chinese martial art in ufc

[HG]

Bear in mind that Im not saying that you or your sifu arent skilled or that you may fall into this category, but I hear that all the time- people who have the "real" kung fu. The problem I have with such things is, once again, people are unwilling to back up their statements (using excuses such as honor, loyalty, deadliness, etc.) and beyond their talk have no evidence with which to support their claims (except for loyal practitioners). No amount of belief makes something a fact.

A Sifu won't demonstrate their skills just to appease the curiosity of a skeptic.

Well, thats because we've actually seen bullets kill people, so there is evidence to support that. Once again, to draw on another analogy, there are breaking competitions all the time showing people crashing through many blocks of concrete and brick, something a pro boxer couldnt probably do, yet the pro boxer will still ko more people.

Opinion not fact. A Pro boxer just has more opportunities to KO people. Martial arts in general seek to avoid fighting.

[elbows_and_knees]

A Sifu won't demonstrate their skills just to appease the curiosity of a skeptic.

they won't do a lot of things, which is why there is so much controvery about "real" kung fu today. Nobody really knows what is real anymore. regardless, I can't even think of any legends I've heard of involving a throat being completely ripped out...

Opinion not fact. A Pro boxer just has more opportunities to KO people. Martial arts in general seek to avoid fighting.

TMA who compete have the same opportunity. a boxer avoids fighting on the street as well. testing yourself regularly though, is a different animal, and a missing component from some tma.

[TriangleMan]

A Sifu won't demonstrate their skills just to appease the curiosity of a skeptic.

they won't do a lot of things' date=' which is why there is so much controvery about "real" kung fu today. Nobody really knows what is real anymore. regardless, I can't even think of any legends I've heard of involving a throat being completely ripped out...

[/quote']

Agreed. Thats the whole "Im above fighting" argument. Im not talking about a skeptic, Im talking about your sifu shows you a move and you question whether it can work or not, but he refuses to prove it to you- what kind of a teacher is he then if hes not asking any questions? "What if" is the killer question of martial arts and too many instructors are unable to answer this and hide behind things such as "this move is too deadly."

Opinion not fact. A Pro boxer just has more opportunities to KO people. Martial arts in general seek to avoid fighting.

TMA who compete have the same opportunity. a boxer avoids fighting on the street as well. testing yourself regularly though, is a different animal, and a missing component from some tma.

Its great to avoid fighting, but Im going to lay it out for you- the more you fight the better you get at it- its called experience. As a result, someone who actually fights is going to be able to tell you exactly what its like to be in a fight and teach you accordingly. Such people that never get into fights can only speculate, and how much can you trust someone who has never actually done a particular technique before in his life?

[bushido_man96]

Quote: elbows_and_knees: having grappling in a few forms and actually training it are different things. The grappling I have run across in CMA has been vastly inferior to what I've learned in judo and bjj, but rightfully so, as cma isn't a grappling style. On the same token, judo striking is inferior to cma striking. And I'm not talking about shuai chiao and chin na. That is indeed in most major systems in some aspect. I am referring to ground grappling. not ground fighting, which is different.

I like the point that is made here, as it is very relevant to the reason that so many martial artists cross train today.

I do have a goofy question for you, however: what would you consider the major difference between ground grappling and ground fighting? Is it the intent? Is it the rules of sport? Just want a little clarity here, is all. Thanks.

the inclusion of striking. the ground fighting I've seen in the TMA that I've trained has been mainly stiking from the ground, with the intent of getting back to my feet by incapacitating them, knocking them down or just gaining enough space from them that I can safely stand. Ground grappling is part of what happens when you are both on the ground. TMA, IME tends to address you standing and opponent on the ground, or you on the ground and opponent standing, but doesn't have a lot of focus on both parties being on the ground.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[Wood Dragon]

So that I understand:

Since MMA rules prevent punching to the throat, eye gouges and Tiger Clawing off the opponents face, Kung Fu is essentially useless?

I understood that Kung Fu had more techniques than that...

[bushido_man96]

If I remember right, Don "The Dragon" Wilson was a Chinese stylist (kung fu of some kind?) that was a very successful kickboxer. It all has to do with the training. He adapted his technique to take it to the ring with him.

