Article: 1920s Challenge Matches Kung Fu vs MT
- Thread starter Grey Kid
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,269
- Reaction score
- 0
So in other words, for thousands of years, the chinese were training in bullshit. You would think that after all that time, effecient techniques would be developed. interesting.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 387
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, exactly what I've said in the other post..
Muay Thai is the most effective stand up fighting style.... the Modern Kung Fu, and other fighting style has adopted some of MT into their style as well.
Muay Thai is the most effective stand up fighting style.... the Modern Kung Fu, and other fighting style has adopted some of MT into their style as well.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,158
- Reaction score
- 0
Jeez, a what is better. What a good use of time.
Being a pro fighter is BS. Most people won't/can't make it. The barrage on the body for MT is tremendous. Many people don't want that and are looking to improve their self defense and get serious exercise but ultimately get drawn into losing themselves in the practice.
I guess I don't get the constant ignorance. Why the hell does everybody have to be a fighter? Being a martial artist has more to do with the development of self and expressing yourself. Grow up. Do me a favor, focus on your fighting if that is how you judge your worth. Then focus on the people who like to fight and can whoop your ass. Don't look to styles and people who train for different reasons. You people were already wrong about karate. What is next? Posts about how you can kick all the asses of the seniors at the bingo parlor?
The sad part is that people who get into this don't even realize how far off they are.
Being a pro fighter is BS. Most people won't/can't make it. The barrage on the body for MT is tremendous. Many people don't want that and are looking to improve their self defense and get serious exercise but ultimately get drawn into losing themselves in the practice.
I guess I don't get the constant ignorance. Why the hell does everybody have to be a fighter? Being a martial artist has more to do with the development of self and expressing yourself. Grow up. Do me a favor, focus on your fighting if that is how you judge your worth. Then focus on the people who like to fight and can whoop your ass. Don't look to styles and people who train for different reasons. You people were already wrong about karate. What is next? Posts about how you can kick all the asses of the seniors at the bingo parlor?
The sad part is that people who get into this don't even realize how far off they are.
Keerin
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
At the same time, why would you devote time to something that doesn't work? I mean, a martial art doesn't stop being about fighting just because you are using it for self development and expression.
Most people training or studying a martial art will never use it outside of the gym or dojo but I have no idea why each and every person studying martial arts doesn't want to study something that will work, even if they never intent to or want to use it.
If a martial art cannot stand up to practical tests but refuses to change it should be thereforth deemed as a performance art!
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,158
- Reaction score
- 0
Is the standard for a martial art that it has to pass the test of beating a professional fighter? At that point there will be only one martial art (perhaps MT, perhaps not)because everything should be tested and there can only be ONE best. Despite the fact that I read that fighters not styles win fights (another debate). At that point, do we just all retire the other styles that did not win or do we realize that there is a place for them based on what EACH PERSON wants from a martial art? Let's throw away aikido, tai chi, kung-fu, karate, wrestling ...... because MT beat them in a fight. People who study them are wasting their time because they can't beat MT in a fight. What a shame it would be to rid the world of all those flavors of martial arts.
I don't think it would be the best thing to do but according to your position, it would be how you would rule the martial arts world. You will have to convince around 15 million people. I think you would have a hard time.
BTW... I love throwing flying kicks, using weapons and breaking things. It is the only time in my life that I get to jump, spin, hit a target and land in one spot. I like it and I don't think it makes me tough.
You started with the wrong precept. Your argument is based on your prejudice and sounds rooted in fear. Why do you need to be a highly trained fighter? Can't you get through life without that capability? Do you wonder how much time you probably spend thinking about being a tough fighter? Since you can only have one thought in your head at one time, aren't there better things to think about? Think of your older family. If those people always thought in terms of having to be tough (which is really what we are talking about - not acting tough but being tough), would they relate the same way to you if they had to hold up a facade or think in terms of toughness? No.
