or the identities of the mt competitors who lost. As for whether the lack of this information is "not a ****ing point in the least," I would agree, except its absence makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about whether or not the event truly represented a "fair" comparison. Perhaps it did, but it is impossible to draw this conclusion from that particular page, as far as I can tell. If it's there, and I'm missing it, please let me know.

Did you check out that link I posted? Look down the page to the various "kung fu versus" sections, especially those pertaining to muay thai. That's the kind of explication that is necessary to get at least some sense of whether these competitions represented fair tests. They clearly specify the caliber of the competitors, the venues, the judges, the outcomes, etc. Although not conclusive, I find that kind of information far more persuasive than a bare bones description of the rules of the event and then a list of winners.

Braden
10-07-2001, 12:15 AM
The bajiquan page?

I can go back and specifically count, but as I recall it listed about 5 fights from about 30 years ago. I don't see how this is superior evidence to what I posted (offhand, 30 something fights from as recent as last season).

I do not have an objective source I can point you to for exact fighters names and descriptions as you have in that link, as that data tends to be compiled by a hobbyist, rather than on official pages. If you do not believe me that Muay Thai was represented at the events, of if you seek more info, I encourage you to contact the us-chinese koushu federation.

If you're not willing to take the trouble to go through those official channels, you may inquire with Mike Patterson at the site I posted (there is a public forum). Although I'm sure he's not interested in this debate, he may be able to share some specific information pertaining to the fighters and some general comments concerning the presence of muay thai fighters in koushu.

However, I'm by no means limited to that example. Wasn't it only last week we were discussing the beating Muay Thai fighters took at the hands of Sanda fighters? Although I'll grant you, the muay thai proponents insisted that didn't count either.
:rolleyes:

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 01:26 AM
You seem to get a little testy about me asking for further information. It's not a question of "not believing you," as in that's a character assault. I'm simply asking for further evidence for or clarification of the following assertion you made:
"contrary to what seems to be popular belief, when competent fighters of both groups face each other on anything that is close to a level playing field, the Muay Thai people lose."

That's a rather dramatic statement that requires some documentation at least.

Anyway, that page lists a lot more than 5 matches from 30 years ago. In fact, San Da fighters have been fighting muy thai fighters every couple of months, and as recently as September 23, 2001, as mentioned on that page. Yes, the Chinese fighters have been doing well. But the margin is extremely fine. They have shown that they can at least contend, but the superiority of either style still remains to be seen.

I like the web page author's generally unbiased perspective. He gives a lot of credit to fighters on either side.

As far as whether it counts, I would say "yes," it counts. Qualified, of course, by the fact that the rules have been updated continually etc. The most recent competition (from 9/23) probably is the most informative, as each style was able to fight with all of its weapons (although the Thais still had to wear elbow pads). In the previous matches the Thais had been willing to forego some of their best weapons. Their choice.

And, as the author himself notes, the margin of the victories (5-2, for the Chinese on 9/23) is somewhat deceptive, as it appears there were a couple of home town decisions and a mismatch. So, the loss for muay thai is not as decisive as it first appears. Still, even if it were 3-4 for the Chinese, I think it's a credit to the skill of their fighters. It shows that they can at least hang with the best.

As far as not willing to go through those official channels, I will probably check it out, although I'm surprised those trumpeting the superiority of kung fu over muay thai haven't already done so ahead of me. I mean, it seems it would be a key selling point, but he doesn't even mention muay thai fighters entering the events.

If you have other examples, please share them. I'm genuinely interested.

Braden
10-07-2001, 02:18 AM
Mr. Hegel - I'm sorry you got the impression that I was getting testy. That wasn't the case at all. I was simply trying to be concise, direct, and accurate in what I said (there's thanksgiving guests over; not alot of time to waste here). I have provided all of the official documentation that is available over the internet, and provided you with the means to obtain further formal information. I'm not sure what else I can do. I'm sure you don't mean to imply that you limit your knowledge base to things that can be read in a couple of seconds on the world wide web.

"although I'm surprised those trumpeting the superiority of kung fu over muay thai haven't already done so ahead of me."

I'll reiterate again that I'm doing no such thing. However, as to your point, I allready have "done so ahead of you." But I'm not sure how you wish for me to convey the information I have. I've been trying to avoid saying "take my word for it," preferring to give you the means to objectively verify the details for yourself.

As for the Sanda victory being indecisive, I think that is just as much a cop-out as were the kungfu proponent's complaints when THEY lost.

