230800 Bullies, 4224 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 19 of 19
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Gezere is offline
    Gezere's Avatar

    My guns bigger than Scrapper's!

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Rhineland Pfalz, Der Vaderland
    Posts
    10,587

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 5:39pm

    supporting member
     Style: Kakutogi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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!!!

    RIP SOLDIER

    Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
    -Gene, GODHAND

    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.
    -Daniel Tosh
  2. Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD is offline
    Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD's Avatar

    You are in a lot of trouble.

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,581

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 5:55pm

    supporting member
     Style: Twirling Foot Kung Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain ASIA
    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.
    Kim's claim about his art is bullshido.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hedgehogey
    FORM AN ACROBATIC BRIDGE ACROSS OMEGA'S GOOCH
    Quote Originally Posted by Kidspatula
    Bleep bleep blip bloop
  3. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,775

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 6:19pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  4. Lv1Sierpinski is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 6:38pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  5. Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD is offline
    Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD's Avatar

    You are in a lot of trouble.

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,581

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 6:50pm

    supporting member
     Style: Twirling Foot Kung Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR
    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.
    I get you. If you don't mind me backing out of the philosophical underpinnings and moving into observable phenomena, I'd just like to say it's my impression that, at least on these forums, the default position you speak of, that "LOL that art sucks" reaction here that so many whiners whined about in the "legitimate criticisms" thread, is there for other reasons than anyone here confusing art and claim in a message-board post.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hedgehogey
    FORM AN ACROBATIC BRIDGE ACROSS OMEGA'S GOOCH
    Quote Originally Posted by Kidspatula
    Bleep bleep blip bloop
  6. Hanniballistic is offline
    Hanniballistic's Avatar

    By the Hoary Hand of Hoggoth.....

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Qo'noS
    Posts
    2,166

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 6:55pm


     Style: JKD & Mok'bara

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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
  7. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,775

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 7:50pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD
    I get you. If you don't mind me backing out of the philosophical underpinnings and moving into observable phenomena, I'd just like to say it's my impression that, at least on these forums, the default position you speak of, that "LOL that art sucks" reaction here that so many whiners whined about in the "legitimate criticisms" thread, is there for other reasons than anyone here confusing art and claim in a message-board post.

    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.)
    I'd like to think that you're right on the money there, but IMO a lot of the dogma is simply the product of very casual research/investigation combined with a sort of martial xenophobia - "if it doesn't look like what I know, it's crap " - all of this amplified by repetition/feeding frenzy until it becomes "forum gospel".

    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.
    Absolutely, and the tongue-in-cheek, in-yer-face character of this site is a good thing, IMO. Phrost's "Aikido Sucks Month highlight video" is a case in point; no matter what you think of Aikido as a fighting style, it's a funny clip.

    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 .
  8. MoooveZiiig is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20

    Posted On:
    3/16/2007 9:05pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  9. AikiZenDragon is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    henderson, nc
    Posts
    488

    Posted On:
    3/18/2007 2:27am


     Style: Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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... ;-)
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.