'Beliefs' in martial arts.

[Flying Crane]

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.

The thing is, the people practicing those style, the ones with overwhelming amounts of unrealistic movements, don't see it that way. They feel their curriculum is realistic. It's just your viewpoint that tells you it is not.

Objectively, you may be correct, or they may be correct and you simply don't understand what they are doing. But how you see it is really all that matters to you, so you make your own decisions on that. It's an argument that doesn't have a truly objective answer.

I have essentially discontinued ("abandoned" would be a reasonable term) a system that I had been connected to for quite a number of years. I recognized that for me personally, the curriculum and methodology simply was not a good match and does not work well. But there are a whole lot of people out there who practice this system and feel that it works great. If that's true for them, who am I to tell them otherwise? All I can do is decide for myself and spend my time in a way that makes sense to me.

 

[clfsean]

Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......' recently. Everyone wants me to name names. I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.

Well, yes it would.

Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing. And Thai Boxing.

If they get you home, then they are all effective in giving you a base foundation to protect yourself. Competitiveness aside since that does fall to the individual with a tool kit, if you get in a situation & you are able to remove yourself from it & get home, then it helped you to be effective in solving the problem.

I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.

In the ring? Maybe... In the real world, prove it.

Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.

How do you figure that?

In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?

Depends... are we talking about an ambush or flat out charge & attack by attrition?

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.

Actually, from what I can tell... you're not. You have your mind made up or semi-made up & are unwilling to support your position by direct example. I'm also very critical & will call out what I consider BS and support it by statement and/or demonstration. In that case either I prove it or am disproved. You keep hinting at things & trying compare apples & oranges. Using your examples of boxing & Muay Thai, that's a poor comparison. Boxers don't train to deal with tools that Muay Thai has in the same arena. However, that boils down to not much when you take the human actor into consideration. Of course Muay Thai would seem to have the advantage by not letting the boxer inside their kicking range. Then there are knees and elbows to consider from the Muay Thai boxer. But the Western Boxer is bringing a power punch with almost every strike. From both of them, the statement "It only takes one shot from the biggest heart and strongest chin" weighs in to the fray.

Not a good working comparison.

About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.

There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.

I look forward to your responses.

The horse is dead... truly unless you take your puff and soapbox and point to specific examples and not by ill matched comparison.

:deadhorse

 

[fangjian]

Well, yes it would.



If they get you home, then they are all effective in giving you a base foundation to protect yourself. Competitiveness aside since that does fall to the individual with a tool kit, if you get in a situation & you are able to remove yourself from it & get home, then it helped you to be effective in solving the problem.



In the ring? Maybe... In the real world, prove it.

So you're saying 'in the ring' some styles can have an advantage over others, but outside 'the ring', it "just doesn't matter anymore"? That doesn't sound right.

Actually, from what I can tell... you're not. You have your mind made up or semi-made up & are unwilling to support your position by direct example. I'm also very critical & will call out what I consider BS and support it by statement and/or demonstration. In that case either I prove it or am disproved. You keep hinting at things & trying compare apples & oranges. Using your examples of boxing & Muay Thai, that's a poor comparison. Boxers don't train to deal with tools that Muay Thai has in the same arena. However, that boils down to not much when you take the human actor into consideration. Of course Muay Thai would seem to have the advantage by not letting the boxer inside their kicking range. Then there are knees and elbows to consider from the Muay Thai boxer. But the Western Boxer is bringing a power punch with almost every strike. From both of them, the statement "It only takes one shot from the biggest heart and strongest chin" weighs in to the fray.

hehehee. That's funny 'cause I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm just having trouble excepting the assumption that they are 'just all equal'. The style of marching as a unit toward a firefight is 'just equal' to actual evidence based "evolved" techniques. Astrology is 'just equal' to astronomy. Boxing is 'just equal' to boxing w/ the added benefit of kicks. It just 'depends on the circumstance'. I would just imagine that some circumstances happen more frequently than others.

I would also just assume that someone who does MMA has an edge over a boxer in most scenarios.

There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.

If you have time could u post a link or two. I had been searching but can't find much.