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 04:13 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding Braden.

Well, I'll keep my eye out for any information that's available. Given time, I might follow up with Mike Patterson.

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 04:06 PM
Okay.

VW bug vs. Lamborghini Diablo?

Gimme some credit here, guys. The analogy was not that VW is to MT as Diablo is to KF. I am simply using VW vs. LD as an EXAMPLE of ONE thing that can be known without doing a science experiment.

Lamborghini on a pot-holed road in the snow? You've got to be kidding me. Just get my point. SOME THINGS CAN BE KNOWN WITHOUT ELABORATE SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING YEARS OF EMPIRICAL DATA! THAT'S IT! The rest of my post is simply my opinion (with NO implication that MT is to a VW as KF is to a Lamborghini!).

Now, that Kung Fu is superior as a fighting art to Muay Thai IS rather obvious to me. But it's either true or it isn't. And if it isn't true, well, then I'm a bit of a fool here. But if it IS true then, okay, I guess it's also true that "maybe everyone else is just nowhere near as smart as you" (as some poster so sarcastically put it).

My own sarcasm aside, I personally don't think we're running into an issue of "smart" here at all. I think the issue is something else entirely.

Rather than taking up point by point the myriad convenient misrepresentations of my last post (I say "convenient" because, a) they make me look like a complete moron and b) they greatly assist the counter-positions proposed by the misrepresentor) I will simply attempt to more concisely reiterate my stance on this issue.

Kung Fu artists at the highest levels are ultimately trained as quick and efficient instruments of death. They are taught the SCIENCE of quickly and efficiently KILLING/MAIMING their attackers.

Muay Thai artists at the highest levels are ultimately trained as quick and efficient instruments of SPORT. They are taught the SPORT of beating another man into a state of unconscioussness usually over a period of multiple rounds within a well-regulated system of rules using standardized equipment and paraphenellia within a controlled ring.

Yes, Muay Thai has a rich and deadly martial history. Yes, there are deadly martial applications. But the martial applications of Kung Fu are FAR GREATER in both SHEER NUMBER (which is ALWAYS an asset if quality also accompanies said quantity) and EFFECTIVENESS (especially against much larger, stronger opponents) at least in as much as Kung Fu technique drills in the ability to redirect force far more specifically and far more sophisticatedly than Muay Thai.

Kung Fu also spends far more of its attention and expertise dealing with HOW EXACTLY, WHERE EXACTLY and WITH WHAT EXACTLY does one attack a body to create WHAT EXACT EFFECT -- the results of which are self-explanitory in a senario where one is fighting for one's life. And finally, ALMOST ALL of the major techniques and tactics of Muay Thai can be found WITHIN Kung Fu itself in one form or another, leaving only POWER, SPEED and STRENGTH as an issue (all factors which can be developed equally in either art). And even here Kung Fu provides far more technique (all very workable and demonstrable I might add) in the way of power development, e.g. the short power of various forms of Kung Fu, the power development methods of Hsing I, Bagua, Tai Chi, etc.

Truthfully there is more, but the above is plainly obvious to anyone who would care to look.

One poster acused me of being naive. He said he worked as a bouncer in "nasty dives" and had no "mystical sense" of what seperates a good fighter from a bad one.

In response I would point out that in my experience "nasty dives" are not frequented by expert Internal arts practitioners. And I'm not talking about what seperates a good fighter from a bad fighter. I'm talking about what seperates a Kung Fu master and a Muay Thai champion in their respective abilities to deal with a sudden hulking, brutish attack.

If you consult people with experience in dealing with situations like this (where the attacker is A LOT bigger and stronger and willing to kill you) you will find that skill in boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, kickboxing, etc. just doesn't tend to hold up very well. It tends to fold under that kind of pressure. You WILL find, however, under similar circumstance those expert in Internal technique tend to come out somewhat routinely ontop. This may SOUND naive to a bar room bouncer. But a) bouncers RARELY have the opportunity to witness this phenomenon in the first place via a severe lack of Internal masters popping by for a drink (and I'm not saying that Internal masters don't drink or frequent bars so don't even THINK about going there -- I'm referencing "nasty dives" here) and b) if one refrains from relying on what simply SOUNDS or SEEMS naive and instead LOOKS or ASKS those who have experienced it for themselves (which I have done), one will find that what I say DOES in fact tend to be true.

