"Hitler was right..." -Republican Mary Miller

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Robtard

ArtificialGlory

Rage.Of.Olympus
She's technically right, and she prefixed her statement with "right about one thing". So there's technically nothing about her statement. It's just...there might have been a lot better options to reference the importance of youth.

If she came out and said she had just recently read Mein Kampf, which is why she used him as a reference, then I'd understand. But otherwise, it's kind of an odd choice.

Trocity
It isn't technically wrong, but when a bunch of people have been convinced that the election was stolen and people don't know what is going to end up happening in the next few weeks, its pretty stupid to say something like that.

Artol
Hitler was right when he said said you should not eat the yellow snow. Believe me, I found out the hard way. Thinking about it, I am not sure I need to give Hitler credit for that specifically, it also seems kinda foolish in light of the other things he said and did which were much more impactful. I wonder why my mind went to saying good thing about Hitler directly...

jaden_2.0
Remind me again how the future went for the Hitler Youth

Blakemore

Old Man Whirly!
My personal opinion is the weaponised false news and far right propaganda is the biggest problem for our kids.

Like: Stop the Steal
Like: vaccines are bad etc.

These people are in their bedrooms before they sleep. In their pockets all day.

Newjak
Let's be honest here conservatism in the U.S. has always already been doing this for years with children and indoctrination.

The real problem is that information and access to people with other ideas is a lot more widely available now. That's always been the enemy of the right in the U.S. because it means their ideas actually have to survive scrutiny.

It's also why conservatives have spent tons of money creating echo chambers and trying to dilute the truthfulness of interpreting facts.

Turns out reality is more line with progressive views.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Newjak
Let's be honest here conservatism in the U.S. has always already been doing this for years with children and indoctrination.

The real problem is that information and access to people with other ideas is a lot more widely available now. That's always been the enemy of the right in the U.S. because it means their ideas actually have to survive scrutiny.

It's also why conservatives have spent tons of money creating echo chambers and trying to dilute the truthfulness of interpreting facts.

Turns out reality is more line with progressive views. Bingo! thumb up perfect post.

ares834
Originally posted by Newjak
The real problem is that information and access to people with other ideas is a lot more widely available now. That's always been the enemy of the right in the U.S. because it means their ideas actually have to survive scrutiny.

It's also why conservatives have spent tons of money creating echo chambers and trying to dilute the truthfulness of interpreting facts.

Except, that's completely wrong.

You acts as if the internet will help cull ideas when the exact opposite is true. The internet helps ideas flourish. Where before, unpopular ideas would be unable to find an audience and die; nowadays, someone can easily trumpet an unpopular idea on the internet and, because it will now reach a massive audience, it can flourish. We've seen this time and time again.

You also bring up echo chambers but fail to consider that the left has just as many such places as the right. In fact, because the internet is generally a more liberal place due to the audience it draws, left echo chambers tend to be far larger than the right. For example, Reddit is way larger than 4chan and the upvote system ensures its even more of an echo chamber than 4chan could ever be.

Anyway on topic, the politician in question is an absolute idiot. Regardless of any supposed truthfulness to her statement, it was a damn stupid thing to say.

Newjak
Originally posted by ares834
Except, that's completely wrong.

You acts as if the internet will help cull ideas when the exact opposite is true. The internet helps ideas flourish. Where before, unpopular ideas would be unable to find an audience and die; nowadays, someone can easily trumpet an unpopular idea on the internet and, because it will now reach a massive audience, it can flourish. We've seen this time and time again.

You also bring up echo chambers but fail to consider that the left has just as many such places as the right. In fact, because the internet is generally a more liberal place due to the audience it draws, left echo chambers tend to be far larger than the right. For example, Reddit is way larger than 4chan and the upvote system ensures its even more of an echo chamber than 4chan could ever be.

Anyway on topic, the politician in question is an absolute idiot. Regardless of any supposed truthfulness to her statement, it was a damn stupid thing to say. It's actually not wrong.

All you have to do is look at the sheer amount money conservatives pour into conservative news media

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Newjak
It's actually not wrong.