The horse is dead... truly unless you take your puff and soapbox and point to specific examples and not by ill matched comparison.
:deadhorse

Why are the comparisons so 'ill matched'? Just because they train for different scenarios? If you have a competition that the rules are, All you can do is: You can only use your left hand to strike ( I know it sounds silly). The styles that train for this event will evolve a style that is inferior to the other styles that allow more flexibility in there rules. The other styles will have an edge on the 'left handed ONLY' systems, when there are no rules.

 

[Ken Morgan]

There are studies out there on the bioelectric energy produced by humans and the use of it by people who practice using it.

:bs:Link to the studies if you please. Unbiased sources I hope. Thanks!

 

[clfsean]

:bs:Link to the studies if you please. Unbiased sources I hope. Thanks!

I can't say if they're biased or not. I've just seen documentary styled footage.

Check youtube. They're there. If you can't find them, let me know & I'll see if I can locate them again.

 

[clfsean]

*sigh* Last comments on this...

So you're saying 'in the ring' some styles can have an advantage over others, but outside 'the ring', it "just doesn't matter anymore"? That doesn't sound right.

In a competative arena, bound by rules, yes using your example of Western Boxing vs Muay Thai or "kickboxing", there's a possibility of inherent advantage to those that can use & have trained their legs against those against those who have not. Posibility. Not a foregone conclusion of fact.

Outside, no it doesn't matter. If it gets you home safely & removed from a dangerous situation, it doesn't matter the name or background. If... not a foregone conclusion again.

hehehee. That's funny 'cause I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm just having trouble excepting the assumption that they are 'just all equal'. The style of marching as a unit toward a firefight is 'just equal' to actual evidence based "evolved" techniques. Astrology is 'just equal' to astronomy. Boxing is 'just equal' to boxing w/ the added benefit of kicks. It just 'depends on the circumstance'. I would just imagine that some circumstances happen more frequently than others.

*sigh* Apples & oranges again. One helpful piece of advice... don't assume. Examine the word.

Astrology is NOT astronomy. We all know this. The common denominator is the starfield seen in the night sky.

Marching a unit into combat ... I don't get where you're coming from or hoping for.

Boxing is just as equal to kickboxing but they don't compete in the same arena. They could. Lots of "what ifs" in the match. That's why its an ill matched comparison. Make it more appropriate. Put a kickboxer in against a Kyokushin fighter. Better comparison.

I would also just assume that someone who does MMA has an edge over a boxer in most scenarios.

Watch out for assume. Again... an ill matched comparison for your standpoint. Not the same tool kit.

If you have time could u post a link or two. I had been searching but can't find much.

Documentary footage on youtube.

Why are the comparisons so 'ill matched'? Just because they train for different scenarios?

Seriously? I've already answered that above.

If you have a competition that the rules are, All you can do is: You can only use your left hand to strike ( I know it sounds silly). The styles that train for this event will evolve a style that is inferior to the other styles that allow more flexibility in there rules.

No... what happens is turn out a breed of fighters that are geared to being excessively talented with their left hand. In that competition arena. In the world, you turn out a person that is geared to use their left hand in a very effective manner. It would bugger people up badly since 85 to 90 percent of the population of the world is right handed. Hung Fut has a set designed specifically to use the left hand only because of that.

Pertaining to a "rules based" event where it's ambedextrious vs lefty only... yeah, the left handed person is at a 50% disadvantage to the number of trained weapons available, but is at a 100% functional capacity with that one hand. Again... it goes to "what ifs".

The other styles will have an edge on the 'left handed ONLY' systems, when there are no rules.

When there are no rules? The only place there are rules is a competative or training environment. If you have a person that's thrown 1000 punches & has practiced defense with one hand and one side of the body against a person that has thrown the same number of punches, but divided over two hands, who truly has the disadvantage?

 

[fangjian]

Astrology is NOT astronomy. We all know this. The common denominator is the starfield seen in the night sky.

Yes. You are correct. That is the common denominator isn't it?
However, one of those disciplines has the techniques, methodology, etc. that will allow you to gain knowledge of the universe. The other will not. Oh no, but wait. You will get SOME knowledge, I suppose. Maybe they're 'just equal' and depends on the 'circumstance' and the 'heart' of the person.

 

[oaktree]

Heres the problem with your arguement:

I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.

of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent

I see this as contradictions. You say Western boxing is inferior to Thai boxing than you back track saying well a boxer could beat a Thai boxer.

