Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Martial Arts

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 04:16:16 AM
My disapproval of UFC is based on the following:

UFC takes what used to be aristocratic traditions (Jiu Jitsu, Judo and I'm sure many more) and turns them into something proll; very much like the WWF.

It unintentionally illegitimizes martial arts that aren't "successful" in the ring (hence this debate)

It applies what I have always viewed as a very distasteful American sport and entertainment culture to systems of mental, spiritual and physical development which at their height, pursued enlightenment. Remember, enlightenment is not the goal in UFC. Even if you root your UFC competition in some form of philosophy, your success in this domain will never enter into the the actual instituion of UFC as it would were you to attain a rank in a buddhist order. Even in the interviews afterwards, the soundbyte nature of popular media wont let you express and share you philosophy.

Those who win UFC are become masculine ideals. But, are they this really? Should we not be endorsing Nietzsche's overman instead or Lao Tzu's Sage?


At the same time, I acknowledge UFC as:

A public forum for the study and scientific advancement of martial arts systems. It becomes popular to some degree which means there is money involved which creates a market for sports scientists. But then again, there is a very large difference between a black belt Jiu Jitsu student watching UFC and (most of the viewers) who are drunk and want some action.

Motivating martial artists to train and challenge themselves.


When I asked my old Kung Fu teacher why you never see Kung Fu masters compete, he said that they have nothing to prove.


Conclusion: UFC=  crap.
 


Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 04:46:26 AM
It unintentionally illegitimizes martial arts that aren't "successful" in the ring (hence this debate)

How exactly does it do this?

One fighter using a certain martial art (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, for example) doesn't illegitimize the discipline if they don't win in a certain fight. When a fighter loses, no one says, "Well, he lost, so BJJ sucks". The blame is always placed on the fighter. And even if a certain fighter performed all his moves well, he can still lose to someone who is using the same discipline, or one who uses something completely different (maybe wrestling, or muay-thai, for example).

You are the only person I've come across who thinks it does anything close to, "illegitimizing" martial arts.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 05:03:46 AM
When I asked my old Kung Fu teacher why you never see Kung Fu masters compete, he said that they have nothing to prove.
They may not compete often but they do demonstrations which are as bad as any publicized fight. Also don't forget that many UFC fighters don't do MMA but a 'legitimate' martial art. Ever notice how many Brazilians are in the league? Many of them are jujitsu fighters with minimal training outside of that.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 05:06:47 AM
This topic has come up in the past (several years ago). Here's a good link on hand-to-hand combat.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 09:15:22 AM
I would prefer a lunge stance to the horse stance that link recommends. Standing with your feet parallel shoulder with apart when facing an opponent opens up your crouch.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 10:33:11 AM
The Phrack article is pretty bizarre and I don't think it's anchored in reality.

"A sharp blow to the temple ensures instant death since there is a large artery
and nerve located close to the skin surface... (snip) ... The nose is another excellent place to attack. Hit the bridge with the knife
edge of your hand and you will cause breakage, severe pain, temporary blindness
and even death..."

Does whoever wrote this honestly believe that punching someone in the temple, or hitting them on the bridge of the nose will reliably result in death? First of all, if humans were that fragile, we'd be all be dead from whacking our noses and heads and whatnot. I've smacked my temple on things as hard as concrete from bike wrecks and suchlike and I'm still alive and well even if it did hurt like hell. Additionally, you can see plenty of boxers and MMA guys taking terrific blows to the head with hands, shins, knees, and elbows, and although those strikes are damaging they sure don't kill many people. Don't get me wrong - the temple and nose are a good place to aim if you want to smack someone upside the head, but human beings are very difficult to kill unless you have some device designed for that purpose (sword, gun, nuclear bomb, etc.).

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 08:23:54 PM
Yes I believe it honestly because my father is one who can destroy a life at a moments notice....

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 08:27:58 PM
Quote
This site is to inform you about what's involved in your personal safety. We aren't just about self-defense. We also go into conflict resolution, negotiation in potentially violent situations and life skills. We do this because these are the elements that usually lead to violence.

