Fighting skill-sets are utilitarian, what people think of as "art" is generally not so. Hence the confusion, where people try to have an artistic flair, in describing or constructing something better served by mechanical/tactical/strategic analysis, or statistical consideration.
Passion may drive fighting ability often, but physics and physiology rule the action and the results.
Alive and resistant training provides insight into what tools, and approaches actually have merit, and which just feels good to practice, or which things everyone seems to be saying. That article fails all round.
who writes this drivel? What have they been doing?
developing your curled fingers into a punching tool takes years of training.
It's the basic delusion of most people (well, men) who don't train, that they're somehow going to magically hulk out when the **** hits the fan.
Originally Posted by battlefields
I think it's to do with how overwhelming a proper adrenaline rush is internally, it seems incomprehensible that it wouldn't have a similarly titanic effect on the actual world.
Ahuh, and ofcourse the trained individual, who has had experience with adrenaline dump on regular basis (hard sparring & competition), will have trouble hulking out since he's gotten too comfortable from the sparring in a controlled environment and the safety of the gloves.
Originally Posted by PointyShinyBurn
(I've actually heard this from a few guys back in my Krav days, one of them became an instructor.)
Plus, those people are idiots. Or at least lack the guts to accept their own inadequacy with dealing with violence/fighting.
Originally Posted by PointyShinyBurn
(button in upper right corner) Settings> (left menu under My Account) General Settings > in Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40
Yeah, but part of that also has to do with the fact that these myths and mistakes can even creep into seemingly reliable sources. And sometimes, what we think is a truth or myth is actually something being debated by experts.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
For instance, in this article, they talk about Machiavelli's "The Prince" being a satire. I've asked multiple professors in the social sciences and other people who actually know what they are talking about, and the consensus is that there is no consensus.
No one is entirely sure one way or the other, but there is definitely substantial evidence to support either side. And, when something like this happens, obviously Cracked will choose the more interesting, surprising, or (in the case of their science related articles) fear mongering options.
I've seen Cracked's process of putting together articles and they are usually pretty good about getting credible sources... but only only on subjects people generally know what the good sources actually are. When it comes to martial arts, not only is there a lack of knowledge about what constitutes a "credible" source, but its arguable as to whether or not there even are "credible" resources.
Originally Posted by MrGalt
Though using a forum that isn't even about martial arts as a source is definitely a special kind of stupid (in the fourth entry about kicking, where they use a discussion on a god damn knife forum).
Also, on a side note, while the entirety of the article is pretty stupid, the third entry actually kind of confuses me. They talk about how when you fight you telegraph the **** out of yourself, leading your opponent to "easily be able to block or counter." But if thats true, doesn't literally everyone else do the exact same thing, then? Wouldn't there never be a single injury in any fight, in a ring or in the streetz, because everyone would be constantly blocking, countering, and blocking those counters like some sort of Wing Chun drill?
Oh well, at least they cited Cro Cop as a kicking expert, I guess.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO