Five Animals Kung Fu?

[David Jamieson]

tank abbot has what is known as the 'beer physique'. :-D

still, here's a guy who was just a plain old bad ass, no training in nothing and goes in, kicks ass, takes numbers and the martial arts world was reeling for a while after that.

It took time before the game got up enough that there were less and less nascar gi hacks getting into sanctioned matches and eventually it (mma)started to come into its own as a martial art comprised of many other arts, and even a few things that were new because they had to be brought into it for the sake of what works in that venue.

if you're not working it, you will get worked, big or small.

having said that, I've sen big guys who couldn't fight worth squat really andI've seen little guys who were hella fighters and seemed to have a problem with teh fear mechanism in their brains. lol

will can beat skill, will can even beat a size issue, but sometimes, no matter how much you will it, you are going to eat bitter regardless of who you are.

[green_willow]

Let descend to mathematics.

g-w et al's equation:
octogon/nhb = 'real' fighting
traditional techniques (eagle claw, iron palm, et al) are not seen in the octogon/nhb
therefore traditional techniques are not seen in 'real' fighting
therefore traditional techniques are 'worthless'

I'm substituting traditional techniques with teenage girls:
octogon/nhb = 'real' fighting
teenage girls are not seen in the octogon/nhb
therefore teenage girls are not seen in 'real' fighting
therefore teenage girls are 'worthless'

Ok lets talk maths. from your equations you are saying that traditional techniques = teenage girls.

seriously I think you're losing the plot here LOL. But lets continue talking maths for the sake of it.

I'm not saying that Octogon = real fighting. What I'm saying that Octogan is a sub-set of fighting. there are also many aspects of fighting that are totally unfair which no amount of training will save you - like say being stabbed in your sleep. Ok lets deal with the subset where you can actually defend yourself.

Eagle claw being a so called compete system should cover the subset of situations where you can defend yourself. This should include the octogan sistuation because it falls within this subset.

You say that eagle claw is standing up grappling. Surely out of 108 ways to seize grapple and tackle, there must be at least around 10 moves which deal with on the ground situation. Even if the creator of the style is as steady as a rock he must have accounted for the rare 10% chance of being taken to the ground. Hey even the best ice skaters fall down once in a while.

Given that self defence is a form of risk management, I'm sure that the creator would have addrerssed small probabilities that associate with catastrophic outcomes.

Now the question again - why do we not see eagle claw in the octogon??

Honestly, I respect octogon/NHB fighters, but the perspective that this is all the defines martial arts is so limiting. My personal interest in martial arts is swordsmanship. Swordsmanship has no place in the octogon/NHB so I'm completely out of the equation. If you like NHB, that's awesome, but you're arguing tradition against a swordsman and you're just going to get trolled. That's no way to acheive your PhD.

I didn't want to complicate the issue by talking about swordsmanship because the outcome of sword vs sword has greater disparity between different weight divisions in unarmed combat.

Do you know what happens when a chinese straight sword goes agaisnt a broad sword in a) 1:1 duel b) battle field context?

what about double handed chinese straight sword vs a single handed straight sword?

FYI my first PhD is in pure maths.

[GeneChing]

FYI my first PhD is in pure maths.

I was going to pick up on KL's beer physique comment, but I can't beat a 1st PhD in pure maths so I concede on the math. But I stick to my swords about one point, traditional techniques = teenage girls. Well, I can dream, can't I? If we all work together, it could happen....

g_w, it's time you learned the true art of animal kung fu - squirrel kung fu.

[green_willow]

I was going to pick up on KL's beer physique comment, but I can't beat a 1st PhD in pure maths so I concede on the math. But I stick to my swords about one point, traditional techniques = teenage girls. Well, I can dream, can't I? If we all work together, it could happen....

g_w, it's time you learned the true art of animal kung fu - squirrel kung fu.

I win? ok that was easy. So are you game enough to try and even the score on the topic of swordsmanship?

squirrel kung fu - nah - eagle beats squirrel

[Dim Wit Mak]

I win? ok that was easy. So are you game enough to try and even the score on the topic of swordsmanship?

squirrel kung fu - nah - eagle beats squirrel

"I win?" Not so fast. This thread reminds me too much of some of the "arguments" I had when I was about nine years old that went on and on. Ones like "My dad can beat up your dad!", or "Superman would win against Batman!" I remember how stupid and fun they were at the same time.

How about this?

"UFC is the only meaningful martial arts forum in the world!"
"No, there are many controlled competitions and real world encounters that have meaning!"

With a PhD in maths, there is no end to the logical extremes we can take this too.

Here is another one:

"Eagle Claw is effective for self-defense!"
"No its not! If it was, you would see it in UFC!"

Then, this could go on indefinately. "Is to!" "Is not!" "Is to!" "Is not!"

Or we could continue in the vain of another thread in another forum which contends that the only difference between UFC and WWE is that WWE has bigger, stonger, and more charismatic competitors. (By the way, I like both except when UFC guys go into "lay and pray" mode).

