cymry Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 Whoever does the marketing for Comhrac Bas must be a little confused. In one place they say "fighting art of the Roman gladiators" and in another they say "totally new way of fighting". And as far a sI know, most gladiator fighting was done with pointy metal.
Treebranch Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 Yeah, sounds fishy. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
cymry Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 No the system is very effective, but the marketing is screwed up.
Treebranch Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 I'm sure it's effective, but I doubt there's any authenticity to it. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
three60roundhouse Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 What makes something "authentic"? The validity of its technique or the validity of its history? Muay Thai is good for self defense because I have never seen an art that can help someone generate such power with strikes - even smaller people. Not one particular "art" but rather a well-roundedness in the Filipino Martial Arts is good because of the wide variety of weapons training as well as empty-handed techniques. BJJ/Sub Wrestling/Judo/Wrestling - NO MARTIAL ARTIST can call themselves well-rounded if they are not versed in a grappling art - the grappling game is THAT important. If a fight goes to the ground, no amount of stand-up training can help you. 1st dan Tae Kwon DoYellow Belt Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu16 Years OldGirls kick butt!
Treebranch Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 What makes something "authentic" is that they are claiming that it a Roman Gladiator's MA, but where's the historical proof. I'm not saying the techniques they are teaching don't work, but are they really Gladiator techniques? Probably not. So basically I'm questioning the historical validity not the validity of the techniques. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Drunken Monkey Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 something just came to mind. what if the guy doesn't need to go to the ground? what if a guy can 100% percent of the time finish any fight standing up, using only his hands? does he need to be more rounded? hmmm, maybe this should a new thread discussion... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Treebranch Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 Well that depends on what fights you don't engage in I guess. I guess knowing what fights to fight can give that kind of record, but realistically no one is immune to a clinch and takedown. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
Drunken Monkey Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 just a hyperthetical really... the idea being an invincible stand up hands guy. does the fact that he doesn't know how to kick or grapple make him a weaker (less rounded) fighter EVEN if he has never lost against anyone? same goes goes for a kicking guy. f he doesn't need to punch, should he learn to punch? does a grappler need to learn how to punch and kick if his ultimate aim is to grapple? maybe i've confused the scenario a bit but i think you know what i mean. post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Icetuete Posted December 2, 2003 Author Posted December 2, 2003 does a grappler need to learn how to punch and kick if his ultimate aim is to grapple? i guess not - if his ultimate goal is to fight, well, then maybe. and what if by coincidence the ultimate grappler and kicker meet up and fight? same goes goes for a kicking guy. f he doesn't need to punch, should he learn to punch? dont think so. but he should know that he might get his butt kicked if he ever needed to. being too confident in the own kicks can screw someone up in a fight.maybe i've confused the scenario a bit but i think you know what i mean. yeah, maybe... maybe i only missunderstood. i to a certain extend agree, since it is good to be a very effective striker/kicker/grappler. but it sometimes might not be enough.
Recommended Posts