People who relate based who is tough and why something will not make you a great fighter are hung-up on something rooted in fear or inadequacy. I knew a guy. 6'3" and weighed 275 of muscle. He was a monster as a fighter. He carried a gun and has two attack dogs. He lived in the same town that I did. He was an electrician by trade. What is the point?
Can you have a quality life without being a great fighter? Yes.
Can you have a quality life without exercise and pursuit of something that makes you feel good? Not happening.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Messages
- 15,865
- Reaction score
- 72
Keerin has a point. What is the point of a martial art with little to no martial applicability?
Me, I'm of a few minds about this but at the end of the day, I find myself thinking that there ARE certain martial arts that are fundamentally worth less than others.
Me, I'm of a few minds about this but at the end of the day, I find myself thinking that there ARE certain martial arts that are fundamentally worth less than others.
This article is more than a little biased...lol.
"...no matter what the Chinese do to their native fighting style, they still can't really beat the Thais at the fighting game."
Haha.
Good read regardless. How the hell did you find this?
"...no matter what the Chinese do to their native fighting style, they still can't really beat the Thais at the fighting game."
Haha.
Good read regardless. How the hell did you find this?
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 5
If you're going to do a martial art it should be effective. Otherwise why call it a martial art at all? Why not just call it dance? Your points don't mean anything because Martial Arts ARE ABOUT FIGHTING. Of course if you're going to TRAIN TO FIGHT you would want to train THE BEST WAY. Just like in ANYTHING in life.
Keerin
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm afraid our definition of a martial art is completely different and so you are never gonna agree with me about this but my definition isn't based out of fear at all. I don't think I mentioned professional fights at all. You seem to have built a straw man to blow away rather than understand my argument.
A practical test doesn't have to be a professional fight...
Also, you should keep personal assumptions out of this argument because I'm far from a tough guy or even want to be one. I use martial arts as a way of keeping fit, for fun as well as personal confidence. At the same time, I study Muay Thai because it has a long history of working well in practical tests. It has looked at its flaws and adapted them and the resulting sport and art are extremely useful. To me, this is where the art and beauty comes in.
When you talk about actually being tough and thinking tough, how do you think this was proven? Toughness is proven from practical applications and tests. Anyway, this argument is an aside because I am NOT talking about being tough at all. I'm talking about empirical evidence.
There doesn't have to be one best fighting style or art, different things work for different people. The issue I have about your original statement is that a martial art should remain relevant for the art it displays rather than its martial use. I think that if a martial art cannot have both it should not be classified as such. If a martial art is not practiced using resisting opponents and does not realise or worse, ignores its weaknesses then it is not really worth anything at all...
A practical test doesn't have to be a professional fight...
Also, you should keep personal assumptions out of this argument because I'm far from a tough guy or even want to be one. I use martial arts as a way of keeping fit, for fun as well as personal confidence. At the same time, I study Muay Thai because it has a long history of working well in practical tests. It has looked at its flaws and adapted them and the resulting sport and art are extremely useful. To me, this is where the art and beauty comes in.
When you talk about actually being tough and thinking tough, how do you think this was proven? Toughness is proven from practical applications and tests. Anyway, this argument is an aside because I am NOT talking about being tough at all. I'm talking about empirical evidence.
There doesn't have to be one best fighting style or art, different things work for different people. The issue I have about your original statement is that a martial art should remain relevant for the art it displays rather than its martial use. I think that if a martial art cannot have both it should not be classified as such. If a martial art is not practiced using resisting opponents and does not realise or worse, ignores its weaknesses then it is not really worth anything at all...
Keerin
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
The same goes for kickboxing, korean kickboxing and others.
clownie
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 0
Yup, nothing like getting your ass kicked to bring you back to reality.
Kung Fu people actually believe Sanda/Sanshou is derived from traditional kung fu with "only a little" borrowing from Muay Thai.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,158
- Reaction score
- 0
As of yet, he has not seemed to explain it. It is based on fighting. The rest is crap. They have to do with "martial applicability. Now you are changing the standard that the original argument and his main point was based.