[TriangleMan]

If I remember right, Don "The Dragon" Wilson was a Chinese stylist (kung fu of some kind?) that was a very successful kickboxer. It all has to do with the training. He adapted his technique to take it to the ring with him.

He was also very cocky when he was asked about the possibility of fighting in the cage during one of the early UFC's. When asked, he said "man, I would kill those guys" to which one of the other commentators said "get real Don, those guys would eat you alive."

[MizuRyu]

Traditional-Fist wrote:

elbows_and_knees wrote:

And unfortunately, nobody can prove it, as it would involve killing someone. Go figure...

Yes they can prove it. He can show you the power of his claw on another part of your body, without actually tearing any of your muscles. In the old days some masters use to tear of tree barks with their claws as practise.

You don't have to shoot someone dead to know if a new type of bullet is effective or not.

Well, thats because we've actually seen bullets kill people, so there is evidence to support that. Once again, to draw on another analogy, there are breaking competitions all the time showing people crashing through many blocks of concrete and brick, something a pro boxer couldnt probably do, yet the pro boxer will still ko more people.

I think you forget the history of the martial arts my friend. What they are and WHY they are. We've seen bullets kill people because that is how war is fought in this day and age, a thousand years ago it was something sharp or your hands. So do you think those armies slap boxed eachother to death?

[elbows_and_knees]

Traditional-Fist wrote:

elbows_and_knees wrote:

And unfortunately, nobody can prove it, as it would involve killing someone. Go figure...

Yes they can prove it. He can show you the power of his claw on another part of your body, without actually tearing any of your muscles. In the old days some masters use to tear of tree barks with their claws as practise.

You don't have to shoot someone dead to know if a new type of bullet is effective or not.

Well, thats because we've actually seen bullets kill people, so there is evidence to support that. Once again, to draw on another analogy, there are breaking competitions all the time showing people crashing through many blocks of concrete and brick, something a pro boxer couldnt probably do, yet the pro boxer will still ko more people.

I think you forget the history of the martial arts my friend. What they are and WHY they are. We've seen bullets kill people because that is how war is fought in this day and age, a thousand years ago it was something sharp or your hands. So do you think those armies slap boxed eachother to death?

No, I didn't forget - and I was hoping nobody would bring this discussion here.

1. you can't base what you do now on what somebody else was able to do hundreds of years ago. Heck, look at muay thai. How was it created? they removed ancient, "proven" tecnhiques because these techniques were too high risk and low percentage to actually pull off in a ring fight against another trained fighter.

2. compare a musket to a desert eagle or an mp5. enough said.

3. even if you make that comparison, you are talking about people in a time of war. combat hardened soldiers who had a reason to fight - it was life or death. today, how many of us are in such a situation? the mindsets we have are totally different. There is a thread on another forum about a trained member stating that his friend - who is a higher rank than him - got beaten up and doesn't understand why...

4. are there any records of someone in war getting their throat ripped out by another man's bare hands? who was it? which battle? you likely won't find any evidence to support it, which is the point triangle man and I were getting at.

It irks me to no end that so many TMA guys base their confidence in their style on what somebody else did hundreds of years ago or longer. Want to find out if it works FOR YOU - go test it.

5. I think a lot of people over exaggerate how good these warriors of the past really were in many cases. Listen to all of the stories about masters who were undefeated in challenge matches... they can't ALL be undefeated, unless they had far less fights than are claimed. Then, when you see video of some of these "masters", it's ridiculous. There's a clip on the net (I used to have it on my server) of a white crane master vs the FOUNDER of wu style taiji, circa 1954. It looked as if neither had ever had a fight in their lives.

[HG]

they won't do a lot of things, which is why there is so much controvery about "real" kung fu today. Nobody really knows what is real anymore. regardless, I can't even think of any legends I've heard of involving a throat being completely ripped out...

There are Sifus out there that will fight if challenged. I don't know anything about throat ripping & our style places a heavy emphasis on tiger claw training.

TMA who compete have the same opportunity. a boxer avoids fighting on the street as well. testing yourself regularly though, is a different animal, and a missing component from some tma.

How one 'tests' oneself can only be determined by the individual. There is no right or wrong answer.