Treebranch Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 Well I think his days are numbered if he concentrates too much on one thing. "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"
Stold Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 1:Submission Wrestling 2:BJJ 3:Muay Thai 4:Judo 5:Tae Kwon Do (Oops!)
Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Oh yeah, the so called proven MA's. Uh huh. "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"
Stold Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 Well hell, how can I put a an MA that hasn't proved itself in the top 5?
Treebranch Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 How's hundreds of year of battle? What just disregard it as the past and consider all those survivors liers? Not me, I know what works. "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"
JerryLove Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 The Greeks, for a very long time, used a a type of warrior called a "Hoplite" in Phalanxs. Through centuries this method of warfare was tested and refined... against other Greeks. Till the Macedonians came in with a better tactic and defeated the Greek Phalanx. The problem was that the Phalanx made too many assumptions. https://www.clearsilat.com
Icetuete Posted December 4, 2003 Author Posted December 4, 2003 certain martial arts survived until today while the Phalanx-battle strategy didnt. and the greeks did have big victorys against each other and foreigners using this method, but somewhen it was old fashioned... so you try to prove that traditional martial arts are outdated? in fact, Muay Thai ranges back very long as well, was proven on the battle fields of ancient Thailand and helped it defend itself against their enemys. so what?
JerryLove Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 I'm only pointing out that the proliferation or success of seomthing does not neccessairily indicate its value or efficacy. https://www.clearsilat.com
whynot Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 A few things to think about. Does the fact that one martial art is older than another martial art automatically make it a more effective art? I do not believe this to be true. Combat five hundred years ago is completely different than today's combat. There are a number of reasons for this, which were mainly brought on through advancements in science. Blows that may have been lethal in feudal Japan might be cured with relative ease with today's medicine. Obviously science has provided humanity with weapons more efficient at killing people. Science has even taught the masses about the benefits of strength training, vitamins, dietary supplements, and living healthy, and in general people are bigger and stronger than they were a few centuries ago. There is little to no resemblance between past and present forms of combat. Another question is, what is everyone defining as combat here? When I hear the word combat, I think of militaries fighting, not a street brawl. If the definition is meant for military fighting, then I would have to argue that there really are not any effectice martial arts. Some training may at some point in time be useful, but for the most part, if you do not have a gun, then you are done for. I would put my money on a trained soldier with an M-16 or an AK-47 over a highly skilled practioner of any martial art, any day. If one is refering to a street brawl as combat, then I would argue that the age of a martial art is irrelevant. Combat in feudal Japan (I am referring to this because I have read it being referred to in early posts stating ancient martial arts are better for the reason that they are ancient) is different than a modern day bar brawl; people today generally do not carry swords and wear light armor. I am in no way trying to discredit traditional martial arts, for some of them have adapted to a degree and many times they are still effective. Instead, what I am trying to suggest, is that even though modern martial arts do not have the history that traditional martial arts have, they are none the less still effective because they are created for modern day fighting, and should not be discredited as easily as they sometimes are. No, many of them do not train in weapon defenses, but I do not know anyone who has been in a fight involving weapons, and would venture a guess that the vast majority of fights do not. This does not mean that one should not train weapons defenses, just that a person is not completely hopeless without the knowledge. Adaptation is a necessary part of growth. Something that is new is not automatically of less value than something old. A minute man's musket could kill a man as easily as could a 9mm bereta, but its age and constant use in war does not make it a better weapon. In turn, something that is not battle proven does not mean it will fail in battle or be less effective than something that is. Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in the context of war. Several thousands were made since then. Are these less effective? Though they are not battle proven, there is no arguement that they are far more devastating than their predecessors. A final thought after all of this rambling. Can a person with no arms ever become a complete and well rounded fighter?
Stold Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 That's fine and dandy Treebranch. I just don't get it. You'd think a practitioner of one of these arts somewhere in the world would take the opportunity to capitalize on theit abilities in events like Pride FC (Japan,) where there is literally millions to be made if you have the skills. It doesn't even have to be in a big event, it can be in their own freaking school for what I care--All I want to see is a kung fu guy beating someone up for once.
Recommended Posts