Treebranch Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 It's sad that eye gouging and biting are focused on as being the dangerous aspects of Combat Martial Arts. I guess you just have to really be emerced in your Art in order to understand the real differences. Keep believing what you believe about the styles displayed in UFC being the factor of success. I tend to believe it's the fighter that has the success. If you train for UFC competitions you will be good in those types of competitions. Yes, a fighter or anyone trained in a viable MA will do well against someone on the street in a fist fight, once weapons are introduced well that's another story. I train in a Combat Martial Art, this stuff works, believe me. We are not training to be in a fight we are training to protect ourselves and to get out of a dangerous situation as fast as possible. If that means seriously damaging our attacker in a few seconds and getting away, then that's winning. Surviving is winning. I happen to be a big fan of UFC, but I don't assume the MA's they study are the winners there. "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"
CodyydoC Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 "On one famous occasion, Hong Kong's top five Kung Fu masters were dispatched in less than 6 and a half minutes cumulative total, all knockouts." https://www.kickboxing.com but everybody can be beatin by any style Codywhite belt in everything
Punchdrunk Posted August 20, 2003 Posted August 20, 2003 Treebranch, it is not that I'm focusing on that aspect by choice, it's just that every time this sort of comparison comes up between these styles - biting and eye gouging are brought up as techniques that separate the MMA fighter from the Combat Martial Artist with almost comic regularity. These two techniques are obviously NOT the measure of Kung Fu or any traditional MA style and yet the advocates of those styles never fail to bring them up. Hence the snide attitude of my previous post. One cannot choose to be passive without the option to be aggressive.
Drunken Monkey Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 i always thought the eye gouging example was to highlight the fact that there exists rules in a ring fight. 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."
Punchdrunk Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Yeah, but it is a flawed argument. Those tactics are available to both combatants. Unless someone actually trains in administering these attacks under live conditions they don't constitute and advantage for either style. That was the whole point of the post. One cannot choose to be passive without the option to be aggressive.
Drunken Monkey Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 yeah, i know. i'm not really one to say that any style is better and i DON'T believe that there is one ultimate style. my problem with this type of debate is that a lot of people say ring styles are better than trad styles which i don't agree with. it's like people comparing cars purely on the basis of the numbers (o-60, bhp, max speed etc etc) 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."
Punchdrunk Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Ya know the point isn't so much that the styles are better but that the way they are trained favors the ring or competitive styles because Martial training cannot be effectively instilled without hard continuous contact under stressful conditions. Time and again the "too deadly for the ring" techniques really aren't that useful because you can't employ them full out or even at 75% because they are "too deadly". Techniques be they grappling or striking are not employed in a vacuum. They have to be useful during the give and take of a conflict. Many of the "Iron Palm" "Iron Groin" "Iron etc." techniques do in fact work under conditions that allow for focus but practitioners who demonstrated these techniques were crushed when they went into the ring against MT fighters and I find it hard to believe that their failure was due to their inability to employ any of the afore mentioned "against the rules" techniques. The fights were not even close. A gun is a very powerful weapon but in the hands of someone without combat training it can prove more deadly for the person using it than the person who is the target. Regular practical application is essential. One cannot choose to be passive without the option to be aggressive.
Drunken Monkey Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 i think their failure was in not preparing for the fight. it keeps coming down to training. all of the arguments result in a comment that relates to the amount of training. i have always said that the answer to every situation is in how you train. it doesn't matter what style you do, whether it's modern, traditional, mixed, how effective you are depends on your training. you could be one who practices a mixed style but if you don't do the sparring, you will lose to a traditional fighter. conversely, if you are a trad fighter, if you don't train for the situaion you will losa against the mixed martial artist. it is all about preparation. like i said in another post: failing to prepare is preparing to fail. 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."
Punchdrunk Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 AGREED - from the ground up has caught the correct! One cannot choose to be passive without the option to be aggressive.
Ironberg Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Okay, I may not have read every message in the thread, but I have something to contribute. Firstly, I'd like to say that I appreciate the traditional arts, but both question and praise their application today. When kung fu was around back in it's golden age before it was even brought to America, it was a lifestyle not just an art. The very name "Kung Fu" means "Great Skill", or possibly "Hard Work". For example, the martial arts of the Shaolin Temple were a broad reality to the monks who practiced everyday and became highly proficient at it. The reason who Kung Fu generally doesn't fair well today in the eyes of ring-goers is because people generally stink at it. People can become good quickly at minimalistic arts like MT, BJJ, or Vale Tudo because the scope is small, but it's depth in the limited techniques immense. What I sincerely wish is that we could catch a lifelong Shaolin Monk offguard in a UFC match - then I think everyone will find kung-fu to be something worthwhile - but unreachable because the monk isn't called a monk because he "got a black belt". Arts like kung-fu have a really broad scope, but it's depth is limited only by the amount of time those movements each develope the power of, say, a Muay Thai roundhouse. People who practice arts with such a broad scope generally don't find the depth because of so many things in american "overnight" dojos that impend their ability to stand up to a MT guy, or save themselves if they were attacked by a mugger. The same holds true to TKD or other arts that have been saved their depth because their scope is so unreachable to the general public. Kung Fu's finesse hand striking; TKDs high kicks; Aikido's complex joint throws is sort of like being a lone entreprenuer: It is so incredibly difficult to apply, but if applied brings so much reward to both mind and body. The application of such feats in the present environments requires much more than a "I'm-gonna-train-for-2-years-and-get-a-blackbelt" mentality, especially if you hope to be challenged by arts like MT and win. The saying holds true: "A person who has practiced 1 technique a 1000xs, is more deadly than the person who has practiced 1000 techniques 1 time." "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
Recommended Posts