218358 Bullies, 7740 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 41 to 50 of 132
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345 6789 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. GBLS is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    22

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 9:27pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Wow, so I'm actually practicing to break bamboo chestplate armour? I had no idea! All I knew about our punches, honestly, is that they're effective for punching bags and knocking the wind out of me. I thought their ultimate purpose might be something like breaking jaws or teeth not breastplates, but I suppose I could be mistaken.

    One is inclined to wonder, however, why on Earth someone would face an armed and armoured man empty-handed.
    Because you dropped your sword. Because you are a peasant and not permitted to carry weapons. KARA-TE. Empty Hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Show me a martial art that doesn't pay attention to balance. I'm still fairly new to the world of martial arts, so I'll be fascinated.
    Fake ones

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    What does this mean?
    It means if you focus on using the weapon then you will forget to headbutt when it is most needed. Focus on your enemy's weapon and you wont see the punch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Obviously the test must be regarded in an "all other things being equal" context. Can a person with roughly X hours of Bujinkan training beat a person with roughly X hours of BJJ training, or MT training, or Classical Ballet training? Pair up contestants of roughly equivalent weight, record the results, and repeat over and over again. With equal ability, the woman facing a male adversary twice her size will lose ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
    Consider that no fight in the history of fighting has ever been equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    As for multiple-opponent scenarios -- much as I enjoy multiple-opponent drills when we do them because they are fun and physically intense, my conclusion so far is that what you need to tackle multiple opponents is one part awareness and a hundred parts ability to take out the nearest one really goddamn fast because you can't fight several people at the same time. This leads me to conclude that a good art for multiple opponents is one that works well against a single opponent, without compromising one's position (id est, that doesn't end up with me on the ground at the end of it).
    See my comment above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    There's a world of difference between "no art can prepare you fully" and "no art can possibly be better than any other art".
    If you are doing an art for combat then you are not competing - that is a sport.

    TC
  2. Petter is offline

    12th level logic wielder

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,964

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 9:40pm


     Style: BJJ, judo, rapier

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GBLS
    Because you dropped your sword. Because you are a peasant and not permitted to carry weapons. KARA-TE. Empty Hand.
    Originally, KARA-TE: Tang Dynasty ("Chinese") Hand. Some karate systems practice weapons.

    If you mean to suggest that Okinawan farmers actually attacked armed and armoured samurai without wielding so much as an agricultural implement, I suggest a reality check.

    If my shaky Japanese martial arts history is accurate, the battlefield art of the samurai, which included some unarmed techniques, eventually developed into jujutsu -- a lineage completely separate from that of karate, which is a marriage between Chinese and indigenous Okinawan (to-de) fighting systems, so "dropping swords" is probably not very relevant.

    Every reasonable explanation I have heard suggests that karate originated (and remains, insofar as it is a martial art) not an art for the battlefield but for civil defence, i.e. against a ruffian trying to get the drop on you or punk in a bar.

    Fake ones
    Meaning that Bujinkan's paying attention to balance doesn't mean anything special, because every martial art pays attention to balance.

    Consider that no fight in the history of fighting has ever been equal.
    So what is it, exactly, that you propose? That with Bujinkan Ninjutsu, a weaker person is better than a stronger person? That small people will always be beaten by big people, so it doesn't matter if a martial art is effective or not?

    I am suggesting that if a fighting system works well against an otherwise-equally matched opponent, it will probably be of some value against even a physically superior one. If it works extremely well, it may even the odds. If you fail in the ring against someone no bigger than yourself, what hopes do you have against a bigger, stronger opponent?

    If you are doing an art for combat then you are not competing - that is a sport.
    If a martial art is not tested, then you cannot know whether it is effective or not, and certainly hearsay from people who have manifestly invented fictitious lineage for their martial art of choice is not a reputable source even should they claim evidence for testing.

    Certainly there are differences between sport fighting and real-life self defence, but I am willing to posit that there is at the very least a strong correlation between the ability to defend yourself against real attackers and the ability to defend yourself against a sportfighter in the ring. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
  3. Goju - Joe is offline
    Goju - Joe's Avatar

    I am a Ninja bitches!! Deal with it

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,856

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 9:48pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Improv comedy

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    If you are doing an art for combat then you are not competing - that is a sport.
    Warrior groups, from Roman soldiers, Samurai, Medieval Knights and so forth have always had ways of doing non lethal (sport) competition and have used these methods in training.

    Always
  4. Petter is offline

    12th level logic wielder

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,964

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 9:49pm


     Style: BJJ, judo, rapier

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Soju - Joe
    Warrior groups, from Roman soldiers, Samurai, Medieval Knights and so forth have always had ways of doing non lethal (sport) competition and have used these methods in training.
    It does offer certain advantages over lethal training methods.
  5. GBLS is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    22

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 10:03pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Originally, KARA-TE: Tang Dynasty ("Chinese") Hand. Some karate systems practice weapons.

    If you mean to suggest that Okinawan farmers actually attacked armed and armoured samurai without wielding so much as an agricultural implement, I suggest a reality check.
    If they dropped their weapon in battle then they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Meaning that Bujinkan's paying attention to balance doesn't mean anything special, because every martial art pays attention to balance.
    I have never said it was special.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    So what is it, exactly, that you propose? That with Bujinkan Ninjutsu, a weaker person is better than a stronger person? That small people will always be beaten by big people, so it doesn't matter if a martial art is effective or not?
    No I am suggesting that fighting is unfair. People practice martial arts to get an unfair advantage. People gang up to get an unfair advantage. Therefore there is no way that anyone can say that their martial art is better because someone will always have an unfair advantage. I have seen 3rd Dans that are lesser martial artists than 1st Dan and I am certain that a female bodybuilder can out lift anything I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    I am suggesting that if a fighting system works well against an otherwise-equally matched opponent, it will probably be of some value against even a physically superior one. If it works extremely well, it may even the odds. If you fail in the ring against someone no bigger than yourself, what hopes do you have against a bigger, stronger opponent?

    If a martial art is not tested, then you cannot know whether it is effective or not, and certainly hearsay from people who have manifestly invented fictitious lineage for their martial art of choice is not a reputable source even should they claim evidence for testing.
    So to determine this you would need a fight - no holds barred - to the death. Who would enter such a competition? Would the results make you change to Bujinkan if it won? Against overwhelming odds? Would you doubt your years of training?

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Certainly there are differences between sport fighting and real-life self defence, but I am willing to posit that there is at the very least a strong correlation between the ability to defend yourself against real attackers and the ability to defend yourself against a sportfighter in the ring. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
    I strongly disagree.

    In Martial arts tournaments a Tae Kwon Do roundhouse kick is considered a hit even if it misses. Some moves are completely banned.

    In Martial arts tournaments all combatants must pull their punches to avoid killing the opponent - even in UFC.

    In Martial arts tournaments you get a break between bouts.

    In Martial Arts contests you are not fighting for your life. You are not in fear. There is no adrenaline. There are nice foam mats spead over a basket ball court. No rocks or glass or broken bricks or garbage bins or brick walls or anything.

    In fact I couldn't think of anything that was further from reality than a tournament.
    TC
  6. SongPower is offline
    SongPower's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 10:21pm


     Style: BJJ, FMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GBLS

    In Martial Arts contests you are not fighting for your life. You are not in fear. There is no adrenaline. There are nice foam mats spead over a basket ball court. No rocks or glass or broken bricks or garbage bins or brick walls or anything.

