Originally posted by Robtard
Total nonsense, by the time it takes them to execute some animal move, a trained boxer can easily jab them twice in the face and follow it up with a nice uppercut.Most MMA fighters will stomp them, be it UFC, Pride or other.
^total ignorance of kungfu. *hint* it isnt REALLY like they show it in the movies. boxing is a major part of it. kung fu practitioners dont SHOW off in fights {other than those who do demonstration}.
Aikido and Kung Fu are some of the martial arts that are banned in MMA.
Aikido due to the fact it can snap joints that could potentially lead to permanent disability.
Kung Fu because of the use of eye-rakes, throat thrusts, and other deadly pressure point strikes.
Here's some good stamina and durability feats from Shaolin Kung Fu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17g_cjcKafk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=1&playnext_from=PL&feature=PlayList&p=67E8DA8AC55893A3&v=MAhSSy4_7mc&playnext=1
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Aikido and Kung Fu are some of the martial arts that are banned in MMA.Aikido due to the fact it can snap joints that could potentially lead to permanent disability.
Kung Fu because of the use of eye-rakes, throat thrusts, and other deadly pressure point strikes.
[/url]
Aikido is a rarity because it is ineffective. What it accomplishes only in theory is demonstrated in practice by better styles such as judo or wrestling.
As for the Kung Fu nonsense spouted by so many, pressure points strikes are legal in nearly every full contact rule set. Throat thrusts are legal in various Vale Tudo circuits. Some even allow eye raking.
Either style has yet to produce notable fighters even when these supposed "deadly" techniques are allowed.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
UFC fans like to think that Kung Fu is useless, just because no pro-fighter uses it. See, Kung Fu was made for warfare, not competitive sport/fan-pleasing. It was intended for fending off multiple attackers with weapons. If four guys with baseball bats and broken bottles are coming at you, trying to put one of them in an armbar wouldn't be very smart. Monkey or Drunken would be more better for that situation.Another reason why you don't see Kung Fu in UFC is because using nails is banned, which automatically shuts out a lot of Kung Fu styles. Look at Tiger, Dragon and Praying Mantis techniques; they're mosty fingers to the face and eyes.
Kung Fu isn't over two thousand years old for no reason.
UFC isn't the only organization out there. Many allow nail attacks, yet these Tiger and Dragon masters are notably absent from the list of successful fighters.
So in conclusion: The superior technique can only be proven if a Shaolin Monk goes toe-to-toe against an expert MMA?
Meh. IMHO strike attacks are far more effective than grapple attacks (in real-world circumstances, especially if you're fighting groups or a tough slugger. Groin kick and throat punch FTW).
^
I guess you've never been in a brawl fight before 😬
Try grappling one member, the others would beat the shit out of you.
It takes too much time, enough time for others to give you a beating.
That's why I just do a running clothesline or super kicks lol. Grapples are only good in 1-on-1 situations. Well... actually, it isn't. If your opponent has a melee weapon, you have to strike him asap.
In cases like these, a lightning-fast strike attack should be performed. Preferrably a groin kick, a jab to the throat, an eye poke, etc.
more just a comment about how we in the west tend to orientalize most Asian things. Samurai swords are a good example, because even well educated scholars in history will believe things like swords cutting gun metal, just because they are "ooooooh, oriental swords".
I could rant, but I wont, suffice to say, its based on old impressions of the "other" in Europe, where those from the east were seen as mystic and wise. Its totally alive in our society today, just look at herbal medicine and this shaolin nonsense
Originally posted by inimalist
so, hey guys, you know a samurai can cut through the barrel of an AK-47 with his magic swords?
I guess if he has a fvcking magic sword we should expect things like that.
Originally posted by inimalist
more just a comment about how we in the west tend to orientalize most Asian things. Samurai swords are a good example, because even well educated scholars in history will believe things like swords cutting gun metal, just because they are "ooooooh, oriental swords".I could rant, but I wont, suffice to say, its based on old impressions of the "other" in Europe, where those from the east were seen as mystic and wise. Its totally alive in our society today, just look at herbal medicine and this shaolin nonsense
G&S did it for you when they noted that no one would miss...
