# Would Martial Arts created by women fundamentally be better than those created by men?



## Ivan (Feb 22, 2020)

The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can? 
By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?

Of course, I know many people call Wing Chun into question as it might not be applicable - but is this an inherent problem in the wushu style itself, or the in way in which it is taught?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 22, 2020)

No. You would still need to look at the results.

It is a bit like suggesting women's deodorant is more effective than mens.


----------



## skribs (Feb 22, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...



I think there's a big QC issue with Wing Chun, in that a lot of schools don't teach how to deliver the techniques with any amount of power.

I don't think it's possible to make most martial arts more fundamentally sound than they already are.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 22, 2020)

No


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 22, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...


I tend to agree with the other no posts. However, I suspect you are going somewhere with your frame of reasoning. What am I missing?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I tend to agree with the other no posts. However, I suspect you are going somewhere with your frame of reasoning. What am I missing?



I assume the frame of reasoning works like this if a woman designed wing chun to fight a man. Then I should be able to use it to take on a gorilla. 

Which would in theory make it awesome.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Ivan said:


> according to a documentary by the History Channel



The History Channel? Historical Content by Show [CHART]


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...



its the over technical nature that makes some MA suspect in the first place, a few good techniques are preferable to a few good techniques lost in a haze of nonsense

the difference in size and strength between males and females ranges between enormous and not very much, dependent on the people involved, but then the size and strength difference between males has a very wide range as well

as most people can be considerably stronger than they are, its then a personal choice if you want to close or or even over take the gap as a strategy rather than buy into to fantasy techniques


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

They would only be diffrent, nothing would prelude it being better or worse off.   As it would be made to suit the female anatomy and physical structure etc.

I would say, you might be able to say it is "better", down to what i think would be enthsisied is not fighting and if you ned to fight do it as fast and brutally as possible and strike only weak points. 

Actually, just thought about female street fights and the like.   I had not the modern world in my head when writing some of this.   So to cover this, will the style/art be for predatory violence?  (male and female)  or social violence?  (female maily)   that would dicatate what would be done in it.   and just to cover the high note and obvious point, females dont usually fight males, they generally rely on the culture prohibiting the male from hitting them, or having a male there as "muscle" EXEPTIONS exist, thats just the rule.         Second to that, weapons should be used as equalasors, that goes with anyone.

I would say if a female fights tradtioanlly like a male would, it would throw a curve ball as it would be diffrent from what is present in their social fighting arena.         But anyway, fundemntally it would just be diffrent to account for their anatomy and potetional short comings. 



Addendum: the strikethough is a tangent i wrote i felt like keeping in my post,  it is used as a strikethrough should be, its a removal that you still can read.

The strikethrough  is NOT a final draft.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> They would only be diffrent, nothing would prelude it being better or worse off. As it would be made to suit the female anatomy and physical structure etc.




You can't assume an art made by a woman was _just_ for women.



Rat said:


> females dont usually fight males, they generally rely on the culture prohibiting the male from hitting them



I think you may have to rethink that and look at just how many women around the world are attacked by men.
British family savagely attacked by thugs in Hua Hin


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> You can't assume an art made by a woman was _just_ for women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My statement was if the creator would be a female it would be using their body as the template, so it wont be optimised for males, or even people not in their sort of dimensions and physical capability range.  Correction, thats a clarification of what i meant to write if it wasnt clear.

Second point, i meant in social violence and western countries. It is pretty factual that in a lot of countries it is taboo for a male to hit a female.  To militant ends they wont even defend themselves against a predatory attack.   

Exeptions exist though like i said.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> My statement was if the creator would be a female it would be using their body as the template, so it wont be optimised for males, or even people not in their sort of dimensions and physical capability range.




If the 'creator' is experienced and knowledgeable enough to create a style in the first place I don't think they would be restricted to making it fit just them. You make it sound like some random woman who you assume is mall and light just came up with a martial art just like that, which is not a reasonable assumption.
We don't even know if it was created by a woman, or one man or even a committee, it's all myth and supposition.



Rat said:


> It is pretty factual that in a lot of countries it is taboo for a male to hit a female. To militant ends they wont even defend themselves against a predatory attack.




Things are either factual or not factual, they can't be 'pretty factual', I have no idea what the second sentence means at all.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We don't even know if it was created by a woman, or one man or even a committee, it's all myth and supposition.



We arent discussing a in existance martial art?   I am not citing one, nor was i refering to wing chun.    I was literally going off if a female and only a female, or group of females makes one.     I at no point mentioned wing chun or any actual martial art in this thread.  



Tez3 said:


> You make it sound like some random woman who you assume is mall and light just came up with a martial art just like that, which is not a reasonable assumption.



Not really, as i have a similar view to if a male makes one it will be optimised for males, for a female to learn from a male they have to adapt some of it, and vice versa.     You build also influences this as well, if somone of a diffrent build makes one, it will be optimised more for their build.     Now if we wernt a sexually dimorphic species, then sex wouldnt influnece this at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> I was literally going off if a female and only a female, or group of females makes one.




Perhaps when you start training a martial art you would have a valid opinion.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps when you start training a martial art you would have a valid opinion.



Perhaps when you can come up with a good insult, you will win a argument.     Nice try though.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> Perhaps when you can come up with a good insult, you will win a argument.     Nice try though.



That wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact. How can you extrapolate on the mechanics of creating a martial art when you don't do any martial arts?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> That wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact. How can you extrapolate on the mechanics of creating a martial art when you don't do any martial arts?



What i wrote and the points made are above, that is my argument.  Your "Statment of fact" has no relivence here.  To which i have this as a reply:



Are you telling me the Human Male and Female body is identical?  And are you also telling me every human is indentical in both build and ability?   

If you are not, then there is your answer for how i can comment on mechanics as the mechanics will inhernetly be diffrent to everyone down to dimporphisim in our species.     

Secondly,  you do not need "to do any martial arts" to create one.   At least in the way it is used here.  Given all systems etc stemmed from nothingness and just human instinct and are codifications of information that said person(s) has(/have) found while doing/observing violence.    To which there are many avenues for it and if we are to be really technical any activity you do with the intention of aiding or helping you fight, is martial or "training" for it.  Even if you dont practice strikes etc.    

Anyway, before i go on a 4 paragraph tangent, the second point isnt fully relivent to the thread, the full history and how to make fighting sytems seems irrelivent to if it would be better if a female made it than a male.  Or the secondary topic of wing chun history.      If you wish to argue about the history of human violence and systems for fighting and the details for how to make them and pros and cons, i will gladly do it in a thread designated for such  a topic.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> relivence



Is this reincarnation?



Rat said:


> Secondly, you do not need "to do any martial arts" to create one



And you don't need to be able to swim to win a swimming race...….


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> What i wrote and the points made are above, that is my argument.  Your "Statment of fact" has no relivence here.  To which i have this as a reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


theres a lot more in common between male and female than there are differences,

brain, check, skin check, bones check limbs check times 4

its follows that ma for each gender should have far more in common than differences, so much in common infact they will be very difficult to tell apart


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> theres a lot more in common between male and female than there are differences,
> 
> brain, check, skin check, bones check limbs check times 4
> 
> its follows that ma for each gender should have far more in common than differences, so much in common infact they will be very difficult to tell apart



Diffrences are still there, and of those diffrences they do effect how you fight to some degree.     And as stated, if we wernt a sexually dimorphic species, sex wouldnt be a factor here.      But as we are, it is.   



Tez3 said:


> And you don't need to be able to swim to win a swimming race...….



Not if you are the only one with arms and legs there.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> And as stated, if we wernt a sexually dimorphic species,




You are equating sex with gender here and you are wrong. In fact you are wrong on many levels.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> you do not need "to do any martial arts" to create one.


How on Earth can someone with no MA experience create a functional MA?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 23, 2020)

LOL...it's all conjecture and doesn't mean a thing of any real importance. As such is but a waste of time.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

Danny T said:


> LOL...it's all conjecture and doesn't mean a thing of any real importance. As such is but a waste of time.



But,theroeritical martial arts is what i thrive in though!


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> How on Earth can someone with no MA experience create a functional MA?



Pending how pedantic and literal you want to be, the response varies.      I wont be at all here.


If you use martial arts to mean system, you dont need to study under another system to make one.      If you use it to mean fighting skills, then a lot of things can be put under the banner.   For both, backyard brawls and just experience tied into instinct should be suffcient.    (and had to be as thats where everything started from)


Basically you dont need formal training to learn how to fight, or to "teach" somone what you have learnt.     Now how good it is, is anothe rmatter.  But since this is entirely hypothetical and no system is being cited its pointless to argue or discuss.     (as one of these hasnt been around for a while, at least as far as i know)

That is a less rambly and pedantic version of what i wrote after that orginally.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

[Delted post]


----------



## skribs (Feb 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> How on Earth can someone with no MA experience create a functional MA?



You have to consider the source.  @Rat thinks he's a martial arts expert, based on his getting halfway through white belt in ITF TKD, and all the articles he's read.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> We arent discussing a in existance martial art? I am not citing one, nor was i refering to wing chun. I was literally going off if a female and only a female, or group of females makes one. I at no point mentioned wing chun or any actual martial art in this thread.



Let's look at female MMA vs male MMA. One is designed for males to fight at an elite level  one designed for females. 

I haven't noticed much difference in the systems. 

One small change is for females is you have to know how to braid hair really well.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

Danny T said:


> LOL...it's all conjecture and doesn't mean a thing of any real importance. As such is but a waste of time.



It is a thought exercise. It is like asking if the world was square. You find out why it is round.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Let's look at female MMA vs male MMA. One is designed for males to fight at an elite level  one designed for females.
> 
> I haven't noticed much difference in the systems.
> 
> One small change is for females is you have to know how to braid hair really well.



Optimisation should be diffrent, what a female can do easier should be vary to what a male can do easier just down to merits of the physical diffrences.


As stated, not discussing amount, was just relying they are diffrent and the emrits of that lead to each finding certain things easier than the other.    I am fully in the block it only effects a few things.     But it still effects them and should be acknowledged.


Edit: Now, if we look at the social side of female fighting like i ranted about earlier, its hair clinching for untrained ones.  (and even trained ones)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> How on Earth can someone with no MA experience create a functional MA?



It is a very hypothetical topic though. I don't think we will wind up with a functional art at the end of this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> Optimisation should be diffrent, what a female can do easier should be vary to what a male can do easier just down to merits of the physical diffrences.
> 
> 
> As stated, not discussing amount, was just relying they are diffrent and the emrits of that lead to each finding certain things easier than the other.    I am fully in the block it only effects a few things.     But it still effects them and should be acknowledged.
> ...



I am of the school of thought that fighting basically optimizes in one general direction. So optimal for women or optimal for prison, self defence, westerners, Asians whatever is mostly marketing. 

There might be subtle changes but if you did a style that generically optimises fighting you would probably beat a style that specializes.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is a very hypothetical topic though. I don't think we will wind up with a functional art at the end of this.







The many stages of the martial art we are creating right now.



Memes aside:  


drop bear said:


> There might be subtle changes but if you did a style that generically optimises fighting you would probably beat a style that specializes.



Im more getting out if you want the best possible result, it needs to be tailored to you and you alone.   But as the topic was about females, and females are diffrent to males then there is a diffrent average to account for there.       It might be the equal of only a second or under a second diffrence for the most part though.

edit: Without hosting a study on said matter, i am somewhat at a loss.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> One small change is for females is you have to know how to braid hair really well.



As do many men.




Rat said:


> As stated, not discussing amount, was just relying they are diffrent and the emrits of that lead to each finding certain things easier than the other. I am fully in the block it only effects a few things. But it still effects them and should be acknowledged.



Care to explain what that paragraph actually says?



Rat said:


> Edit: Now, if we look at the social side of female fighting like i ranted about earlier, its hair clinching for untrained ones. (and even trained ones)




Social side? Are you trying to be dense or does it comes naturally? 




Rat said:


> But as the topic was about females,



It be specific it wasn't actually 'about females', it was asking if a martial art created by a woman would be better than that created by a man, it didn't ask if it would be better for women, just if it would be better.


----------



## skribs (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> edit: Without hosting a study on said matter, i am somewhat at a loss.



You don't need to host a study.  You need experience.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> i am somewhat at a loss.



Yes, you are.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> But,theroeritical martial arts is what i thrive in though!


This statement reminds me of the highschooler that just finished his physics class, and visits a site like physicsworld a bunch, arguing with experiential physicists about time travel and passing the speed of light.


----------



## mrt2 (Feb 23, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. *Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. *Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...


I cannot comment specifically on Wing Chun, because it is not my thing, so I will leave that to others who have some knowledge of Wing Chun.

But I take issue with the premise of the highlighted portion of your question.  While it is true that as a rule, men possess greater upper body strength than women, that has no bearing on an individual.  And take this to actual martial arts.  Many martial arts ideally favor a body type that is a mix of speed, quickness, agility and strength, and not just brute strength.  To put a finer point on this, while I don't know exactly how big Ip Man was, from photos taken with Bruce Lee, he looks at least a few inches shorter and a bit smaller than Lee, and Bruce Lee was maybe 5'8" and 140 lbs.  So looking at the real world, it is not just possible, but probably that most women are capable of packing on at least as much muscle as Ip Man or Bruce Lee, assuming they had the same dedication and training as those MA legends.  

Similarly, Funakoshi, the Karate legend who pioneered the development of Shotokan Karate was only 5' tall.  By some accounts, he was powerfully built, but how much muscle can you put on a 5' frame?  Same for General Choi Hong Hi.  By all acounts a small and sickly child, in pictures he never was a large or imposing figure.  I don't know how big he was, bbut he certainly wasn't built like an NFL Linebacker.  He was more likely smaller than most women.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> This statement reminds me of the highschooler that just finished his physics class, and visits a site like physicsworld a bunch, arguing with experiential physicists about time travel and passing the speed of light.