If we are up to the challenge, maybe we can keep this going to 2012, or even beyond. If the Mayan calendar is correct, this may not be possible, but maybe the Mayan calendar is incorrect. There are all sorts of ways to soldier on with this.

Last man standing (last poster) wins.

[David Jamieson]

the mayan calendar is correct and the cycle of travel of our planet around the outter rim opf the galaxy where we are situated will indeed be completed according to the calculations on it on dec 21 2012. THen the new cycle begins and we go around the circle again...which takes about 26000 years approx.

However, the interpretation of the roll over of the calendar that states the world will end and we will all be destroyed is more in teh realm of new age fear.

the world doesn't end on january first every year, why should it end at the finish of a calendar that simply looks at uch larger cycles of time.

there were some vague prophecies, but I am not yet certain if these are codexed or concrete in anyway other than a guess or too regarding their language, which is still for the most part unintelligable and undeciphered. A few ideas about numbers and names, but contextual understanding? Nope, ain't there yet.

anyway, just my .02 on a subject that has held my attention for a long time. (pun fully intended)

[Dim Wit Mak]

the mayan calendar is correct and the cycle of travel of our planet around the outter rim opf the galaxy where we are situated will indeed be completed according to the calculations on it on dec 21 2012. THen the new cycle begins and we go around the circle again...which takes about 26000 years approx.

However, the interpretation of the roll over of the calendar that states the world will end and we will all be destroyed is more in teh realm of new age fear.

the world doesn't end on january first every year, why should it end at the finish of a calendar that simply looks at uch larger cycles of time.

there were some vague prophecies, but I am not yet certain if these are codexed or concrete in anyway other than a guess or too regarding their language, which is still for the most part unintelligable and undeciphered. A few ideas about numbers and names, but contextual understanding? Nope, ain't there yet.

anyway, just my .02 on a subject that has held my attention for a long time. (pun fully intended)

My deepest appreciation for calming my end of the world fears. I thought sure 2012 was the year the asteriod would hit. Being shot by a hunter who mistook me for a deer would be a more befitting end to my existence.

[green_willow]

"I win?" Not so fast. This thread reminds me too much of some of the "arguments" I had when I was about nine years old that went on and on. Ones like "My dad can beat up your dad!", or "Superman would win against Batman!" I remember how stupid and fun they were at the same time.

How about this?

"UFC is the only meaningful martial arts forum in the world!"
"No, there are many controlled competitions and real world encounters that have meaning!"

With a PhD in maths, there is no end to the logical extremes we can take this too.

Here is another one:

"Eagle Claw is effective for self-defense!"
"No its not! If it was, you would see it in UFC!"

Then, this could go on indefinately. "Is to!" "Is not!" "Is to!" "Is not!"

Or we could continue in the vain of another thread in another forum which contends that the only difference between UFC and WWE is that WWE has bigger, stonger, and more charismatic competitors. (By the way, I like both except when UFC guys go into "lay and pray" mode).

If we are up to the challenge, maybe we can keep this going to 2012, or even beyond. If the Mayan calendar is correct, this may not be possible, but maybe the Mayan calendar is incorrect. There are all sorts of ways to soldier on with this.

Last man standing (last poster) wins.

Then please don't side track and lose the plot like Gene. Give us a convincing answer as to why you don't see Eagle Claw in the UFC?

note: being taken down on concrete in a street fight whout refs without being able to tap out is a lot worse than being taken down on padded mats.

[Dim Wit Mak]

Then please don't side track and lose the plot like Gene. Give us a convincing answer as to why you don't see Eagle Claw in the UFC?

note: being taken down on concrete in a street fight whout refs without being able to tap out is a lot worse than being taken down on padded mats.

Being a maths person, you sure do know what a tangent is. Gene is right on course. At any rate, when something is explained over and over again, and the peroxide answer of "I don't get it" keeps coming up, there aren't a whole lot places to go with the discussion. If I didn't do so great a job, Gene sure did. Your turn.

[Dim Wit Mak]

Here are some final comments. If someone wants to go until 2012 or beyond, if the world remains, then good luck to them.

1) All of the hand strikes, kicks, takedowns, and grappling that exist in UFC and other MMA are found in some form of Kung Fu. China is a big country, and Kung Fu is a generic term for many CMA.
2) Many Kung Fu techniques focus on things that are illegal in MMA competition. These include joint breaking, eye gouges, open hand chokes and strikes.
3) Eagle Claw uses many techniques that are illegal in UFC. That is ONE reason that UFC fighters do not use them. Not the only one. Admittedly, they are harder to do against an excellent fighter, but they can, and do succeed with diligence.
4) UFC has its own set of rules, and a person who chooses to compete should train in MMA in order to have the best chance of success. Inflicting horrible injury and death is a UFC competition is not acceptable legally or ethically.
5) There are cultural factors involved in CMA. Many study Kung Fu to have a long and healthy life, and to know self-defense. I have no problem with the "sic em" part of UFC. It is an excellent sport, and they fight because fighting is in their blood, and a few bucks can be made. In much of kung fu philosophy (not all) conflict is to be avoided whenever possible, and used only when regretable circumstances dictate it. I admit that Kung Fu has some very violent aspects to its history, and some who practice it today would love to get in an altercation with no rules. I know a couple of them.
6) The body build and size of opponents is a factor. If you squared off against a preying mantus and were the same size, you'd be praying as it preyed. At our size, I'll use the words of a famous deceased Kung Fu master. "I not fight bug, I step on bug."
7) If a trained martial artist in any style takes on someone who is larger, stronger, and just as athletic, the larger person has an excellent chance of prevailing even if they have had no martial arts training other than OJT in some bar. Admittedy, the size of the "fight in the dog" does matter, but if the bigger, stronger dog has the same ganas as the smaller dog, watch out.