For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better

Logic fallacy. More does not mean better. More just means more. Some may say more is worse because your body and mind get confused with what technique to use. KISS keep it simple stupid is the term here. It is also nonsense to think a boxer could not use his elbows or knees or headbutt in a real street fight. Just like it is nonsense to think a person who does Karate cannot sprawl.

A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer

Throw a kick boxer in the ring under boxing rules there is no edge in fact he is at a weakness because kick boxers rely alot on their legs more than their hands.
Throw a boxer into a K-1 fight then yes he will loose because most of the kicks are to his legs. Put a boxer and a kick boxer into a street fight who knows who would win maybe during the clinch boxer pulls out a knife stabs kickboxer.

I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.

A computer program is not a good measurement of fighting. That show on Spike TV tried to do it and was terrible at being accurate. And really there are so many different scenarios and people thinking methods that it would be impossible to provide an accurate presentation. You would have to include one is hurt or sick already, weapons, more than one person, different levels of experience quite a project if it could be done.

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.

Which is hypocritical because you teach Taijiquan!!!

About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.

You would have to define what spirit and Qi is.
But if you are going define a Chinese word please be able to read Chinese.
气

 

[Aiki Lee]

Fangjian, you are looking at martial arts and examining them based of their techniques and tools used in those techniques (i.e. using the hands, feet, elbows, what have you). But techniques are not what win fights, strategy is what wins a fight. With better strategy a boxer could beat the MMA fighter or vice versa. The techniques are the means for victory but not the source.

Techniques can not be applied unless they are properly set up, and things can not be set up without tactics. This is why it depends on the artist and not the art. Different arts have different kinds of strategy and if a strategy is not adapted to the appropriate circumstance then that person will lose.

 

[fangjian]

Heres the problem with your arguement:






I see this as contradictions. You say Western boxing is inferior to Thai boxing than you back track saying well a boxer could beat a Thai boxer.

No contradiction. A boxer CAN beat a Thai boxer, yes. But he/she is at a disadvantage. The Thai will win more than 50% of the time, if all other things are equal.

Logic fallacy. More does not mean better. More just means more. Some may say more is worse because your body and mind get confused with what technique to use. KISS keep it simple stupid is the term here. It is also nonsense to think a boxer could not use his elbows or knees or headbutt in a real street fight. Just like it is nonsense to think a person who does Karate cannot sprawl.

I don't think a boxer will use these techniques the way some who trains them regularly would. ....................Hehehe. to be honest, I'm not sure how to address your comment 'more is worse'. I understand this. The basics will always come out the most, right? However I have 'edged' a few sparring sessions with a gogoplata, and a few other techniques that my opponent was not aware of.

Throw a kick boxer in the ring under boxing rules there is no edge in fact he is at a weakness because kick boxers rely alot on their legs more than their hands.
Throw a boxer into a K-1 fight then yes he will loose because most of the kicks are to his legs. Put a boxer and a kick boxer into a street fight who knows who would win maybe during the clinch boxer pulls out a knife stabs kickboxer.

I'm not talking about a certain match with rules. I mean ALL scenarios.

A computer program is not a good measurement of fighting. That show on Spike TV tried to do it and was terrible at being accurate. And really there are so many different scenarios and people thinking methods that it would be impossible to provide an accurate presentation. You would have to include one is hurt or sick already, weapons, more than one person, different levels of experience quite a project if it could be done.

hehe I know it can't be done. But the more of an 'edge' you have the better.

Which is hypocritical because you teach Taijiquan!!!

Yes. I do not focus on the tuishou because I'm not very good at it. My fighting techniques mostly come from Sanshou, Muay Thai, Bjj, Freestyle wrestling, Balintawak.

I always make it a point to not misrepresent myself. I am NOT Chen XiaoWang

You would have to define what spirit and Qi is.
But if you are going define a Chinese word please be able to read Chinese.
气

Yes I can read that chinese word. I studied Chinese seriously for some years, but had stopped a couple years ago. What does me reading Chinese have to do with anything? As for a definition I know it means breath, gas, air energy.........But the way martial artists commonly use it, it's more like an energy that can be manipulated and manipulated in others( in a way that might not agree with scientific testing.)