To keep it breif.   Havent reletively experiened people come up with wrong conclusions and been corrected by more junior memebers?   It happens and people are fallible.    Not to get too into it, as not the thread and it would be a argument off the back of a joke.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

mrt2 said:


> I cannot comment specifically on Wing Chun, because it is not my thing, so I will leave that to others who have some knowledge of Wing Chun.
> 
> But I take issue with the premise of the highlighted portion of your question.  While it is true that as a rule, men possess greater upper body strength than women, that has no bearing on an individual.  And take this to actual martial arts.  Many martial arts ideally favor a body type that is a mix of speed, quickness, agility and strength, and not just brute strength.  To put a finer point on this, while I don't know exactly how big Ip Man was, from photos taken with Bruce Lee, he looks at least a few inches shorter and a bit smaller than Lee, and Bruce Lee was maybe 5'8" and 140 lbs.  So looking at the real world, it is not just possible, but probably that most women are capable of packing on at least as much muscle as Ip Man or Bruce Lee, assuming they had the same dedication and training as those MA legends.
> 
> Similarly, Funakoshi, the Karate legend who pioneered the development of Shotokan Karate was only 5' tall.  By some accounts, he was powerfully built, but how much muscle can you put on a 5' frame?  Same for General Choi Hong Hi.  By all acounts a small and sickly child, in pictures he never was a large or imposing figure.  I don't know how big he was, bbut he certainly wasn't built like an NFL Linebacker.  He was more likely smaller than most women.



There are very few martial arts dedicated to defending against smaller weaker oponants.


----------



## skribs (Feb 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There are very few martial arts dedicated to defending against smaller weaker oponants.



Very few - does that mean there are some?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> But,theroeritical martial arts is what i thrive in though!


And therefore, to me, is a waste of time.



drop bear said:


> I am of the school of thought that fighting basically optimizes in one general direction.
> 
> There might be subtle changes but if you did a style that generically optimises fighting you would probably beat a style that specializes.


I agree. I do enjoy studying various systems. I tend to spend much more of my time studying the commonalities vs the differences. I often say "the cream always rises to the top and usually it is the things that are common that work (the cream) and not the differences so much. The things that work in most all systems is the cream."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> To keep it breif.   Havent reletively experiened people come up with wrong conclusions and been corrected by more junior memebers?   It happens and people are fallible.    Not to get too into it, as not the thread and it would be a argument off the back of a joke.


Physicists make mistakes and get things wrong all the time. But the ones who realize this and point them in the right direction aren't that 'deep' high school student, it's other people with serious training in physics and understand it to a higher level than self-learning and HS courses can get you.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 23, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> Physicists make mistakes and get things wrong all the time. But the ones who realize this and point them in the right direction aren't that 'deep' high school student, it's other people with serious training in physics and understand it to a higher level than self-learning and HS courses can get you.



See my issue lays here, people loose sight of things and can loose common sense, and in places with quite a stringent caste structor mroe junior staff can basically be silenced despite coming upw ith good ideas and solutions and seeing problems.   It jsut fundementally boils down to if its right or not.   Or if its a concern/issue or not.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> See my issue lays here, people loose sight of things and can loose common sense, and in places with quite a stringent caste structor mroe junior staff can basically be silenced despite coming upw ith good ideas and solutions and seeing problems.   It jsut fundementally boils down to if its right or not.   Or if its a concern/issue or not.


Which is true, but again to continue with the analogy, it depends on how much training the junior has. So if I'm a highly respected/senior physicist working on the matrix theory, and someone a bit lower at my company realizes I'm making a fundamental mistake and can articulate that mistake, great. I should listen to him, and help figure out if I'm making a mistake, or if he's misunderstanding something, or if I need to change my thinking. If I don't do that, it's a problem.

Now if the high school physics student comes along, knowing very little about matrix theory but thinking he does because he watched a youtube video on it, and telling me how I'm wrong because a video said X, without really understanding why the video said X, why I'm saying Y, or even what X or Y are, I'm not going to listen to him. Because there's so much he doesn't know that it's not worth mine or his time to go into it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> See my issue lays here, people loose sight of things and can loose common sense, and in places with quite a stringent caste structor mroe junior staff can basically be silenced despite coming upw ith good ideas and solutions and seeing problems.   It jsut fundementally boils down to if its right or not.   Or if its a concern/issue or not.




I doubt quite honestly if you could create a martial arts style when it's obvious you can't use spell check or use grammar enough to make your posts intelligible. Oh and the fact you don't martial arts, you can't even talk a good fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> See my issue lays here, people loose sight of things and can loose common sense, and in places with quite a stringent caste structor mroe junior staff can basically be silenced despite coming upw ith good ideas and solutions and seeing problems.   It jsut fundementally boils down to if its right or not.   Or if its a concern/issue or not.


You're right. It does boil down to whether something is right or not. But getting to what is right takes some depth of understanding in most fields. Hence, the high-schooler doesn't usually have enough understanding (unless he's an absolute prodigy) to even converse on a level with the theoretical physicists, much less help them spot errors. Typically, what that high-schooler sees as "errors" are actually places where they misunderstand the theory.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> Very few - does that mean there are some?



There are some self defense notions that suggest you will be fighting some incompetent.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> What i wrote and the points made are above, that is my argument.  Your "Statment of fact" has no relivence here.  To which i have this as a reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rat, you are one of the people on this forum who I cannot even see how old you are. Why would I believe anything that person says? 
@jobo said it very well when he said there are more similarities than differences. There is more than enough in most styles for a person (male or female) to figure out what works better/best for them. This is true in a male/male, female/female, or male/female comparison of the same skill/drill/technique.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're right. It does boil down to whether something is right or not. But getting to what is right takes some depth of understanding in most fields. Hence, the high-schooler doesn't usually have enough understanding (unless he's an absolute prodigy) to even converse on a level with the theoretical physicists, much less help them spot errors. Typically, what that high-schooler sees as "errors" are actually places where they misunderstand the theory.



And then sometimes a three year old watching from the sidelines can identify the problem that the expert couldn't.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Rat, you are one of the people on this forum who I cannot even see how old you are. Why would I believe anything that person says?




Am i obliged to share such information though?   You do not have to belive anything i write here, nor do i have to belive anything you write here.

Nor does anyone HAVE to for anyone else.      Feel free to DM me, as i feel this might be deraily.  





drop bear said:


> And then sometimes a three year old watching from the sidelines can identify the problem that the expert couldn't.



there is some saying for soemthing like that.     I ahve completely forgotten it but i swear there is a saying for this.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> Am i obliged to share such information though?   You do not have to belive anything i write here, nor do i have to belive anything you write here.
> 
> Nor does anyone HAVE to for anyone else.      Feel free to DM me, as i feel this might be deraily.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. Not trying to stir the pot. It's just that it is very hard to understand where you are trying to go with some of you posts.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 24, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...


If the premise is that women are generally physically weaker than men, therefore to be successful against men they would need to be more technical than someone that could rely more on strength, than I agree.

But there is also massive strength and size differential between men, that present the same challenges.

How technically sound would Demetrius Johnson need to be to beat Stipe Miocic?


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> If the premise is that women are generally physically weaker than men, therefore to be successful against men they would need to be more technical than someone that could rely more on strength, than I agree.
> 
> But there is also massive strength and size differential between men, that present the same challenges.
> 
> How technically sound would Demetrius Johnson need to be to beat Stipe Miocic?


You are talking about exceptionally gifted people in their craft. I was speaking in the normal, average genre. 
Flo-Jo broke the woman's speed record in 1988. I think this record still holds. She was 5'-6.5" and 126lbs. 
Usain Bolt broke the men's speed record multiple times from around 2009 to 2016.   He is 6'-5" and 205lbs. 

It is evident that people (both male and female)are growing bigger/taller. I expect both records to be broken in the very near future.


----------



## skribs (Feb 24, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There are some self defense notions that suggest you will be fighting some incompetent.



Incompetent =/= smaller or weaker.


----------



## jobo (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You are talking about exceptionally gifted people in their craft. I was speaking in the normal, average genre.
> Flo-Jo broke the woman's speed record in 1988. I think this record still holds. She was 5'-6.5" and 126lbs.
> Usain Bolt broke the men's speed record multiple times from around 2009 to 2016.   He is 6'-5" and 205lbs.
> 
> It is evident that people (both male and female)are growing bigger/taller. I expect both records to be broken in the very near future.


records keep getting broken for a number of reasons, phycological, they just have to top the last one by a thousanth of a second, better understanding of human bioligy, faster tracks, venue like to have records set so design tracks that are faster, better shoes, the lastest nikes are breaking records all over the shop to the point that athelets sponsered not by nike have little chance of a medal, let alone a record and not least the pharma wars that keep atheletes three steps ahead of the testers

non of those seem to have anything to do with people getting taller, in fact mr bolt is completly the wrong build for a spinter and runs all wrong, its something of a mystery quite why he was so good, see possible reasons above


----------



## jobo (Feb 24, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There are some self defense notions that suggest you will be fighting some incompetent.


on the ballance of proberbilities thats quite likely, either drunk and or incompetant is a factor in most of the fights ive witnessed


----------



## drop bear (Feb 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> on the ballance of proberbilities thats quite likely, either drunk and or incompetant is a factor in most of the fights ive witnessed



Especially with me as I am more likely to be the instigator of said fight and So can pick a weaker less coordinated oponant.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> Am i obliged to share such information though?   You do not have to belive anything i write here, nor do i have to belive anything you write here.
> 
> Nor does anyone HAVE to for anyone else.      Feel free to DM me, as i feel this might be deraily.
> 
> ...



Emperors new clothes.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You are talking about exceptionally gifted people in their craft. I was speaking in the normal, average genre.
> Flo-Jo broke the woman's speed record in 1988. I think this record still holds. She was 5'-6.5" and 126lbs.
> Usain Bolt broke the men's speed record multiple times from around 2009 to 2016.   He is 6'-5" and 205lbs.
> 
> It is evident that people (both male and female)are growing bigger/taller. I expect both records to be broken in the very near future.



No, I think this holds up through any demographic.

Take your average desk job guy with a work desk to couch sedintary lifestyle and contrast him with the guy that twists rebar or moves drywall around for a living and the strength differential would be equally as significant.


----------



## jobo (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> No, I think this holds up through any demographic.
> 
> Take your average desk job guy with a work desk to couch sedintary lifestyle and contrast him with the guy that twists rebar or moves drywall around for a living and the strength differential would be equally as significant.


or indeed the girl who moves drywall for a living


----------



## drop bear (Feb 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> Incompetent =/= smaller or weaker.



Oh. Ok. So you are training to fight some massive guy who just happens not to be able to fight.

Because that doesn't sound like ego stroking.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> No, I think this holds up through any demographic.
> 
> Take your average desk job guy with a work desk to couch sedintary lifestyle and contrast him with the guy that twists rebar or moves drywall around for a living and the strength differential would be equally as significant.


My point is/was I am not suggesting women compete against men, or vise-versa. Anatomically we are different. That is not good and that is not bad. We were made for different purposes. Again, not good not bad, it just is. There will be records held by men that women will break and vice-versa. Again, not good, not bad.

I did a quick check and found that Margaret Court has 7 more Grand Slam titles than Roger Federer. That is huge IMHO.
Carly Lloyd is/was a Beast on the soccer field.

Sure, the person with an active lifestyle is going to be 'stronger'. Genetics plays a huge role as well. But it is not fair to paint the picture such that someone who has a sedentary job cannot be fit. 

I am in a country where certain states/counties/school systems let boys who 'identify' as a girl compete against girls.
It doesn't get much more messed up than that.


----------



## skribs (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> No, I think this holds up through any demographic.
> 
> Take your average desk job guy with a work desk to couch sedintary lifestyle and contrast him with the guy that twists rebar or moves drywall around for a living and the strength differential would be equally as significant.



I actually think that's a big reason why we're getting weaker as a species overall.  Yeah, we have exceptional people setting records, but most of us are just getting fatter and lazier.  And if I'm perfectly honest....I don't think it's that big a deal.

We're getting more and more into the times where your intelligence is more important than your physical strength.  Being able to carry heavy loads is less and less desirable as robots take over those jobs.  Being able to provide customer service, troubleshooting, or come up with innovative ideas is more and more what brings success.  These can be done just as well if you're built like Terry Crews or if you're built like Gabriel Iglesias (Fluffy).

Sure, it presents health problems.  But we're already living longer than we used to.

Is our life better if we're in shape?  Yes.  But I don't think it's as necessary as it was before robots.


----------



## skribs (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am in a country where certain states/counties/school systems let boys who 'identify' as a girl compete against girls.
> It doesn't get much more messed up than that.



Don't even get me started.  Too late...
In my opinion, girls should be allowed to compete with boys if they so choose.  Boys should not be allowed to go into a girl's league.  It's a double standard and I stand by it 100%.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am in a country where certain states/counties/school systems let boys who 'identify' as a girl compete against girls.
> It doesn't get much more messed up than that.




The situation is actually much more nuanced than that, it isn't just a case of identifying as a girl  to compete, nor does it automatically mean that the transgender person will always win, some are in fact being beaten. You also have the opposite situation of transgender girls being forced to compete against boys. There's also the South Africa runner Caster Semenya who has naturally higher testosterone levels and who the athletic authorities want to drug.

This is a medical and scientific issue not a political one mods before you start warnings.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> Don't even get me started.  Too late...
> In my opinion, girls should be allowed to compete with boys if they so choose.  Boys should not be allowed to go into a girl's league.  It's a double standard and I stand by it 100%.


I say keep it simple. Compete against each other. When the occasional female prodigy comes along and needs the competition let them compete with whoever they wish. But how can it fairly go the other way?

 In my senior year of high school (1981)(damn, that looks funny when written out.) we had 3 girls try out for football. It was not pretty and it was not nice. One girl thought it would be funny and quit the first day. Figured out real quick it was not going to be funny.  One quite sometime early on before the season started. One of the girls truly was better than some of the boys but there was just too much going against her in that time.
Things like this get complicated pretty quick when you look at the big picture of time and resources, morality, etc... That said, in a generation or two it would not surprise me if all public bathrooms will be built/made as unisex. A good or bad thing? I do not know. But I do know I am of the age that I do Not want my young teenage daughter showering after a practice with the boys. (hypothetical)

But I strongly agree, no male OR female should compete against the other because they 'identify' as such. IMHO.
I know, I am stirring a non PC pot, so be it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> public bathrooms will be built/made as unisex.




