Good answer. :)
Originally Posted by Physics_Nazi
KFC, you need to calm down a bit. I merely suggested that it's an insular attitude to ignore a technique that's proved to be workable (and without going into it, there's a lot more to jabs than scoring points) just because it might not be found historically in CMA. You might want to think about why such a suggestion provoked such an extreme reaction out of you.
And regarding reversing the logic to pi quan, that's exactly my point. Effective arts adapt workable techniques from other sources.
Wasn't Virus a ninja once upon a time?
Big flaws in your anaolgy. BJJ is a part of MMA, nobody can do well without including BJJ. Kung fu isn't anything in MMA even though kung fu has striking as a major component. It's a fair question as the OP was asking how kungfu can be put on the map as a viable system, and to me the reason people won't take it seriosuly is becuase it got left behind in the evolution of MMA. Is that not pertinant to the discussion?
Originally Posted by Virus
Yet there is a flaw in yours. Kung fu won't ever be accepted because, everyone has their notion of how Kung Fu looks.
Kung fu teachers are to insular like, bornsceptic has said.
Lets not mix respect for viable they aren't mutually exclusive. You can have one without the other.
Viable means working and Kung Fu does work. God I hate saying that.
Now for it to be respected it has to do well in fighting competition outside of sanda or sanshou.
Or, sanda and sanshou need to become popular for it to be respected.
Originally Posted by Virus
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, as a grappling methodology, is for learning mostly groundwork. There are others. Now, you can argue until the nuts you are ridding are blue that BJJ is the best way. However, the fact remains that more than a few people have successfully competed in MMA without following BJJ's methodology. They just happened to have followed a different methodology for learning ground work (such as Catch, Shoot, Sambo, Judo, etc ... and perhaps even crappling, LOL).
Yes I agree that I was incorrect when I said that you need BJJ.
I guess the question to ask is "What does CMA bring to the table the other styles do not or what do they do better than other styles?", and in what venues can those attributes be show cased in?
*I understand the term CMA is very broad, I use that only because I'm unfamiliar with CMA in general.
Kung-fu may not be a popular art for use in MMA circles Virus but it can be effective depending on who is doing it and how they are taught. KF has many, many systems. Some are better than others. You have the opinion that KF sux... cool, but is that opinion based on your experience or on someone elses? I ask again have you sparred KF guys? how would you know? comparing the average KF guy to MMA professionals is, to put it simply, stupid.
"Kung fu won't ever be accepted because, everyone has their notion of how Kung Fu looks."
this is a huge problem... KF does not look like anything in particular (except in forms) it can look like MT, Judo.... many many guises. As has been basically said already... KF does not need to look like the movies to be KF.... there may be different methods and stratagies employed but often it does not look overly dis-similar to other arts in application....
The problem does exist that much KF these days has adapted to ends other than pugilistic ones.... fine they can do that if they like. Really comparing KF that only do forms and very limited partner stuff to other KF that trains for fighting is like comparing Tae Bo to kickboxing... or even Muay Thai.
Anyway at the end of the day many people who box/ train MMA don't follow it to the professional level.... no different to KF.... in every art there are those that can fight and those that can't fight...
See I think that's a bullshit line of reasoning. I realize that no matter what style I train in I'm not going to be a top level or even a good fighter, I don't however let that be an excuse to train in a style that doesn't produce good fighters. While I believe that fighting is a talent like drawing or singing, and that some people are gifted with the natural ability, it is the style that produces good fighters, it's not just that the style attracts good fighters. For an example I used to study mcdojo karate, and switched to boxing, I believe that switching to boxing made me a better fighter than had I stayed in karate.
Originally Posted by Mut Sao
Last edited by ojgsxr6; 2/05/2007 7:33pm at .
Reason: Reworded for clarity.
Originally Posted by ojgsxr6
What can it bring to the table and/or better? Absolutely nothing.
(I'm not joking.)
It's just a methodology intended to train the same/similar things as many other approaches. The venues its approach can be showcased in are no different than the venues for other methodologies. Of course, there are varying degrees of "fit" depending on the ruleset and what in particular a given approach concentrates on.
It's just the whole shebang is out of balance. It appears to me that many high level practitioners who have taught other approaches for extended periods of time seem to understand the problems a purely "competition mindset" can bring to training. CMA seems to have gone too far swinging the pendulum the other way.
Now, as more and more CMA types start to come out of the woodwork understanding how CMA is out of balance in this fashion, they will start to compete and succeed more. Of course, because it's been out of balance for so long, you'll also see quite a few spectacular failures in such venues.
One of my neighbors painted their house a color I can only describe as "Pepto Bismol Pink". I personally think the color atrocious and lowers the value of their house, my house, and the rest of our neighbors houses. But, someone bought that house and others bought some of the neighboring houses for a fair market value. So, technically I'm quite wrong about the color no matter how much disdain I might have for it.
The MA journey through life is no different than many other things. What road a person takes is more about what someone prefers ... and quite a bit of randomness in what someone stumbles across in their journey through life which makes a person pick one road over the other. Sometimes it's the wrong road. But, most of the time it's probably just different regardless of how many people think that road might be the wrong one.
For ever boxer who "wins" in the boxing ring using boxing, another loses. But the one who lost is not usually ridiculed as having an inferior methodology. I think that's purely because boxing, as a MA approach, is not out of balance.
(Okay, I'll stop here before I start writing in Yoda verse. I'm even beginning to annoy myself with this and that's never a good sign. :smile:)
Last edited by Tom Kagan; 2/05/2007 7:45pm at .
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO