Why does everyone put this art down

Discussion in 'Kung Fu' started by straughany10, May 13, 2010.

  1. Thephenom52

    Thephenom52 Valued Member

    Not getting too philosophical or anything but I think the problem is that we live in a world of sceptics. Where seeing, is believing. Unfortunately the mediums that people most frequently turn to in order to 'see' are things like youtube etc, where literally anything (so long as it doesn't contain extreme sex or violence) can be posted by anyone. What should be realised is that the only place to 'see' what something is really like is through being on the forefront for a time which is too long for many. So, for example, (not that I'm either praising or devaluing Wing Chun), in order to gain a true view of what Wing Chun is or isn't, one would have to study the art for years. Only then is he in a position to make valid judgements.
    I'm not putting people down for thinking this way. This is just the world we've grown up in.

    As Kuma said, it's the training methodology rather than the art itself which really makes the Martial Artist. And once again, I'd just like to say that people should be a bit more open minded when taking in other peoples opinions. Remember, things survive for a reason. Wing Chun, just like Muay Thai or BJJ, is one of those things.

    I've studied Muay Thai for several years now, and think it's fantastic. Bit even I am not blind enough to think that it's the 'be all and end all' of martial arts. It has it's flaws just like everything else. If it didn't, there would be no need for cross-training at all.
     
  2. Master Betty

    Master Betty Banned Banned

    Look.... That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Of course his student's gonna say that. Of course all his friends are gonna be like "wow bruce was the most awesome fighter the world has produced - oh and I trained under him. By the way did i I mention that I teach JKD?"

    I know how to box - I've seen his boxing. It is laughable. It's terrible. I mean really terrible. Go to a boxing gym and you'll see all the relatively new guys boxing like Bruce Lee - windmilling we call it.

    I've seen his pad work - basically sessions spent throwing one technique again and again. Taking massive run ups to throw a sidekick etc. IT'S TERRIBLE.

    And which student said the MMA guys wouldn't bother Bruce? Dan? What a fraud. Do I think that Bruce Lee had a good mentality for MMA nad could pick it up? Yeah. Do I for a second believe that he could've stood in the MMA ring with any of these guys and lasted more than a couple of seconds with the skills he had? Hell no! God man stop believing everything about Bruce Lee that his students say - if you pay even the slightest bit of attention to all of the "proof" about how good a fighter he is you'll find that all of these events the only "eye witness" accounts are from people with a vested intrerest in making Bruce look awesome. None of the "proof" would've stood up in a court case and it's funny how nobody has any videos of him fighting reputable fighters from ANY martial art.

    I mean hoesntly, they think the man could be in the top 3 boxers in the world if he entered at the time? The top boxers i nthe world were training full time every day in nothing but boxing and yet apparently bruce lee would be able to beat most of them? Horse dung.

    I know it's tough to try and believe that the guy who probably got you into martial arts has a legend he doesn't deserve but trust me - you need to do it. I did it. I think a lot of people on this forum, if they're being honest, will say that they worshipped Bruce as a kid but when they actually started to learn a bit of their own realised it.
     
  3. Master Betty

    Master Betty Banned Banned

    I never said anything of the sort about Muay Thai on this thread so while I could understand where you're coming from - it's misguided. I'll make this perfectly clear so that you, again, can go back and read what I wrote.#

    I said that they should change the ruleset to full muay thai rules.

    That is all.

    That is the only thing I said about Muay Thai.

    Now perhaps you disagree with that perhaps you don't - that however isn't what you repsonded to. you reacted defensively at even the mention of Muay Thai - exactly as happened on that other thread. And again if you go back to that other thread you'll find at no point did I start to compare arts until someone like you got all defensive about someoen mentioning Muay thai and changed it into a versus thread. god get over yourselves - you might've been told it before by other guys but thats two threads in a row where as soon as I've even mentioned muay thai guys have actually changed the subject specifically to talk to me on the matter while making out that I someone said "muay thai is great every other art sucks". I did nothing of the sort. On that thread I spoke abotu scoring criteria - not rulesets. I got an argument about how TKD is just as good as muay thia.

    On this thread I said that if something that claims to be an all styles striking has any sort of ruleset it should be something as open as muay thai. Instead I get defensive posturing about how i need to stop saying mauy thai is "teh awesome". I didn't. I didnt even imply it. Frankly I don't know how my actual point can be misconstrued or even argued. Muay Thai has the least restrictive striking ruleset and that's common knowledge - this WOULD allow an all styles striking tournament.
     