    In fact I couldn't think of anything that was further from reality than a tournament.
    Plenty of people have died in fighting tournaments, I even remember a few years back when a guy in the UK was killed in a Karate tournament. Not to mention the over 1000 documented deaths in boxing from between 1744 and the present. So to say that you are completely safe, and that there is no fear of being hurt, and no chance of getting the associated adrenaline rush when you step into the ring or the cage, makes absolutely no sense.
  7. Petter is offline

    12th level logic wielder

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,964

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 10:22pm


     Style: BJJ, judo, rapier

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GBLS
    If they dropped their weapon in battle then they did.
    So is it your assertion that karate was originally a battlefield art? My assertion is that karate originated as a civilian self defence system (and therefore concerned with punching plain people not armour). I haven't provided any sources or evidence yet, but I would like to know what I am arguing against before I do any research to disprove it.

    No I am suggesting that fighting is unfair. People practice martial arts to get an unfair advantage. People gang up to get an unfair advantage. Therefore there is no way that anyone can say that their martial art is better because someone will always have an unfair advantage. I have seen 3rd Dans that are lesser martial artists than 1st Dan and I am certain that a female bodybuilder can out lift anything I can.
    So? What does this have to do with anything? Of course fighting will often be unfair; it's to the advantage of the instigator of violence to wait for an opportunity when he has the advantage. What I fail to see is what this has to do with the effectiveness of any given fighting system.

    So to determine [the effectiveness of a system] you would need a fight - no holds barred - to the death. Who would enter such a competition? Would the results make you change to Bujinkan if it won? Against overwhelming odds? Would you doubt your years of training?
    Why "to the death"? It is my understanding that Vale Tudo fights, for instance, really don't disallow very much at all, and yet people seem to persist in surviving. Amazingly, there are people who get in fights and end up completely incapacitated (this is sometimes known as a "knock-out"), yet even though their opponents indisputably beat them, they are not killed in the ring.

    It is also the case that both fighters are limited by the same restrictions, and if you were allowed to use your eye jabs or Monkey Steals the Peach moves, then your opponent could kick you in the groin and elbow your larynx from the mount, or what have you.

    In Martial arts tournaments a Tae Kwon Do roundhouse kick is considered a hit even if it misses.
    Translation: "Some martial arts tournaments do not provide a sensible metric for actual fighting." This is an issue in point fighting where subjective judging is relevant, but doesn't enter the picture in fights where the winner is determined by clear, objective criteria like knock-out or submission. Moving on.

    Some moves are completely banned.
    Yes, this is because we don't want people dying.

    In Martial arts tournaments all combatants must pull their punches to avoid killing the opponent - even in UFC.
    Really? I don't know much about UFC. Please enlighten me as to your source for the claim that UFC fighters pull their punches.

    In Martial arts tournaments you get a break between bouts.
    In real-life self defence situations, you'll presumably have only one short bout before you break free and run away.

    In Martial Arts contests you are not fighting for your life. You are not in fear. There is no adrenaline. There are nice foam mats spead over a basket ball court. No rocks or glass or broken bricks or garbage bins or brick walls or anything.
    You must be a much tougher guy than I am! I get adrenaline pumping during point sparring, and although I do plan to get together with some guys this summer and do some sparring with more contact, I freely admit I'm nervous about it. Admittedly, I do waste a lot of my time practicing on soft, cushy surfaces, like wooden floors, and will be facing these guys in unrealistic settings where no real encounters could possibly happen, such as parks. I suppose you've won another few points, monsieur.

    In fact I couldn't think of anything that was further from reality than a tournament.
    How about martial arts practice where the opponent is compliant and not trying to beat you? That's pretty far from reality, wouldn't you say?


    My personal take is that sparring should be as "realistic" as possible for an acceptable level of risk of injury -- which will of course vary greatly from person to person. I'm not very tough or brave, so I'm happy practicing an art where there isn't very much contact, although I will engage in some contact sparring to get a sense of what it's about. However, I try to be realistic about it: I acknowledge that harder training would teach me more, or faster. I'm just too much of a pansy to much fancy taking full-force punches to the face. In other words, I prefer a fairly non-injurious activity that I can maintain for many years to come over a more brutal and dangerous practice that would make me a better fighter but at a higher cost. I do not harbour illusions of being t3h d34dly.


