Comba-Tai is a 6,000 year old Royal Warrior tradition and is the oldest MA...

**kohadril** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:05pm

Originally Posted by Mantis

I've already answered this in detail, but you have selective memory. If you address the major points I've made, I will answer you ... but we cannot keep going over the same old questions that I've answered.

Let's say you have cited a single, peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal that meets the conditions I set out in my last post. Would it kill you to provide it again?

The only peer-reviewed article I remember seeing is the one I referenced in my last post, which traces the history of Nubian wrestling. That article provides no evidence whatsoever of any of your claims, and actually contradicts several of them--particularly the claims about a 6,000 year history and about the nature of the paintings you referenced. The author appears to believe that he does understand the rules of the wrestling sport depicted in the pictures, and his interpretation is based on a great deal more evidence than anything you have provided. He is able to satisfactorily explain those depictions without so much as referencing Comba-Tai or any 6,000 year old combat system.

The existence of the kind of tradition you are alleging is furthermore inconsistent with the article's narrative. I find it hard to believe that so large a historical fact as a clearly delineated 6,000 year old royal martial arts tradition with a basis, at least in part, in Nubian wrestling, would be completely missed by this author, whose rigor and diligence is impressive. He doesn't just gloss over the possibility of such a tradition--it doesn't even occur to him to mention that such a tradition might exist. If the evidence of Comba-Tai's lineage is as impressive, convincing, and irrefutable as you claim, how is it possible that this PUBLISHING SCHOLAR IN THE RELEVANT FIELD has completely missed it all?

Once more: scholarly, peer-reviewed evidence of the actual claims being examined, please. This is a burden, yes; but it's the burden of every historian or anthropologist. Given that Comba-Tai exponents are making historical and anthropological claims, it makes sense that this burden should be applied.

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:07pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

This happened when a poster dared to disagree.
Yep, that is a racial comment. You assumed his race was white and assumed his ancestors wanted slavery to continue.

.

Look you jerk ... Blacks had slaves in the south as well and were soldiers in the confederate army. But I've already said this ... no race can claim the stupidity of the lost cause, there is enough blame to go around. But anyway, it was whites that destroyed the ideals of the Lost Cause. You see the lost cause was not about race that is where you are wrong, the lost cause was about stupid people like you, be you black or white.

IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE!

**kohadril** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:12pm

Originally Posted by Mantis

If you want a peer review journal on Comba-Tai you can forget it, as of yet there aren't any to my knowledge.

There we go. All this time and effort, and not even a call for investigation in such a journal? That doesn't sound good. Why do you think there has been no such article? Have there been attempts to publish?

But listen to this, don't you tell me what I can or cannot believe or assert; just because your buddies have not done the research

Apparently yours haven't either, or they would have published by now. This would be a huge breakthrough in the history of combat sports, you'd think there would have at least been (as I said before) a call for investigation, if anybody in the mainstream academic community felt it worthy of investigation.

and got together and said they think it is OK, will not stop me from suggesting the probability of a 6,000 year old martial art.

Lack of evidence has never stopped people from asserting things. A good example is religion.

But if the art I am talking to you about is in fact like the Nuba Wrestling, it is different from other forms regardless of how much you say it is like all other wrestling ... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU AR TALKING ABOUT.

Neither, apparently, does Professor Scott Carroll of Gordon College, whose published and peer-reviewed analysis of Nuba Wrestling is the only stuff I referenced. Do you think he didn't do research? It would be hard to make that argument, considering the huge set of end notes he provides.

and until you get that straight your posts will seem as biased as all the rest.

Insult me all you want. I've got thick skin, and I don't mind.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:14pm

Originally Posted by Mantis

Look you jerk ... Blacks had slaves in the south as well and were soldiers in the confederate army. But I've already said this ... no race can claim the stupidity of the lost cause, there is enough blame to go around. But anyway, it was whites that destroyed the ideals of the Lost Cause. You see the lost cause was not about race that is where you are wrong, the lost cause was about stupid people like you, be you black or white.

IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE!

Then why did you apologize?

You knew it was about race baiting because, that is what you do.

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:18pm

Originally Posted by kohadril

Let's say you have cited a single, peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal that meets the conditions I set out in my last post. Would it kill you to provide it again?

The only peer-reviewed article I remember seeing is the one I referenced in my last post, which traces the history of Nubian wrestling. That article provides no evidence whatsoever of any of your claims, and actually contradicts several of them--particularly the claims about a 6,000 year history and about the nature of the paintings you referenced. The author appears to believe that he does understand the rules of the wrestling sport depicted in the pictures, and his interpretation is based on a great deal more evidence than anything you have provided. He is able to satisfactorily explain those depictions without so much as referencing Comba-Tai or any 6,000 year old combat system.

The existence of the kind of tradition you are alleging is furthermore inconsistent with the article's narrative. I find it hard to believe that so large a historical fact as a clearly delineated 6,000 year old royal martial arts tradition with a basis, at least in part, in Nubian wrestling, would be completely missed by this author, whose rigor and diligence is impressive. He doesn't just gloss over the possibility of such a tradition--it doesn't even occur to him to mention that such a tradition might exist. If the evidence of Comba-Tai's lineage is as impressive, convincing, and irrefutable as you claim, how is it possible that this PUBLISHING SCHOLAR IN THE RELEVANT FIELD has completely missed it all?

Once more: scholarly, peer-reviewed evidence of the actual claims being examined, please. This is a burden, yes; but it's the burden of every historian or anthropologist. Given that Comba-Tai exponents are making historical and anthropological claims, it makes sense that this burden should be applied.

No I will not repeat myself because you will not be confused by the truth. Secondly let me say again, the article does not contradict anything I've said. It is not an article about Nubian Medjay wrestling; it is an article about the Nuba who existed after the Nubians but were their decedents.

Lastly, the only way for you to dishonestly say that publishing scholars in the relevant field has completely missed it all is for you to have read all the publishing scholars in the relevant field which you have not. In fact before this discussion and the evidence I have brought up, you could not have had a semi-intelligent conversation on African martial arts. All your information comes from me.

You all said that there were no martial art traditions that went back thousands of years in the pass. I shared one with you that had similar techniques with Comba-Tai. Then you said that was not the point, the techniques are just like all other wrestling techniques. I proved that was wrong. Now you say, that was not the point ... what we really wanted to know was only about Comba-Tai. You will never admit the information I gave you because you are fearful.

Believe me, I understand why.

**kohadril** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:21pm

Originally Posted by Mantis

Lastly, the only way for you to dishonestly say that publishing scholars in the relevant field has completely missed it all is for you to have read all the publishing scholars in the relevant field which you have not. In fact before this discussion and the evidence I have brought up, you could not have had a semi-intelligent conversation on African martial arts. All your information comes from me.

I didn't say all, I said one. Provide a scholar who disagrees with that scholar's assessment in a peer-reviewed journal. If you're providing all our evidence, it's unfortunate that what you've given us doesn't agree with what you're arguing.

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:32pm

Originally Posted by kohadril

Apparently yours haven't either, or they would have published by now. This would be a huge breakthrough in the history of combat sports, you'd think there would have at least been (as I said before) a call for investigation, if anybody in the mainstream academic community felt it worthy of investigation.

.

Perhaps you are right! Perhaps it isn't worth investigating ... I've done my best with presenting what I have even if you think it is worth ignoring. I think more will come out of this or perhaps it's just worth putting on a shelf and just calling it a legend. It's not my call anyway. Anyway, I know the idea of what I've told you has been held as an Oral History in America for over 100 years. As far as it being peer reviewed, I don't think that many people knew about it and up until recently it was not talked about in public that much.

What ever...say what you will, you have what I know; now it is up to the Comba-Tai people I guess. I hope I have not dishonored them to much with my posts. I simply wanted to say I think what they believe is noteworthy and I for one believe it is possible.

Dear Administrators of Bullshido, Thanks anyway for letting me come on this site and discussed something that I have researched for almost two years. I have learned some things.

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:34pm

Originally Posted by kohadril

I didn't say all, I said one. Provide a scholar who disagrees with that scholar's assessment in a peer-reviewed journal. If you're providing all our evidence, it's unfortunate that what you've given us doesn't agree with what you're arguing.

The scholar you mentioned does not disagree with any of my assertions; honestly, you are trying to make the article say more than it is saying.

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:38pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Then why did you apologize?

You knew it was about race baiting because, that is what you do.

What did I apologize for? I bet you don't know!

**Mantis** · Posted On: 6/18/2007 5:45pm

Originally Posted by kohadril

I didn't say all, I said one. Provide a scholar who disagrees with that scholar's assessment in a peer-reviewed journal. If you're providing all our evidence, it's unfortunate that what you've given us doesn't agree with what you're arguing.

Oh and by the way, I gave you more than 10 peer reviewed articles, but you over looked all the information I shared, unless of course you think it supports your assertions.

One more thing, if you are going to say what you perceive I'm suggesting, could you please just quote me and stead of putting your own words out there. That would save us a lot of argument time.