Too deadly for the ring.

[thaiboxerken]

Have you ever heard this excuse as to why a certain system or style doesn't work well in the ring? I can somewhat understand, since many of the Silat techniques are just plain nasty and deadly. But!!! The difference is that Silat pracitioners don't enter the ring, lose, and then say "well my moves are just too deadly for the ring". There are other systems that tend to do this.

 

Also, another point is.. if it's too deadly to spar or compete with.. how do you know it really works? What really gets me upset is when a person tells me that they could beat me up but they don't wanna kill me (only because they are the ones that pick the fights, not me). The "deadly technique" is used too often by idiots that couldn't beat an egg.

 

What do you think?

 

 

[Danny boy]

Hi Ken,

 

I have known one Silat guy who competed and he did very well,even with gloves on.

 

I understand your point,there are alot of unproven masters out there but I also think each to their own let them be in there dream world,reality will always rear its ugly head and they may be in for a real shock.

 

Whether you agree with sparring with gloves on or not, it provides you with feed back as to how you will handle a situation when someone is trying to take you out ,even if it is under controlled situation and has rules.

 

Will you panic ,turn your back,freeze up or will you dig deep and do what you've been trained to do...nothing does this better than sparring.

 

I have worked the clubs and pubs and seen guys who are supposed to be Martial artist get beat by guys they should handle easy..I would be very weary of any MA that talks alot without the proof to back it up.

 

Cheers buddy,

[thaiboxerken]

I agree with you fully. The only other way to test yourself is to get in a real street-fight, but that is a very stupid thing to do.

 

 

[Angus]

Yeah i agree with that. A wushu guy i used to do a bit of practice with would often tell me of certain moves that could kill a man in a second, but i've never heard of such techniques being used. The only real proof would come thru a fight to the death, and that hardly ever happens unless done in secret.

 

Angus

 

 

[Tim Greer]

I agree. The only way to know, if to be in the situation and use it. However, even then, would most techniques be needed in almost any real fight anyway? The answer is usually no. It's just very difficult to say. Maybe some of us are "lucky" enough to have been attacked enough times to know? Heh.

 

I know what you're saying. I've seen it myself. People come into a ring and fight in some event and lose, and claim all sorts of things. Sometimes it might be true, but most of the time it's likely to be complete BS excuses. However, if it were true, what are they truly entering into an event that they aren't able to really use these techniques anyway, if it results in a likely loss for them? So, it makes you wonder.

 

Furthermore, on another note about this, I have to also make mention, that almost every single event I've seen someone fight in, claiming their style didn't work because it was too violent or deadly, _NEVER_ ever appeared to even know the style they claimed. I give an example of many styles of people that claim to know different styles of Kung Fu, for example, and these fools obviously didn't know anything about the style they claimed. So, it's difficult to say.

 

In my opinion, no matter what style, it usually still comes down to the fighter anyway. Most anyone that's skillful and intelligent enough, will come out the victor, no matter what style they took, unless that style was a flat out joke -- and that does happen, as we all have seen. I don't try and guess too much about it, because I only care that my choice of styles work very effectively in a real fight and nothing more.

 

If I get the feeling that the style is lacking after thinking about the fight, I'll research it and see if there's any techniques that would fill in the gaps, and there usually is. Otherwise, another technique from another art will usually suffice.

 

It doesn't really matter anyway, since it's all dynamic and relevant. I've seen enough people train in good styles and fight poorly, to know that it's the person and not the teacher or art. This is true of _any_ style and _any_ school. If you get someone that isn't coordinated, is too intimidated, is always out to impress themselves or others, to show off, or simply be unskilled and even goofy, there's only so much you can do.

 

Unfortunately, some people are liars, or they are simply clueless or even suffer from a big ego and will enter into an event and make the style look poor. People need to take that into account. Any goofball can make any style look stupid and any goofball can make up any excuse. Surely, some styles, at least in my opinion, are completely ridiculous, useless and fluff, but I've seen a lot of styles made fun of or spoken down about, when they are truly effective, because people BS, lie, or for any number of other reasons, and make the style look poor.

 

Put it this way, if you didn't get the impression the fighter was bad, you'd not have a bad impression of their style. if the fighter looks bad, then the fighter is probably bad. That may or may not have to do with the style. However, if the fighter is good and the style is what's making them a poor fighter, than that's a contradiction, because a good fighter would recognize they are practicing a poor style. Therefore, no good fighter will realistically be practicing a poor style. Does that make sense? I think it does, if you read it carefully.

 

Until I see someone actually go into an event claiming to know something and actually use techniques from that style they claim to practice (win or lose), then I simply refuse to believe that they even know the style (because they obviously do not) and I can't make a judgment about it due to that. I've seen this too many times and it never fails.