Now as a counter-argument to this the above mentioned bouncer posted:

"Ive seen western syle boxers (low level ones) demolish bigger men in the street,ones that were big, strong, fast, and coked up. More than once.A solid offensive boxer is a dangerous foe. And this was without muay thai kicks or elbows, just straight boxing."

Not GROSSLY biggER, strongER, and fastER. I guarantee it. And coked up is often a SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE. Coke in taken in larger quantities becomes a depressant and in great quantities a hallucinogen and eventually a lethal poison. Even in its stimulant doses, reality is often greatly distorted. Not an advantage in a fight.

Yes, a good boxer IS a dangerous foe indeed. But I'm sorry, Hulk Hogan would make minced meat out of Oscar de la Hoya any day of the week and twice on Sunday in any kind of a real fight (especially one where death was on the line and both men knew it). To think otherwise really IS naive. Hulk Hogan vs. an expert Hsing I exponent? Now at least you've got a betting situation. Hulk Hogan vs. a Muay Thai fighter? Your odds just changed significantly in the other direction again.

As a final note let me just reiterate a point I made earlier about this whole issue. And this is perhaps the most salient point I could make about MT vs. KF:

Perhaps what we're dealing with here has much more to do with the old saying which goes something like, "I do not fear the man who has practiced one thousand techniques. I fear the man who has practiced one technique a thousand times."

Muay Thai as a generality, as a community of people DEFINITELY have the advantage here. The number of Kung Fu exponents who have trained in their vast number of techniques with the same discipline and dilligence that Muay Thai fighters tend to train just their round kicks is in my opinion, LOW.

So there you have it.

Begin round 11. Ding. Ding.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
10-07-2001, 04:46 PM
Bruce Leroy,

"ap Oweyn,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you need direct empirical evidence that strictly and specifically demonstrates that one art is superior to the other before you could know. And you're also saying that any possibility of witnessing such evidence is practically impossible. If that IS your position then why bother discussing it?"

Yep. That's essentially what I'm saying. Why am I bothering to discuss it? Because I disagree with you. That's all.

I believe that you can't reliably predict the things you're attempting to predict. I believe that it's not as simple as you profess. I know you want this issue to be clear. I know you want to be sure of it. But that isn't possible. Not in my opinion.

I think that positions like this are an attempt to seek security in an idea. Personally, I can't do that. I can't look at the boxer at my gym and convince myself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that because I can kick AND I've observed a lot of boxing matches in my day, then I am, by definition, superior to that boxer. I can say that. I can offer evidence as to why it should logically be so. But I can't know. And, personally, I think it's important to remember that. To do otherwise is, to my mind, to blind yourself to some rather uncomfortable possibilities.

So let's look at that for a moment. Two fighters of different styles. A boxer and a neijia expert. Does the taiji man know, looking at the boxer, what his relative skill level is? Health and conditioning? Strength? Evasive skills?

You've talked a lot about how a match between two perfectly equal practitioners would go. But I still don't see what relevance that scenario has to us in the real world. If you were the paragon of neijia, and you were challenged to a fight, you would have no fear because your neijia was, by definition, superior. But you aren't. So is what you know enough to beat the man in front of you? What does he know? Is he a good thai boxer? A middling thai boxer? Does he run three miles every day? Has he used his muay thai in street fights? Have any of his opponents ever died in the ring?

You don't know. That's my point. And since there are no living embodiments of the respective styles, men and women trained in one style with no outside exposure to other styles, achieving the precise same levels of skill, conditioning, and experience as their opponents in the other style, then this is an abstraction. And I can take no comfort in an abstraction. If you can, then I envy you.

"If this is not your position, then you tell me what set of circumnstances (that ARE possible to duplicate in the physical universe) WOULD provide the empirical evidence you need."

Well... Actual fights between practitioners of each. Do you have record of such fights? And do they show the unmitigated success of neijia? (Remember, I'm not saying that muay thai will win. Only that the outcome is uncertain.)

"If you can answer the above then we can continue. Otherwise this is just going to go back and forth with you denying each time that I have any "real empirical evidence" which you would find acceptable."

I have answered. And it's still going to go back and forth because your requirements for proving this and mine are different. You're happy with the evidence you've provided. I remain unconvinced. I'm sorry.

"Ball's in your court."

Over to you.

"Somehow this discussion has denigrated into a disagreement about Kung Fu's "complexity" and "number of techniques" providing any advantage over Muay Thai. This has been an ongoing alteration of the concept that Kung Fu's techniques are more "SOPHISTICATED" in the way of "EFFICACY AGAINST BRUTE FORCE"."