All you have to do is look at the sheer amount money conservatives pour into conservative news media Not to mention the way they strategically, use the algorithms of platforms like YouTube to turn it into a rabbit hole of right wing grooming and indocrination.

ares834
Originally posted by Newjak
It's actually not wrong.

All you have to do is look at the sheer amount money conservatives pour into conservative news media

It is wrong. And the conservatives funding news media doesn't refute what I was saying. I did not refute your argument that conservatives created echo chambers. Rather, I argued against your notion that the internet would help destroy conservative ideas as well as your implied assertion (at least it seemed that way to me) that the right fosters echo chambers while the left does not.

Newjak
Originally posted by ares834
It is wrong. And the conservatives funding news media doesn't refute what I was saying. I did not refute your argument that conservatives created echo chambers. Rather, I argued against your notion that the internet would help destroy conservative ideas as well as your implied assertion (at least it seemed that way to me) that the right fosters echo chambers while the left does not. Fine if you want to clarify more.

Wide access to other people and cultures does in fact lead to people tending to be less conservative. Doubly so for America's brand of conservatism.

This has been proven in countless studies. It's also why college students, especially ones from rural areas, end up more progressive after joining college because for many of them it's their first real time spent out from under their parents and the echo chambers of their parents such as church. It's also when they're more exposed to other cultures besides the one they grew up in.

The internet inherently makes this better. All of a sudden learning and talking with people from other cultures is much easier. That's not to say the internet doesn't have pit falls but it definitely has made people for better and for worse more connected.

And yes conservatives most definitely understand this. It's why they've spent so much money creating your PragerUs, Daily Wires, OANs and etc. It's to keep their base more isolated. It's also why they've been working so hard to release lots of misinformation.

The truth once again conservatism thrives on isolation and half truths especially the modern american brand.

Blakemore
Originally posted by Newjak
Let's be honest here conservatism in the U.S. has always already been doing this for years with children and indoctrination.

The real problem is that information and access to people with other ideas is a lot more widely available now. That's always been the enemy of the right in the U.S. because it means their ideas actually have to survive scrutiny.

It's also why conservatives have spent tons of money creating echo chambers and trying to dilute the truthfulness of interpreting facts.

Turns out reality is more line with progressive views. some ideas are good, like martial arts..... but that may be a different matter.

cdtm
Originally posted by Blakemore
some ideas are good, like martial arts..... but that may be a different matter.

They say most martial art disciplines are bunk. wink

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Newjak

The truth once again conservatism thrives on isolation and half truths especially the modern american brand.

it would be interesting to see how kmc trumpers try to refute that, but they're hiding on discord sharing qanon memes

Newjak
Originally posted by cdtm
They say most martial art disciplines are bunk. wink I don't know if they're bunk but just overhyped on how much a badass they'll make you

victreebelvictr
She is technically right though.

I don't see why this thread was made to trash Republicans if it wasn't wrong. laughing out loud

Bashar Teg
you should log in to your 7 other accounts and agree, fly

victreebelvictr
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you should log in to your 7 other accounts and agree, fly Good idea. thumb up

Raptor22
Unfortunately this line of thought is nothing new.

https://youtu.be/wiYFRmNuz9k

https://youtu.be/qdsF39ePLU4

Neon1234
She didn't say anything wrong.

But no surprise Leftists are being stupid about it.

roughrider
If she had just phrased her words differently, she would have been making some good points. She fumbled the ball badly.

StyleTime
It was clumsy but I understand her point.

Similarly, the "Amen and Awomen" comment was clumsy but I understand Emanuel Cleaver's point.

I don't think either one is worth the reactions they get by many. It's not that serious.

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
They say most martial art disciplines are bunk. wink
thumb up

Modern combat sports have definitely exposed a lot of bullshit in the martial arts world. It's already happened in the west/Japan, and Xu Xiaodong is currently doing a lot of work in China in this regard.