 

[Hollywood1340]

In the end your arguing YOUR believe and stating it as fact. Doesn't work that way. Use "I think" and "I believe" but it's not my fact. So I'm glad to hear what you think, but please don't speak for me. I don't appreciate it

 

[fangjian]

In the end your arguing YOUR believe and stating it as fact. Doesn't work that way. Use "I think" and "I believe" but it's not my fact. So I'm glad to hear what you think, but please don't speak for me. I don't appreciate it

Hehehe. Good point, my friend. But I know some things in the universe are not up for debate. I can hardly say I 'believe' in electromagnetism or gravitation. They simply ARE, and 'beliefs' are irrelevant. I'm not so sure that martial arts is off the hook. Bodies of techniques, methods, strategy can be measured, tested, observed.............

 

[oaktree]

No contradiction. A boxer CAN beat a Thai boxer, yes. But he/she is at a disadvantage. The Thai will win more than 50% of the time, if all other things are equal.

Nothing is ever equal in a fight. To think things are equal in a fight is to either 1.never been in a fight 2.been under a fight that is controled situation 3.delusional.

don't think a boxer will use these techniques the way some who trains them regularly would. ....................Hehehe. to be honest, I'm not sure how to address your comment 'more is worse'. I understand this. The basics will always come out the most, right? However I have 'edged' a few sparring sessions with a gogoplata, and a few other techniques that my opponent was not aware of.

Interesting because I studied boxing for a number of years and I can tell you I will throw elbows knees as well as fist and kicks. There is nothing preventing a Boxer from clinching and then throwing see it all the time in street fights.

So because of one persons ignorance of BJJ thus makes his art ineffective?
No it means you are a better fighter than him at that moment and were able to overcome him. One day it is possible he may overcome you.If anything you made him more effective because he should learn that this technique exist he now can work to counter it. See how its not the art its the person performing it?

I'm not talking about a certain match with rules. I mean ALL scenarios.

You can not measure it to many variables thus making your arguement illogical.

hehe I know it can't be done. But the more of an 'edge' you have the better.

So your arguement can not be done thus invalid.

Yes. I do not focus on the tuishou because I'm not very good at it. My fighting techniques mostly come from Sanshou, Muay Thai, Bjj, Freestyle wrestling, Balintawak.

I always make it a point to not misrepresent myself. I am NOT Chen XiaoWang

See the arguement was you said Taijiquan was not effective you backtrack to say some of it is and some of it is not you then back track after I found out you teach Taijiquan and you are a hypocrite to say what is effective Taijiquan when you yourself do not teach it as it is to be taught.

If you know Chinese you know what the word Qi means in the context. means the whole arguement of Aikido/Taijiquan or any internal art as being supernatural shows you are confusing a religious context with the word Qi and the other usages of the word Qi.

How is this relevant? I studied Chinese seriously for some years, but had stopped a couple years ago. What does me reading Chinese have to do with anything?

Many people think they know what the word Qi is. You feel that Qi does not exist or want proof of it. This to me shows you do not know what the word Qi means.

If you can read Hanzi and know how the word Qi is used in daily usage than you would not ask such a silly question. I suggest you look at suffixs and combined words with Qi to get a better understanding of the word. Also in this word meaning I am not using any religious context at all just daily expressions and meaning.

 

[fangjian]

Nothing is ever equal in a fight. To think things are equal in a fight is to either 1.never been in a fight 2.been under a fight that is controled situation 3.delusional.

Interesting because I studied boxing for a number of years and I can tell you I will throw elbows knees as well as fist and kicks. There is nothing preventing a Boxer from clinching and then throwing see it all the time in street fights.

I was not aware that their are western boxing schools that also teach elbows knees, kicks etc. Yes there is nothing preventing the boxer from doing these things but there is less of a chance he will.

You can not measure it to many variables thus making your arguement illogical.


So your arguement can not be done thus invalid.

But we can measure it to a lot of variables and come up with reasonable conclusions.

See the arguement was you said Taijiquan was not effective you backtrack to say some of it is and some of it is not you then back track after I found out you teach Taijiquan and you are a hypocrite to say what is effective Taijiquan when you yourself do not teach it as it is to be taught.

Yes I think I may have 'implied' through the text that Taijiquan is useless. This was poor on my part. Sorry. What I truly am meaning is that some other styles I think are better. And I KNOW a lot of Taiji guys are good at the clinch game, but I think that's their best area. Taji players are good at clinch wresting, maybe striking, what else?