Yes, it has. But I didn't make that alteration. You did. By citing that muay thai has such a small number of techniques, without regard for how versatile, skillfully trained, or effective those techniques are. Personally, I regard their use of the roundhouse as extremely sophisticated. Variations in angle, timing, and footwork. Shuffle steps to gain more power from a lead leg. Cut kicks as a takedown and defense against kicking maneuvers. Upward angled kicks to allow for quick hand followups. Downward angled kicks to generate additional power. You count this as one technique. The roundhouse. I regard it as far more sophisticated than that implies.

[long quote]

Here's an example of what I mean when I'm talking about SOPHISTICATION (NOT COMPLEXITY) in the direction of EFFICACY AGAINST BRUTE FORCE:

If someone much bigger and stronger than you, in the extreme (some Sumo wrestler or WWF guy let's say) -- Let's say someone like this were to attack you in a viscious, all-out, frontal assault (his intention being to just snatch you up and pound and smash and squash and snap and tear and pummel you into obvlivion) -- Let's say he thought you raped his daughter or something of that nature. Guess what, in all likelyhood you're going to die. Period. Unless you are an extremely high-level martial artist.

Now. Is Muay Thai going to do it? I say not a chance in hell. Because no matter how powerful your roundhouse (unless you're as big and strong as he is), no matter how well timed your punches are, no matter how refined and effective you are in the clinch, no matter how many tournaments you've won (I don't care if you're the best Muay Thai fighter in the world -- again, unless you're of comparable size) you are going to get creamed and creamed good. You're strikes and maneuvering and blocking are going to collapse under the sheer force of this guy's near unstoppable brutish attack.

You mean like the first match ever of the UFC? A sumo wrestler versus a savate kickboxer (Gerard Gordeau). The wrestler charges in. Gordeau sidesteps, hits the wrestler with a left cross, and then roundhouse kicks him flush in the face, launching one of his teeth into the audience? Unfortunate for Gordeau that he should collapse under the sheer force of this guy's near unstoppable brutish attack.

That's what I mean. Empirical evidence. But do I now think that ever kickboxer will beat every brute? Nope. Do I think that everyone who's style is powerful is nothing more than a brute? Nope.

Several other sumo wrestlers have been beaten in the UFC. By kenpo practitioners and kickboxers. So, evidently, they aren't having the impossible time dealing with sheer brute force that you seem to think.

[long quote]

Okay. I think I'll probably get broad agreement with the above senario. Now. What does the trained (albiet, the HIGHLY trained Interal arts practioner which would be necessary in this case) Kung Fu fighter have at his disposal?

He has Interally developed short-range shock power. He has a thorough knowledge of nerve point manipulation. He has highly developed and efficient finger strikes and the knowledge of which vital points he'll need to pulverize in order to bring this beast down. He has the grappling and evasionary knowledge necessary to turn this hulking attacker's own size and force into a debilitating fall/throw. And to address the issue of number of techniques, yes, the MORE techniques one has at his disposal and CAN USE EFFECTIVELY because he has MASTERED them, the better off one will be in this type of senario.

The above listed techniques by the way are a cursory example of what an Internal arts practitioner has at his disposal.

So, given that there are only so many hours in a day, presumably training time must be spent either learning new techniques or perfecting those already known. So if the 'ace in the hole' for internal arts is the "MORE techniques one has at his disposal", then how is the practitioner mastering ALL of them in the same time it takes someone else to master fewer? And if he hasn't mastered all of them, how are they an advantage?

"So, is complexity of techique going to help out at all in this situation? GOD NO!!! But SOPHISTICATION sure as hell will. Do you see the difference here. This is what I'm talking about, not complexity."

What will help here is developing your technique to a point that you can comfortably and effectively employ it at will in an unpredictable and highly charged situation. That's sophistication. And it isn't dependent on style.

"And finally, will sheer quantity of technique help? I sure hope I've mastered as many helpful tricks as possible if I ever find myself staring down the frightening girth of a man three times my size. And I'm sure you would too."

There you go with that word again. Mastery. If you're talking about two theoretical men with the same level of experience, I assume you mean the same years of training. Yes? So if I've got twenty years of muay thai training to perfect, say, eight techniques. And you've got twenty years to perfect 100 techniques, who's going to be able to devote more time to each technique? That's a reliable way to achieve skill at something, yeah?

So you and I meet. We fight. Perhaps the fight yields some situations for which you have tricks and I do not. Advantage: you. Perhaps it yields opportunities for me to land multiple kicks. And because I've trained those kicks for twenty years, I'm pretty freaking good at them. Advantage: me.