The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone
All centuries but this, and every country but his own
cutting through gun barrels isnt a very impresive feat, smooth grain, reletively soft etc. its meant to take impact, not cutting. did u know that u can very easily pierce a bullet proof vest with a jab from a screwdriver? even the hardiest steel spears and javalins and swords are cut and broken all the time on the battlefield. nuthing "magical" about it. cutting a small rock and or large pebble though, thats sumthing id like to see a samurai try without breaking their katana.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^total ignorance of kungfu. *hint* it isnt REALLY like they show it in the movies. boxing is a major part of it. kung fu practitioners dont SHOW off in fights {other than those who do demonstration}.
There's a reason for it, because they'd get their ass kicked ina real fight against a trained boxer or MMA fighter.
Jason Delucia tried to bring Kung Fu in the early days of the UFC, when it wasn't all MMA guys and there were very few rules to what what you could or couldn't do. He got his ass stomped. As did the Karate people.
BTW, whatever you think you know about Kung Fu and other the other martial arts, multiply that by 3.12247 times and that's how much I know.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
UFC fans like to think that Kung Fu is useless, just because no pro-fighter uses it. See, Kung Fu was made for warfare, not competive sport/fan-pleasing. It was intended for fending off multiple attackers with weapons. If four guys with baseball bats and broken bottles are coming at you, trying to put one of them in an armbar wouldn't be very smart. Monkey or Drunken would be more better for that situation.Another reason why you don't see Kung Fu in UFC is because using nails is banned, which automatically shuts out a lot of Kung Fu styles. Look at Tiger, Dragon and Praying Mantis techniques; they're mosty fingers to the face and eyes.
Kung Fu isn't over two thousand years old for no reason.
Never said it was useless, as training is training and that's a plus, if anything, for the physical aspect of it.
Kung Fu [in warfare] also relies heavily on the use of weapons, which then makes it [more] useful and downright deadly. Adds fluidity and strict control to the strikes.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
So in conclusion: The superior technique can only be proven if a Shaolin Monk goes toe-to-toe against an expert MMA?Meh. IMHO strike attacks are far more effective than grapple attacks (in real-world circumstances, especially if you're fighting groups or a tough slugger. Groin kick and throat punch FTW).
Neither really has an inherent superiority over the other; however, you don't seem to understand how easily and quickly a skilled grappler would dismantle your average schmoe in a street brawl.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Try grappling one member, the others would beat the shit out of you.
It takes too much time, enough time for others to give you a beating.
Grapples are only good in 1-on-1 situations. Well... actually, it isn't. If your opponent has a melee weapon, you have to strike him asap.
In cases like these, a lightning-fast strike attack should be performed. Preferrably a groin kick, a jab to the throat, an eye poke, etc.
If your opponents are skilled themselves, you will likely lose whether you are striking or grappling.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
That's why I just do a running clothesline
As for the ridiculous melee weapon analogy, striking would not be the automatic best bet. Having a weapon significantly increases your opponents what? Yep. His reach. The last thing you'd want to do against a weapon is give your opponent space to swing at you. At least if you're in grappling range, you can negate the weapon's power. After that, start breaking body parts.
Before you get into even more predictable kung fu/striking rocks arguments, I'll address the edged weapon scenario. When you're opponent has a knife, you're ****ed either way. The human body has no way to block or otherwise deflect an edged weapon. The best martial art in this scenario is track and field.
You appear to have a very limited view on what constitutes grappling. A "grappler" does not necessarily have to roll around on the ground to grapple. I reckon a judoka or wrestler could take an opponent out quite quickly without going to the ground. Throwing or slamming someone's head onto concrete does wonders for ending a fight.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, hey guys, you know a samurai can cut through the barrel of an AK-47 with his magic swords?
Originally posted by Robtard
Kung Fu [in warfare] also relies heavily on the use of weapons, which then makes it [more] useful and downright deadly. Adds fluidity and strict control to the strikes.