TJS Posted June 24, 2003 Posted June 24, 2003 I think that argument hold little weight. Muay Thai Was not designed to fight Karate any more that Karate was Designed to Fight Muay Thai. Muay Thai's victory show it's more effective. Does that mean Shotokan would not would not work against noramal people? not neccesarily. Does that mean Muay Thai would proabably work better against normal people? proabably
GreenDragon Posted June 24, 2003 Posted June 24, 2003 (edited) While I study MT and agree with you for the most part, I don't really think that MTs victories in the ring over karate can be considered a definitive way of deciding which is more effective. Here is some reasoning to that. Consider that karate and other traditional martial arts have an aspect to them that teaches humility. So the very best karatekas in the world would probably also be the most humble. These karatekas would most likely not feel the need to dominate another in a sport match in order to prove their skills. They are spiritually centered enough to be comfortable knowing their skills are superior without having to massage their ego by proving it. So maybe, just maybe there are many karatekas who are better than MT fighters, but you will never know it because they will never be in the ring together. I only went into the above to illustrate that the ring is no indicator of art effectiveness, it is only a good indicator of the effectiveness of the two fighters in that ring. As for effectiveness of the art, I have done karate (Shuri-ryu, similar to Shotokan) and did not find it nearly as effective as the MT I am learning now. But that opinion is based purely on my experience which is probably skewed by being in a bad karate school and a good MT school. I could have very easily went to a bad MT school and a good karate school and it is possible that I would feel the opposite of how I feel now. So in conclusion, I can only agree with the original poster that everyone should respect other arts a bit more than I see on these boards. Because in the end we are all learning something that takes work and prepares us for a fight far more than the regular Joe on the street is prepared. Edited June 24, 2003 by GreenDragon G r e e n D r a g o nFOR THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST QUALITY SUPPLEMENTS...AT THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST PRICE: https://www.trueprotein.comFor an even lower price, use this discount code: CRA857Courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior. - Carl von Clausewitz
Kirves Posted June 24, 2003 Posted June 24, 2003 Also remember, that while MT only teaches the ring techniques, karate also teaches all kinds of self defence methods like locks, holds, reversals, chokes, grabs, counters and so on. MT lacks all these.
TJS Posted June 24, 2003 Posted June 24, 2003 ok I should have been more specific. I was speaking about Fighting abilility. So maybe, just maybe there are many karatekas who are better than MT fighters, but you will never know it because they will never be in the ring together And there may be boxers who can beat Mike tyson and Lennox lewis but dont want to, there also might be basketball players who can school michael Jordan but choose not to compete. alot of people like to imagine secret monks that can Eat top fighers for breakfast...the reality isint so in most cases.
SaiFightsMS Posted June 24, 2003 Posted June 24, 2003 i'm getting sick of this *... do we have to have this "discussion" 3 times a week? No this discussion does have to repeatedly occur. It is a forum policy that all posters respect each other and other arts in their posting. This thread will now be closed.
Recommended Posts