Interestingly, what led to the bullshit was essentially martial arts echo chambers. Everyone retreated to their insulated spaces, convinced they had the best style. Whenever they did "test" their ideas, it was only against people from the same style as their own. Questioning your instructor was sacrilege. It became identity politics but applied to fighting, with people scoffing at the idea of cross training. Instructors would literally forbid using techniques they didn't show you themselves.

Then everyone got a wake up call as vale tudo/NHB grew, eventually becoming MMA. Turns out fighting is really complicated, and multiple styles got many things right and many things wrong. You only get the "best" system by adopting a holistic view of combat, and throwing off the shackles of rigid martial ideology.

It's almost like appreciating nuance helps in most areas of life, including fighting. eek!

ArtificialGlory
Are those styles really bunk or are they just woefully inferior to modern, mixed arts? Or to put the question differently, would they be sufficient against an untrained assailant?

Trocity
That reminds me of the JRE episode where he had the aikido guy on who was trying to talk it up, and Joe was just like "all that tells me is it only works on someone who doesn't know what the f**k they are doing" lmaooo.

The guy claimed that there was an "exhibition" at some point a long time ago, very vague about it, where he said an aikido master was beating masters of other kinds of martial arts, but young Jamie couldn't find anything on it.

They ended up just finding a random video of an aikido guy against an old dude that used to be a wrestler and the wrestler just tossed him around like a ragdoll rofl.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by StyleTime
thumb up

Modern combat sports have definitely exposed a lot of bullshit in the martial arts world. It's already happened in the west/Japan, and Xu Xiaodong is currently doing a lot of work in China in this regard.

Interestingly, what led to the bullshit was essentially martial arts echo chambers. Everyone retreated to their insulated spaces, convinced they had the best style. Whenever they did "test" their ideas, it was only against people from the same style as their own. Questioning your instructor was sacrilege. It became identity politics but applied to fighting, with people scoffing at the idea of cross training. Instructors would literally forbid using techniques they didn't show you themselves.

Then everyone got a wake up call as vale tudo/NHB grew, eventually becoming MMA. Turns out fighting is really complicated, and multiple styles got many things right and many things wrong. You only get the "best" system by adopting a holistic view of combat, and throwing off the shackles of rigid martial ideology.

It's almost like appreciating nuance helps in most areas of life, including fighting. eek! one of the things though st, is some now banned techniques from early mma negated whole swathes of techniques. Of these, football kicks to grounded opponents seen best in early Pride, a take down defence and football kicks to a grounded opponent was on the verge of destroying many ground fighters. It was also incredibly dangerous to the grounded fighter, sometimes the direct approach is the most effective. Situations are also important. I can think of nowhere I'd rather be less than wearing winter clothing fighting s judo expert on a concrete sidewalk whereas, with no gi, I fancy my muay thai plum to negate his judo in the clinch. but I digress.

Newjak
Originally posted by victreebelvictr
She is technically right though.

I don't see why this thread was made to trash Republicans if it wasn't wrong. laughing out loud I think to me the funniest part about her talk is this is something conservatives already try to do with youth.

And have been doing with youth for centuries in this country.

I know I once overheard a conversation at a church where a pastor literally told a kid going to college. Just say what the professor wants to hear but understand they're wrong and ignore them afterwards.

I can tell you that's not an uncommon talk. It's also why smaller religious private colleges started popping up like weeds as more kids went to college.

cdtm
Originally posted by StyleTime
thumb up

Modern combat sports have definitely exposed a lot of bullshit in the martial arts world. It's already happened in the west/Japan, and Xu Xiaodong is currently doing a lot of work in China in this regard.

Interestingly, what led to the bullshit was essentially martial arts echo chambers. Everyone retreated to their insulated spaces, convinced they had the best style. Whenever they did "test" their ideas, it was only against people from the same style as their own. Questioning your instructor was sacrilege. It became identity politics but applied to fighting, with people scoffing at the idea of cross training. Instructors would literally forbid using techniques they didn't show you themselves.

Then everyone got a wake up call as vale tudo/NHB grew, eventually becoming MMA. Turns out fighting is really complicated, and multiple styles got many things right and many things wrong. You only get the "best" system by adopting a holistic view of combat, and throwing off the shackles of rigid martial ideology.

