why do I see more style bashing?

a.f. · Post by **a.f.** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:02 pm

I still say, just get strong in the fundamentals, then acquire techniques as you go.

You are right: boxing has a different focus than Wing Chun. Boxing isn't any more effective than Wing Chun.

Muay Thai and Uechi have different approaches. Despite what people may say or what you may see in the ring, Muay Thai isn't more effective than Uechi.

Problems only arise when two different styles tell you opposing things. Such as, many traditional karate styles will tell you to do a bent-leg snapping roundhouse, while the Thai kick is more of a swinging roundhouse, as we are discussing in the roundhouse kick thread. But the problem doesn't really seem like a problem any more when you see that the kicks are different and should be used for different purposes, and in different situations. Each style has strengths and weaknesses.

a.f. · Post by **a.f.** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:04 pm

All this "my style can beat up your style" CRAP aside, why did the karate fighters lose at Lumpinee stadium? It wasn't their style; if I believed that I would be doing Muay Thai.

It's a problem: why have karate fighters generally done badly in competitions with few rules? Bill gave the example of Joey Pomfret. Yes, he has tremendous skill and power, and is a successful fighter, etc., but he's only one. Why have WC and karate gotten such terrible reputations? The rep isn't true, but that's what it is.

I'm trying to be scientific about it.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:16 pm

If you want to be scientific about it, then you need to consider one critical factor: selection bias.

A valid study comparing styles would randomly assign individuals to the various styles, and the compare the results at the end of the day via some pre-determined method. Furthermore, the study would consider ALL the people assigned to those arts - including the ones that dropped out because the individual and art were not "compatible."

But that isn't what happens. Karate attracts a broad audience of practitioners interested in anything from losing weight to getting their kids' grades up. Tai chi attracts the graying set interested in managing the onset of osteoarthritis. Boxing attracts people interested in contact and competition within the context of a "dual" environment. People self-select for the various arts based upon what they are capable of delivering to whatever interested audience. People drop out at various points, and the culling process selects for certain type individuals.

Joey Pomfret would have done just fine in Muay Thai, boxing, or many other arts. But here's something else to consider. Joe also trained in the Marines. Joe knows about REAL combat, and not the NHB (sic) game between two people in a cage or ring with a referee.

Consider what the style has to offer. Consider the goals of the style. Consider the culling process. Consider the environment in which the style is practiced. Consider what additional training the practitioners do, whether voluntarily or by instructor recommendation. These are important clues that determine how the system behavior settles.

- Bill

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:18 pm

Good point Billy.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:36 pm

Bill is correct that the folks joining up in these different "styles" are different. There are some folks that will be great no matter what they train in..

However IMO folks are still glossing over the fact that different styles mean different training and if the training is weak because the "style" advocates weak non resistance low contact, and/or poor applications then they are not going to help develop much of anything except perhaps smoke and mirror "effects" and then nothing is equal in terms of combat worthiness IMO..

a.f. · Post by **a.f.** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:59 pm

Yes, good point Bill. I agree. I just wish there were some more karate guys in MMA. I wish karate didn't have such a bad name. I wish when people think of arts that have proven effective, more names come to mind than just BJJ and Muay Thai.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:54 am

a.f. wrote: I wish when people think of arts that have proven effective, more names come to mind than just BJJ and Muay Thai.

If enough folks feel the same way then sooner or later it'll happen..

All arts are undergoing change and evolution right now; I see this time as the early part of a modern day Renaissance period for all arts... Stay tuned..

I remember one of the first UFCs..

A "famous" karate man from Japan came out and led with a flip floppy low round kick only to be taken down a moment later.. I thought it was sad. This was not my idea of true karate and regardless of the outcome I would have liked to have seen "true karate", perhaps one day..

Still the UFC and NHB aren't the only two venues out there and karate still has venues of excellence..

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:05 am

well, despite what the common masses think, other styles HAVE proven themselves.

