You ever just get fed up with MA arguments?

[zDom]

zDom, I hope you don't think that portion of my post was directed at you, it was not. I happen to agree with what you posted before. It was just a general statement.

Thanks much. I didn't *think* it was directed at me, but then I had to ask myself, "Does this describe me? Could I have been seen in that light?"

Sometimes I get caught up in my own rhetoric, so I felt it was best to clear the air.

Thanks again, Bydand.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Here is a big surprise, both of the posts mentioned or discussed here have been locked, go figure.

So is that proof that there is apparently (and sadly) no happy medium.

 

[cfr]

Why would anyone get sick of it. Just because well intentioned posts get LOCKED OUT because of yet another TMA vs. MMA debate, whats not to love?

 

[cfr]

Here is a big surprise, both of the posts mentioned or discussed here have been locked, go figure.

So is that proof that there is apparently (and sadly) no happy medium.

I think it's proof that people should stick to the topic, especially when repeatedly asked.

 

[exile]

I think *everyone* gets tired of these kinds of arguments---and quickly! But what's interesting is how often you see these kinds of threads. Before I signed up on MT I kind of hung around for several months reading the posts from the very beginning, and what struck me about this latest debate/argument/quarrel is how similar it is to others I'd seen earlier. So even though people get tired of them, they still seem to happen a lot. It makes you wonder why. There has to be a reason why people get into these tangles---some kind of button that gets pushed. You can tell, just reading the posts, that one or more of the parties feel really hurt and angry... what's going on?

To me it looks like what's really being argued about here is a little different from the overt content of the argument turns out to be. Usually the pivot of the argument is self defense effectiveness, and the parties involved in the argument are each claiming that the facts support *their* view of what is effective and not the other guy's. When you look at the details, a lot of seems to come down to major disagreement over two linked issues: (i) what are real-world fights really `like' and (ii) what strategic plan is the best one for coming out ahead (or at least alive) given that fights are `like that' (whatever `that' is).

So most fairly open-minded martists would probably acknowldge the value of close range *tactics* (traps/locks, throws and so on). But in their bones some MAist feel that given the nature of real-world fights, the safest and lowest-risk strategy is one strike/one kill, and all tactics---limb destruction, grappling moves and so on---are there to set up the strike; sure, let's set up a lock, but only in order to be to hit someone's windpipe from a standing position. And others feel equally strongly that before that strike can be delivered, in most cases, the fight will go to ground where groundwork of the UFC type will always prevail---if you're a striker and are on the ground, what good will your striking skills do? There are similar either/or issues that come up that produce the same degree of conflict.

The irreconcilability of the `rift' that sort of launched the discussion on this particular thread comes about because people are arguing gut feeling about the best strategy. It's not about something that measurement, prediction and experiment can possibly settle, so you wind up getting a bunch of anecdotes supporting opposing opinions thrown back and forth, and finally in frustration someone pulls out the `OK, how many fights have *you* been in?' line, and next time you look you have a locked thread. People seem to be even more sensitive to criticism of their ideas about strategic effectiveness in MA than they are to criticisms of their driving...

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think *everyone* gets tired of these kinds of arguments---and quickly! But what's interesting is how often you see these kinds of threads. Before I signed up on MT I kind of hung around for several months reading the posts from the very beginning, and what struck me about this latest debate/argument/quarrel is how similar it is to others I'd seen earlier. So even though people get tired of them, they still seem to happen a lot. It makes you wonder why. There has to be a reason why people get into these tangles---some kind of button that gets pushed. You can tell, just reading the posts, that one or more of the parties feel really hurt and angry... what's going on?

To me it looks like what's really being argued about here is a little different from the overt content of the argument turns out to be. Usually the pivot of the argument is self defense effectiveness, and the parties involved in the argument are each claiming that the facts support *their* view of what is effective and not the other guy's. When you look at the details, a lot of seems to come down to major disagreement over two linked issues: (i) what are real-world fights really `like' and (ii) what strategic plan is the best one for coming out ahead (or at least alive) given that fights are `like that' (whatever `that' is).

