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

[Tez3]

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]

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]

Sure. Eventually.

as long as we have reach agreement EVENTUALLY all is well

 

[jobo]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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]

It is not proven myth.


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


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).

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

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



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.

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]

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.

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]

..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]

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]

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]

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]

OK, can you rip somebodys belly with your nail

Have you seen some women's nails these days?

 

[Ivan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You've obviously never met my cat.

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

 

[Tez3]

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.

because we evolved effective socialising skills and mentality.

Well, that may be just a myth