5 reasons TaeKwonDo as a system (not individual techniques) breaks down in a Muay Thai ring

[TrueJim]

Why has all this got to happen. Who cares if Muay Thai is better than taekwondo.

I agree, we should be talking about the IMPORTANT who-would-win-in-a-fight questions, like:

• Dumbledore vs Gandalf
• Iron Man vs. Batman
• Shark vs. Bear
• Chicago Pizza vs. New York Pizza

 

[CB Jones]

Each time someone disagrees with one, your default position appears to be to assume they either a) have very little knowledge in the area, or b) don't understand the issues at all.

yet, when folks put forth a counter-argument, you are entirely dismissive. You either tell them they are wrong because they don't know anything, or you just dismiss their argument without counterpoint.

So you are saying he is acting like most other Millenials.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you are saying he is acting like most other Millenials.

I can't ascribe it to that - I've known Millenials who were entirely capable of supporting their arguments in debate.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I agree, we should be talking about the IMPORTANT who-would-win-in-a-fight questions, like:

• Dumbledore vs Gandalf
• Iron Man vs. Batman
• Shark vs. Bear
• Chicago Pizza vs. New York Pizza

1. Dumbledore. Not because I like HP better, but because he shows a lot more actual magical skills than Gandalf, who in the movies at least comes off more like a fighter who can do a few magical tricks.
2. Batman. They've both got a ton of money and gadgets, and are both geniuses. But Batmans genius has a larger focus on strategy/tactics than iron mans. He's also a bit more ruthless.
3. In water: Shark. On land: Bear.
4. New York Pizza. I assume their friends would come to defend them, and us new yorkers can be nasty f***s if you mess with our pizza. Also, chicago style pizza would be disqualified since it's not really pizza, it's just a pie with meat and sauce in it.

 

[drop bear]

Mostly. Yet different from the kickboxing one, which was the point.

Kickboxing uses both kicks.

 

[drop bear]

I can't ascribe it to that - I've known Millenials who were entirely capable of supporting their arguments in debate.

There are some pretty dumb argument's on both sides though.

 

[drop bear]

You're the one insulting your style the most. At this point I feel like this thread should be closed for style bashing.

The thread you are participating in.

I hate the objectification of women in strip clubs. Sometimes I don't even throw them money.

 

[drop bear]

Why has all this got to happen. Who cares if Muay Thai is better than taekwondo. They're both great martial arts and both have amazing athletes and fighters. There's more to life than just who can take who in a fight. Some like Muay Thai more and some like taekwondo some like karate some like Jiu Jitsu some like boxing some like aikido some like monkey Kung fu. Who cares it's all about preference I don't know if my styles can take out other styles and frankly I don't care I just enjoy my training. It's not even about learning to fight for me it's just about learning and practicing and staying in shape and meeting people

It is important to the people who want to be good at martial arts.

There is this whole living in a way that is important thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is important to the people who want to be good at martial arts.

There is this whole living in a way that is important thing.

A few thoughts on this (and my mind isn't super clear right now - see my post in Last Person #5).

For some people, it really doesn't matter. Some folks really just want to train, enjoy the accomplishment of learning and the challenge of the exertion. These folks, IMO, have something in common with the people who study swordwork. It's not my way, but it is theirs.

Most styles aren't systematically bad. If someone is studying something that works reasonably well for whatever their purpose is (competition, defensive fighting, etc.), then they may not care whether there's something better for that purpose. For them, changing arts would mean starting over, and they wouldn't be better in that art for a long time.

For those who do care about highest effectiveness, that's not really a style question, IMO. That's a technique question. If a style contains a range of techniques, once you know those, examining them against those in other styles is useful. So, if someone in Brute Fu Do decided their side kick wasn't as good as a TKD side kick, and their round kick wasn't as good as a MT round kick, they could cross train to those techniques. In most cases (certainly not all), the style is a set of principles for applying the techniques (and is learned through the techniques - a whole chicken-and-egg thing).

I think most of us fall somewhere between the second and third groups.

 

[drop bear]

A few thoughts on this (and my mind isn't super clear right now - see my post in Last Person #5).

For some people, it really doesn't matter. Some folks really just want to train, enjoy the accomplishment of learning and the challenge of the exertion. These folks, IMO, have something in common with the people who study swordwork. It's not my way, but it is theirs.

Most styles aren't systematically bad. If someone is studying something that works reasonably well for whatever their purpose is (competition, defensive fighting, etc.), then they may not care whether there's something better for that purpose. For them, changing arts would mean starting over, and they wouldn't be better in that art for a long time.

For those who do care about highest effectiveness, that's not really a style question, IMO. That's a technique question. If a style contains a range of techniques, once you know those, examining them against those in other styles is useful. So, if someone in Brute Fu Do decided their side kick wasn't as good as a TKD side kick, and their round kick wasn't as good as a MT round kick, they could cross train to those techniques. In most cases (certainly not all), the style is a set of principles for applying the techniques (and is learned through the techniques - a whole chicken-and-egg thing).

I think most of us fall somewhere between the second and third groups.

It is a big jump from not caring if a style works to assuming most styles do work.

I mean you develop your ability though collaboration and competition. To do that you probably should care if the people you are collaborating with are any good.