We also show you how crime and violence work, how situations develop and why they happen. There are a lot of Hollywood-fueled misconceptions about violence. These misconceptions mixed in with other factors often result in otherwise intelligent people, not just walking, but rushing into the lion's jaws.  Why Is Crime Simpler Than Interpersonal Violence?

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

 

This is an excellent and very well articulated site about physical violence. Watch it.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 11:05:37 PM
I would like to point out that for most of us in the developed world physical violence is a minor threat. The chances of dying from cancer are far higher. Knowing tricks on how to win hand to hand combat wont necessarily help you "win".

Second, I think running is the best self defense in most situations. Especially against body builders.

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 11:39:44 PM
It unintentionally illegitimizes martial arts that aren't "successful" in the ring (hence this debate)

How exactly does it do this?

One fighter using a certain martial art (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, for example) doesn't illegitimize the discipline if they don't win in a certain fight. When a fighter loses, no one says, "Well, he lost, so BJJ sucks". The blame is always placed on the fighter. And even if a certain fighter performed all his moves well, he can still lose to someone who is using the same discipline, or one who uses something completely different (maybe wrestling, or muay-thai, for example).

You are the only person I've come across who thinks it does anything close to, "illegitimizing" martial arts.

I have heard innumerable people enthused by UFC dismiss "traditional" martial arts whose objections aren't relevant to UFC competition / entertainment; also on this forum! UFC discredits these in the minds of those watching. 

Re: Martial Arts
November 22, 2009, 11:42:59 PM
When I asked my old Kung Fu teacher why you never see Kung Fu masters compete, he said that they have nothing to prove.
They may not compete often but they do demonstrations which are as bad as any publicized fight. Also don't forget that many UFC fighters don't do MMA but a 'legitimate' martial art. Ever notice how many Brazilians are in the league? Many of them are jujitsu fighters with minimal training outside of that.

Those "bad" presentations are simply North American interpretations of the arts at hand; another reason to unequivocally object to U F C.

Re: Martial Arts
November 23, 2009, 03:12:58 AM
It unintentionally illegitimizes martial arts that aren't "successful" in the ring (hence this debate)

How exactly does it do this?

One fighter using a certain martial art (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, for example) doesn't illegitimize the discipline if they don't win in a certain fight. When a fighter loses, no one says, "Well, he lost, so BJJ sucks". The blame is always placed on the fighter. And even if a certain fighter performed all his moves well, he can still lose to someone who is using the same discipline, or one who uses something completely different (maybe wrestling, or muay-thai, for example).

You are the only person I've come across who thinks it does anything close to, "illegitimizing" martial arts.

I have heard innumerable people enthused by UFC dismiss "traditional" martial arts whose objections aren't relevant to UFC competition / entertainment; also on this forum! UFC discredits these in the minds of those watching. 

Solution: Don't talk to morons

Re: Martial Arts
November 23, 2009, 03:56:37 AM
When I asked my old Kung Fu teacher why you never see Kung Fu masters compete, he said that they have nothing to prove.
They may not compete often but they do demonstrations which are as bad as any publicized fight. Also don't forget that many UFC fighters don't do MMA but a 'legitimate' martial art. Ever notice how many Brazilians are in the league? Many of them are jujitsu fighters with minimal training outside of that.

Those "bad" presentations are simply North American interpretations of the arts at hand; another reason to unequivocally object to U F C.

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean.

Re: Martial Arts
November 23, 2009, 04:54:56 PM
Let's be honest, there's too much macho soap opera in UFC.

I better liked PRIDE and early UFC.

Re: Martial Arts
November 24, 2009, 02:44:49 AM
Let's be honest, there's too much macho soap opera in UFC.

I better liked PRIDE and early UFC.

While I did enjoy Pride more than I currently do the UFC, let's not pretend that Pride wasn't full of their own drama queens. I'm sure you remember all the quarrels Chute Boxe has had with people. Rampage Jackson, and of course, the overdone introductions for their fighters.

Besides, once they're fighting, who really cares about the things that happen before and after?