Normal elsewhere in the world though. Sharing loos is fine, means nothing, the only problem is people who don't wash their hands. The ones you have to be careful about are the French paying single cubicles. We were in France and saw a British person very politely holding the door open as she came out for a British man. We shook our heads. You are supposed to shut the door after you, as the cubicles have water which comes down and washes everything (toilet paper etc in kept dry), lovely and hygienic, however the chap came out absolutely soaked. 
Boys and girls showers are separate though, single cubicles with doors so everyone is private. Nudity however isn't a big issue in Europe, sex education also starts very early so the young people are more comfortable in their sexuality and how to deal with issues arising from issues like that.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> I actually think that's a big reason why we're getting weaker as a species overall.  Yeah, we have exceptional people setting records, but most of us are just getting fatter and lazier.  And if I'm perfectly honest....I don't think it's that big a deal.
> 
> We're getting more and more into the times where your intelligence is more important than your physical strength.  Being able to carry heavy loads is less and less desirable as robots take over those jobs.  Being able to provide customer service, troubleshooting, or come up with innovative ideas is more and more what brings success.  These can be done just as well if you're built like Terry Crews or if you're built like Gabriel Iglesias (Fluffy).
> 
> ...


Well sure, but that's not at all relevant to the point I was making.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> or indeed the girl who moves drywall for a living


Naw, desk job guy will probably still be stronger than THAT rare unicorn.


----------



## jobo (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Naw, desk job guy will probably still be stronger than THAT rare unicorn.


construction sites in this country have an increasing number of trade ladies, and no, if she is doing exacrly the same3 exercise as that which made are guy strong she will be equally strong, thats how exercise works

what your saying is the same as saying a girl who benches 250lbs  cant be as strong as a guy who does


----------



## Martial D (Feb 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> construction sites in this country have an increasing number of trade ladies, and no, if she is doing exacrly the same3 exercise as that which made are guy strong she will be equally strong, thats how exercise works
> 
> what your saying is the same as saying a girl who benches 250lbs  cant be as strong as a guy who does


Male and female physiology is very different. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.


----------



## jobo (Feb 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Male and female physiology is very different. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.


and women have tes as well, and no its not very different at all

the same exercise will yeld the same results for both sex. at least in terms of strengh and she will most certainly be stronger than the pen pusher


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 24, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun,


 
Feng Qiniang and her martial art teacher father fled to Fukian province in south China following the razing (the late 1600's one) of the north Shaolin temple.  Her father was killed, and vowing revenge, she redoubled her MA training and developed her own style:  White Crane, after watching the evasive maneuvers of that bird.  She defeated many challengers (men) and established her style which gained popularity. Likely 3rd or 4th generation students were Pan Yuba (teacher of Ryuryu Ko, influencer of Naha-Te), and KuSanKu, influencer of Shuri-Te.  Thus, *her style was a main root from which most all Okinawan karate evolved. *


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Male and female physiology is very different. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.




As scientists are finding out the differences aren't as nearly as great as people first thought. women also have testosterone, some much more than others, and men have oestrogen and both have more hormones than just those. 

What you are showing with your posts proves what  Jackson Katz, an expert in gender violence studies,  states..._ "that  some men cling to their gender’s generally greater capacity for physical power as justification that “somehow, men are still more entitled to power,” “As women have started competing with men in areas that men had historically excluded them from, some men have retreated into this world where physical size and strength matters even more, because it’s the one area where they continue to hold advantage over women.”_

_Katz argues that this might help to explain some of the popularity and growth of American football, boxing, MMA and other violent sports. “A man might not be able to understand or articulate this, but the thinking comes down to, ‘Yes, a woman may make more money than me, my boss might be a woman, my wife might have better job than me, but none of them can play football,’” Katz says. He notes, though, that obsession with gladiator-type masculinity tends to be a predominantly American phenomenon."_


You sound outraged that women could have the audacity to be strong and able to lift weights, do 'male' jobs etc. It's comedic in this day and age.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> As scientists are finding out the differences aren't as nearly as great as people first thought. women also have testosterone, some much more than others, and men have oestrogen and both have more hormones than just those.
> 
> What you are showing with your posts proves what  Jackson Katz, an expert in gender violence studies,  states..._ "that  some men cling to their gender’s generally greater capacity for physical power as justification that “somehow, men are still more entitled to power,” “As women have started competing with men in areas that men had historically excluded them from, some men have retreated into this world where physical size and strength matters even more, because it’s the one area where they continue to hold advantage over women.”_
> 
> ...


I don't think this is entirely true. And FYI: the strongest person I know is my best friend: a women who is an international rugby player. Literally no one I know could beat her in most tests of athleticism, and she also could beat about 90% of people I know in a fight (she learned kempo a while back, and learned boxing a lesser while back). 

That said, there is a distinctive difference between men and women when it comes to specific sports. I'm certain that the best female basketball player is better than the average NBA player. And I'm also certain that, despite my own interest in basketball and playing it from about 10-18 every day for 2+ hours, that me or the others on my block could beat the people in the WNBA. Simply because those women were more talented then we were. But I'm also certain that they will never reach kobe bryant/michael jordan/lebron james level. There is a certain limit that's a result of biology, and outside of professional sports it doesn't matter in the slightest, but it does give men a distinct advantage in sports. Not an overcomable advantage-as I said the best WNBA players are probably better than the average NBA players, but that advantage still exists. And my assumption is this is true for most sports. 

Tennis would actually be the best example of this, since it's a singular sport. So no other factors in play, but some of the best women in tennis have stated that they'd enjoy competing against the men, but they know they wouldn't win. While I haven't spoken to them personally, I would assume that's a result of them practicing against men and knowing that the top women aren't on equal footing with the top men. 

Again, this has nothing to do with which is the better sex. To focus on your quote from katz-I really don't care who can play football. As I alluded to above, my friend is probably a much better football player than I am, and it really doesn't matter in the slightest, unless you're at a professional level. So I gain no personal benefit or superiority against women by the NFL being dominated by guys.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> I don't think this is entirely true.


You don't think it's true that women and men have testosterone and oestrogen? Scientists are finding out that the differences aren't as great as many think or have thought in the past. None of that is false.

The rest of it was directly for martial D's benefit because it fits him, it is not aimed at anyone else.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> You don't think it's true that women and men have testosterone and oestrogen?


If you read the rest of what I said, I didn't make any mention of testosterone vs. estrogen. It was in regard to the rest. Obviously testosterone isn't the only difference, but there is a difference between men and women, which is what the rest of my post was addressing. And again, it doesn't mean that men or women are superior to the other, simply that men are more suited for the sports that society has created/popularized so far. Which is probably a result of men being in power at the time such sports were popularized.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> It was in regard to the rest. Obviously testosterone isn't the only difference, but there is a difference between men and women, which is what the rest of my post was addressing. And again, it doesn't mean that men or women are superior to the other, simply that men are more suited for the sports that society has created/popularized so far. Which is probably a result of men being in power at the time such sports were popularized.




As I said, that other bit was specifically addressed to martial d, not anyone else because of his attitude which is why I said this





Tez3 said:


> What you are showing with your posts proves what Jackson Katz, an expert in gender violence studies, states




because this is exactly how he is 





Tez3 said:


> that some men cling to their gender’s generally greater capacity for physical power as justification that “somehow, men are still more entitled to power,” “



I appreciate you answering but it wasn't meant as points for you or anyone else because as you have shown you don't have that 'men are always stronger because they have testicles, women will always be weak because they don't' attitude.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> _Katz argues that this might help to explain some of the popularity and growth of American football, boxing, MMA and other violent sports. “A man might not be able to understand or articulate this, but the thinking comes down to, ‘Yes, a woman may make more money than me, my boss might be a woman, my wife might have better job than me, but none of them can play football,’” Katz says. He notes, though, that obsession with gladiator-type masculinity tends to be a predominantly American phenomenon."_
> 
> 
> You sound outraged that women could have the audacity to be strong and able to lift weights, do 'male' jobs etc. It's comedic in this day and age.



I do not know who Jackson Katz is. In no way do I mean to say women cannot do the things you listed (money, boss, job, lift weights, etc...). I fully agree. 
I doubt we know the upper limit of female anatomy in regards to strength. It has taken millennia to get where we are. Most of this out of sheer necessity and a division of power that worked best for everybody for survival. Thankfully living has gotten Much easier for most and we are afforded freedoms not available in the past. 

So let's try to narrow the topic a little the find some focus. You mentioned American football. If women were able to compete at even the college level consistently they would be. This is a money driven industry. The best players Will play. 
I am of the mindset that there are attributes of the game a women should be able to do better mentally (receiving/catching). I surmise this from observation on watching people catch the ball. When our son was younger he played AAU 7 on 7 flag football. It was co-ed and some to the girls were definitely better than some of the boys.  
When all the demands of playing the game at full contact are factored in, I suspect it quickly cancels out the slight advantage a female has in that one specific area. A female kicker is in the NFL right now (Jacksonville I think). 

So the short answer is we all play to our strengths for the given environment. But some environments demand things that each sex can provide better than the other. 

Will women and men find parity in anatomy in our lifetime? No, I do not think it is possible for the physical anatomy of the female body to change on a large without a great deal of time. Will it ever happen in a greater degree? I think so but not in a significant way. There is no getting around the fact we are built different and made for different purposes. 

Like I said in an earlier post; there already are outliers. Females born with above average physic. If they wish to compete in, whatever, let them. I firmly believe that the social norms and legalities of today allow it. 

 Men, particularly, American men have been the driving force in military might for the USA since it's inception. All the things you mention about hormones which true. But I doubt we even knew what Testosterone was during say the Revolutionary War or 1812. Then the settlements grew and Western Expansion began. All of this required physical work to a degree that none of us can imagine. It formed this country and the people of the country. None of this can be achieved through a 'social experiment' or social change. It may slightly facilitate but for large scale female anatomy change to take place it will take time, millennia. If it can ever happen at all. 

This discludes any idea or means of a person heavily modifying their body through chemicals and science. I still think genetics would play a big factor here as well. That DeWayne Johnson. I certainly could have never looked like him no matter what I put in my body. And yes to me, this is wrong on many levels. It is not tearing down to build back up. It is temporarily increasing attributes that usually come to a very bad end. How is that worth it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> As I said, that other bit was specifically addressed to martial d, not anyone else because of his attitude which is why I said this
> 
> 
> because this is exactly how he is
> ...



So it's not OK to club you over the head and drag you back to our cave?
Huh...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> As I said, that other bit was specifically addressed to martial d, not anyone else because of his attitude which is why I said this
> 
> 
> because this is exactly how he is
> ...


I get that wasn't meant towards me, but I wanted to make clear that there is a legitimate argument, and legitimate biological difference that doesn't come from just the men = strong attitude. How that involves trans people is obviously an entirely different story.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> I get that wasn't meant towards me, but I wanted to make clear that there is a legitimate argument, and legitimate biological difference that doesn't come from just the men = strong attitude. How that involves trans people is obviously an entirely different story.




However that argument wasn't one I was making. I take it as read there are differences. It is also true though that the differences that were once thought to be huge aren't actually as big as people thought in the past ( and some still do)
Take brains for example. Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains

Remember this, when women couldn't run marathons? Women aren't as fast as men but there's no valid proof they can't run long distances in fact women are excelling at 'ultra' events' now yet it was thought women simply were biologically unable to run ...at all not just distance running. 
Kathrine Switzer, The First Woman To Run The Boston Marathon, Was Almost Kicked Out For Her Gender


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> A female kicker is in the NFL right now (Jacksonville I think).



Nope.  Jacksonville has a male kicker.  When I look up "female kicker NFL", it looks like there were some talks with a soccer player (Carli Lloyd) but I can't find that she's actually in the NFL.

@Tez3 The average man is stronger than the average woman.  The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women.  The world records for most athletic displays show this, in that the women's categories are almost always slower or of lower weight or reps than mens.  The only categories in which women have higher records are when women are competing against women (for example, I read an article about a woman who had more gold medals in world championships than men in a similar event...but she wasn't competing against men to get those medals).  There's a big reason why most athletics are divided between men and women, and it has nothing to do with sexism.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.  Without that division, women's athletics basically wouldn't exist.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2020)

skribs said:


> Nope.  Jacksonville has a male kicker.  When I look up "female kicker NFL", it looks like there were some talks with a soccer player (Carli Lloyd) but I can't find that she's actually in the NFL.
> 
> @Tez3 The average man is stronger than the average woman.  The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women.  The world records for most athletic displays show this, in that the women's categories are almost always slower or of lower weight or reps than mens.  The only categories in which women have higher records are when women are competing against women (for example, I read an article about a woman who had more gold medals in world championships than men in a similar event...but she wasn't competing against men to get those medals).  There's a big reason why most athletics are divided between men and women, and it has nothing to do with sexism.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.  Without that division, women's athletics basically wouldn't exist.


last time this topic came up, some made much the same claim and i challenged him to show that the average women was weaker than the average man, and after a lot of huff and puff, he fail misably and went off in a sulk

are you prepared to back up your claim with DATA

nb to save a false start you specified ALL men are stronger at the average, that would seem to requyire you to consider all 7 billion folk on the ploanet not just anacdotes about peoip0le you have meet

nb it would also help if yoiu state which average your refering to, mean mode medium and how your measuring strengh


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> So it's not OK to club you over the head and drag you back to our cave?
> Huh...




Well..seeing as it's you.. maybe I'll let you try


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> last time this topic came up, some made much the same claim and i challenged him to show that the average women was weaker than the average man, and after a lot of huff and puff, he fail misably and went off in a sulk
> 
> are you prepared to back up your claim with DATA
> 
> ...



First off, I never said "ALL men."  The quote is right there.

Second, you already show a lack of understanding of how statistics work.  You don't need data on all 7 billion people to come up with statistically significant results.  

Women in Combat: Physical Differences May Mean Uphill Battle | Live Science - Men have an average of 26 pounds more muscle mass.  Women had 40% less upper body strength and 33% less lower body strength, on average.

https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOCTOBER2016_Monteiro_Bigio.pdf - study of both athletes and non-athletic folk, found men had an average chest press of 257.1% that of women, and a back squat of 167.1% that of women.