So most fairly open-minded martists would probably acknowldge the value of close range *tactics* (traps/locks, throws and so on). But in their bones some MAist feel that given the nature of real-world fights, the safest and lowest-risk strategy is one strike/one kill, and all tactics---limb destruction, grappling moves and so on---are there to set up the strike; sure, let's set up a lock, but only in order to be to hit someone's windpipe from a standing position. And others feel equally strongly that before that strike can be delivered, in most cases, the fight will go to ground where groundwork of the UFC type will always prevail---if you're a striker and are on the ground, what good will your striking skills do? There are similar either/or issues that come up that produce the same degree of conflict.

The irreconcilability of the `rift' that sort of launched the discussion on this particular thread comes about because people are arguing gut feeling about the best strategy. It's not about something that measurement, prediction and experiment can possibly settle, so you wind up getting a bunch of anecdotes supporting opposing opinions thrown back and forth, and finally in frustration someone pulls out the `OK, how many fights have *you* been in?' line, and next time you look you have a locked thread. People seem to be even more sensitive to criticism of their ideas about strategic effectiveness in MA than they are to criticisms of their driving...

Alright so how many fights have you been in

Actually I am not serious about that question, I just couldn't resist and I'm just being silly.

What many fail to take into account and I believe this is what you are saying is that a fight any fight is not scripted so you need to have options to fall back on. And fights out side of the ring have no rules as well as not being scripted therefore the more you know the better off you are.

Sticking to any dogma or belief of first A and then B is dangerous whether in the ring or the street.

 

[Ybot]

I don't mind arguments or debates when conducted with respect to the opposing debators. We don't have to agree to respect each others oppinion. I actually enjoy reading the opposing arguements for another perspective. Or, sometimes question someone who posts something I believe in too just to see their justification and to rethink my own belief.

I will agree that it gets old when people start re-using the same arguments and it just gets repetitive, or when people start bashing each other.

Also, after 3 or 4 pages of responses I find it hard to follow all the various arguement threads that have worked their way into the post. After a while I think people just quit reading and just start reacting. I try to only add if I truly think I have something to add, or if I have a valid question.

 

[tradrockrat]

Yes. The thread mentioned in the first post was potentially a rift healer, but some just weren't ready or willing to try.

I was very hopeful for a few posts, but I came back a few hours later to three pages of the ole
yup,
nope,
yup,
nope,
yup,
nope,
yup,
nope...

 

[zDom]

... and finally in frustration someone pulls out the `OK, how many fights have *you* been in?' line, and next time you look you have a locked thread.

Guilty as charged -- but before you sentence me, consider this definition:

Slander: (noun) A false statement that deliberately does harm to another's reputation.

Without naming names, here is this person publicly stating (over and over again) that traditional martial arts are not effective.

If you let this statement stand without challenge, some will actually begin to believe it and repeat this slanderous statement.

So I step forward and say: Not true. I have used traditional martial arts in self defense situations and it works.

Antagonist replies with: I never seen them demonstrated on tape during a MMA event. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Enter the ring and prove it. (Good thing our justice system doesn't hold this criteria for evidence, eh?)

It's like someone telling me what Disneyland is like because they saw it on TV, but I've actually BEEN there.

So I guess I just wanted to see if this person is all words or has personal experience. He avoided answering the question in his next response -- any person with critical thinking skills would then begin to question the veracity of his statements.

I am truly sorry if the discussion upset anyone. I just have a difficult time hearing slander and letting it go completely unchallenged. Maybe I won't change his mind or get him to stop, but at least those who read the thread and are easily influenced will have a counterbalance.

 

[exile]

Alright so how many fights have you been in

Actually I am not serious about that question, I just couldn't resist and I'm just being silly.

Yeah, I figured! Well, I walked into it...

What many fail to take into account and I believe this is what you are saying is that a fight any fight is not scripted so you need to have options to fall back on. And fights out side of the ring have no rules as well as not being scripted therefore the more you know the better off you are.

