Do most fights go to the ground?

[SifuAbel]

Man you are freaking me out!! You must be psychic. I was thinking about writing the very same thing. Gee, now I have to write something different.
uhh... uhhh...Yeah, what frozen said.

[rogue]

You guys have watched too many movies if thats how you think battles were fought in ancient times.

Also those Okinawan farmers lost.

[This message has been edited by rogue (edited 08-21-2000).]

[Paul DiMarino]

Just a few things in a non-flaming way, so please don't take it like so:

The 1500 years of combat thing: Man fights with weapons. Ever since the beginning of man we've been using weapons to kill. Be they rocks and sticks or swords and spears, man had always fought his wars with weapons. The ancient Chinese may have been **** good fighters, but that was with spears, swords, staffs, etc. America has a good army. Does that mean in 1500 years, people will be following the infallable empty-hand system of USA troops? I'm not saying that the CMA empty hand lacks merit, but let's get real. There weren't fighting the invading Monguls empty-handed. Well, maybe in a few Shaw Bros flicks they did.

BTW, I like kung fu and am planning on practicing it again. I'm not saying that it's not effective. I'm just trying to bring a bit of reality into this conversation.

Secondly, the cross training thing: You are 100% right in saying that if somebody practices 10 things while you practice one, then you'll be better at that one than I am at any of the 10 I practice. (and it sounded so much more simple in my head) Anyway, the point of cross-training is to know enough of all ranges to take your opponent out of his element and into one yours. If he's a striker, you'll know enough not to get ko'ed, but still have the skills to grapple and take him out of his element.

[Jaguar Wong]

Yes, Paul, that's a great explaination of cross training. Each individual will still have their favored "game". The key is to choose your style or game, and train that with intensity, then if your style is weak in another aspect, you would cross train in order to control the situation when the game changes. In order to keep the edge, you gotta bring the opponent into your game.

Some people favor striking, others favor grappling, but if you encounter someone that knows your game better than you, then you may be able to switch to a secondary game, that you perhaps know better. (ex: instead of boxing a boxer, switch to long range kicking, or move for the clinch, and throw, or takedown.)

I think I said that right. Oh well. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

------------------
Jaguar Wong
www.superaction.com

[GinSueDog]

Paul,
Thank you, I am so tired of the "but Kung Fu was made for the battlefield" arguement. There are very few systems that can make that claim. What's funny the Gladiators of Rome rebelled several times and every single time were beaten down by the Rome legions, even though on a one to one fight a Rome soldier would lose everytime to the Gladiator.-ED

BTW, I am not saying Kung Fu is ineffective, I am saying that battlefield argue is invalid.-ED

[This message has been edited by GinSueDog (edited 08-21-2000).]