Do men really have more upper body strength than women? - different studies show between 40% and 52% less upper body strength in women

«««Апатоlу Каrliп»»» on Twitter - A graph showing average grip strength by men or women in a variety of countries.  In every country, the average female grip strength is about 10-15 kg lower than that of a man.

I could keep going, but study after study show the same thing.  It doesn't matter if they go for athletic folk or everyday folk, they find the same thing.  If you really want to test 7 billion people, then you're asking for an impossible standard that no statistician would ever consider necessary.

In fact, since it's pretty much common knowledge, I'm going to put the burden of proof on you.  Can you provide *one* study that says the average man is *not* stronger than the average woman?


----------



## Martial D (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> As scientists are finding out the differences aren't as nearly as great as people first thought. women also have testosterone, some much more than others, and men have oestrogen and both have more hormones than just those.
> 
> What you are showing with your posts proves what  Jackson Katz, an expert in gender violence studies,  states..._ "that  some men cling to their gender’s generally greater capacity for physical power as justification that “somehow, men are still more entitled to power,” “As women have started competing with men in areas that men had historically excluded them from, some men have retreated into this world where physical size and strength matters even more, because it’s the one area where they continue to hold advantage over women.”_
> 
> ...


Ridiculous shrillery


----------



## Martial D (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> and women have tes as well, and no its not very different at all
> 
> the same exercise will yeld the same results for both sex. at least in terms of strengh and she will most certainly be stronger than the pen pusher



I suppose we live in different realities.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Men, particularly, American men have been the driving force in military might for the USA since it's inception.




To be fair that's not very long lol, there's been a lot of female warriors throughout history.

But to reiterate, the quote I posted was very specifically for one person because it pertains to him and his inabilty to allow woman can be strong, not necessarily as strong as men he just doesn't think women can be strong.



dvcochran said:


> Men, particularly, American men have been the driving force in military might for the USA since it's inception



I should think American men were a driving force in the American military, us Brits certainly weren't . However women as soldiers wasn't unknown.
Women of The Civil War: Wives and Sisters Who Went Onto the Battlefield Dressed As Men

Wartime cross-dressers - Wikipedia

Female warriors weren't unknown throughout history, necessity being the most pressing reason.

Female P Coy pass
the most obvious question here is how the hell the horses know when to pull the cord on their parachutes.......


The thing is though I'm not arguing that women are the same as men or as strong, I'm pointing out the absurdity of one poster's assertion that women cannot be strong...ever.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2020)

skribs said:


> First off, I never said "ALL men."  The quote is right there.
> 
> Second, you already show a lack of understanding of how statistics work.  You don't need data on all 7 billion people to come up with statistically significant results.
> 
> ...


but you do need a % of all races in all countries, you wouldnt try and calculate the average height for the planet just on american studies would you? would you????????

ok lets talk you through it out of those 7 billion what is the strengh for the average women ?  how have you elimated selection bias,how have you defined strengh. mean mode or meduim ? and what % were included in the test to give a significant result.?


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> but you do need a % of all races in all countries, you wouldnt try and calculate the average height for the planet just on american studies would you? would you????????
> 
> ok lets talk you through it out of those 7 billion what is the strengh for the average women ?  how have you elimated selection bias,how have you defined strengh. mean mode or meduim ? and what % were included in the test to give a significant result.?



Can you provide just one study to prove me false?


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2020)

skribs said:


> Can you provide just one study to prove me false?


i never made a claim im asking you to back up your claim,

clearly your now having second thoughts that it can be proved

but here you are ive asked twice for your defintion of strengh as you havent bothered to answer, this counts

A scientific study just proved women have more stamina than men

they have the strengh to go for longer


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Feb 25, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> That said, there is a distinctive difference between men and women when it comes to specific sports. I'm certain that the best female basketball player is better than the average NBA player. And I'm also certain that, despite my own interest in basketball and playing it from about 10-18 every day for 2+ hours, that me or the others on my block could beat the people in the WNBA. Simply because those women were more talented then we were. But I'm also certain that they will never reach kobe bryant/michael jordan/lebron james level. There is a certain limit that's a result of biology, and outside of professional sports it doesn't matter in the slightest, but it does give men a distinct advantage in sports. Not an overcomable advantage-as I said the best WNBA players are probably better than the average NBA players, but that advantage still exists. And my assumption is this is true for most sports.



Nice to read that there is another basketball enthusiast on this board but I would respectfully disagree about your comment regarding the best women in the WNBA beating the average NBA player.   Even the weakest NBA player has an above average level of skill as they have had to beat out hundreds of thousands of players to get that spot.   They only look weaker by comparison to the truly exceptional individuals at the top of the game.   Women in the WNBA are also exceptional athletes but there are far less women playing basketball than men.  Yes, you do have some exceptional players in the WNBA but I would be very surprised to see them dominate the 'weakest' of the men in the NBA.  Basketball is just one of those sports that favours size, speed, athleticism and aggressivity for the ball which seems to appeal to a greater pool of males in comparison to females.   If more girls/women played basketball then I would tend to think the cream of the crop would be closer to what the boys/men can produce but for now, all things created equal, the higher level of competition on the men's side certainly produces more and better athletes.  

I know the above may seem a little misogynistic but it is not meant to be.  I've played basketball all my life and have coached boys and girls for the last 15 years.   I've come across some exceptional players in that time and can say that the girls biggest issue is that they do not have enough competition to develop as quickly as the boys.   We've tried to give them equal opportunities but they just do not come out in the same numbers.  The pathway through and after college is also not as developed as it is for boys.  Sadly I wish it were not so but I think it comes down to just not enough girls flowing through the systems to have someone develop pathways that will generate more interest in the sport for them.  

Although I do agree that men have an advantage here I am not certain the advantage comes solely from physiology as much as from the Darwinian natural selection from a greater pool of interested and motivated players.  I wish I knew what the national statistics were of basketball players that were male and female but based on what I have seen at the regional level it is close to 10 boys for every 1 girl that is interested to play.  The field narrows considerably for girls as players reach the age of 14.   

Ok, did not mean to derail a MA thread to talk about basketball but I have been trying to find a way to increase the participation rate of girls playing basketball.   Heck I would be interested in hearing how to increase the interest of teenage girls playing ANY sport period.   Can you tell I have a few daughters and would like to make sure they have someone to play with/against so that they can push themselves to excel ?


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> i never made a claim im asking you to back up your claim,
> 
> clearly your now having second thoughts that it can be proved
> 
> ...


Because my claim is common knowledge. 

In fact, the study you linked confirms it. It says that men are stronger than women. They tired less, but the strength is still in favor of the men.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2020)

skribs said:


> Because my claim is common knowledge.
> 
> In fact, the study you linked confirms it. It says that men are stronger than women. They tired less, but the strength is still in favor of the men.


but the ability to endure is strengh and women it seems have more or it so they are stonger, you cant start trying to impose your defintion on the discusion when you were asked repeably to declare it and failed to do so


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> but the ability to endure is strengh and women it seems have more or it so they are stonger, you cant start trying to impose your defintion on the discusion when you were asked repeably to declare it and failed to do so



I identified it at the very beginning.  Amount you can lift or how fast you can go.

You've added words to my statements, it's no surprise you missed some, too.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2020)

skribs said:


> I identified it at the very beginning.  Amount you can lift or how fast you can go.
> 
> You've added words to my statements, it's no surprise you missed some, too.



thats not really a defintion is it?
how fast you can go ? so your including walking speed but not walking distance ?


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats not really a defintion is it?
> how fast you can go ? so your including walking speed but not walking distance ?



You're impossible to talk to. Back on ignore.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> However that argument wasn't one I was making. I take it as read there are differences. It is also true though that the differences that were once thought to be huge aren't actually as big as people thought in the past ( and some still do)
> Take brains for example. Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains
> 
> Remember this, when women couldn't run marathons? Women aren't as fast as men but there's no valid proof they can't run long distances in fact women are excelling at 'ultra' events' now yet it was thought women simply were biologically unable to run ...at all not just distance running.
> Kathrine Switzer, The First Woman To Run The Boston Marathon, Was Almost Kicked Out For Her Gender



The flip side of that coin means that women can compete equally with men in areas that they realistically can't.

E.g.. when we put 100kg transgender athletes in the mix.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

Yokozuna514 said:


> the girls biggest issue is that they do not have enough competition to develop as quickly as the boys. We've tried to give them equal opportunities but they just do not come out in the same numbers.





Yokozuna514 said:


> I have been trying to find a way to increase the participation rate of girls playing basketball. Heck I would be interested in hearing how to increase the interest of teenage girls playing ANY sport period.




it's not just basketball, we have the same problem with women's MMA, which is odd considering we do have a lot of females in martial arts, very good Olympic standard ones too. Finding opponents for female fighters was a nightmare to start with, it is getting better but it is slow. 

Here in the UK Sport England is making a big effort to get into sports, as you say, any sports. there are a number of issues why girls either don't do sport or stop when teenagers, they aren't always that obvious reasons either.

Perhaps something on here could help if you wanted to push a campaign or inspire schools to?

This Girl Can | Sport England

Gender | Sport England


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The flip side of that coin means that women can compete equally with men in areas that they realistically can't.




I didn't say there weren't differences, I said that they weren't as huge as people in the past and some now think they are. For example women were perceived as not being able to participate in sport because it would affect their fertility, men's fertility wasn't considered in danger ( though one wonders with pro cycling). Women can lift weights without ending up looking like the Hulk when once women using weights was discouraged even forbidden because people thought women would end up with bulging muscles. There's plenty of other examples which have all been proved to be wrong so yes the differences between men and women aren't as big as people thought.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> it's not just basketball, we have the same problem with women's MMA, which is odd considering we do have a lot of females in martial arts, very good Olympic standard ones too. Finding opponents for female fighters was a nightmare to start with, it is getting better but it is slow.
> 
> Here in the UK Sport England is making a big effort to get into sports, as you say, any sports. there are a number of issues why girls either don't do sport or stop when teenagers, they aren't always that obvious reasons either.
> 
> ...


No unfortunately it is not just in basketball, it is in almost every sport my daughters have been involved in.   I've also found the same issues in MA here in NA.   I coach a top athlete in Knockdown and she's had to travel to around the world to get competition as there is no one here in her category that wants to or can compete with her.  Her sparring partners are basically men of which we are very selective to ensure that she is properly pushed in training but not needlessly injured.  

Canada is not known for supporting their athletes on a National level so we do what we can at the regional and local level.   I teach a special class on Sunday morning to help her raise money for travelling to compete.   

Don't get me started with the schools.  We have laws in in Canada that limit the marketing to minors so even not for profit sports organizations are not allowed to promote their sports in schools.  Many of the coaches in our high school system are teachers which may not necessarily have the knowledge to teach the game they are coaching.  I actually coached my daughter's high school basketball team so that these girls would have someone to help them improve their skills in the game but it is like fingers in a dam.  Too many holes and not enough fingers........


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 25, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> To be fair that's not very long lol, there's been a lot of female warriors throughout history.
> 
> But to reiterate, the quote I posted was very specifically for one person because it pertains to him and his inabilty to allow woman can be strong, not necessarily as strong as men he just doesn't think women can be strong.
> 
> ...



Agree and found the links very informative. 
It there some kind of pressure or elevation switch on the horses?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree and found the links very informative.
> It there some kind of pressure or elevation switch on the horses?



Makes you wonder doesn't it? They used to be based down the road from me, didn't see horses falling from the sky though. The King's Troops RHA is part of that regiment, there's 154 soldiers in the troop more than half are women doing exactly the same job as the men. The Royal Artillery has more women in overall than other regiments anyway. The Queen reviews The King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery in Hyde Park


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

skribs said:


> @Tez3 The average man is stronger than the average woman. The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. The world records for most athletic displays show this, in that the women's categories are almost always slower or of lower weight or reps than mens. The only categories in which women have higher records are when women are competing against women (for example, I read an article about a woman who had more gold medals in world championships than men in a similar event...but she wasn't competing against men to get those medals). There's a big reason why most athletics are divided between men and women, and it has nothing to do with sexism. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Without that division, women's athletics basically wouldn't exist




Actually I never said women were stronger than men. I said the differences in men and women aren't as huge as our ancestors thought they were. People also don't pass out at going more than 20 miles per hour as was once thought, women aren't made infertile by running. women can lift weights without turning into the Hulk etc etc. This is my point, that what we know is different these days except that some still think it's true.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I never said women were stronger than men. I said the differences in men and women aren't as huge as our ancestors thought they were. People also don't pass out at going more than 20 miles per hour as was once thought, women aren't made infertile by running. women can lift weights without turning into the Hulk etc etc. This is my point, that what we know is different these days except that some still think it's true.


One might wonder who this straw man you are kicking was erected to represent. It doesn't seem to represent what anyone here has said.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> One might wonder who this straw man you are kicking was erected to represent. It doesn't seem to represent what anyone here has said.



Dear boy, you have a very short memory. 'Kicking a straw man' how banal.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 26, 2020)

Its a swarm effect, people want to go with their sort of demographic.  Plus if you run a combat sport gym, you need training partners in your weight class, if none exist or people arent in your aprox height  it gets a little ehhh, as you wont be fighting agaisnt somone 3 weight classes above you or below you in a tradtional sporting context. Thats just sport and life.   

And before anyone says its unfair to short people, say that when they are groin height and you arent allowed to hammerfist them, shots to the groin vs glancing (and potetionally) dangerous punches to the top of their head.      I jsut thought about uppercuts, they might work pending rules and if you know how to do it.      Personal rant as its equally unfair to both parties usually and doesnt lead to a very fun sports match unless its a "freak show" type one.   

Addendum: Some males have issues getting into yoga and other things because its female dominated and they might be the only male there, it happens to everyone.


----------



## skribs (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I never said women were stronger than men. I said the differences in men and women aren't as huge as our ancestors thought they were. People also don't pass out at going more than 20 miles per hour as was once thought, women aren't made infertile by running. women can lift weights without turning into the Hulk etc etc. This is my point, that what we know is different these days except that some still think it's true.



I wasn't responding to you, though.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Dear boy, you have a very short memory. 'Kicking a straw man' how banal.


Oh. So nobody then? Because after a quick look through the thread, it's fairly evident whoever you are talking to ain't here.