[green_willow]

Here are some final comments. If someone wants to go until 2012 or beyond, if the world remains, then good luck to them.

1) All of the hand strikes, kicks, takedowns, and grappling that exist in UFC and other MMA are found in some form of Kung Fu. China is a big country, and Kung Fu is a generic term for many CMA.
2) Many Kung Fu techniques focus on things that are illegal in MMA competition. These include joint breaking, eye gouges, open hand chokes and strikes.
3) Eagle Claw uses many techniques that are illegal in UFC. That is ONE reason that UFC fighters do not use them. Not the only one. Admittedly, they are harder to do against an excellent fighter, but they can, and do succeed with diligence.
4) UFC has its own set of rules, and a person who chooses to compete should train in MMA in order to have the best chance of success. Inflicting horrible injury and death is a UFC competition is not acceptable legally or ethically.
5) There are cultural factors involved in CMA. Many study Kung Fu to have a long and healthy life, and to know self-defense. I have no problem with the "sic em" part of UFC. It is an excellent sport, and they fight because fighting is in their blood, and a few bucks can be made. In much of kung fu philosophy (not all) conflict is to be avoided whenever possible, and used only when regretable circumstances dictate it. I admit that Kung Fu has some very violent aspects to its history, and some who practice it today would love to get in an altercation with no rules. I know a couple of them.
6) The body build and size of opponents is a factor. If you squared off against a preying mantus and were the same size, you'd be praying as it preyed. At our size, I'll use the words of a famous deceased Kung Fu master. "I not fight bug, I step on bug."
7) If a trained martial artist in any style takes on someone who is larger, stronger, and just as athletic, the larger person has an excellent chance of prevailing even if they have had no martial arts training other than OJT in some bar. Admittedy, the size of the "fight in the dog" does matter, but if the bigger, stronger dog has the same ganas as the smaller dog, watch out.

1) & 2) A seasoned street fighter such as Tank Abbot will also be holding back certain moves for the sake of competing in the tournament. If he can hold back ceetain illigal techs and succeed why can't a kung fu player?
3) Out of 108 ways to seize grapple and tackle surely there are some ways that fall within the rule book of a UFC.
4) In eagle claw - breaking is the last option. Eagle claw can subdue without breaking - surely this is not doing any more harm than BJJ.
5) Not every kung fu player is into the cultural aspects of kung fu. Even if they all, those that lean towards the violent past (as you so mentioned) should have no problem in all rolling around in padded mets.
6) & 7) there are weight divisions in UFC which invalidates what you say. Even if there isn't any weight divisions, eagle claw or BJJ is open to the general public for training and not restricted to body size - so why don't you see big ppl doing eagle claw compete aginst other big ppl in the UFC.

You tried but you have not answered the orignal question as to why you don't see eagle claw in the UFC.

[5Animals1Path]

Because the only people who are good enough to use it either have no interest in doing it, or are too busy teaching.


Everybody else sucks too much to get in.

[David Jamieson]

ok, well, i guess it will be when someone who does eagle claw enters the ufc and uses it, then proclaims that it was the eagle claw that helped him win his match.

I don't think there is a need to read any more into it than that.

Besides, I don't think styles win in matches, the players do and every winner in the ufc eventually becomes a loser.

it's a day in the sun kind of thing really.

[green_willow]

Because the only people who are good enough to use it either have no interest in doing it, or are too busy teaching.


Everybody else sucks too much to get in.

This can be said about any other style. the fact that we see BJJ in the UFC shows that what you said doesn't make sense...... Next.

ok, well, i guess it will be when someone who does eagle claw enters the ufc and uses it, then proclaims that it was the eagle claw that helped him win his match.

I don't think there is a need to read any more into it than that.

Besides, I don't think styles win in matches, the players do and every winner in the ufc eventually becomes a loser.

it's a day in the sun kind of thing really.

It's not a matter of reading anything into it. Fact is eagle claw has not been represented in the UFC. Why? when a grappling art like BJJ is used extensively and rather successfully in the UFC.

[GeneChing]

In this case, last post equals LOSER with a capital L . Now I've already conceded my loss. I surrendered at the comment:

FYI my first PhD is in pure maths.

Seriously how can you discuss more beyond that? So in this thread again, the last post went to the loser, since I already conceded. That's my case and point. Does it add up to pure maths?