There is a philosophical argument for the non-fighter being the better fighter, on the grounds that fighting is a failure of other skills, and a poor last resort.
That the fight unfought is the most efficient use of power.
I'll GHANDI your A$$!
There is a philosophical argument for the non-fighter being the better fighter, on the grounds that fighting is a failure of other skills, and a poor last resort.
That the fight unfought is the most efficient use of power.
I'll GHANDI your A$$!
Guangzhou Pak Mei Kung Fu School, Sydney Australia,
Sifu Leung, Yuk Seng
Established 1989, Glebe Australia
the better fighter is the one who ingests large amounts of shrooms and climbs up in his neighbours trees and makes tiger growls
I am pork boy, the breakfast monkey.
left leg: mild bruising. right leg: charley horse
handsomerest member of KFM forum hands down
Badgers are good fighters I hear.
Tasmanian Devils too.
Thass why they call 'em Tasmanian Devils
Who'd win inna fight between a Badger and Tasmanian Devil?
Is there a Badger style?
LOL!
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders.
-Patanjali Samadhi
"Not engaging in ignorance is wisdom."
~ Bodhi
Never miss a good chance to shut up
In the original scenario they both had the same training. Fighting is NOT the same as sparring and competition. That is why I suggested that there are too many unknown factors, and one of those was the level of realism in the training (I got told I think too much..LOL).
But, your train of thought is very valid with my earlier suggestion. If you have two guys who train heavily and incorporate alot of hard sparring and realistic drills, do fights outside the dojo help your skills that much if all the other pieces are in the training?
"God gave you a brain, and it annoys Him greatly when you choose not to use it."
*munching popcorn*
this is great, keep it coming guys... especially you kevin73, i must say, your words are over-flowing with wisdom and understanding.
watch out he has his fishing pole out.
Originally posted by BawangOriginally posted by Bawangi had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.
id like to point out the original post had 2 questions though, which boggles things up....UKI!
lol
'who is the better fighter'
&
'who is the more skilled figher'
id say the person that indulges in performing any skill will be more skilled at that skill than those that do not.
however raw talent is born with. the 'better' fighter would, imo, be the person born to be a better fighter. whilst his emplimenting of the skill itself may not be as developed as the other guy, he may just have more raw talent.
however if the guy who goes and fights was also born with more raw talent and being, he will far outshadow the other guy in all ways regarding combat.
For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.
tiger psh.... more like here kitty kitty.... meow....
Originally posted by BawangOriginally posted by Bawangi had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.
i believe its cicrumstancial. they can be but not neccessarily so.
but in the original posts scenario, i think it can be an element in discussion. they both have the same training but one fights a lot. maybe because hes violent and has no real talent so is tryng to make up for that. who knows, since its all fake anyway.
or it could be hes so talented at fighting, thats why he fights. maybe he blows so hard but sees his training brothers talent and is jealous. he fights and fights and fights, because maybe his buddy beats him in sparring every time so he looks for the experience on the street.
to many factors really but its fun to think about.
For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.