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> I suppose we live in different realities.


you may need to explain, how two people of different genders doing the exact same exercise or work routeen end up with significantly different strengh levels ?

if the male starts off stronger ( and thats a big if), that gap will close significantly over time, as the male gets weaker and the female gets stronger, as clearly if the exercise is exactly the same the male is not using anything like their full potential

even more so how you have concluded that a grossly inactive male will be stronger that a reasonably active female. whilst that may actually have legs in the late teen and early twenties as the anabolic stage of male development drys up in the 30/40 then strengh is heavily exercise dependent as you cant just rely on the fact that god gave you bigger muscles as those muscle quick deplete through in activety

or there are lots and lots of 40 year old males who cant pull the skin of a rice pudding and would likely be out strenghed by a 15 yo girl who plays net ball, never mind someone who is involved in heavy exercise


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> you may need to explain, how two people of different genders doing the exact same exercise or work routeen end up with significantly different strengh levels ?
> 
> if the male starts off stronger ( and thats a big if), that gap will close significantly over time, as the male gets weaker and the female gets stronger, as clearly if the exercise is exactly the same the male is not using anything like their full potential
> 
> ...


You are pretty much arguing for flat Earth dude. What you are saying is on that same level.

Not even Tez goes that far off the edge.


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> You are pretty much arguing for flat Earth dude. What you are saying is on that same level.
> 
> Not even Tez goes that far off the edge.


so youve no thought explination for your claim/? it just is coz you say it is !

give me some science to back it up


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> or there are lots and lots of 40 year old males who cant pull the skin of a rice pudding and would likely be out strenghed by a 15 yo girl never mind someone who is involved in heavy exercise



Unless said 40 year old male is as unfit as hell, i would signfiicantly doubt that, and i do mean that they cant even move without significant exersion and cant pick anything up etc.   


But anyway, i am so confused if you agree or disagree with him.   As i skimmed up and i cannot work out which it is, i had a whole argument lined up for the diffrences in males and females and averages etc.    But i cannot work out if you agree or disagree with the quoted message.   

i think one of the points in that, would be taken to extreme pedanticism, as exercises are meant to be scaling with your ability to get anything out of, so you will be doing near enough the exact same exercise, just with diffrent inensities.        (i stated near enough as down to anatomy you may have to alter some of it to fit your body)


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> so youve no thought explination for your claim/? it just is coz you say it is !


Yes. You know, you are right. You convinced me. Biological differences between sexes are a myth, and Big Athletics™ have been working to convince us they are real for years through the use of staged athletic competitions resulting in fake records to falsely convince us that men are actually stronger than women. Damn that patriarchy.

Thank you for opening my eyes to this. I don't know why I didn't see it sooner.


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Yes. You know, you are right. You convinced me. Biological differences between sexes are a myth, and Big Athletics™ have been working to convince us they are real for years through the use of staged athletic competitions resulting in fake records to falsely convince us that men are actually stronger than women. Damn that patriarchy.
> 
> Thank you for opening my eyes to this. I don't know why I didn't see it sooner.


now who is using a straw man ?

the power of anabolics is indeed science thats why big athletes take them if they can get away with it.

the males natral anabolics stop in their late twenties, there muscles built on anbolics decay through lack of exercise. a 40yo inactive may may well have lost 15lbs of muscle since their mid twenties peak

 if your saying an athletic male has more strengh an athlectic females its hrd to argue, but thats not what we are discussing,

which as it seems to have slipped you memary is a heavy traing female against an inactive male


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

an athlectic females is hrd to argue, but thats not what we are discussing,

which as it seems to have slipped you memary is a heavy traing female against an inactive male


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> now who is using a straw man ?
> 
> the power of anabolics is indeed science thats why big athletes take them if they can get away with it.
> 
> the males natral anabolics stop in their late twenties, there muscles built on anbolics decay through lack of exercise. a 40yo inactive may may well have lost 15lbs of muscle since their mid twenties peak


No, I get it. I mean, look at this totally fake list of world records, and the huge differences between the records between men and women in the exact same weight categories. Did they really think they could fool us with this?
List of world records in Olympic weightlifting - Wikipedia


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> No, I get it. I mean, look at this totally fake list of world records, and the huge differences between the records between men and women in the exact same weight categories. Did they really think they could fool us with this?
> List of world records in Olympic weightlifting - Wikipedia


strawman again, try anf focus your attention on the point at issue. heavy working female v inactive male

have you any science data for that


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

skribs said:


> I wasn't responding to you, though.




Ah okay. disregard then


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Oh. So nobody then? Because after a quick look through the thread, it's fairly evident whoever you are talking to ain't here.




Oh my, I know he's 'not all there' but pleased you agree about yourself. 

What you are experiencing is cognitive bias as you believe because you said a thing it must therefore be true.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> if your saying an athletic male has more strengh an athlectic females its hrd to argue, but thats not what we are discussing,




He's twisted your words around and is now trying to make it seem as if the argument is about something else. I don't know whether he's trying to wind us up or actually doesn't understand what is being written.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 26, 2020)

This is getting contentious.  Let me set everyone straight.  Men and women are both great, but often in different ways that compliment each other.  For example, my wife and I decided that she would make all the many small decisions, and I would make the all major ones.  Well, after 25 years, it seems there has never been a major decision to be made.

Look, men and women deserve equal rights, respect, opportunity, justice, etc. and all the rest that come with these things.  But we are physically different with different capabilities.  A man of average size and strength (among his sex) can defeat most all women of above average size and strength.  This is fact and true amongst practically all mammals. 

 Nobody can do everything well.  That's why we have division of labor.  Male lions are the absolute tops in one on one combat.  But the females are better hunters.  Women are better in language (quality and quantity ).  Men in direct action.  These differences are not accidents, having evolved over hundreds of thousands of year and have aided our survival, although culture has modified them is some cases.

In a self-defense situation, women have advantages other than physical superiority.  The very fact that men know they are physically superior to women, give women an advantage.  As Sun Tsu said:  "The opportunity to win is supplied by the opponent himself."  A male aggressor will not be as on guard against a female prey as against a male.  This gives the female a tremendous advantage for a first strike.  She will rely more on tactics to manipulate the situation to further her advantage.  She will be able to draw the attacker in with not only his physical guard down, but his mental guard as well.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, whether born with them, of developed them over time.  The key is to know each and put them to use.  "If you know both the enemy and yourself, you will not loose in a hundred battles."  (Sun Tsu again)


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Men and women are both great, but often in different ways that compliment each other.




To be honest that's not the issue here. The problem is when old wives tales are still believed, that helps no one. 



isshinryuronin said:


> A male aggressor will not be as on guard against a female prey as against a male. This gives the female a tremendous advantage for a first strike. She will rely more on tactics to manipulate the situation to further her advantage. She will be able to draw the attacker in with not only his physical guard down, but his mental guard as well.



Sadly though, women are rarely on guard against the men who are the actual attackers, 90% of attacks and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. Known in this case means someone she has gad an interaction with that leads her to think there is no danger before people start as thy have done before questioning what 'known' means. 


isshinryuronin said:


> Women are better in language (quality and quantity ). Men in direct action.


These are both 'qualities' that can be taught and learnt rather than necessarily ingrained. it is also a cultural thing.



isshinryuronin said:


> A man of average size and strength (among his sex) can defeat most all women of above average size and strength. This is fact and true amongst practically all mammals.



No one is saying the first sentence is incorrect however more female mammals are actually bigger than males than is commonly supposed. There's many pages here where female mammals are bigger. https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/11651/Ralls1976c.pdf. the study finishes with this note _ "A larger size in the female sex in mammals may evolve in a variety of ways, and the problem of determining the selection pressures responsible is exceedingly complex. Sexual selection on male mammals may favor smaller males in some species. Why, then, should we tend to assume that sexual selection is sufficient to account for all the mammalian cases in which males are the larger sex?"_


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> This is getting contentious.  Let me set everyone straight.  Men and women are both great, but often in different ways that compliment each other.  For example, my wife and I decided that she would make all the many small decisions, and I would make the all major ones.  Well, after 25 years, it seems there has never been a major decision to be made.
> 
> Look, men and women deserve equal rights, respect, opportunity, justice, etc. and all the rest that come with these things.  But we are physically different with different capabilities.  A man of average size and strength (among his sex) can defeat most all women of above average size and strength.  This is fact and true amongst practically all mammals.
> 
> ...


more nonsence, you dont know how strong an average male is, how can you possible say they are stronger than an above averagly strong female

and clearly only slightly less half the males in this world are below average size and strengh what does your christal ball say about them ?


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> strawman again, try anf focus your attention on the point at issue. heavy working female v inactive male
> 
> have you any science data for that



You're right again. I mean, when your right you're right. Anyone that says that the 'so called' massive strength difference between equally tuned and sized athletes of the two existing genders would also apply to the rest of the population too is obviously a schill for Big Athletics™.

It's a shame all the data you have that shows anything different has been stolen by ninjas, or you could totally expose this.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Oh my, I know he's 'not all there' but pleased you agree about yourself.
> 
> What you are experiencing is cognitive bias as you believe because you said a thing it must therefore be true.


No. I'm actually baiting you to continue being ridiculous.

I knew your rant was about me, but you seem to have forgotten to quote me saying any of it.

Could it be that is because these quotes don't exist, and in your frenzied fervor you might have 'embelished'(read:invented) just a tad?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> No. I'm actually baiting you to continue being ridiculous.
> 
> I knew your rant was about me, but you seem to have forgotten to quote me saying any of it.
> 
> Could it be that is because these quotes don't exist, and in your frenzied fervor you might have 'embelished'(read:invented) just a tad?




My eyes rolled so hard at you I saw my brain.

@Mods..please note that he says he's baiting me so his posts aren't in the least genuine contributions to this conversation. I assume he's also baiting Jobo to elicit a reaction.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> My eyes rolled so hard at you I saw my brain.
> 
> @Mods..please note that he says he's baiting me so his posts aren't in the least genuine contributions to this conversation. I assume he's also baiting Jobo to elicit a reaction.


Yes, because you are straight up lying about what I have said here.

Find a quote of me, for instance, saying i "think women just can't be strong at all"(a direct quote from one of your posts). Oh you can't?

Ok, maybe accusing you of lying might be a bit harsh. It could be that your reading comprehension is just not the best. It's definitely one of the two.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Yes, because you are straight up lying about what I have said here.




N'importe quoi.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> N'importe quoi.


 


There you go.

Now if you want to discuss something I actually said, feel free to slap down a quote of me sayin' it and we can do this like adults.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> There you go.
> 
> Now if you want to discuss something I actually said, feel free to slap down a quote of me sayin' it and we can do this like adults.




Now if only I didn't feel arguing with you is like playing chess with pigeons.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Now if only I didn't feel arguing with you is like playing chess with pigeons.


Oh, do you make up things for pidgeons to say and argue against them too? Or are you saying you are a dishonest chess player? Not really sure where you are going with this, but I am sure I've pursued your stream of nonsense derailer as far as I care to.

Again, if you can figure out the quote function I'll be around.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> pidgeons



'Pigeons'


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> 'Pigeons'


You say that, yet it is you that hasjumped on a post not addressed to you, been dishonest in your reply in the pursuit of a non existent point, and have now been reduced to name calling like a petulant child when called out on it.

I think those reading will make up their own minds.

So do you have anything on topic to say or will it just be foot stomping today?


----------



## jobo (Feb 26, 2020)

Martial D said:


> You're right again. I mean, when your right you're right. Anyone that says that the 'so called' massive strength difference between equally tuned and sized athletes of the two existing genders would also apply to the rest of the population too is obviously a schill for Big Athletics™.
> 
> It's a shame all the data you have that shows anything different has been stolen by ninjas, or you could totally expose this.


lets make it really simple for you, if there is an innitial strengh differance, lack exercise will make one weaker and exercise the other stronger eventually those lines will cross

banging on about highly trained atheletes doesnt change that or even apply to ordinary mortals


----------



## skribs (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> lets make it really simple for you, if there is an innitial strengh differance, lack exercise will make one weaker and exercise the other stronger eventually those lines will cross
> 
> banging on about highly trained atheletes doesnt change that or even apply to ordinary mortals



What point are you even trying to make?  It sounds like you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> lets make it really simple for you, if there is an innitial strengh differance, lack exercise will make one weaker and exercise the other stronger eventually those lines will cross
> 
> banging on about highly trained atheletes doesnt change that or even apply to ordinary mortals


Sure. Eventually.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 26, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> more female mammals are actually bigger than males than is commonly supposed. There's many pages here where female mammals are bigger.


This is not really true.  Rather than list the Latin order/family names, I'll just list an example from each group:  seals, whales, cats, dogs, elephants, apes, bears, cows, horses, weasels, goats, deer, and marsupials all have larger males (with a tiny % of exceptions in a number of these groups, perhaps).  This list makes up the vast majority of mammals.  The only major exceptions are hyenas, and some rodents and bats. (I did read your source and cross-checked each group individually.)

Most studies posted re: language skills agree that girls (at least from infancy thru childhood) are more advanced than boys.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Again, if you can figure out the quote function I'll be around.




So, your position is that you didn't say anything, I didn't quote you or mention you by name but you are positive my posts are about you.

Now, why would that be if you never said anything?


Think that's the end of this session of your baiting, you do it to various people a lot.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Most studies posted re: language skills agree that girls (at least from infancy thru childhood) are more advanced than boys.




Now, I didn't say they weren't but it's a learnt skill, it's part of the way people are brought up as much as anything along with many other 'expectations' loaded upon children according to their gender.

As far as the mammals are concerned what I said was_ that more female mammals are bigger than males _*than people think*  ( you quoted my words) which is certainly true. The study showed that. I didn't say most or even more females were bigger than males, just that there were more than people think. Your checking of the animals didn't prove I was wrong because you thought I was saying many female mammals are bigger, I wasn't.