Outcome: I don't know. Again, that's my point.

"While the Muay Thai fighter is perfecting his roundhouse and numbing and toughening his shins, the Internal fighter is training to stay alive. And even he is going to have a rough time of it if Andre the Giant decides to throw down."

Rest assured that if a thai fighter meets another in the ring, not getting killed is probably in his top ten priorities as well.

"I don't believe one needs to do a science experiment every time he wants to know something."

Scientists do. I can't think of one scientific principle we hold that hasn't been exhaustively and specifically tested. And yet you're putting forth an immutable law (that kung fu is more effective than muay thai) that somehow doesn't require such testing.

"I know what it takes to win fights because I've been in them and because I understand physics, biology, physiology and human reaction."

I understand The Red Badge of Courage too. Doesn't really improve my chances in a war.

"Because I know these things and because I've studied many of the basic techniques of both Kung Fu and Muay Thai -- and because I've observed both Muay Thai and Kung Fu for myself (in addition to studying the subjects academically) -- I have more than enough data to draw a perfectly logical inductive conclusion:

That Kung Fu is a far more effective tool for self-defense than Muay Thai."

Please define 'studied', 'observed', and 'drawn data.' Because what you're coming up with is a perfectly logical inductive conclusion, based on the data you have. What I'm suggesting is that it's not enough.

Your profile cites five years of experience. In Korean arts. It doesn't list any experience in kung fu. Only that you're looking for a good teacher. And it cites absolutely no experience with a muay thai teacher. So what data collection, specifically, have you done?

"This is a conclusion possible to know without actually seeing one vs. the other."

No. It isn't.


Stuart B.

p.s. My compliment to your writing skills stands, regardless of this debate.

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 06:23 PM
Stuart,

Thanks for the compliment regarding my writing. It is appreciated. However, I do not appreciate being psychoalalyzed with, "I think that positions like this are an attempt to seek security in an idea."

I think that attempts to evalute such things for others is covertly hostile at worst and demonstrative of a serious lapse in manners at best. Easy to get into when not speaking face to face.

Furthermore I find your treatment of my earlier posts to be rife with undue colorings and misrepresentations of my thinking rather than the more cordial attempt to simply understand and respond with query and reason.

Resultantly, I do not care to communicate any further with you about the topic on this thread. Consider my participation in any "debate" with you, as you referred to it, officially off.

You do seem a decent enough fellow, however, by earlier writings and I am more than willing to discuss any other pontentially more friendly topics with you as you see fit.

Take care.

:)

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
10-07-2001, 06:33 PM
Bruce Leroy,

If you choose to take it as an insult, I can't really stop you. But I wasn't trying to make any assumptions about your personality or psychoanalyze you. I think it's something we all do. It wasn't intended as an insult. It was intended as an earnest attempt to make sense of something. If you feel I have crossed a line, then I apologize.

As for misrepresentations and colourings, I have been very careful throughout this debate to directly quote you and address your points precisely in this manner. So if I have misquoted you or misled any reading audience, it was unintentional. And, given the format that I used in responding, it should be easy enough to show me precisely where I have misrepresented your view.

In any event, no harm was intended. I wasn't making judgments about your psychological state. Just extrapolating feelings about my own reactions to things. If this was inaccurate or even poor mannered, I'm sorry.

The idea that I have misrepresented you, however, is more upsetting given the great lengths I've gone to in using your precise wording. That was done deliberately to create an even playing field and avoid shaping the argument in my favour.

I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. And I'm sorry for offending you. Not my intention.


Stuart B.

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 06:46 PM
Stuart,

Thanks for the apology. No worries. I'm not offended. I apreciate your response and I believe in your sincerity.

You are obviously a highly intelligent, well-meaning fellow and I've enjoyed our discussion. Let's just end off on this thread. I've said all the pertinent things I'd like to say at this time and any further discussion will just be a lengthy,

Todd (Bruce Leroy): That's not what I meant.

Stuart: Well, that's not what I meant that you meant.

Todd: Yes, but you said, "..."

Stuart: Yes, but what I was intending by that was...

Let's just chalk it up to two passionate, bright, well-spoken guys who for one reason or another simply aren't going to see eye to eye on this particular issue.

I like you, Stuart. Train on! :)

P.S. I'M sorry if I offended YOU in any way. :(

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

apoweyn
10-07-2001, 07:02 PM
Todd,

I can live with that, mate. No worries on my end either.

