wats a troll

wats a troll

LMFAO

*Hugs*

---

I'm sure I'm not the only one staring at their screen in carp disbelief right now.

lol'd & agreed

Ok, thread partially derailed.
Post the ultimate Martia Art.

I vote for the german school of fencing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_scho...rdsmanship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

No matter how many matches you win in the octagon if you can't beat the element of surprise and a shovel then you aren't a true martial artist. If someone is actually trying to kill you I think there is no way you are going to win with karate or judo.

Martial arts are rather outdated by now. They were not designed for use against modern weapons. And against the thing about surprise and a good shovel, well, theoretically, training in martial arts should also include training in detecting someone sneaking up behind you. At least, that's what used to be part of the training.

It takes entirely too long to apply this technique. Also, it is completely useless against someone with a bladed weapon. I've been studying ninjutsu for a while now. I've also had experience in some other styles and my conclusion is that it is easier to teach a technique to defend against attackers than it is to teach one technique for a fist, and one for knives, and one for sticks, etc. Learning one thing repeatedly is easier than learning more then one thing repeatedly.

We're kids who have to go to school and stuff. Consider that initially, martial artists trained all day without needing to worry about much else.

---

No matter how many matches you win in the octagon if you can't beat the element of surprise and a shovel then you aren't a true martial artist. If someone is actually trying to kill you I think there is no way you are going to win with karate or judo.

Martial arts are rather outdated by now. They were not designed for use against modern weapons. And against the thing about surprise and a good shovel, well, theoretically, training in martial arts should also include training in detecting someone sneaking up behind you. At least, that's what used to be part of the training.

It takes entirely too long to apply this technique. Also, it is completely useless against someone with a bladed weapon. I've been studying ninjutsu for a while now. I've also had experience in some other styles and my conclusion is that it is easier to teach a technique to defend against attackers than it is to teach one technique for a fist, and one for knives, and one for sticks, etc. Learning one thing repeatedly is easier than learning more then one thing repeatedly.

We're kids who have to go to school and stuff. Consider that initially, martial artists trained all day without needing to worry about much else.

So far, the only martial art that I have seen acknowledge techniques of perception is ninjutsu. Also, even though most people don't have time to train my point still stands. I think when you look at a martial art, you should pay more attention to the conditions they were created in.

Ok, thread partially derailed.
Post the ultimate Martia Art.

I vote for the german school of fencing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_scho...rdsmanship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

So far, the only martial art that I have seen acknowledge techniques of perception is ninjutsu. Also, even though most people don't have time to train my point still stands. I think when you look at a martial art, you should pay more attention to the conditions they were created in.

I'm referring to the part which says it's "easier" to learn... when first developed, martial arts were something a person can devote his entire life to, trying to perfect it. Because people could devote all their time to it, that's why it became so complex, so it would have more depth. Learning a single move... well, it would work the first time, maybe more, but people would catch on.

The idea of teaching techniques for various equipment is that different things function differently. Techniques learnt for a light sword could also apply for a stick, techniques learnt for a heavy sword could apply for a baseball bat, etc. but not the other way round. The objective is to have a full comprehensive education so that one could handle any situation one comes across. Learning one single technique, as mentioned earlier, has limits.

Nowadays, the purpose of martial arts is totally different, that's why the focus has changed. Since you would be defending yourself against a random person that chances are, you won't ever be seeing again, a small amount of generic techniques will do to save your life.

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

It's just like the ultimate Beyblade~

---

krav maga this marial art teches you how to fight modern day

So far, the only martial art that I have seen acknowledge techniques of perception is ninjutsu. Also, even though most people don't have time to train my point still stands. I think when you look at a martial art, you should pay more attention to the conditions they were created in.

I'm referring to the part which says it's "easier" to learn... when first developed, martial arts were something a person can devote his entire life to, trying to perfect it. Because people could devote all their time to it, that's why it became so complex, so it would have more depth. Learning a single move... well, it would work the first time, maybe more, but people would catch on.

The idea of teaching techniques for various equipment is that different things function differently. Techniques learnt for a light sword could also apply for a stick, techniques learnt for a heavy sword could apply for a baseball bat, etc. but not the other way round. The objective is to have a full comprehensive education so that one could handle any situation one comes across. Learning one single technique, as mentioned earlier, has limits.

Nowadays, the purpose of martial arts is totally different, that's why the focus has changed. Since you would be defending yourself against a random person that chances are, you won't ever be seeing again, a small amount of generic techniques will do to save your life.