----------



## jobo (Feb 27, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Sure. Eventually.


as long as we have reach agreement EVENTUALLY all is well


----------



## jobo (Feb 27, 2020)

skribs said:


> What point are you even trying to make?  It sounds like you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.


the point im making is if you accept the figures you quoted( which i dont) but if you did, of sedentary folk , the male will be 40% stronger in the upper body, Its more than easy for sedentary people to double their strength through training or heavy work, ive seen it many dozens of times at the gym where people cant  bench lift 20kg as a new started and are lifting 40kg a few short weeks later

now my maths says if a girl is 40% weaker and she doubles her strength she is now stronger. is that not a fair point ?

have a look at some cross fit vids, even allowing for cross fit plates and some dubious lifting technique, youl see girly girls throwing up some impressive weights, far far more then your average male couch potato  could manage


----------



## Martial D (Feb 27, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> So, your position is that you didn't say anything, I didn't quote you or mention you by name but you are positive my posts are about you.
> 
> Now, why would that be if you never said anything?
> 
> ...



Wow more dishonesty.

Probably because you made like three posts devoted to complaining about how I'm such a woman hater before you finally came out of your usual passive aggressive mode long enough to come out and finally admit the obvious.

Are you even capable of adult conversation anymore? Look through your post history of late. 90% of it is knocking threads off topic to complain about people posting rather than the actual subject.

You should take a step back from this before all that hate inside you finally drops you dead. It's truly sad.

Now go away until you have something on topic to say, quit lying about people's posts, and quit derailing threads with your nonsense.


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 27, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.


It is not proven myth.



Ivan said:


> Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?


No, body mechanics are the same. In context of martial arts avarage woman is a smaller man.



Ivan said:


> But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?


It's ******** because physics works the same for any martial art. And there is no science in WC, there was no scientific research and experiments with WC, but olympics full contact sports and sportsmans were many times measured by real scientists (especially suring Cold War when both sides goverments wanted to have better sportsmen for propaganda goals).



Ivan said:


> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?


 What do you mean by "more technical"? For example BJJ has about 1000 collected techniques, boxing has a few but polished like a masterpiece.



Ivan said:


> Of course, I know many people call Wing Chun into question as it might not be applicable - but is this an inherent problem in the wushu style itself, or the in way in which it is taught?


 Or maybe WC was created to be used in very specific enviroment but morons like Ip Man, Boztepe, Cheung, Wong etc wanted/wants to prove that it is the best fighting style for all circumstances




irondome said:


> no.  Men are natural hunters and warriors


No. Human body is no created to fight and hunt. We have no claws, no talons, no fangs, no crusts, no thick skin. We are created to walk and use a tools.


----------



## jobo (Feb 27, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> It is not proven myth.
> 
> 
> No, body mechanics are the same. In context of martial arts avarage woman is a smaller man.
> ...


 our ancestors hunted physically Superior mega forna into oblivion, by the use of collective effort and tactics, thats much the same way all pack species hunt, we even used the tactic of getting other pack species to do the donkey work for us and we are far from the only species to use tools, we just have an oppose able  thumb advantage over a lot of them

its somewhat wrong therefore to say that prevents us from being term natal hunters,


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Probably because you made like three posts devoted to complaining about how I'm such a woman hater before you finally came out of your usual passive aggressive mode long enough to come out and finally admit the obvious.




Oh my, aren't you the angry one. 



Martial D said:


> You should take a step back from this before all that hate inside you finally drops you dead. It's truly sad.



I'm guessing you missed the bit about attacking posters here but as it's your schtick here I suppose a leopard can't change it's spots.

You say I didn't mention your name, I didn't quote you but you are fizzing mad anyway, make perfect sense...not.
*As you said, post up where I said you are a woman hater.* (By the way are you or just hater in chief here?)

You should know by now that nothing you say actually means anything to me well other than amusement. 
*
It's quite odd though you getting so overwrought about something as you said yourself doesn't have your name or quotes  from your posts or is addressed to you.   you decided the posts were about you.
*


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> ..its somewhat wrong therefore to say that prevents us from being term natal hunters,


Biologically and phisically we are not predators/hunters/fighters. From the side of culture and society we sometimes are, but without tools we cannot hunt and fight efficiently. 
Naked man without tools will look for fruits, will look for mashrooms, will look for worms, but will not hunt deers.


----------



## jobo (Feb 27, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> Biologically and phisically we are not predators/hunters/fighters. From the side of culture and society we sometimes are, but without tools we cannot hunt and fight efficiently.
> Naked man without tools will look for fruits, will look for mashrooms, will look for worms, but will not hunt deers.


thats nonsense, we can fight other humans very efficiently with out tools, we tend to come of worse fighting tigers, so we generally run, which is also without a lot of success, so we go back with out mates and ambush an ambush predator, have you noticed the distinct lack of sabre toothed cats knocking about ?

we can hunt small game with out tools, that still makes us hunters and we can ambush larger animals with nothing more complex than a few rocks

being naked isnt a defining factor and as ive already stated lot of animals use tools, your not going to claim thats not natural as well are you, my dog bangs his dinner tin to tell me he is hungry, not only has he worked out that tools for himself, he has trained me to fulfil his command, much as we trained dogs to fulfil ours


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats nonsense, we can fight other humans very efficiently with out tools, .


OK, can you rip somebodys belly with your nail as easy as puma with it's claws? Can you bite somoone's throat with your short teeth as easy as wolf or (closer to human species) orangutan? 
You can use a smartphone to grease the bread with butter but it doesn't not meat iphone is designed to do this.
Snails fight others snails but nobody call them "natural born fighters".


----------



## jobo (Feb 27, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> OK, can you rip somebodys belly with your nail as easy as puma with it's claws? Can you bite somoone's throat with your short teeth as easy as wolf or (closer to human species) orangutan?
> You can use a smartphone to grease the bread with butter but it doesn't not meat iphone is designed to do this.
> Snails fight others snails but nobody call them "natural born fighters".



ive no idea whats thats supposed to prove, i, infact most humans cant take on a puma single handed, i would be quietly confident that 20 of us to run it into a dead end and beat it to death with rocks, we are pack animals, we hunt best in packs, well we did before they invented shooting things, theres a very good reason why most wild animals even big fierce ones avoid humans, they tend to loose to our collective efforts. being a collective is our natural state, hunting in a collective is therefore natural for us, just as lone wolves have a really hard time feeding themselves, a pack of wolves can take down very nearly anything

in short we dont need fangs or claws coz we have thumbs and that is how evolution works, it finds an effective design and then sticks with it


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> OK, can you rip somebodys belly with your nail




Have you seen some women's nails these days?


----------



## Ivan (Feb 28, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> It is not proven myth.
> No. Human body is no created to fight and hunt. We have no claws, no talons, no fangs, no crusts, no thick skin. We are created to walk and use a tools.


 
I will have to disagree with you on this. It is scientifically theorised that men evolved thicker and more durable knuckles to fight amongst each other. As for hunting, we are at the top of the food chain which makes us apex predators. The fact that we use tools and walk are adaptations that have stood up well to the most ancient test - "survival of the fittest". So we are, naturally, hunters and warriors.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2020)

Ivan said:


> As for hunting, we are at the top of the food chain which makes us apex predators.




We are now because we have firearms, when we didn't we certainly weren't the apex predator. Even now the big cats, packs of African hunting dogs, hyenas etc can take us down. Hippos kill more humans than the previously mentioned animals do, elephants have been known to bump off humans as well. Only when well armed and prepared are we the 'apex predator', if we aren't we can easily be an animal's next meal.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 28, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We are now because we have firearms, when we didn't we certainly weren't the apex predator. Even now the big cats, packs of African hunting dogs, hyenas etc can take us down. Hippos kill more humans than the previously mentioned animals do, elephants have been known to bump off humans as well. Only when well armed and prepared are we the 'apex predator', if we aren't we can easily be an animal's next meal.



There is no animal on earth that considers us prey. Therefore, apex predator. Doesn't mean no animal ever kills us.
The real apex predator is the mosquito.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 28, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We are now because we have firearms, when we didn't we certainly weren't the apex predator. Even now the big cats, packs of African hunting dogs, hyenas etc can take us down. Hippos kill more humans than the previously mentioned animals do, elephants have been known to bump off humans as well. Only when well armed and prepared are we the 'apex predator', if we aren't we can easily be an animal's next meal.


The fact that we can arm ourselves is also part of our evolutionary traits though. Our brain is a result of evolution. So are our our social instincts. We survived because our brain evolved to a point where we could build things from the resources lying around, and because we evolved effective socialising skills and mentality. These aren't social constructs, they are biological. So we are, apex predators. Just because hyenas sometimes kill lions, doesn't mean that lions aren't above them in the food chain...


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is no animal on earth that considers us prey. Therefore, apex predator. Doesn't mean no animal ever kills us.
> The real apex predator is the mosquito.



You've obviously never met my cat.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 28, 2020)

skribs said:


> You've obviously never met my cat.



No, but I've nearly been killed by a mosquito. My kitties love me.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is no animal on earth that considers us prey. Therefore, apex predator. Doesn't mean no animal ever kills us.
> The real apex predator is the mosquito.




 I don't think animals actually think to themselves 'oh that's a human we won't hunt him as prey'. If an animal is on the hunt and hungry they will kill and eat humans just as easily as any other animals, crocodiles for example, will take humans as will polar bears which are actually reputed to hunt humans. Animal + hunger + human = human gets eaten. 



Ivan said:


> because we evolved effective socialising skills and mentality.



Well, that may be just a myth


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think animals actually think to themselves 'oh that's a human we won't hunt him as prey'. If an animal is on the hunt and hungry they will kill and eat humans just as easily as any other animals, crocodiles for example, will take humans as will polar bears which are actually reputed to hunt humans. Animal + hunger + human = human gets eaten.



While great whites, bull sharks, and the like get a bad rap for shark bites, I think it's the blue sharks feasting on divers that are the worst culprits.  

Animals will hunt us in a pinch, or feed on us if the opportunity presents itself, but I don't think many actively hunt us.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 28, 2020)

skribs said:


> While great whites, bull sharks, and the like get a bad rap for shark bites, I think it's the blue sharks feasting on divers that are the worst culprits.



Sharks, regardless of species, do not feast on divers. Sharks kill an average of 6 people a year. Mostly waders or surfers. Cows average 22. Mosquito deaths number in the hundreds of thousands. Divers are not bothered by sharks. Because we don't mimic a wounded seal.


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sharks, regardless of species, do not feast on divers. Sharks kill an average of 6 people a year. Mostly waders or surfers. Cows average 22. Mosquito deaths number in the hundreds of thousands. Divers are not bothered by sharks. Because we don't mimic a wounded seal.



I meant shipwreck victims*

The Worst Shark Attack in History  | History      | Smithsonian Magazine

Although I guess they were oceanic white-tips.  I misremembered when I was thinking of blue sharks.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sharks, regardless of species, do not feast on divers. Sharks kill an average of 6 people a year. Mostly waders or surfers. Cows average 22. Mosquito deaths number in the hundreds of thousands. Divers are not bothered by sharks. Because we don't mimic a wounded seal.



I think we had about 6 bites and at least one death in our area last year.

'HORRIFIC': Whitsundays shark attack victim dies in hospital

'I'm just pissed I lost my foot': Shark attack victim cracked jokes, say nurses who saved his life

Mabye one cow attack.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is no animal on earth that considers us prey. Therefore, apex predator. Doesn't mean no animal ever kills us.
> The real apex predator is the mosquito.



Crocs will eat you if they can. If you get one big enough.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think we had about 6 bites and at least one death in our area last year.



And they made the news _*because*_ it's so unusual.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Crocs will eat you if they can. If you get one big enough.



That also makes the news. Because it's a rarity. Does the news report when someone is killed by a mosquito? Nope. Because it happens alllllll the freaking time.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> And they made the news _*because*_ it's so unusual.



I think a cow attack would be pretty unusual as well.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2020)

Anyway this is cool. Crocodiles attacking Japanese soldiers in ww2.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think a cow attack would be pretty unusual as well.




Not as unusual as you'd think, we've had cow attacks here and people killed, usually though through humans stupidity. If there's a cow or cows in a field with young you don't go walking through them with dogs, or as if you own the field, the cows will always protect their young and they will attack.

Whether animals 'hunt' us or not I think we really ought to be more humble rather than arrogant about this 'top predator' thing. Maybe that's the difference between a martial art designed by women and one designed by men. As with the cows, women's martial arts would be for defence, men's would be for attacking...…….


----------



## drop bear (Feb 29, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Not as unusual as you'd think, we've had cow attacks here and people killed, usually though through humans stupidity. If there's a cow or cows in a field with young you don't go walking through them with dogs, or as if you own the field, the cows will always protect their young and they will attack.
> 
> Whether animals 'hunt' us or not I think we really ought to be more humble rather than arrogant about this 'top predator' thing. Maybe that's the difference between a martial art designed by women and one designed by men. As with the cows, women's martial arts would be for defence, men's would be for attacking...…….



Well knowing how dangerous they are a martial art designed by cows would be the best bet.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Well knowing how dangerous they are a martial art designed by cows would be the best bet.



And provide dairy products!

To be fair to the cows though it's not so much they are dangerous but some people are just bloody ignorant.
Trampled To Death By Cows: It Happens More Often Than You Think


----------



## mrt2 (Feb 29, 2020)

Ivan said:


> I will have to disagree with you on this.* It is scientifically theorised that men evolved thicker and more durable knuckles to fight amongst each other. *As for hunting, we are at the top of the food chain which makes us apex predators. The fact that we use tools and walk are adaptations that have stood up well to the most ancient test - "survival of the fittest". So we are, naturally, hunters and warriors.


Use of passive voice, no citations.  Thicker and more durable knuckles?  Really?  There are 27 bones in the human hand. If you break just one of them and you don't have access to medical care and possibly, people to help you while it heals, you are done.  Making a fist and using the knuckles to punch is a learned behavior, and punching with bare knuckles is not a universal way human beings fight.  If you think about it, given the importance of our hands for going all sorts of useful things other than fighting, it makes a lot more sense not to use our knuckles for striking as in primitive times, if you lose the use of your hands for an extended period of time, you could die.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Well knowing how dangerous they are a martial art designed by cows would be the best bet.



