Top 5 Combative Arts

[cymry]

There is little to no resemblance between past and present forms of combat.

 

A right hook is a right hook, a push kick is a push kick...

[whynot]

Cymry, I think you missed what I was getting at in my post. As I said before, when I think of combat, I think of military combat. When I think of military combat, I think of fighting wars. Swinging a katana is far different than firing an assault rifle. Shooting cannonballs at an enemy is far different than launching a cruise missle at them. You are taking the word combat and supplementing it for the word fight. In my opinion those are two completely separate things; perhaps they are not in yours. In the context that I use the word combat, I do not think that you can argue that combat today is the same as combat of the past.

 

If, however, you want to use your example, a right hook thrown by the average person today is likely to be harder than a right hook thrown by the average person two hundred years ago. I do not see how one can deny that modern science and medicine has increased the strength of the average person. Nor can I see how one can try and argue that the medical practices of three hundred years ago are as good as the medical practices of today to fix a jaw broken by that right hook. What is the relevance of that? Some fighting manuevers do not cause the same lasting damage that they once may have, nor are some as lethal as they once may have. A person stands a much better chance of surviving a knife to the gut today than they did two hundred years ago.

[Treebranch]

Yeah newer is better, huh. Yeah, we are all about quality these days. Yeah, plastic is better than wood. I'm being sarcastic if you can't tell. I'm not saying just because it's old it's better. I'm saying that a system of fighting that has been tested for hundreds of years of Combat has more to offer than a new and improved get results fast type of MA. It's like comparing a College education to a Trade school education. I'm not arguing how big and strong we are or the advances in fitness equipment and supplements here. I'm talking about techniques and methods of fighting, whether it be hand to hand and or against a weapon (not a gun). Just how some of you think everything new is better, there are some of us that disagree. In our modern times we don't value things as much we have become very impatient and lazy. I think we have become that way because of technology. We won't results fast, we are all in a hurry for some reason. Also, if you lived in an environment of turmoil like Fuedal Japan, you'd be learning how to fight at a very young age, we do it for fun. We don't know if Kano or Takamatsu was still alive and young what they could do in NHB. We are all arrogant to think that they were no good when most modern MA are based on their methods as well as other Masters of old. We seems to have little to no respect for our elders and we think that our youth is going to last for ever. I've found a system of fighting that I know is effective and if you have that's great. The problem arises when you start taking credit for what somebody elses accomplishments and the only thing you have in common with them is you study the same Art or Arts. Thats like saying just because Michelangelo was great and I studied the same methods and techniques I'm going to be just as good, I doubt it. So stop taking credit for what others have done and please be aware that UFC is not the true measurement of MA's.

[Stold]

...what?

[whynot]

Treebranch, I do not know how much of this was directed at me, but I will attempt to address what you have said none the less.

 

Never did I try and make the general claim that newer is better, though looking back at my posts, I can see how that may have been assumed from what I had written. What I was trying to get across is that newer is not necessarily worse; some things new are as effective, but through different means to the same end.

 

You mention Kano in your post, and I assume that you are referring to the founder of Judo, whose first name I am not going to murder the spelling of. I actually consider Judo to be a newer martial art (I am using martial art to cover all forms of fighting here and do not wish to get into the details of what is an art and what is a sport), even though it is derived from a much older art. When I talked of an old art versus a new art, I meant any art that was older than any other art and vice versa. Comparing an art that takes years to become skilled in to an art that takes months to become skilled in is an entirely different matter and was not what I was refering to in old versus new. In actuality, the age of an art has no real equivalence to how long it takes to become versed in; Judo is more contemporary than Muay Thai, yet in most cases it takes longer to reach a competent skill level in Judo than it does in Muay Thai.

 

I will agree that there are several people whom desire a quick fix martial art. Not all of these people are in the same martial art though. There are people out there who want to brag about being a blackbelt. It does not matter to them if they know the first thing about fighting; they just want to impress a few people by being able to say that. It matters not to them what style they learn, only what style will get them there the quickest. All styles have schools that will oblige them; none are exempt from this sad bit of truth. New or old, it does not matter here.

 

There are many people who like to think that because someone else has beaten someone using the same style that they study, that they can in turn do the same thing to others. Again, every style, new or old, has this problem. Everyone likes to talk up their art. In truth, claims of someone having a bigger, better, faster something than someone else does not stop with martial arts. Examples of this are Chevy vs. Ford, Ski-doo vs. Polaris, or Honda vs. Yamaha. It is a problem with the human ego that transcends all aspects of life, including martial arts. This problem is not exclusive to practioners of new martial arts and practioners of martial arts common in NHB competitions; practioners of old, or traditional if you prefer, martial arts are just as guilty. Is there really a significant difference between claiming a martial is better because it is proven in the UFC and claiming a martial art is better because it is a few hundred years old and was proven effective in feudal Japan? Are both not claims of superiority made upon the merits of someone else?

 

One should never assume their art is superior to another art based on another's personal results and experiences. One can, however, choose an art that they find works for them, become the best they can in that art, and make a decision based on their own results and experiences whether or not one art is superior to another art for their own needs, purposes, and abilities. What is superior for one person may not be superior for another person; the matter of the art they choose being superior to all other arts is therefore nullified.

 

I apologize for being so wordy, but I like to be thorough in what I say. Hopefully this helps make clearer where I stand. As you can see we are not polar opposites in our beliefs.

[cymry]

The mechanics of the punch are no different, though the effect may be.

[JerryLove]

I have to disagree with some of the underlying points.

 

Professional competitors (who certainly do benifit from modernization of training) I don't see an inherent difference in unarmed combat between then and now except in the exposure to more ideas.

 

It's no about "killing blows", it's aboue fight winning blows. Once I've won, I can dispatch you with ease. That's as true now as it was "then"; and medicine has nothing to do with it.

 

The modern man is fat, weak, and slow (as a generalizaion) having gone from a time when almost all worked with their hands and ran from place to place to a time when we spend most of our lives on your butt.

 

I think the Spartains would have kicked butt in NHB.

[Stold]

Then maybe steroids are the great qualizer between then and now. Yes yes, we all know that 90% of the Pride fighters are on roids. Pride doesn't even test them from what I hear.

[JerryLove]

Steriods are not an equalizer, they are an advantage. If you read me to say that a person strength-training now was weaker than a person then; then you misread. I was pointing out the *average* person.

[Treebranch]

Whynot I never said TMA's were superior, I'm just trying to make the point that they are valid and they do work if trained properly. I just don't think the new is necessarily better, because like you said better is a personal opinion and not fact.

 

You made some very good points that I cannot disagree with. It is good to have these kind of debates, because learning is what I'm all about. Thank you.