It's almost like appreciating nuance helps in most areas of life, including fighting. eek!

I won't lie, I had an "Oh shit" moment growing up during the rise of MMA in America, and realizing shotokan karate was bs, having learned the art myself.

But that was a kids thinking. I absolutely love how they show what really works, and what doesn't.

In a ring. That's the rub, MMA can only really show what's effective in a sport, with rules. A brawl is a whole different animal (Not that styles are necessarily any more effective in a brawl either)

One criticism of MMA, is they seem to hand pick competition to an extent. The great Rickson Gracie turned away a LOT of challenges, while carrying a reputation as apex predator of his sport.

As opppsed to someone like Sakuraba, who takes on all challengers under any rules, win or lose.

StyleTime
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Are those styles really bunk or are they just woefully inferior to modern, mixed arts? Or to put the question differently, would they be sufficient against an untrained assailant?
We certainly have the benefit of modern evolution, true, and people are just more skilled nowadays. Top MMA fighters from the 90's would get destroyed by even unranked fighters today, much less a ninja like Stylebender. I'd still say go for something that works on trained people, rather than limiting yourself though. But, there is absolutely BS in martial arts. The biggest offender is the chi-based stuff. Lots of folks made money convincing their followers they could fire invisible energy blasts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOh2J1b3lQ

I don't believe in mocking them necessarily, but stuff like this is borderline immoral. People came to them to learn fighting principles, and it's potentially endangering their lives to teach them straight up bullshit. Mid-fight is the worst time to learn none of your techniques actually work.
Originally posted by Trocity
That reminds me of the JRE episode where he had the aikido guy on who was trying to talk it up, and Joe was just like "all that tells me is it only works on someone who doesn't know what the f**k they are doing" lmaooo.

The guy claimed that there was an "exhibition" at some point a long time ago, very vague about it, where he said an aikido master was beating masters of other kinds of martial arts, but young Jamie couldn't find anything on it.

They ended up just finding a random video of an aikido guy against an old dude that used to be a wrestler and the wrestler just tossed him around like a ragdoll rofl.
I remember a conversation with Jocko, and the same thing happened when discussing wing chun chain punching. If you're athletic and aggressive, you probably could just bum rush an average schmoe. Blasting someone 9 times in the face before they respond won't feel great.

Doesn't mean that chain punching is effective per se. Athleticism is a huge advantage with untrained people, particularly if they are aggressive.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
one of the things though st, is some now banned techniques from early mma negated whole swathes of techniques. Of these, football kicks to grounded opponents seen best in early Pride, a take down defence and football kicks to a grounded opponent was on the verge of destroying many ground fighters. It was also incredibly dangerous to the grounded fighter, sometimes the direct approach is the most effective. Situations are also important. I can think of nowhere I'd rather be less than wearing winter clothing fighting s judo expert on a concrete sidewalk whereas, with no gi, I fancy my muay thai plum to negate his judo in the clinch. but I digress.
You're watching the wrong orgs broski. Watch Taiyo Nakahara vs Kazuma Kuramoto. Or Kai Asakura vs Hiromasa Ougikubo. Soccer kicks/stomps/etc are still fair game in places like OneFC, Rizin, etc.

On the second part, even in no-gi, I'd still favor judo in the clinch over Muay Thai 8 times out of 10 tbh. Same for nearly any wrestling style. We've seen those style vs style matchups(some are on youtube), and pure judo has a more comprehensive clinch grappling game than pure Muay Thai. Of course, this is only if they are "pure" stylists.

NemeBro
Originally posted by StyleTime
We certainly have the benefit of modern evolution, true, and people are just more skilled nowadays. Top MMA fighters from the 90's would get destroyed by even unranked fighters today, much less a ninja like Stylebender. I'd still say go for something that works on trained people, rather than limiting yourself though. But, there is absolutely BS in martial arts. The biggest offender is the chi-based stuff. Lots of folks made money convincing their followers they could fire invisible energy blasts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOh2J1b3lQ

I don't believe in mocking them necessarily, but stuff like this is borderline immoral. People came to them to learn fighting principles, and it's potentially endangering their lives to teach them straight up bullshit. Mid-fight is the worst time to learn none of your techniques actually work.