First, you need to grow horns,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 29, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> First, you need to grow horns,


Iron forehead training?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 29, 2020)

mrt2 said:


> Use of passive voice, no citations.  Thicker and more durable knuckles?  Really?  There are 27 bones in the human hand. If you break just one of them and you don't have access to medical care and possibly, people to help you while it heals, you are done.  Making a fist and using the knuckles to punch is a learned behavior, and punching with bare knuckles is not a universal way human beings fight.  If you think about it, given the importance of our hands for going all sorts of useful things other than fighting, it makes a lot more sense not to use our knuckles for striking as in primitive times, if you lose the use of your hands for an extended period of time, you could die.


I read something somewhere (is that a vague enough reference for you??) that supports this claim. Unfortunately, I didn't retain anything about it - not even whether it was a source I'd be willing to draw conclusions from.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 29, 2020)

Ivan said:


> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?


The way that a WC girl uses

- center line guard to protect her chest, and
- inward horse stance to protect her groin,

can tell you a lot.


----------



## PhilE (Mar 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> While great whites, bull sharks, and the like get a bad rap for shark bites, I think it's the blue sharks feasting on divers that are the worst culprits.
> 
> Animals will hunt us in a pinch, or feed on us if the opportunity presents itself, but I don't think many actively hunt us.



Not sure how pg 1 went from WC to sharks by pg 9, but anyway....

I've spent a lot of time free diving with sharks, IF you know how to be around them they are generally safe.  Avoiding them while they are feeding or hunting, or when the visibility is bad is key.  Sharks tend to attack humans when they mistakenly identify them as natural prey, eg seals.

If someone bases their assumption of sharks on a movie, I'd suggest they stay out of any natural environment for their own safety.  Stupidity is the no. 1 cause of accidents in the ocean, not sharks.


----------



## PhilE (Mar 6, 2020)

Going back to the topic, no one can really prove that WC was started by a woman.  Could have been a few people working on it, could have developed over time, might be an aspect of one martial art that was taken out that particular system.

No one really knows.

What we do know is that generally speaking, 99% of the time in human history its the men doing the fighting.  So its fair to conclude that most aspects of martial arts are coming from men.


----------



## skribs (Mar 6, 2020)

PhilE said:


> Not sure how pg 1 went from WC to sharks by pg 9, but anyway....
> 
> I've spent a lot of time free diving with sharks, IF you know how to be around them they are generally safe.  Avoiding them while they are feeding or hunting, or when the visibility is bad is key.  Sharks tend to attack humans when they mistakenly identify them as natural prey, eg seals.
> 
> If someone bases their assumption of sharks on a movie, I'd suggest they stay out of any natural environment for their own safety.  Stupidity is the no. 1 cause of accidents in the ocean, not sharks.



I was basing it off of articles I've read, not off of a movie.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 6, 2020)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...



In the West, the physical differences between male and female populations is more pronounced than it is in the Orient. Following your train of logic, any Oriental art designed (or evolved) to fight against Occidentals should be superior to anything the Westerners could come up with, as they would be more inclined to utilize brute force. Ergo, there should be very few world champions who are not Oriental. How's that working out in real life?


----------



## PhilE (Apr 4, 2020)

frank raud said:


> In the West, the physical differences between male and female populations is more pronounced than it is in the Orient. Following your train of logic, any Oriental art designed (or evolved) to fight against Occidentals should be superior to anything the Westerners could come up with, as they would be more inclined to utilize brute force. Ergo, there should be very few world champions who are not Oriental. How's that working out in real life?



No, homo sapiens are still homo sapiens outside of North America.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think there's a big QC issue with Wing Chun, in that a lot of schools don't teach how to deliver the techniques with any amount of power.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to make most martial arts more fundamentally sound than they already are.


Unless that martial art has gotten away from its own actual fundamentals.  I used see that a lot in TKD schools, lots of flash and pizzazz but very little actual martial skill. Flip-flops, cartwheels and front walk-overs are neat looking but it's way hard to actually incorporate such into effective technique I think... but I'd see those kinds of things in open tournaments all the time.

And then I'd take them out in the sparring with simple evasion footwork and straightforward combinations... it was amazing to me how many of them thought that the first attack/strike was going to be "it."  Hit 'em with a simple 3-punch combo and they could go all to pieces.

There's exceptions of course.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2020)

drop bear said:


> No. You would still need to look at the results.
> 
> It is a bit like suggesting women's deodorant is more effective than mens.


Well, it’s ph balanced.  Of course it’s better.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2020)

JP3 said:


> Flip-flops



Flip flops? as in 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





or as the Aussies so nicely call them 'thongs'.


----------



## frank raud (Apr 4, 2020)

PhilE said:


> No, homo sapiens are still homo sapiens outside of North America.


So, are you saying there is no size difference between Asians and Europeans, or people from North America?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 4, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Flip flops? as in
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or "projectile weapons" as they're known to some...


----------



## JP3 (Apr 5, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Flip flops? as in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL! I forgot that language difference.  Flip-flops in American parlance refer to simpl, floppy sandals more often than the gymnastics move, which is also and properly clled a back handspring.  So, to be clear, I should have used back handsprings, cartwheels etc.  I first found about that thing, had it really pointed out, by Aussie comedian Carl Barron. Funny guy.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 11, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> Flip flops? as in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In Hawaii those are slippahs.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 11, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Or "projectile weapons" as they're known to some...


This is known as la Chancla to Latina mothers, it is deadly and accurate.


----------



## Steve (May 11, 2022)

JP3 said:


> LOL! I forgot that language difference.  Flip-flops in American parlance refer to simpl, floppy sandals more often than the gymnastics move, which is also and properly clled a back handspring.  So, to be clear, I should have used back handsprings, cartwheels etc.  I first found about that thing, had it really pointed out, by Aussie comedian Carl Barron. Funny guy.


We called those thongs in Texas in the 70s.  Only heard flip flops after we moved to Washington state.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> We called those thongs in Texas in the 70s.  Only heard flip flops after we moved to Washington state.



That's so late 60s NYS and MA.....flip flops is what I heard in the late 70s


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> We called those thongs in Texas in the 70s.


Yeah, I don't think you wanna call them that anymore.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 11, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah, I don't think you wanna call them that anymore.


Though it does give a whole new meaning to “the thong song”.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 11, 2022)

Thong is a technical tailoring and leatherworking term. 

Any thin strip of clothing or similar material is a thong.  Technically, the bathing suit use of thong is slang for that type of suit.

These are thongs


----------



## Steve (May 11, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Thong is a technical tailoring and leatherworking term.
> 
> Any thin strip of clothing or similar material is a thong.  Technically, the bathing suit use of thong is slang for that type of suit.
> 
> ...


All I know is, wearing my thong swim suit to the beach goes a lot better now that I know there's a front and a back.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 11, 2022)

Wow this thread is old.

Wing Chun wasn't created by a woman. Honestly, I don't know if any styles were.  Or wars.

Hopefully the Wing Chun Mafia won't show up and cause trouble about this (scholarly historical research) stuff again, but the actual history of Wing Chun is a sausage fest, not only is the Shaolin nun elder a myth, the lineages contain almost no females until the modern age when Bruce Lee made it popular.

Like most references to the Five Elders, it's historically equivalent to Greek myth, just newer. Something inspired the story, sure, but there's no there there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 11, 2022)

Steve said:


> All I know is, wearing my thong swim suit to the beach goes a lot better now that I know there's a front and a back.


It's all in the details, Steve.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Though it does give a whole new meaning to “the thong song”.



You want to look up what we call a fanny.


----------



## isshinryuronin (May 11, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I don't know if any styles were.


A female master and style founder?  Popular legend has it that in the late 1600's, Shaolin Monk Fist master Fang Zhonggong moved south to Fuzhou and raised and taught his daughter, Qiniang.  After her father was killed, she developed the White Crane style.  From her > Zeng Chisu > Wang Faodang > Lin Shixian > Pan Yuba > Ryuru Ko, who was one of Higashionna Kanryo's teachers, who, in turn taught Goju's founder, Miyagi Chojun.

Note - Pan Yuba or Ryuru Ko put their own touch on White Crane and thereafter taught "Whooping" Crane. Regardless, modern karate owes much of its origins to the style.

Did Fang Qinang actually exist and become the founder of White Crane?  There seems to be historical record of those who carried on her early lineage.  True, there is always historical fog, but I see no reason not to go with this story in absence of contradicting evidence and in the name of MA gender diversity.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 11, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> A female master and style founder?  Popular legend has it that in the late 1600's, Shaolin Monk Fist master Fang Zhonggong moved south to Fuzhou and raised and taught his daughter, Qiniang.  After her father was killed, she developed the White Crane style.  From her > Zeng Chisu > Wang Faodang > Lin Shixian > Pan Yuba > Ryuru Ko, who was one of Higashionna Kanryo's teachers, who, in turn taught Goju's founder, Miyagi Chojun.
> 
> Note - Pan Yuba or Ryuru Ko put their own touch on White Crane and thereafter taught "Whooping" Crane. Regardless, modern karate owes much of its origins to the style.
> 
> Did Fang Qinang actually exist and become the founder of White Crane?  There seems to be historical record of those who carried on her early lineage.  True, there is always historical fog, but I see no reason not to go with this story in absence of contradicting evidence and in the name of MA gender diversity.


Calling crane, not whooping crane.  

The whooping crane is a specific species of crane, Grus americana, that lives in North America and has never lived in Asia.  The Whooping crane gets its name from its particularly loud call.  A Chinese method would not have been named Whooping Crane, as they never encountered the species in China.  However, it was named Calling crane, after the act of the crane calling out to other cranes.  

Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine.  Back to your regularly scheduled program.


----------



## isshinryuronin (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Calling crane, not whooping crane.
> 
> The whooping crane is a specific species of crane, Grus americana, that lives in North America and has never lived in Asia.  The Whooping crane gets its name from its particularly loud call.  A Chinese method would not have been named Whooping Crane, as they never encountered the species in China.  However, it was named Calling crane, after the act of the crane calling out to other cranes.
> 
> Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine.  Back to your regularly scheduled program.


As both "whooping" and "calling" refer to the noise a crane makes, we must give some latitude regarding Chinese-English translation.

There are_ multiple _and_ varied references_ on both internet and in books to what has been translated in English as "Whooping Crane" kung fu, despite your ornithological sensibilities.

More importantly, it appears that "Calling Crane" is a separate incarnation of White Crane as my quick Google search turned up a separate lineage path for it from the one I detailed, and both Calling and Whooping exist(ed) as individual entities.

A side by side demo of these two styles would be quite a cacophony, and have much in common with contemporary music.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> As both "whooping" and "calling" refer to the noise a crane makes, we must give some latitude regarding Chinese-English translation.
> 
> There are_ multiple _and_ varied references_ on both internet and in books to what has been translated in English as "Whooping Crane" kung fu, despite your ornithological sensibilities.
> 
> ...


I believe it is simply a mis-translation into English.  It is understandable.   But since Whooping crane refers to a specific species that would never have been encountered in China, we must recognize the mis-translation for what it is, even if there are more than one system that has identified itself as Calling crane.  Or even Shouting crane.

In a similar fashion, a Chinese martial art would not have been named Rattlesnake style.  While snake kung fu does exist, the rattlesnake does not exist in China and the Chinese would have never encountered it prior to immigrating to North America.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 12, 2022)

This kind of crazy Crane business is always best settled by examining the hanzi.

A teacher and I were discussing whether something was "singing" or "screaming" crane the other day while discussing Wing Chun lineages.

When in doubt you just bust out the old manuals that don't need the English.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This kind of crazy Crane business is always best settled by examining the hanzi.
> 
> A teacher and I were discussing whether something was "singing" or "screaming" crane the other day while discussing Wing Chun lineages.
> 
> When in doubt you just bust out the old manuals that don't need the English.


When dealing with the original language, that will always be the most accurate.  When translating into another language, a choice is made as to what term is most accurate and captures the spiritual of the original.  Technically, the term Whooping does capture the meaning, but it is a poor choice for the translation because of its specific assignment to a species native to North America and absent from Asia.  It implies that the style was based on the behavior of that specific crane species.  In that case, a different term is a better translation.  Nothing about the original Chinese term demands that the term Whooping be used in English.  It is the job of the translator to make an appropriate decision. 

The leopard is one of the five animals in Chinese martial arts.  The jaguar and cougar are not, and are not resident in Asia.  It would be a lazy and poor translation to slip in Jaguar or Cougar instead of Leopard, and I warrant most people familiar with Chinese martial arts would point out a correction if someone used it here in the forums.

In Tibetan White crane, the creation story says that a crane fought with a “mountain ape”.  One telling that I saw on a website specified that it was an ape and not a monkey, as apes are bigger and this is more impressive that a crane fought it off.  The problem is, there are no apes that live in Tibet or anywhere near.  Apes and monkeys are not the same thing.  Apes do not have tails, and include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and the lesser apes that are gibbons and siamangs.  None of these are native to Tibet.  However, the Tibetan Macaque, Macaca thibetana, is a large monkey and is the largest of the macaque species and does live in the region, representing a dangerous and powerful predator of bird eggs and a likely candidate for the encounter in the story.  I don’t speak or read any of the Chinese languages nor Tibetan.  Perhaps the term in those languages does not make a distinction between monkeys and apes.  But when translating into another language like English, it is important to capture that accuracy, because the accuracy does exist in the second language.

Hell, I once saw a website that claimed it was a yeti that fought with the crane.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> When dealing with the original language, that will always be the most accurate.  When translating into another language, a choice is made as to what term is most accurate and captures the spiritual of the original.  Technically, the term Whooping does capture the meaning, but it is a poor choice for the translation because of its specific assignment to a species native to North America and absent from Asia.  It implies that the style was based on the behavior of that specific crane species.  In that case, a different term is a better translation.  Nothing about the original Chinese term demands that the term Whooping be used in English.  It is the job of the translator to make an appropriate decision.
> 
> The leopard is one of the five animals in Chinese martial arts.  The jaguar and cougar are not, and are not resident in Asia.  It would be a lazy and poor translation to slip in Jaguar or Cougar instead of Leopard, and I warrant most people familiar with Chinese martial arts would point out a correction if someone used it here in the forums.
> 
> ...


Yeti makes total sense.  That's definitely a Himalayan beast, real or imaginary. 

More like a bear than ape, but the idea of _impressive _is what matters most.  Crane vs. Mountain Bear, sure thing.