 

Certainly, we can all understand that in a real fight, given the opportunity, a lot of people will go directly and break someone's leg, arm, neck, whatever. I don't pussy around in a fight. I'll do a throat strike (or a push if I don't see any danger anyway), I'll tie them into a knot, smash them to the ground and break whatever is going to cause the most damage. You can't exactly do this in sparring, even though, as it's said, it can get you better prepared and used to the moves, etc.

 

I see it this way, if you don't need to hurt someone or can be any less brutal than doing very major damage to them without concern for their safety in any manner to prevent any amount of damage, then you are superiority skilled than them and you don't have any reason or excuse to fight them at all, since they are no threat. Given that, it's simply impossible to know what works or not, until the time comes. I don't think any set up event will be able to prove anything. If someone's insane enough to want to cause that kind of damage in an event to prove the worth of their style, then they are the type of people that are likely just violent by nature and like to fight and will probably not be easy to beat in a ring anyway, assuming that they are skilled, again going back to them knowing what a good style would be and not wasting time with a poor one anyway.

 

Finally, assume for a moment that you've studied the human body and realize that there are some fairly vulnerable areas that do have a significantly higher risk of causing death to someone, you're not going to try it in a fight without trying it to protect yourself in a situation where you possibly have a real threat, even if you aren't sure if it works. Test that theory out on someone that attacks you, if you truly feel a threat to your life and it's a valid and perhaps only option. But what are the chances of that happening?

 

All I can say, is in regards to a lot of the things people claim must be BS, because people aren't dropping their opponents left and right with deadly techniques in the name of sport or to prove their worth, is that I wouldn't expect it, although I have seen genuine documentation proving some of these things to actually be true. The environment was, of course, controlled, so people could be revived, and this opportunity might not be available in a real attack for you to use, but there is proof there.

 

Moreover, in regards to such things, I've studied the human body, everything from Gray's Anatomy onwards, and these theories do appear to be very sound, based on the principals and the evidence of lesser harm, not to mention the one's that have literally been demonstrated and documented. It's natural to question something you haven't seen, especially of this nature, since in theory, this is something you should know to be able to take someone out if your life is threatened and why study something to use it and find out the hard way that it's all fluff and BS fairy tales?

 

I can't blame anyone and I'm sure there's a lot of BS out there, but there truly and honestly are techniques that have a high risk of killing a man that might not seem realistic due to how they are executed.. it's a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that there's no long term application or great force to a technique, and people assume that there's some BS mystical fairy tale theory behind it and wouldn't waste their time.

 

I can only urge anyone genuinely curious to look into it and seek out documentation, study how those aspects of the body work and how these theories are applied. There's even video documentation with people demonstrating these techniques to prove they are not theory. I know it seems pretty out there and unrealistic, but not all of it is. That's not to say this person really knew anything, or could have even used it if they did, or that they could have hurt you, let alone have killed you. For that matter, even an expert in these techniques (the real one's) might not have had the real opportunity to ever use such techniques on someone that's actually skilled at fighting, which you likely are.

 

Nonetheless, it's certainly very interesting to research and some of these things can surely be applied without concern of death, assuming someone's willing to have it proven of a lesser result -- such as paralysis of an arm, rather than of their heart. Well, you can laugh at that last part if you like.

 

 

[Angus]

Dude, that was an excellent and well informed essay. I agree with pretty much everything u said. But doesn't your arm hurt? I didn't write that much on my final psychology paper!

 

Angus

 

 

[Tim Greer]

Heh, not even close, my friend. I'm pretty much infamous for being a typing addict in some of the news groups, some chat rooms and some other forums. In fact, one of the moderators literally changed my posting level title from "Webhsoting Guru" to "Typing Addict". When they set a 10,000 character limit on the posts, my life almost ended.

 

Actually, I type a lot, and as you can see, I always have a lot to say and I'm quite opinionated. I just start typing and don't stop until I run out of things to say, or engery. Actually, all joking aside, I do type a lot, about a lot of things, but I can type pretty quickly. If I actually had anything profound or interesting to say for once, I could probably write a few novels. Actually, I just looked at the size of that post again, and it is pretty big, isn't it? I admit I have a problem, and that's the first step.

 

 

[Patrick]

Yeah, you do seem to make a lot of long posts Tim. That definitely is not a bad thing.

 

 

[iamrushman]

your too funny tim, i really enjoy reading your post.......typing addict, well i don't know if typist annon. is available but i guess you could start a chapter...LOL

 

 

_________________

 

rushman (taekwondo moderator)

 

3rd dan

 

wtf/kukkiwon

 

florida

 

This Message was edited by: iamrushman on Jul 12, 2001 7:08am

[thaiboxerken]

Good post Tim.