A lot of those chi or no-touch "masters" aren't trying to sell junk; they actually believe it themselves.

This guy covers the topic pretty well I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjbSCEhmjJA

StyleTime
Originally posted by cdtm
I won't lie, I had an "Oh shit" moment growing up during the rise of MMA in America, and realizing shotokan karate was bs, having learned the art myself.

But that was a kids thinking. I absolutely love how they show what really works, and what doesn't.

In a ring. That's the rub, MMA can only really show what's effective in a sport, with rules. A brawl is a whole different animal (Not that styles are necessarily any more effective in a brawl either)

One criticism of MMA, is they seem to hand pick competition to an extent. The great Rickson Gracie turned away a LOT of challenges, while carrying a reputation as apex predator of his sport.

As opppsed to someone like Sakuraba, who takes on all challengers under any rules, win or lose.
It has a lot of BS, but it has some effective principles too. Machida did take the UFC light heavyweight title, and was shotokan based. Front stance, single straight punches rather than combinations, in-and-out blitzes--all staples of classic shotokan and that was how he fought. He had a strange skillset in general though, being a legitimate sumo champion and a bjj black belt.

The "I train fo' dah streetz!" argument is mostly false though. Back in the NHB/Vale Tudo days, MMA didn't have those rules. Vale Tudo, The Gracie Challenges, dojo storms, etc-- it was anything goes, and nothing really changed. The folks who now claim the rules limit them, also got destroyed back then. We don't see white crane kung fu, aikido, or tai chi because they don't generally have effective frameworks for combat training. Maybe a useful concept exists here and there, but it's generally covered by another art.

And shaolin folks will reference Yi Long, but he was a ****ing kickboxer/san da guy who would dress up as a monk for the spectacle. The Shaolin Temple officially said he isn't affiliated with them.
Originally posted by cdtm

One criticism of MMA, is they seem to hand pick competition to an extent. The great Rickson Gracie turned away a LOT of challenges, while carrying a reputation as apex predator of his sport.

As opppsed to someone like Sakuraba, who takes on all challengers under any rules, win or lose.
MMA is actually the sport where fighters get thrown to the sharks. No one is really protected. That's boxing. I respect boxing a lot, but Mayweather has been fighting non-boxers for the last 6 years, with Logan Paul being next, and still claims he's fighter of the decade. confused

The Gracies did have some suspected tomfoolery with their opponents in early UFC, but that was a different time. Sakuraba was something else in his prime too, so it's no surprise he beat so many Gracies. I too suspect they kept Rickson from fighting him, as Rickson was supposed to be the best among them. Were Rickson to lose, which was a huge possibility, it could have tarnished the Gracie mystique. They are old men now, but Rickson and Sakuraba did an interview together some years ago. Rickson does say that not fighting Sakuraba is his biggest regret.

Much respect to both guys though. Pioneers.

victreebelvictr
Stalin: 2+2=4.

Mary Miller: Stalin was right about 2+2 equaling 4.

Leftists: HATE MONGER.

Flyattractor
I can't wait for Biden and Kamalah Khan to get in the same level of Mass Murder as Stalin and Hitler.

They are Lefty Commies after all.

StyleTime
Originally posted by NemeBro
A lot of those chi or no-touch "masters" aren't trying to sell junk; they actually believe it themselves.

This guy covers the topic pretty well I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjbSCEhmjJA
Oh, I 100% agree. Many of these folks genuinely believe in the stuff. Specifically, the folks who actually accepted challenge matches. They must have believed in themselves to actually show up and fight someone. I just think a lot know it's fake, but have some psychological need to be worshipped in a position of authority. Cult leaders essentially, sometimes ending in sexual predation as the video mentioned.

Granted, I'm not just talking about the chi/ki people here. The "I'm just too deadly to compete" and "women's self defense" crowd also fall into this category. Profiting off people's fear with promises of quick and easy techniques so they don't have to actually get good at fighting.