    I'm getting more and more confused as to what you're driving at, though; it started out as "Bujinkan doesn't suck" and is now looking to me like "no martial art is effective because real self defence situations are too dangerous -- Bujinkan may be useless but so are all other martial arts". I'm sure I'm misreading it, so could you please clarify what your positive point (as opposed to rebuttals of minor counterpoints) is?
  8. GBLS is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    22

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 10:27pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Soju - Joe
    Warrior groups, from Roman soldiers, Samurai, Medieval Knights and so forth have always had ways of doing non lethal (sport) competition and have used these methods in training.

    Always
    And were the winners of these competitions always the survivors in real combat? No. There is no scientific way to determine "the best" or "the most effective".

    The samurai had terrible, terrible attrition rates when it came to actual combat. Some were granted their status by birth. So did the Romans and the Knights. It depended on the day, the weather, the horses, the swordsmith, the food, the water, the armourer, the rules of engagement and the man.

    Arguing that one martial art is more or less effective is silly. If the martial art consists of lying down and being really still even that has been a proven military strategy for survival for centuries. Is that not effective?

    What is comes down to is the individual. While Tae Kwon Do may not be considered an effective combative martial art, if it works for the individual at their most crucial moment then it is effective and it would be worth all the money paid.

    We can discuss techniques here. Say that Technique 1 from Karate is effective but has these weakenesses... but that is it. That punch or kick is no better than a punch or kick in any other art if it doesnt work.

    I suppose the measure of any martial art is:
    Balance Training
    Resistive Training
    Weapons and environment training.
    Basic Techniques that can build into more advanced techniques.
    Single and multi-opponent training.
    Unscripted training.

    Whether you wear a purple jumpsuit or street clothes or gi or clownsuit or naked or shoes or tabi or socks or barefeet doesnt matter one stick in a real fight.

    TC
  9. Petter is offline

    12th level logic wielder

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,964

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 10:34pm


     Style: BJJ, judo, rapier

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GBLS
    What is comes down to is the individual. While Tae Kwon Do may not be considered an effective combative martial art, if it works for the individual at their most crucial moment then it is effective and it would be worth all the money paid.
    It's not all about the individual. If you teach a thousand people Tai Chi and another thousand people Muay Thai, I bet that the Muay Thai group will end up with a much higher proportion of competent fighters, even if one individual among the Thai Chi guys goes on to win UFC and one of the Muay Thai fighters gets mugged by somebody's arthritic grandma.

    We can discuss techniques here. Say that Technique 1 from Karate is effective but has these weakenesses... but that is it. That punch or kick is no better than a punch or kick in any other art if it doesnt work.
    And some arts have more ineffective techniques than others.

    I suppose the measure of any martial art is:
    Balance Training
    Resistive Training
    Weapons and environment training.
    Basic Techniques that can build into more advanced techniques.
    Single and multi-opponent training.
    Unscripted training.
    That seems to be the common wisdom at Bullshido (except for weapons training; I freely admit that if I am attacked by a kama-wielding thug and all I have at hand are my nunchaku, I'm screwed). The general view appears to be that Bujinkan is rather low on resistive training in particular. See the many, many other threads around here for the prosecution's case (note the Search function!), then come back and present your evidence to the contrary.
  10. GBLS is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    22

    Posted On:
    5/31/2007 11:04pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    So is it your assertion that karate was originally a battlefield art? My assertion is that karate originated as a civilian self defence system (and therefore concerned with punching plain people not armour). I haven't provided any sources or evidence yet, but I would like to know what I am arguing against before I do any research to disprove it.
    You need to consider this first. Why does Karate exist at all? What is it that motivated them to create it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    So? What does this have to do with anything? Of course fighting will often be unfair; it's to the advantage of the instigator of violence to wait for an opportunity when he has the advantage. What I fail to see is what this has to do with the effectiveness of any given fighting system.