Yes, very much so. One of the best things I've ever read on the MAs, Kane and Wilder's book THE WAY OF KATA, makes the really important observation that the important thing in a fight is to follow a consistent strategy and understand that strategy well; then if one tactic fails, you can switch to another quickly because your system will provide you with a different tactic that you can use to follow up on the one that didn't work, under the now changed circumstances of the fight. The trick is to know what work you want the tactic to do---how it will expedite the overall plan of the strategy you follow; and they also emphasize that the difference between martial art styles can often be characterized as a difference in their overall strategic plan for ending a fight. I have a cousin who's a black belt in Akido, and his view and my view of what to do next in any given situation are like two different universes...[/QUOTE]

Sticking to any dogma or belief of first A and then B is dangerous whether in the ring or the street.

Yup!

 

[exile]

I don't mind arguments or debates when conducted with respect to the opposing debators. We don't have to agree to respect each others oppinion. I actually enjoy reading the opposing arguements for another perspective. Or, sometimes question someone who posts something I believe in too just to see their justification and to rethink my own belief.

I will agree that it gets old when people start re-using the same arguments and it just gets repetitive, or when people start bashing each other.

But isn't some of that a problem with the Internet as a communication medium? People say things on these boards that I can't believe they'd ever dream of saying to each other if they were sitting around in someone's living room. The week before last I was googling some phrase or other and I found myself in an evangelical theology chat group which, like MT, lets you be a guest on their threads, and I was pretty amaze to find that these people were flaming each other! OK, it wasn't quite as raw as the flaming that takes place say on Bullshido.com (what *is*, come to think of it??), but it was, in a kind of awkward, nicey-nicey way, still flaming. I've come to believe that the Internet is not a very civil channel to interact on...

Also, after 3 or 4 pages of responses I find it hard to follow all the various arguement threads that have worked their way into the post. After a while I think people just quit reading and just start reacting.

Yeah. The original point gets lost and people's raw nerves and thin skin takes over. But again---that's something that seems to happen on a *lot* of Internet chat boards, on every topic imaginable. It's why there have to be moderators...

 

[exile]

I am truly sorry if the discussion upset anyone. I just have a difficult time hearing slander and letting it go completely unchallenged. Maybe I won't change his mind or get him to stop, but at least those who read the thread and are easily influenced will have a counterbalance.

Hey, zDom, no listen, I wasn't directing any of that *at* you (or anyone)---or putting you `on trial'. What I'm really interested in is the dynamics of the discussion and how often they seem to go that route---and what there is about the topic that causes people to get into these kinds of struggles with each other. I don't think it's just different styles of personality---it seems to happen in MA discussions very often. I just have the feeling that there's something about the topic itself that causes people's reactions to flare up, and then make excessively strong statements, and then other find those statements unfounded or irrational as well as offensive, and off we go...

I *agree* with you that the fact that you've never seen X hardly means that
X couldn't happen. But what interests me is that when people get on this particular topic they often appeal to such arguments in a kind of stubborn desperateness to get their point across, because it's really important to them---I suspect, anyway---to defend their conception of fight strategy. It's an issue very close to where we all live, in a way, at least to the extent that we take MA seriously---for at least some people, it has to do with how they feel about their own martial art, the need to make it clear to others (and themselves too, maybe) that they chose correctly in what to study, that they haven't been wasting their time all these years. My own guess is that that's where a lot of the heat in the argument comes from.

 

[zDom]

But what interests me is that when people get on this particular topic they often appeal to such arguments in a kind of stubborn desperateness to get their point across, because it's really important to them---I suspect, anyway---to defend their conception of fight strategy. It's an issue very close to where we all live, in a way, at least to the extent that we take MA seriously---for at least some people, it has to do with how they feel about their own martial art, the need to make it clear to others (and themselves too, maybe) that they chose correctly in what to study, that they haven't been wasting their time all these years. My own guess is that that's where a lot of the heat in the argument comes from.