As with many others, I don't enjoy seeing gullible people get beat up. I suppose it's a necessary evil though, so less people fall prey to it.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by StyleTime
We certainly have the benefit of modern evolution, true, and people are just more skilled nowadays. Top MMA fighters from the 90's would get destroyed by even unranked fighters today, much less a ninja like Stylebender. I'd still say go for something that works on trained people, rather than limiting yourself though. But, there is absolutely BS in martial arts. The biggest offender is the chi-based stuff. Lots of folks made money convincing their followers they could fire invisible energy blasts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOh2J1b3lQ

I don't believe in mocking them necessarily, but stuff like this is borderline immoral. People came to them to learn fighting principles, and it's potentially endangering their lives to teach them straight up bullshit. Mid-fight is the worst time to learn none of your techniques actually work.

I remember a conversation with Jocko, and the same thing happened when discussing wing chun chain punching. If you're athletic and aggressive, you probably could just bum rush an average schmoe. Blasting someone 9 times in the face before they respond won't feel great.

Doesn't mean that chain punching is effective per se. Athleticism is a huge advantage with untrained people, particularly if they are aggressive.

You're watching the wrong orgs broski. Watch Taiyo Nakahara vs Kazuma Kuramoto. Or Kai Asakura vs Hiromasa Ougikubo. Soccer kicks/stomps/etc are still fair game in places like OneFC, Rizin, etc.

On the second part, even in no-gi, I'd still favor judo in the clinch over Muay Thai 8 times out of 10 tbh. Same for nearly any wrestling style. We've seen those style vs style matchups(some are on youtube), and pure judo has a more comprehensive clinch grappling game than pure Muay Thai. Of course, this is only if they are "pure" stylists. yeah, I know one allows kicks on downed opponents it still bans downward elbows to the top of the head, back of the neck, spine doesn't it? Thing about Judo vs muay thai clothed and unclothed is all elbows and knees lose effectiveness in heavy coats. It's why as a doorman you get given a crombie, for judo it just adds leverage and points of contact. The plum is not just to set up sweeps and grappling, its mainly to control the body to allow knees and avoid takedown, if you have a good plum, for the street it can frame headbutt etc. As Letheringsett practitioners show. All these things make it very difficult for the no gi arsenal of a Judoka. Yeah, if the Nak Muay has some Judi, or wrestling it would be harder still. In clothes Judoka, in shorts Nak muay for me on the street. Because the Judoka will eat to much engaging and struggle to stay engaged. If it goes to ground sure, he'll gain dominance of a pure Nak Muay. In winter clothes 10/10 Judoka, in shots Nak Muay more than a majority.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by StyleTime
It has a lot of BS, but it has some effective principles too. Machida did take the UFC light heavyweight title, and was shotokan based. Front stance, single straight punches rather than combinations, in-and-out blitzes--all staples of classic shotokan and that was how he fought. He had a strange skillset in general though, being a legitimate sumo champion and a bjj black belt.

The "I train fo' dah streetz!" argument is mostly false though. Back in the NHB/Vale Tudo days, MMA didn't have those rules. Vale Tudo, The Gracie Challenges, dojo storms, etc-- it was anything goes, and nothing really changed. The folks who now claim the rules limit them, also got destroyed back then. We don't see white crane kung fu, aikido, or tai chi because they don't generally have effective frameworks for combat training. Maybe a useful concept exists here and there, but it's generally covered by another art.

And shaolin folks will reference Yi Long, but he was a ****ing kickboxer/san da guy who would dress up as a monk for the spectacle. The Shaolin Temple officially said he isn't affiliated with them.

MMA is actually the sport where fighters get thrown to the sharks. No one is really protected. That's boxing. I respect boxing a lot, but Mayweather has been fighting non-boxers for the last 6 years, with Logan Paul being next, and still claims he's fighter of the decade. confused

The Gracies did have some suspected tomfoolery with their opponents in early UFC, but that was a different time. Sakuraba was something else in his prime too, so it's no surprise he beat so many Gracies. I too suspect they kept Rickson from fighting him, as Rickson was supposed to be the best among them. Were Rickson to lose, which was a huge possibility, it could have tarnished the Gracie mystique. They are old men now, but Rickson and Sakuraba did an interview together some years ago. Rickson does say that not fighting Sakuraba is his biggest regret.