  4. AndrewTheAndroid

    AndrewTheAndroid A hero for fun.


    I don't agree with this statement at all. You don't need to study wing chun specifically to know if it is effective or not. For example if you are an airline 747 pilot you may not have ever flown an f-16, but you'll have enough of a grasp on such things as airodynamics, and the fundamentals of flying that you can make a comment on it.
     
  5. BuddhaPalm

    BuddhaPalm Valued Member

    I give up.
     
  6. Thephenom52

    Thephenom52 Valued Member

    You make a fair point :hat: I guess, in keeping with your analogy, that airline 747 pilot would have no right to dismiss the f-16 as rubbish without getting behind the drivers seat- and if decides that the f-16 is indeed rubbish (with or without warrant), he should have enough respect for his fellow pilots and keep his opinions to himself.
    This is something many people can't seem to do- and it's not just Wing Chun bashing. It's bashing any art.:cool:
     
  7. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    (HUMOR) Oh wow, I fly a 747, those F16 fighters think they are like jocks. So what, they go much faster than I could ever fly. So what, they have a arsenal to shoot down and destroy stuff. I have beautiful flight attendants to give me coffee. I get to sleep at the wheel. I get to land on a small body of water in a emergency and be dubbed a hero on national TV.

    :)



    (My dog, car, country, gun, __________insert here, is better than yours)
     
  8. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    No, he can make intelligent comments. In fact someone who has never even flown can also.

    For example just by looking at the specs for each plane I can determine that a 747 would suck as a fighter and an f-16 would suck as a passenger jet. One doesn't need to spend years training an art to make a reasonable determination of its quality for fighting. All one would need to do is see examples of people using it in a fight, such as an MMA match.

    I don't need to spend years searching for Santa Claus to determine that I am probably not going to find him.
     
  9. Thephenom52

    Thephenom52 Valued Member

    :thinking: do we fellow MAP'ers get free tickets 47 MartialMan?
     
  10. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    Of course, if someone were to make a thread asking why the F-16 gets a lot of complaints, he might get a bunch of negative comments about the F-16, and would have no reason to object to this. If he had a problem with these comments, he should deal with them logically and individually, rather than decry them as pointless hating.

    As a note, if you bill the 747 as a deadly fighter plane, people are going to laugh at you. It's a fact.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2010
  11. Thephenom52

    Thephenom52 Valued Member

    I'm actually quite glad you brought this up because I was thinking about including it in my earlier post. Yes you're right, starting a thread with a controversial question is of course going to spark debate- and so I'm not surprised that people had voiced their negative opinions on this particular thread. :cool:

    I've said everything I had to say in my previous posts, so there's no point of me repeating myself on this occasion.

    :cool:
     
  12. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Ah, but a couple of 747's became huge tools for fighting and killing. Much more destructive on a scale for effect.



    Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.
     
  13. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    For fighting yes, as fighters no.
     
  14. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    A instrument for destruction does not have to be designed as such prior, if the intention is to use it in a fight or other supplement.

    Something can be used for fighting which may have not before.

    This does not mean that cannot or should not be use for fighting.
     
  15. mafoota

    mafoota Skidoosh

    I'll just train in the style I enjoy the most. I mean, how many of you have had a fight since you left school? Probably 1%?

    Most people revert to boxing with some kicks when they spar.
     
  16. AndrewTheAndroid

    AndrewTheAndroid A hero for fun.

    9/11 was not what I would call a fight.
     
  17. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    So, like guerilla fighting, or anything studied, trained, to kill people, is not fighting? stealth tactics to destroy one's adversary is not fighting?

    Fighting has to be fair or just?
     
  18. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    Fighting has to be fair, since when. Maybe at world war level and then only if you have signed up to the Genever Convention, otherwise anything goes in my book.

    I walk down the street minding my own business when I get attacked and I have to be fair, I don't hink so. My attacker is getting both barrels and then some. Was it just that I got attacked in the first place?
     
  19. AndrewTheAndroid

    AndrewTheAndroid A hero for fun.


    Who said anything about it being fair or just? As I understand it, fighting implies that there was some sort of struggle involved.
     
  20. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    So, a fighter jet that drops a payload on a factory, where there are civilians, is actually fighting?

    A bomber that carpet bombs a area, even though there is coladeral damage, is this fighting?

    A sniper killing someone at a longer distance than the target-person cannot "struggle-or "fight" back, is this "fighting"?
     

Share This Page