Cung le(beat chuck liddel in stand up i think)- San shou

Jason Delucia*shudders*- Five fist style, and he has a decent record.

Chuck liddel- Kenpo karate

Andy hug- kyokushin

Bas rutten-TKD, kyokushin

Kimo: A TMA , has evolved ALOT since his first appearance. He and bas rutten have a match coming up, fans at bas's forum say that this will NOT be an easy match for bas, Kimo has really been working hard on his BJJ.

THIS guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA7MGtX3 ... 0highlight

Wing chun: Pro fighters in the UK are popping up alot.

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:35 am

Styles don't have to prove themselves.

It's absurd, and I give up.

Martial art. Repeat one thousand times, in time with your breath.

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:54 am

One more time, for fun.

Uechi is the form.

Wing chun is the form.

Any similarity with kickboxing?

why not?

Any reason why?

Is there one single classical Okinawan or Chinese form that even remotely resembles kickboxing or olympic wrestling?

Did Jigoro Kano and Ueshiba both have lobotomies, causing them to consolidate all the principles that cannot be used to win kickboxing or olympic wrestling matches?

F#ck it.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:13 am

fivedragons wrote: One more time, for fun.

Sounds good to me..

fivedragons wrote: Uechi is the form.

Wing chun is the form.

Any similarity with kickboxing?

why not?

Any reason why?

Is there one single classical Okinawan or Chinese form that even remotely resembles kickboxing or olympic wrestling?

According to some "kickboxing" is "in" Uechi...

According to *me* you can “box” with Wing Chun..

There is also crossover in sticking concepts with grappling.. But WCK is not a "grappling" style per se..

But it depends on how you define kickboxing or wrestling..

I can find plenty of examples of punching and kicking in kata and forms from all over the place.. Is that kickboxing? Depends.. But should not something that kicks and punches be useful--if real--in a kicking and punching venue?

fivedragons wrote: Did Jigoro Kano and Ueshiba both have lobotomies, causing them to consolidate all the principles that cannot be used to win kickboxing or olympic wrestling matches?

Because Aiki is supposed to be the "non violent" art that was created to spare the opponent from undue violence, injury or death...

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:23 am

Didnt Kodokan judo originally have 'little hits' before the take down?

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:36 am

Striking was used in Judo, striking is used by some Aiki folks to set up control, energy, sticking..

Lots of changes made to several Japanese styles after the war... Accounts of famous teachers teaching BS.

Accounts of much defanging of many a Japanese art as we have discussed here—

Japanification—references a process that DID occur where several Japanese arts were changed for the spoken purpose of making arts more appropriate for training by and for school children <cough> and some American "invaders" ..

Some feel that despite these changes, all these arts are still intact and embody an expression relevant to the origin of the styles in question.

I do not..

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:23 am

Look at the way the punches and kicks are set up, what they are used to set up, and where/how they are applied.

Sometimes they are not punches and usually they are not kicks as we might think of the word.

Aikido was designed to be gentle to the person using it, not the enemy. Ueshiba would take your sword/knife/machine gun/ baseball bat while destroying your arm and then stomp on the back of your neck. Of course this doesn't really work for practice.

As far as karate somehow being lost or watered down, it's all in the FREAKING KATA. Luckily, the kata are still around, BECAUSE EVERYONE IS SO CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THEY WHERE MADE FOR, THAT NO ONE TRIES TO CHANGE THEM.

They just seem to exist on their own, as some kind of freakish sideshow, while everyone practices kickboxing.

Who really cares about the actual martial art? What the hell is a nukite for?

How about the crane. Is anyone going to use a finger tip strike originating from a bent elbow position to kick someone's ass on the schoolyard?

Do you really think that wing chun was devised as a superior way to hit someone repeatedly in the face, or beat a wrestler in the octagon?

But it's cool, because as we know, there really is no such thing as a martial art. How silly. Let's all take a bicycle skiing.

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:35 am

When your mind takes the last train out of town, and leaves you in a sh#t storm, you will do what you've trained yourself to do.