How about southern Mantis??  It's a fighting _bug_, and still it has mastered the secrets of the universe with respect to its place in life.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Yeti makes total sense.  That's definitely a Himalayan beast, real or imaginary.
> 
> More like a bear than ape, but the idea of _impressive _is what matters most.  Crane vs. Mountain Bear, sure thing.
> 
> How about southern Mantis??  It's a fighting _bug_, and still it has mastered the secrets of the universe with respect to its place in life.


If we are going all in on taxonomy, then mantids are not bugs as such. The word bug refers to a certain classification of insects, ie bed bugs, assassin bugs, and the like.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Yeti makes total sense.  That's definitely a Himalayan beast, real or imaginary.
> 
> More like a bear than ape, but the idea of _impressive _is what matters most.  Crane vs. Mountain Bear, sure thing.
> 
> How about southern Mantis??  It's a fighting _bug_, and still it has mastered the secrets of the universe with respect to its place in life.


I did not know there was a bear in Tibet.  A brief Google search shows that there is a sub-species of brown bear that does live in the region, and is very rarely sighted.  It is thought to be a possible source for “yeti” sightings.  That is interesting. 

I would steer clear of connecting the yeti to the Tibetan white crane origin story.  That moves it openly into the realm of myth; I am of the opinion that the story with a macaque and a crane is a legitimate possibility and could be at least partially historically accurate.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I did not know there was a bear in Tibet.  A brief Google search shows that there is a sub-species of brown bear that does live in the region, and is very rarely sighted.  It is thought to be a possible source for “yeti” sightings.  That is interesting.
> 
> I would steer clear of connecting the yeti to the Tibetan white crane origin story.  That moves it openly into the realm of myth; I am of the opinion that the story with a macaque and a crane is a legitimate possibility and could be at least partially historically accurate.


I can't think of a CMA origin story that doesn't start with myth of some kind.

"Yeti" is literally Tibetan for mountain bear, and it's tied to a lot of Tibetan folklore, so it does make sense that it would be referenced in Tibetan styles somewhere. 

Then again, there is also the Tibetan Monkey God, Pha Trelgen Changchup Sempa.  Another major contender appears!


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I can't think of a CMA origin story that doesn't start with myth of some kind.
> 
> "Yeti" is literally Tibetan for mountain bear, and it's tied to a lot of Tibetan folklore, so it does make sense that it would be referenced in Tibetan styles somewhere.
> 
> ...


There is certainly a fair bit of likely myth in Chinese martial arts origin stories.  I certainly don’t speak Tibetan, but it seems possible that yeti is a term meant for the rare local subspecies of brown bear, and that it took the West some time to make the connection.  At the same time, in the common use it is still meant as the legendary humanoid of myth, possibly related to the Abominable Snowman and North America’s Big Foot.  

In my opinion, the Tibetan Macaque seems the most likely candidate in the Tibetan Crane story.  I believe it is genuinely possible that a lama witnessed that conflict and was able to develop a new approach to training, from insights gained from that experience.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> There is certainly a fair bit of likely myth in Chinese martial arts origin stories.  I certainly don’t speak Tibetan, but it seems possible that yeti is a term meant for the rare local subspecies of brown bear, and that it took the West some time to make the connection.  At the same time, in the common use it is still meant as the legendary humanoid of myth, possibly related to the Abominable Snowman and North America’s Big Foot.
> 
> In my opinion, the Tibetan Macaque seems the most likely candidate in the Tibetan Crane story.  I believe it is genuinely possible that a lama witnessed that conflict and was able to develop a new approach to training, from insights gained from that experience.


I have lots of macaque experience, I dare anyone to try their martial arts prowess on even a smaller macaque species. They are fearsome opponents when they turn on you. I knew a crab eater macaque named Frodo who was an absolute terror to everyone in the facility except his keeper. He was able to untwist chain link and escape several times. Each escape was a new crazed criminal style jailbreak in which he raided the office or the animal kitchen and evaded multiple attempts at recapturing him. Just check out the dentition. If that doesn’t scare you, consider that he has 4 hands which he can bring to bear whilst chewing you. It would be a large and determined crane to contend with him. I’m thinking something akin to a cassowary would be more of an even match but those don’t live in Tibet either.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have lots of macaque experience, I dare anyone to try their martial arts prowess on even a smaller macaque species. They are fearsome opponents when they turn on you. I knew a crab eater macaque named Frodo who was an absolute terror to everyone in the facility except his keeper. He was able to untwist chain link and escape several times. Each escape was a new crazed criminal style jailbreak in which he raided the office or the animal kitchen and evaded multiple attempts at recapturing him. Just check out the dentition. If that doesn’t scare you, consider that he has 4 hands which he can bring to bear whilst chewing you. It would be a large and determined crane to contend with him. I’m thinking something akin to a cassowary would be more of an even match but those don’t live in Tibet either.


Oh yeah, macaques are fierce, no doubt!  Any monkey can tear you up if it takes it into its head. 

Our creation story tells us that the crane ultimately thrust his beak into the macaque’s eye and drove it off.  The lama tracked down the macaque and healed it, and kept it as a pet for further study.  I have found references in materials not connected to martial arts, that even in the modern day these macaques are sometimes kept as pets in Tibet.  The reference that I found said that it was kept chained in the yard, was not a house pet.  But apparently it is still done, lending some more credibility to the story.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> There is certainly a fair bit of likely myth in Chinese martial arts origin stories.  I certainly don’t speak Tibetan, but it seems possible that yeti is a term meant for the rare local subspecies of brown bear, and that it took the West some time to make the connection.  At the same time, in the common use it is still meant as the legendary humanoid of myth, possibly related to the Abominable Snowman and North America’s Big Foot.
> 
> In my opinion, the Tibetan Macaque seems the most likely candidate in the Tibetan Crane story.  I believe it is genuinely possible that a lama witnessed that conflict and was able to develop a new approach to training, from insights gained from that experience.


The Monkey is the origin myth of all Tibetan stories.  I'm not sure if the monkey in the Tibetan lore is macaque but it makes sense.

It's Avalokitesvara's monkey, it gets lured by sort of succubus into a devil's bargain, ends up having 6 little monkey children instead of demons destroying the earth.

Then their 6 kids proliferate, consume, and almost destroy the earth anyway, but the Monkey invents farming so he can feed all the monkeys , and they turned into us.





__





						Mt. Gongpori and the Monkey Cave, Nyingchi, Tibet
					

There is a legend descended from Tibetan generations about their origin. As the legend tells, Avalokitesvara, a monkey and a Raksasi were separately living on the three hills of a mountain.



					www.tibettrip.com


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have lots of macaque experience, I dare anyone to try their martial arts prowess on even a smaller macaque species. They are fearsome opponents when they turn on you. I knew a crab eater macaque named Frodo who was an absolute terror to everyone in the facility except his keeper. He was able to untwist chain link and escape several times. Each escape was a new crazed criminal style jailbreak in which he raided the office or the animal kitchen and evaded multiple attempts at recapturing him. Just check out the dentition. If that doesn’t scare you, consider that he has 4 hands which he can bring to bear whilst chewing you. It would be a large and determined crane to contend with him. I’m thinking something akin to a cassowary would be more of an even match but those don’t live in Tibet either.


The macaque would be a worthy adversary to be sure, but cranes are pretty tough and fearless fellows as well.  The black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis) is native to Tibet and is a medium sized crane, but looking at behavior patterns found among cranes, they will defend the nest with everything they have got.  Cranes in Africa have been known to drive off water buffalo that got too close, they spread out the wings to look big, and will charge while flapping the wings, and jump to attack with the talons. 

Biologists studying cranes have noted their fierce determination, and the real danger that their talons represent.  A Demoiselle crane (Grus virgo), the smallest species, was recorded to have killed a human caretaker by driving its beak through the man’s eye and into his brain.  I found this reference in several books on cranes that I unfortunately no longer possess.


----------



## Steve (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Yeti makes total sense.  That's definitely a Himalayan beast, real or imaginary.
> 
> More like a bear than ape, but the idea of _impressive _is what matters most.  Crane vs. Mountain Bear, sure thing.
> 
> How about southern Mantis??  It's a fighting _bug_, and still it has mastered the secrets of the universe with respect to its place in life.


Yeti sounds right.  The most believable of all the theories so far, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 12, 2022)

drop bear said:


> You want to look up what we call a fanny.


Going to have to watch what I say after that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 12, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Oh yeah, macaques are fierce, no doubt!  Any monkey can tear you up if it takes it into its head.
> 
> Our creation story tells us that the crane ultimately thrust his beak into the macaque’s eye and drove it off.  The lama tracked down the macaque and healed it, and kept it as a pet for further study.  I have found references in materials not connected to martial arts, that even in the modern day these macaques are sometimes kept as pets in Tibet.  The reference that I found said that it was kept chained in the yard, was not a house pet.  But apparently it is still done, lending some more credibility to the story.


I don’t doubt any of that. Crane beak to the eye is certainly scary. I did have  a macaque friend as well, his name was Hinzi. His room mate,( er cell mate is more appropriate for context) was named Spock. Spock was exactly the cellmate you would have nightmares about if you were heading to prison. Once I realized this, I made moves to get Hinzi separate housing. I was forever after Hinzi’s hero and friend. Primates do not belong in captivity.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 12, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Going to have to watch what I say after that.


Ask an Aussie what team he is rooting for and watch the reaction. Its even more fun than introducing them as an Englishman, or better yet, a Kiwi. Gasp.


----------



## clfsean (May 13, 2022)

I always pictured a Gibbon as being the ape of legend for us. The insanely long arms and shortish legs are kinda similar to us in keep the feet close to the ground but arms fully extended and moving by yiu lik out through the shoulder. Then when I watch videos of Chan Tai San, his arms look unusually long on his frame. 

But in reading over the info you shared on the Macaque ... I can see that one being being no nonsense competitor for the origin story much easier. The gibbon is cartoonish and play like compared to the macaque.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2022)

clfsean said:


> I always pictured a Gibbon as being the ape of legend for us. The insanely long arms and shortish legs are kinda similar to us in keep the feet close to the ground but arms fully extended and moving by yiu lik out through the shoulder. Then when I watch videos of Chan Tai San, his arms look unusually long on his frame.
> 
> But in reading over the info you shared on the Macaque ... I can see that one being being no nonsense competitor for the origin story much easier. The gibbon is cartoonish and play like compared to the macaque.


Yeah, and the gibbon does not live in the region.  It is a tropical and subtropical rainforest fellow, not the cold Tibetan high plateau.  They are also not very big, and not very functional on the ground.  But they kick *** in the trees. 

TheTibetan macaque can weigh over forty pounds.  That is a big, powerful monkey.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (May 13, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, and the gibbon does not live in the region.  It is a tropical and subtropical rainforest fellow, not the cold Tibetan high plateau.  They are also not very big, and not very functional on the ground.  But they kick *** in the trees.
> 
> TheTibetan macaque can weigh over forty pounds.  That is a big, powerful monkey.


Gibbon is the fastest moving animal in their canopy. They can really move when brachiating, upwards of 30 KPH. They are quite a bit different in shape and composition than macaques. Both can be dangerous but I put the macaques in front for boldness and aggression.  Gibbon usually live in pairs but macaques have a tribe to rely on for backup.


----------



## clfsean (May 13, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, and the gibbon does not live in the region.  It is a tropical and subtropical rainforest fellow, not the cold Tibetan high plateau.  They are also not very big, and not very functional on the ground.  But they kick *** in the trees.
> 
> TheTibetan macaque can weigh over forty pounds.  That is a big, powerful monkey.


Yeah they're definitely not up on the plateau (hardly anything there), but I thought I saw where they were in the Tibetan lowlands / Sichuan border area. I could off really easy.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2022)

clfsean said:


> Yeah they're definitely not up on the plateau (hardly anything there), but I thought I saw where they were in the Tibetan lowlands / Sichuan border area. I could off really easy.


Truth be told, the range of the black necked crane does overlap with several monkey species so there are some other options along with the Tibetan macaque.  I think it’s difficult to thoroughly explore all the possibilities.  I feel the Tibetan macaque is the most likely, but it could be others.  I do not believe the cranes’ range overlaps with the gibbons’ however.


----------



## Yanli (May 16, 2022)

Ivan said:


> The only martial art I know of that originated from a woman is Wing Chun, according to a documentary by the History Channel I watched a while ago.
> But I have been thinking during my hiatus from posting here. Would martial arts founded by women be more efficient for their intended purpose due to women not being able to rely on physical strength as much as men can?
> By this, I mean that, biologically, men have sturdier frames and bigger physical prowess. Therefore, in order to be able to overcome this in a fight, logically (as shown by almost every martial style out there) technique steps in. But when you dissect the theory behind Wing Chun, the technique and knowledge and science present within it far outweighs that of any other styles that I am aware of. What are your thoughts on this?
> Can you think of any martial arts that are more technical than Wing Chun?
> ...


  How anything is taught is always a question lol. Ok, if we look at Wing Chun in a logical manner, here is a form that was designed for woman and old people that are weak. If a woman or weak person is capable of defeating a stronger and more fit person, then think of what this could do for a younger and fit person. As a Wing Chun instructor and old person lol, I will say that people have been getting the wrong perspective of Wing Chun because of why it was designed. As far as Wushu, many people have the wrong perspective of that form as well, traditional Wushu is a very deadly form as many other forms, but it also is a good additive to any form as ballet is to football. Wushu can help add smoothness and grace to your movements, which in turn can add power to your movement.


----------



## Yanli (May 16, 2022)

Deleted member 39746 said:


> My statement was if the creator would be a female it would be using their body as the template, so it wont be optimised for males, or even people not in their sort of dimensions and physical capability range.  Correction, thats a clarification of what i meant to write if it wasnt clear.
> 
> Second point, i meant in social violence and western countries. It is pretty factual that in a lot of countries it is taboo for a male to hit a female.  To militant ends they wont even defend themselves against a predatory attack.
> 
> Exeptions exist though like i said.


  I can tell you for a fact, Wing Chun made of been designed by a woman for woman and old weak people, but that does not mean it can not be done by men, In fact, I do not think that there is any MA forms that can not be done by both sexes.


----------