I agree.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Hey, zDom, no listen, I wasn't directing any of that *at* you (or anyone)---or putting you `on trial'. What I'm really interested in is the dynamics of the discussion and how often they seem to go that route---and what there is about the topic that causes people to get into these kinds of struggles with each other. I don't think it's just different styles of personality---it seems to happen in MA discussions very often. I just have the feeling that there's something about the topic itself that causes people's reactions to flare up, and then make excessively strong statements, and then other find those statements unfounded or irrational as well as offensive, and off we go...

I *agree* with you that the fact that you've never seen X hardly means that
X couldn't happen. But what interests me is that when people get on this particular topic they often appeal to such arguments in a kind of stubborn desperateness to get their point across, because it's really important to them---I suspect, anyway---to defend their conception of fight strategy. It's an issue very close to where we all live, in a way, at least to the extent that we take MA seriously---for at least some people, it has to do with how they feel about their own martial art, the need to make it clear to others (and themselves too, maybe) that they chose correctly in what to study, that they haven't been wasting their time all these years. My own guess is that that's where a lot of the heat in the argument comes from.

The problem is that they are trying to get the approval others. As long as you are going into training with a open mind, you can never go wrong. Trying to impress others is a long and cold journey. Just having a good attitude does more for your martial arts than the particular style you are training in at that time. Even if this person who is trying to 1-up you beats you in a fight, they still have to live with all of that anger and they have inside of them. The attitude they have will lead them on a path of constant battles, with no winner. While you are happy doing your individual thing, they are going around trying to prove something to everyone else, to me that makes them the looser.
These type of people are angry, arrogant, feel empty inside, and more than likely dont know why. Its because constantly fighting just to prove you are better gets you nowhere. I would rather win a persons heart by making them feel good about themselves, than try to belittle them so I feel like the superior fighter. Once a person has genuine compassion for others, that compassion can drive them to fight harder than any ego maniac, and for the right reasons.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Alright so how many fights have you been in

Actually I am not serious about that question, I just couldn't resist and I'm just being silly.

What many fail to take into account and I believe this is what you are saying is that a fight any fight is not scripted so you need to have options to fall back on. And fights out side of the ring have no rules as well as not being scripted therefore the more you know the better off you are.

Sticking to any dogma or belief of first A and then B is dangerous whether in the ring or the street.

Xue Sheng,

I know you were being funny, but could I ask the following:

What is a fight?

Is it where someone threatens you verbally and you respond, including waling away?

Is it where a simple contact is involved sush as a push or a grab or a touch?

Does it require a weapon other than the human body?

Does it require a certain state of mind such as fear or thought of impending death?

Not trying to be disrespectful or take this thread to a bad place, I just am curious in opinions.

Thanks

 

[Xue Sheng]

Xue Sheng,

I know you were being funny, but could I ask the following:

What is a fight?

Is it where someone threatens you verbally and you respond, including waling away?

Is it where a simple contact is involved sush as a push or a grab or a touch?

Does it require a weapon other than the human body?

Does it require a certain state of mind such as fear or thought of impending death?

Not trying to be disrespectful or take this thread to a bad place, I just am curious in opinions.

Thanks

To be honest if I were asking that question and I was serious, which I was not, I would be better of asking how many physical confrontations have you been in. And also to be honest the answer, any answer is meaningless. The various incarnations of a fight make it so. If the answer was none then what does that mean, possibly that they are a better martial artist than I if you base your answer on Sun Tzu Bing Fa. If the answer was 100s then did you win them all and if you did were you the aggressor or the victim and why couldn’t you avoid hundreds of fights, if you will allow the use of the word fight. And are you better than me just because I have had fewer or no fights.

There is a long story from old China about 2 students of the same teacher that I will not go into the entire thing here. Basically student 1 went around looking for people to fight and eventually landed in prison for killing someone. When he was released he still wanted to prove he was best and sought out his former classmate who many said was very good. After several attempts to get his former classmate to fight finally he attacked his former classmate forcing him to fight. His former classmate avoided his attacks and his only attack was a light touch on the Cheek of his attacker. At this point the attacker stopped realizing he could have easily been defeated just because of a light touch on his cheek. So whom is the better fighter the one that fought a lot or the one that avoided the fights?

