I'm not surprised that many Shotokan practitioners actually do full contact fighting, and there are certainly good Shotokan fighters out there. I suspect that (like KM) it's a result of quality control problems in the art and not a problem of the art itself.
We know that Mr. Miyagi wasn't Bullshidoing Daniel-San.
Daniel-San would have been murdered if it was a mixed style tourney.
P.S, lets not even get into the whole, it's not the style it's the fighter debate. Considering that this tangent started off of my post on my disliked arts, im rather surprised you hav'nt asked my why I dont like them, intead of assuming I base it on effectiveness.
Weird less wordy but exactly what you just said minus semantics. His stance is shoto based and some of his counter punching is shoto based. It is as I said Highly altered hence why it is called Machida Karate not Machida's Shotokan or other derivative IMO..Quote:
No, his son does a highly altered form.
You are twisting your own words as I have not spoken about him winning fights, that it is his primary style, or that he used it consistently to KO anyone. That's you putting previous debates, with a shotokan nutrider, on me. Style debate? Did I not say Lyoto's Shotokan was highly altered?Quote:
A bunch of dumbshit because, I want to argue an opinion you never addressed. Oh and a bunch of straw.
Why, Yes I did.
So are you debating his use of Shoto, or the content of his use of Shoto with me here? Because by your logic, he is in fact not using shoto, he's using sumo with striking, or is it BJJ with striking, maybe MT with wrestling and submissions and some linear striking.
Oh boy I got the idiot poster to return didn't I? You really don't like when your opinion is in question. I have not addressed your list nor have I come close to this terrible assumption on your part:
I didn't read your list until you got testy.Quote:
im rather surprised you hav'nt asked my why I dont like them, intead of assuming I base it on effectiveness.
Take the nutrider fighter pants off and show me exactly where we disagree. No, not using semantics, not strawman arguments, not assumptions, not a rant exactly and logically where we disagree.