As far as what martial arts ARE worth less than other martial arts depends on your perspective. There is a kung-fu school on Newbury Street in Boston. The students are generally well-educated (includes Tom Brady's wife Giselle, Steve Tyler and a bunch of other celebs). The don't care to hit or get hit. It seems to work for them. They would not care to be punched in the face. So, IS it worth less? To them NOT and THAT is the point.
Martial applicability? I know a lot of people. None of them got in a fight or mugged recently. It is a time of peace and they do not care to fight for sport or competition but they are interested in being healthy and moving their bodies.
There is a place at the table for anybody. If you are into fighting, focus on playing with the people who like to fight and stop being some purist, fundamentalist. Let people use it for what they want. The system seems to be working. Something for everybody.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,158
- Reaction score
- 0
I was hoping that you would not reposition and reframe things to make me have to go through this. Okay, I will move from my position of professional fight even though that seems like the honest best test. Where did the "not practiced using resisting opponents" come from based on your earlier position?
You yourself mention that you use it for "keeping fit, for fun as well as personal confidence". Isn't that what I just argued? These people are getting that to the level that they like. The kung-fu fighters are effective, just not to the level needed to win a fight against a pro-MT fighter. I would hardly say that they are ineffective as a result of not beating a MT fighter. Why are they being trashed because the lost fights?
Definition of martial arts can be very loose. If it is or was used for the purposes of armed or unarmed combat, is scientific, is practiced and systematized. We both know it meant something like that. However it makes people like you feel better to say things about what other people are doing because you feel competent at fighting. Either you feel that way or you got caught saying something that you do not agree with. There is not "guess we just disagree to disagree".
Leave people alone. Inclusion over exclusion. Learn more so you will know less and let people be happy doing what they do. Do you pick on all people? Are the special olympics not good because the people are not effective?
There are many martial arts for all people to study. Be happy they study as in "good for them" rather than some martial arts reality czar.
If you like to focus on the critical importance of fighting please do. I am happy for you (see how it works).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 1
these china and thai challenge matches are old news and happened several times.
if i attend a few sessions with an instructor from one of the so called arts that are considered ineffective these days,and i learn 1 new technique.
that art may one day win a fight for me through the use of that move,or even save my life.
if i learn something new i cannot truly discredit the art.
i have learned many things,even from teachers who's asses i may be able to kick.
all the arts must stay so we can pick and choose new techniques from them.
if i attend a few sessions with an instructor from one of the so called arts that are considered ineffective these days,and i learn 1 new technique.
that art may one day win a fight for me through the use of that move,or even save my life.
if i learn something new i cannot truly discredit the art.
i have learned many things,even from teachers who's asses i may be able to kick.
all the arts must stay so we can pick and choose new techniques from them.
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,158
- Reaction score
- 0
1. Define "effective". What is the standard?
2. Martial arts are systems of armed or unarmed combat that are scientific and trained (meaning they are not random people randomly hitting each other). Whether or not they evolved to be relevant against a different style does not make them less of a martial art. Effectiveness does not determine if they are a martial art. Movements modeled and designed to injure people are the requirements. The things I am guessing that you ridicule are more about martial arts that MMA.
MMA in and of itself is a sport. Governed/sanctioned, organized and a well defined rules set does that. You can do MMA and not be a martial artist. You are a hobbyist in a combat sport or you are a fighter. However, you can do martial arts and not be a fighter.
The question therefore arises as to whether these practices represent the earnest skills of a martial are or constitute those of a style of combat sport. How do you objectively (and no I am not asking your opinion) determine if what you are learning is a historical fighting skill or merely some re-packaged modern or classical theatrical fighting? Are the results display oriented or results oriented? How is this determined? The answer resides in the approach, the attitude and intention of your study and the tools used in its practice.
Please keep in mind, I am not debating you. You are just being used to make further points. I just needed a place to write it.
Don't like it? Don't like me? That's fine. Just educate yourself and leave people alone who study different things. First ask yourself "who am I to determine what is good and what is not".