Much respect to both guys though. Pioneers. one or two styles have elements still to dangerous for most rings, street savate for instance replaces the hardened soles and heels of savate, which gave mma the oblique kicks jones uses, yes we have them in muay thai and other styles, they are deployed differently and on the street with steel heels and steel toecap savate, a sport for training kicking in weighted shoes, becomes bone breaking and lethal. It's like wearing knuckle dusters on your feet. I actually had a pair of street savate shoes, they are the ultimate equaliser.

Old Man Whirly!
Leatherting is spell check not know lethwei

ScribbInTrouble
THERE CAN ONLY BE QWUONE!!!

pNKCnEXF4lM

StyleTime
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
yeah, I know one allows kicks on downed opponents it still bans downward elbows to the top of the head, back of the neck, spine doesn't it? Thing about Judo vs muay thai clothed and unclothed is all elbows and knees lose effectiveness in heavy coats. It's why as a doorman you get given a crombie, for judo it just adds leverage and points of contact. The plum is not just to set up sweeps and grappling, its mainly to control the body to allow knees and avoid takedown, if you have a good plum, for the street it can frame headbutt etc. As Letheringsett practitioners show. All these things make it very difficult for the no gi arsenal of a Judoka. Yeah, if the Nak Muay has some Judi, or wrestling it would be harder still. In clothes Judoka, in shorts Nak muay for me on the street. Because the Judoka will eat to much engaging and struggle to stay engaged. If it goes to ground sure, he'll gain dominance of a pure Nak Muay. In winter clothes 10/10 Judoka, in shots Nak Muay more than a majority.
Nah. The Nak Muay generally loses to the Judoka. We've seen too much evidence to argue otherwise. David Fernandez vs Luis Sanchez is a prime example. Luis had only shorts on and still got thrown and submitted. It's an old fight but style vs style matchups are hard to come by these days. Kevin Ross vs Michihiro Omigawa is a modern example I guess(2014). It was shootboxing rules, which I actually enjoy as a sport, but it's basically everything that would prevent Omigawa from using his full game--boxing gloves, no gi, no newaza allowed, throw attempts often interrupted by ref, etc. Kevin even got the full plum, and still got thrown, as the judoka still has options from that position. The fight was stopped due to a cut, but it was clear Omigawa would have destroyed if allowed his full arsenal.

The nak muay runs into the age old problem of pure striking in this context: they are dependent on getting a flash KO to win, but that will only happen about 10-20% of time. The rest of the time, they get dumped on their heads.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
one or two styles have elements still to dangerous for most rings, street savate for instance replaces the hardened soles and heels of savate, which gave mma the oblique kicks jones uses, yes we have them in muay thai and other styles, they are deployed differently and on the street with steel heels and steel toecap savate, a sport for training kicking in weighted shoes, becomes bone breaking and lethal. It's like wearing knuckle dusters on your feet. I actually had a pair of street savate shoes, they are the ultimate equaliser.
Oblique kicks work, yes. Saying they become deadly with steel toed boots is like saying snake style kung fu becomes deadly with a knife in your hand though. Aikido is totally badass if you hold your opponent at gun point.

You're just talking about weapons at that point. It says very little of the technique itself.

Also, I just remembered you like to troll about this stuff, and I may have just taken the bait. hmm

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by StyleTime
.

Also, I just remembered you like to troll about this stuff, and I may have just taken the bait. hmm shifty who me? laughing out loud

Lestov16
Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm pretty sure EVERY THREAD MADE IN THE PAST 2 MONTHS should just be assimilated into this one. That way it will be easier for me to watch you all EAT SHIT-COVERED CROW :tomcatbetagiljotiinichairjerryyeslaughing hystericalHappy Dancedance


-from this thread
https://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=670364&pagenumber=11#post17369273

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.