    Why "to the death"? It is my understanding that Vale Tudo fights, for instance, really don't disallow very much at all, and yet people seem to persist in surviving. Amazingly, there are people who get in fights and end up completely incapacitated (this is sometimes known as a "knock-out"), yet even though their opponents indisputably beat them, they are not killed in the ring.

    It is also the case that both fighters are limited by the same restrictions, and if you were allowed to use your eye jabs or Monkey Steals the Peach moves, then your opponent could kick you in the groin and elbow your larynx from the mount, or what have you.
    If a tournament has just one rule "Do not seriously injure your opponent.". Define seriously injure. One person reading this will interpret it differently to you and thus have the advantage of those extra attacks/defences etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Translation: "Some martial arts tournaments do not provide a sensible metric for actual fighting." This is an issue in point fighting where subjective judging is relevant, but doesn't enter the picture in fights where the winner is determined by clear, objective criteria like knock-out or submission. Moving on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Yes, this is because we don't want people dying.
    In real combat people die. You can't measure the combat effectiveness of an art unless it is to the death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    Really? I don't know much about UFC. Please enlighten me as to your source for the claim that UFC fighters pull their punches.
    The distinct lack of bodies at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    You must be a much tougher guy than I am! I get adrenaline pumping during point sparring, and although I do plan to get together with some guys this summer and do some sparring with more contact, I freely admit I'm nervous about it. Admittedly, I do waste a lot of my time practicing on soft, cushy surfaces, like wooden floors, and will be facing these guys in unrealistic settings where no real encounters could possibly happen, such as parks. I suppose you've won another few points, monsieur.
    Technically I have no adrenaline in my body. But that is a side issue. Your training and tournaments would enable your body to learn not to turn on adrenaline or to limit it completely. This would be advantages in real combat because you wouldnt get tired but you lose the abilities that adrenaline provides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    How about martial arts practice where the opponent is compliant and not trying to beat you? That's pretty far from reality, wouldn't you say?
    I totally agree. I have already stated that some teachers of Bujinkan do real resistive training.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    My personal take is that sparring should be as "realistic" as possible for an acceptable level of risk of injury -- which will of course vary greatly from person to person. I'm not very tough or brave, so I'm happy practicing an art where there isn't very much contact, although I will engage in some contact sparring to get a sense of what it's about. However, I try to be realistic about it: I acknowledge that harder training would teach me more, or faster. I'm just too much of a pansy to much fancy taking full-force punches to the face. In other words, I prefer a fairly non-injurious activity that I can maintain for many years to come over a more brutal and dangerous practice that would make me a better fighter but at a higher cost. I do not harbour illusions of being t3h d34dly.
    I agree but this is not the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter
    I'm getting more and more confused as to what you're driving at, though; it started out as "Bujinkan doesn't suck" and is now looking to me like "no martial art is effective because real self defence situations are too dangerous -- Bujinkan may be useless but so are all other martial arts". I'm sure I'm misreading it, so could you please clarify what your positive point (as opposed to rebuttals of minor counterpoints) is?
    Martial arts don't suck. Bujinkan doesnt suck. The relentless abuse of people who do Bujinkan is unjustified. No Martial Artist can criticise another martial art for not being "effective" because it is not provable.

    Some old japanese guy refusing to admit that he made a mistake calling himself a ninja because he will lose face is not a crime.

    Neither is believing him.

    My personal experience is that Bujinkan are good people who teach good manners, respect, humility, and actively discourage bullying.

    When someone comes to a forum like this looking for a martial art then the posts here should reflect the quality of the martial art and not religious persecution. No Martial Artist should look on here and be embarrased and humiliated to see their martial art being ridiculed for no apparent reason.

    I know there are some people who are charletons in Martial Arts. They charge too much or teach bad practices or encourage bullying. These people should be exposed.

    I could cite examples where Karate, Iaijutsu, Bujinkan and Tae Kwon Do dojos actively encourage bullying. In fact, the black belt grading systems of some require bullying.

    TC
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345 6789 ... LastLast

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.