Regards,

Stuart

jimmy23
10-07-2001, 07:13 PM
"If you consult people with experience in dealing with situations like this (where the attacker is A LOT bigger and stronger and willing to kill you) you will find that skill in boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, kickboxing, etc. just doesn't tend to hold up very well."

I have dealt with many situations like this, and I told you the results. Ive seen a 150 pound boxer demolish a 300 pound roid head, quick fast and in a hurry. I dont know how that doesnt fit the "GROSSLY biggER, strongER, and fastER" scenario.

As for cocaine not making one a more dangerous fighter,well, I hope you never have to test this in the street, as youre just wrong here. Sorry, its that simple, in most cases Ive seen guys on speed and it made them much more dangerous. Obviously long term use of it will make you a worse fighter, but thats not what were talking about here.

"But I'm sorry, Hulk Hogan would make minced meat out of Oscar de la Hoya any day of the week and twice on Sunday in any kind of a real fight "

As i said early on in the post, Ive seen these type of mismatches and Ive seen a tiny boxer ruin a huge guy, more than once.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 07:17 PM
Leroy, please point out where your points have been so cynically and severely mis-represented or manipulated. I have made an honest attempt to understand your views (through the thick veil of condescension that pervades them) but still remain confused about how you draw the conclusions you do. In part, it's because your claims seem to vary somewhat from post to post. For instance, I'm confused whether we're talking about kung fu champions vs. muay thai champions, people from either style with roughly equivalent experience, or some other permutation. Also, are we talking about the internal Chinese arts, or all Chinese arts?


I do actually have a theory about how you draw your conclusions, although I think it's different than the explanation you have provided. My sense is that you are arguing that kung fu will be superior because it has more "tools" in its tool box, particularly in situations where there is a disparity in physical attributes.

Perhaps there is some merit to this view. E.g., attacks to the eyes are a logical target for trying to equalize a confrontation. Since eye gouges are illegal in muay thai competitions, this alone would put it at a disadvantage. (I'm just using eyes as an example; there are any number of potential techniques illegal in muay thai that are taught in various martial arts schools).

Is that what you're saying?

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 07:32 PM
gfhegel,

"Leroy, please point out where your points have been so cynically and severely mis-represented or manipulated. I have made an honest attempt to understand your views (through the thick veil of condescension that pervades them)"

For starters the "Subject" of your most recent post. Another example would be your "thick veil of condescension" comment. Another would be the VW vs. Lamborghini fiasco I outlined. The list goes on and on and I really don't feel like getting involved in a personal ****ing contest with you over this, gfhegel.

Let's speak to one another the way men of good will and manners would speak to one another. If something I've said has been condescending to you I apologize. Let's start afresh. What do you say?

As to your tool box reasoning, you're right. This is one of my most salient points on the issue. Well said.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 08:00 PM
Apology accepted. If I have misrepresented your posts, that was not my intention, and I apologize.

I'm not interested in getting into a ****ing contest, personal or otherwise. I am also not afraid to admit when I am wrong. So if the goal is to get as much leverage on this question it seems that we shouldn't have too many problems.

In any case, it looks like we are making some progress given that it appears I successfully reiterated one of your important points; good evidence of communication actually taking place.

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 08:01 PM
Apology accepted. If I have misrepresented your posts, that was not my intention, and I apologize.

I'm not interested in getting into a ****ing contest, personal or otherwise. I am also not afraid to admit when I am wrong. So if the goal is to get as much leverage on this question it seems that we shouldn't have too many problems.

In any case, it looks like we are making some progress given that it appears I successfully restated one of your important points; good evidence of communication actually taking place.

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 08:06 PM
jimmy,

"Ive seen a 150 pound boxer demolish a 300 pound roid head, quick fast and in a hurry. I dont know how that doesnt fit the "GROSSLY biggER, strongER, and fastER" scenario."

This DOES fit my senario. But in your earlier post you didn't include the specifics. You just said big, strong and fast. I sincerely doubt the "roid head's" resolve in that situation. Of course I could be wrong and perhaps you've given an excellent example here but I see it as ONLY ONE example -- an exception to the rule.

"As for cocaine not making one a more dangerous fighter,well, I hope you never have to test this in the street, as youre just wrong here."

Wrong, huh? I'm sorry but I've personally done way too many drugs and been around way too many ****edup people to take that very seriously.

"Sorry, its that simple, in most cases Ive seen guys on speed and it made them much more dangerous."

You may have seen them but I disagree with your conclusion about the speed making them more dangerous. Maybe more willing to fight. Maybe more psychotic. But it surely doesn't improve one's technique or judgement/strategy/tactical awareness. That's for sure. And again, I've done to many drugs to be swayed into thinking otherwise.

"Obviously long term use of it will make you a worse fighter, but thats not what were talking about here."

Did you know that if you take enough of ANY stimulant it becomes a depressant? Look how slow and doped up guys get on coke and meth when they binge. Prolonged use isn't the issue. You take enough of ANY stimulant, even if it's your first time, you're gonna be headed for nodsville.

ALL drugs in small enough doses are stimulants. If you increase the dose it becomes a depressant. If you increase it further it becomes a hallucinogen. If you increase it further it becomes a lethal poison. This is true even of coffee. Of course you'd have to drink something like 100 cups in less than a minute for it to kill you.

Also, as a side issue, I'm not aware of even stimulants increasing reaction time vs. a sober state.

Anyway, I wrote:

"But I'm sorry, Hulk Hogan would make minced meat out of Oscar de la Hoya any day of the week and twice on Sunday in any kind of a real fight "

To which you responded:

"As i said early on in the post, Ive seen these type of mismatches and Ive seen a tiny boxer ruin a huge guy, more than once."

How many times? How many times have you seen the reverse? Were these instances really just some huge bum-rushing the little guy with the intent to kill? I seriously doubt it.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

toddbringewatt
10-07-2001, 08:09 PM
gfhegel,

Right on! Good point about communication.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

rogue
10-07-2001, 10:33 PM
"Gimme some credit here, guys. The analogy was not that VW is to MT as Diablo is to KF. I am simply using VW vs. LD as an EXAMPLE of ONE thing that can be known without doing a science experiment."

That's an example why some of us can't accept your arguments, they're based upon all things being equal in a clean room environment and not upon the real world. You may be a good writer but you need to work on your analysis.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 11:03 PM
On the issue of kung fu “tools” versus muay thai “tools”:
This is a good point, but does not necessarily imply that kung fu fighters will be better fighters than muay thai fighters, inside or outside the ring. Leaving aside that muay thai fighters are, at least in theory, more “limited” in that they don’t train flesh tearing techniques (etc. etc.), here is why I think this is so:

If you take a trained muay thai fighter, you will likely bring the following abilities to the table:
Good cardio conditioning
Good body conditioning (toughening of striking surfaces combined with body toughening for taking heavy blows)
Experience in applying muay thai techniques in the context of hard or full contact sparring and fighting.

For this post, I will focus only on the third point, the experience of the muay thai fighter.

I won’t attempt to characterize a well-trained “kung fu fighter,” as I am not an expert, and the arts are so diverse this does not make sense. But, how many internal kung fu stylists are experienced in the give and take of fighting, even at the level that takes place in a muay thai ring or a muay thai gym? When a thai fighter puts you in the clinch and starts using knees, elbows, unbalancing, he will have executed that techniques against resisting opponents (who are actually familiar with the techniques being used) dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times, depending on the level of fighter you’re talking about.

For these additional tools available to kung fu fighters, how many times will they have applied their techniques in a similar context? How many clavicles will they have torn out? How many knees will they have destroyed? How many eyes will they have gouged out? How many finger bones will they have broken? How many cheeks will they have ripped through with eagle claw techniques? The odds are, not that many. Even if they train realistically, they only will have actually applied the techniques in theory.

Perhaps, there are fighters who have applied these techniques in combat, but how many opportunities will they have had to do so?

My argument is that the knowledge of these additional “tools,” even if they are drilled frequently, is more than balanced out by the muay thai fighter’s actual experience in using the full range of his or her techniques at full force against a resisting foe. If the “tools” of the kung fu fighter could be similarly experienced (say, we could produce a race of androids that would put up a good fight and could be repaired after having their clavicles torn out etc.; or, say, we could pull some figure out of history that had weathered dozens and dozens of “to the death” challenge matches) then I might be persuaded by this argument.

Now all of this leaves aside the issue that muay thai fighters also may have additional tools that they train in but don’t use in the ring. Fighters in general do know how to eye gouge, rabbit punch, groin strike, elbow to the throat, etc. Many fighters are quite good at “dirty” techniques, but are limited in using them in the ring because they have to wait until the referee’s back is turned.

Caveat: I’m not implying that knowledge of these techniques is useless or that they are all unrealistic (although I have encountered a lot of unrealistic predictions of exploded spines etc.). Just that knowledge of them does not automatically imply victory, or, more specifically, imply that the muay thai fighter is going to get smoked 9 times out of ten. They might be used successfully, but they might not.

gfhegel21
10-07-2001, 11:10 PM
With regards to the first two points, cardio conditioning and training to receive blows, the issue is more mixed, but still does not imply superiority of kung for over muay thai in a stand up fight.

Cardio conditioning is available to anyone, obviously. And I am aware that some kung fu schools teach "iron body" techniques or may practice similar body conditioning exercises.

But the question is this: how many of them will have the combination of cardio training, body conditioning, and fighting experience that a muay thai practitioner generally will have?

My view is that there is no a priori reason why a kung fu stylist couldn't develop these three characteristics (excepting the maiming or "lethal" techniques), but based on what I've observed few actually have.
So this point is more based on claims about the way internal or other kung fu (I've lost track of which we're talking about) is actually practiced. This element does not, though, support the argument that kung fu fighters will always or almost always best a muay thai opponent.

Shaolindynasty
10-07-2001, 11:20 PM
I feel that both may just equal out if all is compared but KF does have more tools. I am not talking about ripping and tearing or such but they do have alot of throwing and grappling techniques that Muay Thai doesn't. I think this is why the San Shou fighters won that last series of fights cause they threw their opponents and Muay Thai fighters are limited in this part of the fight. In Muay Thai when you clinch you throw knees, in San Shou you throw the person scoreing points. I don't like to talk about "ripping and tearing" cause that will never be allowed in contests but throwing and joint locks are somtimes allowed after all the MMA crowd says people with no grappling experience will lose a NHB contest so have those tools will make a difference in the contest. Kungfu will take a substantial leap in victories over Muay Thai since San Shou is now a professional sport, soon the conditioning will no longer be a plus for Muay Thai. Muay Thai's reign over weekend warriors is over they are now going to have to face equal oppenents.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

gfhegel21
10-08-2001, 12:06 AM
Well, you're sort of right, it seems. Throws appear to have only been decisive in the final fight in the September 23 Chinese-Thai bouts. In the previous meetings the throws had been more decisive, but the Thais evidently adjusted, limiting, although definitely not neutralizing, the effectiveness of the throws.

That final fight, though, sounded like the Thai got brutalized by throws, as well as by strikes, and was unquestionably a great victory for San-Da and a great loss for the Thais.

Oh, and I'm not questioning your point about Sanda fighters being able to contend with the Thais. There is no doubt that their level is increasing all the time and represent a real threat in the ring.

The odd thing is, I hear the Sanda and San Shou crowd getting dogged all the time on this message board as NOT authentic kung fu! My sense is that while they can't possibly be considered to represent "all" kung fu, I do think they are legitimate representatives of the Chinese fighting arts.

On the issue of groundfighting, I agree with you totally. This thread has mainly focused on the issue of striking and standing grappling and throws.

Braden
10-08-2001, 01:50 AM
Although it's not an argument, it may be of interest here to point out that while I am a devout internal chinese martial artist (or at least try to be), I believe very strongly in _few_ and _simple_ tools in my "toolbox." I also do not train eye strikes, groin strikes, nor poking.

As to the raw combat ability of internal and other chinese stylists (according to the characteristics Mr. Hegel brought up), I would definitely concur that the average ability of chinese stylists is far below that of muay thai-traing individuals. However, this has absolutely no impact upon my training, nor that of any other person seriously interested in martial proficiency.

Concerning the "Sanda/Sanshou not being kungfu" debate, it's unfortunate how poorly this often gets misrepresented - and sadly repeated by those 'towing the party line.' Sanda/Sanshou is simply a training/competing format. Traditionally speaking, sanda/sanshou was a component of every chinese martial system. The criticism that "sanda/sanshou is not kungfu" can come from various arguments, depending on the situation. Some people claim that sanda/sanshou is a style of kungfu (eg. "I train in sanshou.", "I fought a sanshou fighter."). I would say this is incorrect, at least in the classical sense. I think the reason for this is clear from the previous definition (Indeed, many people trained outside of China, completely in non-chinese methods train and compete in sanshou). Another criticism is when traditionally trained chinese stylists compete in sanshou, but revert to kickboxing when the pressure is on. Hence the comment, "They were only kickboxing." Proper kungfu fighting is a very different strategy than kickboxing. All that said, it's clear that sanshou in some cases IS kungfu.