If you know Chinese you know what the word Qi means in the context. means the whole arguement of Aikido/Taijiquan or any internal art as being supernatural shows you are confusing a religious context with the word Qi and the other usages of the word Qi.

Many people think they know what the word Qi is. You feel that Qi does not exist or want proof of it. This to me shows you do not know what the word Qi means.

If you can read Hanzi and know how the word Qi is used in daily usage than you would not ask such a silly question. I suggest you look at suffixs and combined words with Qi to get a better understanding of the word. Also in this word meaning I am not using any religious context at all just daily expressions and meaning.

If you are using the word qi in daily expression and for combined words, the word 'qi' has no meaning here. Yes I know the word qi is used in the words for weather, steam, etc..... But how is that relevant for martial arts?

 

[shesulsa]

Who cares if you believe in Qi or Ki or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Mother Earth ... or not?

Why do you care so much about what other people believe except where it comes into play with the NTKO?

 

[fangjian]

Who cares if you believe in Qi or Ki or Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Mother Earth ... or not?

Why do you care so much about what other people believe except where it comes into play with the NTKO?

Truly sorry. I honestly searched for this acronym NTKO and couldn't find a definition. However, your implication is obvious.

I DO care what other people believe in general. It's relevant for our survival as a species. But, if you're referring to just martial arts: Yes I do care what other people think. I'd like to either grow as a martial artist or help others grow (or likely both) through dialog with others. It's the ONLY reason language exists.

 

[Ken Morgan]

NTKO.
Non touch knock out, I’m assuming

Seriously don’t think about what other people think, it’ll only drive you mad. It is completely and totally irrelevant to our survival as a species. It’s like arguing with someone on the internet, entertaining, enlightening and frustrating all at the same time. We all have our own histories and experiences, so we will all think different things about different subjects.

If someone doesn’t like you, so what? If someone believes or doesn’t believe in a god or gods, so what? Act like a respectable human being, treat people well and the world is fine. Become concerned about what other people think….then the world goes all to hell.

As for the NTKO issue, I have watched the videos in the past, and still think they are BS.

James Randi has offered $1000000 to anyone who can prove, under scientific testing any existence of supernatural forces. The folks who believe in such nonsense should give it a go, easy money for them.

 

[Big Don]

Why does it seem that the majority of atheists think they are better than people who believe a religion? Smug arrogance just sets my teeth on edge.

 

[oaktree]

NTKO.
Non touch knock out, I’m assuming

Seriously don’t think about what other people think, it’ll only drive you mad. It is completely and totally irrelevant to our survival as a species. It’s like arguing with someone on the internet, entertaining, enlightening and frustrating all at the same time. We all have our own histories and experiences, so we will all think different things about different subjects.

If someone doesn’t like you, so what? If someone believes or doesn’t believe in a god or gods, so what? Act like a respectable human being, treat people well and the world is fine. Become concerned about what other people think….then the world goes all to hell.

As for the NTKO issue, I have watched the videos in the past, and still think they are BS.

James Randi has offered $1000000 to anyone who can prove, under scientific testing any existence of supernatural forces. The folks who believe in such nonsense should give it a go, easy money for them.

Hi Ken
What Supernatural forces are you refering to.Are you refering in a religious context?
Religious beliefs vs Science is really beating a dead horse and debating it is moot I think.



As for Randi Challange this sums it up.

You can read the about the Randi challange here:
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.
The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple "outs" for Randi and the JREF that discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like).
​

 

[fangjian]

Why does it seem that the majority of atheists think they are better than people who believe a religion? Smug arrogance just sets my teeth on edge.

If someone 'believes' that you can knock someone out with a fireball of 'qi' from 10 feet away, I don't think I'm smarter than them. It has nothing to do with being 'better'. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence'. Sometimes, it has to do with 'education'. So, if that person is then educated about all of the evidence and STILL believes by just denying the evidence, than that person is just being 'irrational'.

So, I have a more 'rational' mind than this person. Not smug arrogance. Just physical evidence and reasoned logic. Some people ARE rude, however many times it is just gullible people getting their 'feelings hurt' by someone offering them the evidence.