If you want a straight dictionary definition and that is what I tend to go with, although I am willing to admit an argument can easily made that the definition of a fight is subjective, I give you the following.

Fight

1.
a.To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.
b.Sports. To engage in boxing or wrestling.
2.To engage in a quarrel; argue: They are always fighting about money.
3.To strive vigorously and resolutely: fought against graft; fighting for her rights.

v.tr.

1.
a.To contend with physically or in battle.
b.To wage or carry on (a battle).
c.To contend for, by or as if by combat: “I now resolved that Calais should be fought to the death” (Winston S. Churchill).

2.
a.Sports. To box or wrestle against in a ring.
b.To participate in (a boxing match, for example).

3. To set (a boxer, for example) in combat with another..

4. To contend with or struggle against: fight cancer; fight temptation.

5. To try to prevent the development or success of.

6. To make (one's way) by struggle or striving: fought my way to the top.

n.

1. A confrontation between opposing groups in which each attempts to harm or gain power over the other, as with bodily force or weapons.

2. A quarrel or conflict.

3.
a. A physical conflict between two or more individuals.
b. Sports. A boxing or wrestling match.

4. A struggle to achieve an objective..

5. The power or inclination to fight; pugnacity: I just didn't have any fight left in me.

 

[exile]

The problem is that they are trying to get the approval others....
These type of people are angry, arrogant, feel empty inside, and more than likely dont know why. [/B]

Hey Jay---

I agree with you, but I think there's something more. I think it's a systemic problem that people have with doubts about their choices in martial arts, where they hear carping and criticism of their approach from people doing other styles and start wondering if maybe they should have done something else---a harder style, a softer style, a more `reality-based style', and so on. What I mean is, I think that the anger and emptiness arise from *fear*---fear that they made a big mistake choosing their martial art. For people who take their MA very seriously, which is most of us, I'd bet, that is a very threatening idea---and it leads to a belligerant reaction, hostility and anger and so on, the sort of thing which shows up on MA discussion threads all the time.

I suspect that there's something about the culture of martial arts which promotes this sort of doubt. Here Chris asks a simple question about synthesizing techniques from TMAs and MMA, and we wind up with a lot of ill will and bad feeling---again, no villains here! But as soon as I saw the title of the post, I kind of had a bad feeling---what's this going to lead to? Because there seems to me a deep insecurity among *many* (by no means all!!) martial artists about whether they're doing the right thing, whether something else might have been better, should they maybe switch arts?, etc. etc. And any discussion which involves a comparison between MAs---especially when these (seem to ) involve very different fighting strategies---seriously aggravates that insecurity. So even if you want to look at two different MAs or approaches to MA to see what they have to offer each other, with the best will in the world, as Chris clearly intended, what happens is that this toxic free-floating insecurity that so many of us seem to have---I'm as bad as anyone else in this respect!---kicks in and things start getting very... tense.
I think that kind of permanent background insecurity that so many MAists have is really what these arguments are all about... does this make any sense?

 

[pstarr]

Xue Sheng's reply was dead accurate!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Xue Sheng,

I know you were being funny, but could I ask the following:

What is a fight?

Is it where someone threatens you verbally and you respond, including waling away?

Is it where a simple contact is involved sush as a push or a grab or a touch?

Does it require a weapon other than the human body?

Does it require a certain state of mind such as fear or thought of impending death?

Not trying to be disrespectful or take this thread to a bad place, I just am curious in opinions.

Thanks

For what its worth, the Andy Moynihan definition is "Any planned or random act of violence, period".

This is likely a broader interpretation than many have, but none the less our definitions of this word are what shapes our beliefs about it *shrug*

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Why would anyone get sick of it. Just because well intentioned posts get LOCKED OUT because of yet another TMA vs. MMA debate, whats not to love?

For what it's worth, bro, I did try to come back and post an answer in the spirit of your original question once I understood.

I was tryin' to help you out there but it seemed 'twas not to be.