This is stylistically true as well as individually.

So if you don't care and all the people around you don't care. And your style doesn't care.

It will quite simply be dumb luck if your style does work.

If I wanted to get really pithy it would be competition, collaboration and repetition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a big jump from not caring if a style works to assuming most styles do work.

I mean you develop your ability though collaboration and competition. To do that you probably should care if the people you are collaborating with are any good.

This is stylistically true as well as individually.

So if you don't care and all the people around you don't care. And your style doesn't care.

It will quite simply be dumb luck if your style does work.

And for some folks, that's fine. It works for what they want it to do (give them a skill to work on, something to struggle with and learn from). As long as they are clear about the likelihood of it being useful for something else, no worries.

 

[TrueJim]

A few thoughts on this (and my mind isn't super clear right now - see my post in Last Person #5)...

Agreed 100%. The "who would win in a fight" questions are silly, in my opinion. The more aggressive fighter, the bigger fighter, the more physically fit fighter, and the fighter with better training is usually going to win, regardless of style. In my opinion, style is the LEAST important part of the question. It's like asking if blue cars are faster than green cars.

Who would win?

 

[drop bear]

And for some folks, that's fine. It works for what they want it to do (give them a skill to work on, something to struggle with and learn from). As long as they are clear about the likelihood of it being useful for something else, no worries.

That is two different discussions.

If soccer mum goes to a martial arts school and never gets any good but gets an hour of peace. That is fine. A perfect use of their time.

The constant retoric of people suggesting that it doesnt matter if you do a good job or a crap job isn't ok. The idea that they are coming from some sort of moral high ground is absurd.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed 100%. The "who would win in a fight" questions are silly, in my opinion. The more aggressive fighter, the bigger fighter, the more physically fit fighter, and the fighter with better training is usually going to win, regardless of style. In my opinion, style is the LEAST important part of the question. It's like asking if blue cars are faster than green cars.

Who would win?

Or if Ferrari's are faster than Hyundai's. It is the driver or the track or the time of day.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreed 100%. The "who would win in a fight" questions are silly, in my opinion. The more aggressive fighter, the bigger fighter, the more physically fit fighter, and the fighter with better training is usually going to win, regardless of style. In my opinion, style is the LEAST important part of the question. It's like asking if blue cars are faster than green cars.

Who would win?

If both fighters' styles are highly effective and have a similar range, then style probably matters least. But if one style has a better set of effective tools, then that fighter will be better equipped. And not all styles are designed for the same context - consider boxing used in a Muay Thai competition, where Muay Thai has a clear advantage. I think it's fair to say, in a street fight, that Muay Thai fighter is at an advantage because of his kicks. If they are equally well trained, he's probably going to win. Put it in a boxing ring (with boxing rules), and the advantage goes back to the boxer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is two different discussions.

If soccer mum goes to a martial arts school and never gets any good but gets an hour of peace. That is fine. A perfect use of their time.

The constant retoric of people suggesting that it doesnt matter if you do a good job or a crap job isn't ok. The idea that they are coming from some sort of moral high ground is absurd.

I agree it's two different concepts, but not two different discussions. MA_student's post a few back was basically saying that same thing - he's happy with what he trains in, because it fits his needs (first group). The other two groups are a different concept. I think most of us have some of that first group, as well - that's why it's not really two different discussions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Or if Ferrari's are faster than Hyundai's. It is the driver or the track or the time of day.

There's actually some truth to that. A professional driver in a Mercedes E-class can probably beat me 10 times out of 10 on a racetrack with curves (so, not a NASCAR track), regardless of what I'm driving. He's just that much better than me. Now, put him in a Honda Fit, and me in a sports car, and maybe I am in control. The driver matters a lot, which is the point folks are making (and over-stating, IMO) when they say it's not the style. Style matters. The fighter matters more (assuming the style has reasonable tools).

 

[drop bear]

There's actually some truth to that. A professional driver in a Mercedes E-class can probably beat me 10 times out of 10 on a racetrack with curves (so, not a NASCAR track), regardless of what I'm driving. He's just that much better than me. Now, put him in a Honda Fit, and me in a sports car, and maybe I am in control. The driver matters a lot, which is the point folks are making (and over-stating, IMO) when they say it's not the style. Style matters. The fighter matters more (assuming the style has reasonable tools).

Yeah I understand the point trying to be made. It just isn't true the way they make it.

And if I bought a Hyundai for 200,000 dollars because it is the driver not the car. You would call me an idiot.

 

[drop bear]

I agree it's two different concepts, but not two different discussions. MA_student's post a few back was basically saying that same thing - he's happy with what he trains in, because it fits his needs (first group). The other two groups are a different concept. I think most of us have some of that first group, as well - that's why it's not really two different discussions.

In a thread which is about about a critique of a styles effectiveness.

And look just train what you think is fun would not help a tkder win a Thai fight.

It would get him crippled.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I agree, we should be talking about the IMPORTANT who-would-win-in-a-fight questions, like:

• Dumbledore vs Gandalf
• Iron Man vs. Batman
• Shark vs. Bear
• Chicago Pizza vs. New York Pizza

Kind of like this question on Yahoo Answers:
Me vs an orangutan????