3/16/2007 5:39pm, #11
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Rhineland Pfalz, Der Vaderland
Actually you can claim Bullshido on both the practice and the art.
Example Ashida Kim's art bing Koga Ryu Ninjutsu is BULLSHIDO.
The practice of Ryukyu kyushojutsu as a mystical no touch thing is also BULLSHIDO.______
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!
Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
3/16/2007 5:55pm, #12Originally Posted by Captain ASIA
But look, this is just semantics. I suppose it's possible that an art is just bullshido from the ground up, because from day one it was designed for self-defense but didn't include anything that worked, or if an originator (say Kim) falsified its history and lineage and stuff from the get-go, or if its based on a bunch of medeival hokum about phantom "energies" that can't be observed or measured.
For me, at least, focusing on the claim is important re: this site, because the claim is what you can test. It's just that simple. Anything else is (often self-serving) rhetoric and (frequently two-bit) philosophy, at best, or just noise and clutter. Does it make you a better fighter? Then test that. Fight. Does it give you the power to shoot energy around? Well, fuckin' call up James Randi and hook your ass up to an energy-o-meter and make a damn fool out of yourself.Originally Posted by HedgehogeyOriginally Posted by Kidspatula
3/16/2007 6:19pm, #13
The claim and the art are, obviously, separate things.
I can make a Bullshido claim about a legit art - "boxing punches don't work in the ring"
A legit claim about a Bullshido art - "Yellow Bamboo is a combination of fraudulency and hyper-suggestability"
A legit claim about a legit art - "boxing punches have been proven to work in countless boxing matches over the past two hundred years"
A Bullshido claim about a Bullshido art - "Yellow Bamboo practitioners can knock you down with telekinesis".
My point above was that if we confuse the claim with the art, we end up generalizing and that's a weak position, lacking credibility; all the bullshit artist has to do is find a loophole or an exception. If that confusion becomes a knee-jerk, dogmatic response, or a default position - "Aikido sucks" - then the skeptic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and opening himself to ridicule.
3/16/2007 6:38pm, #14
- Join Date
- May 2006
If at the end of the day your last response is "prove it"...then you can't go wrong, because ultimately we're interested in claims about actual physical results. To claim that an art is building one's chi potential is fine, it may or it may not...but the second you jump to that chi potential's effect on the physical world, i.e. move something, knock someone down, etc. then it's out there, and you can't get it back.
3/16/2007 6:50pm, #15Originally Posted by DdlR
Posters here are conditioned to deliver knee-jerk responses regarding certain claims and certain disciplines in large part, I think, because time and time again the practitioners of those arts have failed to either put up or shut up. (And I know you didn't make the connection between the "legitimate criticisms," at least explicitly -- I admit building on your post to make a point and hope nobody thinks I'm putting words in your mouth or, er, on your keyboard.)
Another point worth making regarding the dogmatic responses on this site in particular is that they're often delivered in a tongue-in-cheek way. That's been a component of the site's personality from day one, and I have no sympathy for those who can't parse that stuff and spaz out or whine at every perceived slight. If nothing else, being able to logically process information is a useful skill to have when looking for bullshido practices, and detecting context and nuance is a big part of that.Originally Posted by HedgehogeyOriginally Posted by Kidspatula
3/16/2007 6:55pm, #16
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- JKD & Mok'bara
There is an interesting systema debate on the go at the moment that reflects a lot of what is being posted - the Sytematics who are responding currently (Jellyman et al) have a much more coherent and logical method to their posting and systema is slowly becoming not entirely bullshido - or worth a second look at the very least.
If an art promises something it does not or cannot deliver = bullshido
If an instructor fabricates fights or background = bullshido
Anything that uses "no contact" KO's = bullshido
That is pretty much how I read it. I won't call XMA bullshido for example because it makes no attempts to present itself as a combat form - the day it does is the day it becomes bullshido
3/16/2007 7:50pm, #17Originally Posted by Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD
Honestly, I don't see this as a problem for the experienced and, dare I say, mature people here, who should be able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I do see it as a problem for youngsters who confuse their own limited experience (and Internet discussions) with the way the world actually works; it can also be a credibility problem for the site itself, as has been discussed in the "Legitimate Criticism" thread.
Another point worth making regarding the dogmatic responses on this site in particular is that they're often delivered in a tongue-in-cheek way. That's been a component of the site's personality from day one, and I have no sympathy for those who can't parse that stuff and spaz out or whine at every perceived slight. If nothing else, being able to logically process information is a useful skill to have when looking for bullshido practices, and detecting context and nuance is a big part of that.
On the other hand, there's a significant difference between "you shouldn't say that, it's mean" and "OK, back up your criticism with proof." This leads back into the tactic of calling Bullshido on specific, refutable claims rather than generalizing about entire arts; the exceptions being when the entire art is founded on pseudoscience (Yellow Bamboo's chi power knockdowns) or outright fraud (Ashida Kim) or both, which might partly answer the OP's question.
I don't really expect this to change - there are only so many Ashidas and Yellow Bamboos out there to expose, which leaves Bullshido.net with a lot of time and energy to spare - but I would have to say that some of the recent threads in this Forum, including this one and the Systema thread Hannibal referred to, are encouraging.
Last edited by DdlR; 3/16/2007 8:02pm at .
3/16/2007 9:05pm, #18
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
I do not believe most serious art can be considered Bullshido. Chi blasting stuff set aside, all arts have at the very least a part of truth and usefulness in it.
However, how it is taught, by who, for how much can and will lead to Bullshido. Any school that do not give what they say they do are bullshido schools.
For example, a TMA school saying it "bases itself on knowing yourself through the practice of Kung Fu, learning forms and having a safe and healthy workout" would not be bullshido. It would not be very good MARTIAL ARTS, but it wouldn't be bullshit, per se. The same quote, adding "and become the best asskicker in the universe in month with illegal stuff they don't use in the UFC/Prime" is bullshido.
For example, Ninjitsu was used to a deadly extent and I'm sure there are a few Ninjitsu schools that aren't trash, but most Ninjutsu? Bullshido. Aikido suffers from this as well, as well as many arts.
It is sad, because there would be stuff to be learnt from these arts.
3/18/2007 2:27am, #19
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- henderson, nc
good posts from all... what you train, who you train with, how you train, why you train... all these are cogent to a discussion of the bullshido factor... but saying that it is provable by "taking it to the mat" is also problematic since even great fighters of "proven" arts have fallen... does matt hughes loss invalidate wrestling and make it bullshido since he couldn't "put up"?... of course not... we must use our minds to evaluate the strengths of the techniques and tactics of any given art to see if they are fundamentally sound regardless of a particular person's display of the art... a crappy wrestler doesn't mean wrestling is crappy nor does a kick ass aikidoka mean aikido kicks ass... how we phrase the debate and the terms we use must be done with care to avoid over use of generalizations or absolutes... i think all arts have some degree of technical efficiency, but training and instruction can really screw it up... garbage in... garbage out...
oh and aikido kicks ass... ;-)