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

It's just like the ultimate Beyblade~

You are right about the fact that martial arts change because martial arts are used for different purposes now. However, these changes are not positive. A lot of the techniques taught now will most likely get you killed in a situation where the opponent is trying to kill you. You are also right that most people don't have time to train to perfection, but my point is not that people can do it. My point is that even if someone did have this time they couldn't do it because of that complexity you mentioned. The reason that martial arts became so complex is because after times of war, there was no use for these martial arts. Over time people added things and such that they thought needed improvement. However more often than not these things added were taking away from the art, not adding. This is because they didn't know what actual warfare was like. Originally everything you learned was for a reason. But since people couldn't see the reasons they began to do it their own way. Also, in reference to what you said about weapons. I do not agree, but I see why you would think this way. When I say that teaching the same way to do it with every weapon, what I am focusing on is not the weapon. I mean to say that the movements your body makes should be the same no matter what weapon you use. I think you probably will still see things your way, but I can't really explain this too well without showing you. You said using one technique wouldn't work with all styles or that it would work for the first time. It is not just one technique. It is all techniques of a style, but they can ALL be applied to any weapon. The concepts I am talking about are mostly from ninjutsu or the other nine takamatsu-den schools. Their concepts vary from most martial arts, or at least the way those martial arts are now. When I said to look at the conditions where the styles were created I think I should have been more clear. I'll give an example. Karate was created in Okinawa. Okinawa is an island. It was created for the purpose of defending against samurai who were coming to the island. Most punches in Karate look like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=p0AoHQjUdos
Now that works against samurai who are slowed down by their 80 lb of armor. But that will not work against someone who is trying to stab you with a switchblade. Another example: Muay Thai. When Muay Thai was created training consisted of you attacking stuff until your bones broke and then they healed back stronger than before. Doing this meant that you could only fight up until about age 23. Ludicrous? But, it was fine because the reason they did it was to earn enough money by fighting to support their familes.

The statement in bold is not only coming from me, but an ancient martial arts researcher who is studying about what changes were made through history, why, and how come they are taking away from the original techniques. He is a personal translator for Hatsumi Masaaki, the ninja grandmaster of the world. I'd list his other titles but I am lazy. Lets just say he taught my class once and he was amazing.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

You're taking that a little more seriously than I had intended, but in that case: no style will defeat multiple opponents that are close to a match for the loner in a one-on-one basis, and whom have any idea what they're doing.
There is no effective defense against a significant enough tactical disadvantage.

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

You're taking that a little more seriously than I had intended, but in that case: no style will defeat multiple opponents that are close to a match for the loner in a one-on-one basis, and whom have any idea what they're doing.
There is no effective defense against a significant enough tactical disadvantage.

Actually in ninjutsu, they teach that a lot of the times, fighting more than one opponent can be an advantage.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

You're taking that a little more seriously than I had intended, but in that case: no style will defeat multiple opponents that are close to a match for the loner in a one-on-one basis, and whom have any idea what they're doing.
There is no effective defense against a significant enough tactical disadvantage.

Actually in ninjutsu, they teach that a lot of the times, fighting more than one opponent can be an advantage.

Maybe against inferior opponents, or those who can't coordinate their efforts, sure.

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

You're taking that a little more seriously than I had intended, but in that case: no style will defeat multiple opponents that are close to a match for the loner in a one-on-one basis, and whom have any idea what they're doing.
There is no effective defense against a significant enough tactical disadvantage.

Actually in ninjutsu, they teach that a lot of the times, fighting more than one opponent can be an advantage.

Maybe against inferior opponents, or those who can't coordinate their efforts, sure.

Karate teches you how to fight against more then one opponet, thats wat katas are for

You are right about the fact that martial arts change because martial arts are used for different purposes now. However, these changes are not positive. A lot of the techniques taught now will most likely get you killed in a situation where the opponent is trying to kill you. You are also right that most people don't have time to train to perfection, but my point is not that people can do it. My point is that even if someone did have this time they couldn't do it because of that complexity you mentioned.

That, I've no idea about. I don't have experience with "modern" martial arts.

The reason that martial arts became so complex is because after times of war, there was no use for these martial arts. Over time people added things and such that they thought needed improvement. However more often than not these things added were taking away from the art, not adding. This is because they didn't know what actual warfare was like. Originally everything you learned was for a reason. But since people couldn't see the reasons they began to do it their own way.

I don't think I can agree about that.

Example is the Chinese Broadsword as compared to the... I've no idea how to translate it, but in Chinese martial arts, the 4 great weapon categories are Broadsword, um... Thin Sword? Spear and Pole. There's also a "misc" but usually it isn't referred to.

The broad sword was designed with soldier training in mind. With a heavy and thick sword, all they needed to learn was how to slash, since generally there was no time to train a massive army to use it with great finesse. However, the better pugilists developed broadsword technique to a point where it could be used much more efficiently than just hacking and slashing. This wasn't for warfare- it was a more personal thing.

What I can agree with, though, is the future after that. After the periods of unstability, martial arts slowly became a performance art. Initially, it was designed to look like a performance to fool other clans and hide their true techniques. But slowly, it deteriorated. Even in recent times, if you observe the weapons, manufacturing quality has been dropping and weight of weapons also decreased since they did not need to be strong and have mass, but were just for show, so it was alright to have light weapons. Comparing one from, say, 50 years ago, and one bought recently, the difference is very evident. A lot of "flowery" moves were added to show off athletic prowess, even if they weren't effective for fighting.

[i]Edit: I realize that this might also be because I studied with a rather different school. I'm making my points based on what I understand from the history of China and its martial arts, but the education you've received is non-Chinese, and I suppose the history is probably rather different too.

Also, in reference to what you said about weapons. I do not agree, but I see why you would think this way. When I say that teaching the same way to do it with every weapon, what I am focusing on is not the weapon. I mean to say that the movements your body makes should be the same no matter what weapon you use. I think you probably will still see things your way, but I can't really explain this too well without showing you. You said using one technique wouldn't work with all styles or that it would work for the first time. It is not just one technique. It is all techniques of a style, but they can ALL be applied to any weapon. The concepts I am talking about are mostly from ninjutsu or the other nine takamatsu-den schools. Their concepts vary from most martial arts, or at least the way those martial arts are now.

Yup that's probably difference in education then. Although I can understand punching training being applied to, say, a pair of sai, to be honest, I really cannot see how, for example, a sword technique could be applied to a pole, since the holding method, range, weight balance, etc. are all very different.

When I said to look at the conditions where the styles were created I think I should have been more clear. I'll give an example. Karate was created in Okinawa. Okinawa is an island. It was created for the purpose of defending against samurai who were coming to the island. Most punches in Karate look like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=p0AoHQjUdos
Now that works against samurai who are slowed down by their 80 lb of armor. But that will not work against someone who is trying to stab you with a switchblade. Another example: Muay Thai. When Muay Thai was created training consisted of you attacking stuff until your bones broke and then they healed back stronger than before. Doing this meant that you could only fight up until about age 23. Ludicrous? But, it was fine because the reason they did it was to earn enough money by fighting to support their familes.

Sorry... I don't understand the point here? Would appreciate if you could restate...

---

This style cannot be the ultimate style. How would one win against multiple opponents when using a style like this? This is just one of the flaws I see.

You're taking that a little more seriously than I had intended, but in that case: no style will defeat multiple opponents that are close to a match for the loner in a one-on-one basis, and whom have any idea what they're doing.
There is no effective defense against a significant enough tactical disadvantage.

Actually in ninjutsu, they teach that a lot of the times, fighting more than one opponent can be an advantage.

Maybe against inferior opponents, or those who can't coordinate their efforts, sure.

I can't think of a way of countering your statement. But to be honest, I would not feel safe about me and my whole class attacking my teacher with knives.

To Nic:
I was just clarifying what I meant about looking at the conditions that the martial arts were created under. For Karate, the Okinawans had time to punch this way because their opponents were weighed down by amror. But nowadays the punch is taught the same way except opponents aren't usually wearing armor. Also, I am sorry, but I can't explain what I mean with the same thing for every weapon in words. If we ever meet I'd be more than happy to. About what you said about the sai, I think I understand a lot of your points thanks to this. I guess since we have completely different backgrounds (China and Japan) this is probably why our opinions are different. I think Bruce Lee once said, "Put every great teacher together in a room, and they'd agree about everything; put their disciples in there and they'd argue about everything." I'd like to learn more about Chinese fighting styles. I guess I will try if I ever have free time.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

I was just clarifying what I meant about looking at the conditions that the martial arts were created under. For Karate, the Okinawans had time to punch this way because their opponents were weighed down by amror. But nowadays the punch is taught the same way except opponents aren't usually wearing armor.

Oh I see... admittedly, I had no idea that it was that way. In that light, then I would have to agree with that point.

Anyway, wouldn't that work even if the person was not wearing armour? What exactly is the difference between karate punches and other punches? I'm not sure about other styles, but other than aiming downwards it is very similar to punches in a large number of Chinese martial arts, in that it begins palms up first, and twists while punching, and these styles were designed for normal use...

Also, I am sorry, but I can't explain what I mean with the same thing for every weapon in words. If we ever meet I'd be more than happy to.

I suppose it's more of a concepts thing? The "usage" of the thing, rather than the technique then?

About what you said about the sai, I think I understand a lot of your points thanks to this. I guess since we have completely different backgrounds (China and Japan) this is probably why our opinions are different. I think Bruce Lee once said, "Put every great teacher together in a room, and they'd agree about everything; put their disciples in there and they'd argue about everything." I'd like to learn more about Chinese fighting styles. I guess I will try if I ever have free time.

XDDDDDD I so love that quote.

I think, in Western countries it is very very difficult to find good instructors on Chinese styles. In fact, even in Asia it's already rather difficult... good luck with it! You shouldn't have very much difficulty.

---

I was referring more to the "horse" (or at least thats what they call it" position that they get into when the punch. I think it takes entirely too long to do. You know, I enjoy this discussion. Usually when I try to have a conversation about this people try to force me to have their opinions. I enjoy this.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

I can't think of a way of countering your statement. But to be honest, I would not feel safe about me and my whole class attacking my teacher with knives.

I'm thinking that this is because you don't currently have a plan of attack for killing your teacher, and you consider what I assume to be their superior martial prowess to be a tactical disadvanatage. Is that right/close/way off?

Having thought about it, I can certainly see a point where the lines between strategy and technique become blurred, where it might well be possible to teach a method that is widely applicable and which, for instance, ensures that you are only available as a target for one member of a group at a time.

My original statement derives from my understanding that positioning and similar factors are not neccessarily part of a martial art, but rather part of strategies devised seperately from technique.
Honestly, I've never actually studied any particular martial art, so this may be a misconception on my part.

I was referring more to the "horse" (or at least thats what they call it" position that they get into when the punch. I think it takes entirely too long to do. You know, I enjoy this discussion. Usually when I try to have a conversation about this people try to force me to have their opinions. I enjoy this.

The horse stance? zhan ma right?

I'm pretty sure that applies to almost all asian martial arts, especially in Southern styles. In Northern styles, like I said, it's more... mobile, but in the South, stability is the focus. The "Horse" stance is the "neutral" stance and it's actually surprisingly fast. In fact, in the video, the stance is not very good; the knees should be almost perpendicular.

We call it si ping ma, "fourth stable horse". From this position, it is easy to change to other leg positions, and a lot of the changing of positions/movements are also designed to trip up opponents in very close quarter combat- while moving, the legs sweep along the ground so stability is maintained, and the perpendicular and low stance is for stability.

By right, you should be able to assume this pose almost immediately, and from a standing position to this pose, the leg sweep to "open out" can be coupled with arm movements and both should be able to move the opponent off balance.

I very much like this stance. It feels very stable and solid. It's really much harder to be knocked over and easier to knock another person over from this position.

I think maybe... in Karate, the focus of this stance has become wrong. I have no experience with Karate, but I find this stance to be very practical, more so than many other martial art stances.

---

I can't think of a way of countering your statement. But to be honest, I would not feel safe about me and my whole class attacking my teacher with knives.

I'm thinking that this is because you don't currently have a plan of attack for killing your teacher, and you consider what I assume to be their superior martial prowess to be a tactical disadvanatage. Is that right/close/way off?

Having thought about it, I can certainly see a point where the lines between strategy and technique become blurred, where it might well be possible to teach a method that is widely applicable and which, for instance, ensures that you are only available as a target for one member of a group at a time.

My original statement derives from my understanding that positioning and similar factors are not neccessarily part of a martial art, but rather part of strategies devised seperately from technique.
Honestly, I've never actually studied any particular martial art, so this may be a misconception on my part.

Technically a ninja shouldn't be in this dangerous position from the getgo. They were amazing milatary tacticians.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

Technically a ninja shouldn't be in this dangerous position from the getgo. They were amazing milatary tacticians.

Say, someone drugs a ninja with a sniper rifle using dart rounds, so he passes out, then surrounds him with...

---

Technically a ninja shouldn't be in this dangerous position from the getgo. They were amazing milatary tacticians.

Say, someone drugs a ninja with a sniper rifle using dart rounds, so he passes out, then surrounds him with...

The ninja should be fully aware that someone intends to do something like this, therefore should not put himself in a situation where this might happen.

This sounds almost impossible, but hey I have no intention of making believers out of anyone.

---

Credit for the avatar and sig go to Nic. THANK YOU!

START LIVING BEFORE YOU START DYING

The ninja should be fully aware that someone intends to do something like this, therefore should not put himself in a situation where this might happen.

This sounds almost impossible, but hey I have no intention of making believers out of anyone.

Ok, so let me get this right... if a ninja screws up, he's not considered a ninja?

---

wait, wasnt this a UFC thread?

wait, wasnt this a UFC thread?

Hijacked by ninjas when you didn't realize it. NINJA POWER.

---