# Martial Arts in the UFC



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Okay so I've noticed that there are a lot of Martial Arts that don't seem to make an appearance in the UFC, or in MMA in general...

Kung Fu in general(Shaolin or Wing Chun, or other less well known variations) And why no Sanda fighters in the UFC. For those who don't know Sanda is another name for Sanshou, Cung Le's striking art. 

How about the various forms of Karate that have no patrons(Goju-Ryu, Isshun-ryu, as well as less known varieties) Or Aikido, or Japanese Jujitsu.

Or TKD(Hershal Walker not withstanding), or Hapkido...or anything at all from South Korea.

How about various forms of Mauy Thai that haven't really reared their heads in MMA in general or in the UFC. Some are really sick depending on their influences (I saw one with Kung Fu influences in the northern borderlands of Thailand in a video that was amazing)

So, what do you think? Is there a reason why these arts haven't reared their heads? Is it because of the lack of legitimation of the sport? Does it have to do with the rigorous discipline of the arts in question? And most importantly have I missed any?


----------



## UFC on VHS (Dec 16, 2008)

Most of the people who are skilled in these arts don't have good enough wrestling to actually show it. In the UFC everyone knows how to wrestle and if you get taken down your Kung Fu or TKD is not going to help you. Just up until recently we thought that Karate was innfective but Lyoto cam along with a good sprawl and overall MMA game and proved us wrong.

That and just a mix of the fact that the UFC is more North American based maybe when the global expansion devolopes we will see more martial arts shinning in the octagon, I hope so I find it exciting.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Okay so I've noticed that there are a lot of Martial Arts that don't seem to make an appearance in the UFC, or in MMA in general...
> 
> Kung Fu in general(Shaolin or Wing Chun, or other less well known variations) And why no Sanda fighters in the UFC. For those who don't know Sanda is another name for Sanshou, Cung Le's striking art.
> 
> ...


multiple reasons 
1. is just pure media and exposure in the early days the UFC was nothing but a marketing tool for the gracies so they could sell their martial arts. once that happened BJJ got popular and everyone wanted to do it. other styles didnt have that kind of exposure. 

2. wrestling is something that is openly ready for anyone to practice for free in high school and collage wrestling teams.

3. as far as all the other styles its the learning curve. For instance I truly believe Tai chi is the best fighting style once mastered however it takes 5-10 years just to become proficient even longer to fight a trained fighter and a lifetime to master. However kick boxing is a style you can become effective with very quickly. MMA fighters are looking for that short learning curve that they can learn quickly and get fighting. 

my tai chi teacher put it to me this way. think of tai chi's learning curve with a small slope but goes on for a lifetime then think of kick boxing's learning curve as very steep for a little while then levels off. So someone that train is tai chi for 3 years vs someone that trained in kickboxing for 3 years the kick-boxer is going to win hands down. but go up to having them both train for 10 or 15 years and it will be a very different story.

edit 
just so it doesnt get out of hand i meant *tai chi is one of the best rarely used. *i figured everyone would know i was talking about rare styles since thats the topic of the thread


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> my tai chi teacher put it to me this way. think of tai chi's learning curve with a small slope but goes on for a lifetime then think of kick boxing's learning curve as very steep for a little while then levels off. So someone that train is tai chi for 3 years vs someone that trained in kickboxing for 3 years the kick-boxer is going to win hands down. but go up to having them both train for 10 or 15 years and it will be a very different story.



That's probably the most awesome way I've ever heard the comparison between kickboxing and traditional Martial Arts. Your tai chi teacher sounds like a really smart and experienced guy.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Sanshou is just as much a performance art as it is a form of combat, it looks great but its development into a form of sport has compeltly changed the art. As a sport many martial arts have been developing for a long time as non full contact sports where points are awarded based on how you look not how effective you are at actually damaging your opponent.

As for Japanese Jujitsu well it has been adapted from its origins, Judo is actually a derivative of Japanese Jujitsu and BJJ is a derivative of Judo. Even Judo as a martial art has drastically changed from its origins, Judo 50 0r 75 years ago would be more like todays BJJ, what has happened is sport Judo awards points based on throws and pins so the art has adapted to the sport and away form its original form.


----------



## Rationalist (Oct 15, 2006)

americanfighter said:


> my tai chi teacher put it to me this way. think of tai chi's learning curve with a small slope but goes on for a lifetime then think of kick boxing's learning curve as very steep for a little while then levels off. So someone that train is tai chi for 3 years vs someone that trained in kickboxing for 3 years the kick-boxer is going to win hands down. but go up to having them both train for 10 or 15 years and it will be a very different story.


So basically by the time you are good enough to fight with tai chi, you are past your prime


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Rationalist said:


> So basically by the time you are good enough to fight with tai chi, you are past your prime


Not necessarily. Your prime isn't your late 20's early 30's. Your prime is when you are at the peak of your physical performance and mental focus. It could happen at 23 or 43, its all in who you are and how you train your body. In most cases it is in the early thirties as far as I can see.



Toxic said:


> Sanshou is just as much a performance art as it is a form of combat, it looks great but its development into a form of sport has compeltly changed the art. As a sport many martial arts have been developing for a long time as non full contact sports where points are awarded based on how you look not how effective you are at actually damaging your opponent.


Yeah, so was Shotokan, so was Muay Thai originally, so did Jujutsu->judo and hapkido and Aikido(but in various countries)->BJJ. They all needed alteration from their origins. Sanda is no different, i.e. Cung Le.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> my tai chi teacher put it to me this way. think of tai chi's learning curve with a small slope but goes on for a lifetime then think of kick boxing's learning curve as very steep for a little while then levels off. So someone that train is tai chi for 3 years vs someone that trained in kickboxing for 3 years the kick-boxer is going to win hands down. but go up to having them both train for 10 or 15 years and it will be a very different story.


How many high level kickboxers has your tai chi instructor defeated?


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

HexRei said:


> How many high level kickboxers has your tai chi instructor defeated?


The point isn't that kickboxers are inferior it is that it takes less time to learn kickboxing than tai chi and to be very good at it. Just like with every other traditional martial art. But there is more to tai chi than there is to kickboxing. There in lies a general summary of his post...I think.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Im just wondering what he's basing his belief that "Tai chi is the best fighting style once mastered" on. I mean it's a little convenient that it takes so long to master that most can't reasonably compete, so how can you ever test the theory, and thus, why believe it? 

I can only suppose that he believes it because of his training under his master, so I am wondering who his master defeated to gain this confidence. or who he saw defeated, and by who. Theory is nice, but testing proves.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Im just wondering what he's basing his belief that "Tai chi is the best fighting style once mastered" on. I mean it's a little convenient that it takes so long to master that most can't reasonably compete, so how can you ever test the theory, and thus, why believe it?
> 
> I can only suppose that he believes it because of his training under his master, so I am wondering who his master defeated to gain this confidence. or who he saw defeated, and by who. Theory is nice, but testing proves.


Isn't he allowed to have his own opinion? I think Shotokan is the greatest MA in the world(for me). Does that mean I'm some unrealistic biased shitbag? No, its my opinion. It doesn't matter why he believes it, just that he does.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Isn't he allowed to have his own opinion? I think Shotokan is the greatest MA in the world(for me). Does that mean I'm some unrealistic biased shitbag? No, its my opinion. It doesn't matter why he believes it, just that he does.


Am I not allowed to ask questions when someone states their opinion? Didn't they state their opinion in the spirit of discussion? 

Why the defensiveness? I mean I wasn't even actually talking to you.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

slap boxing coupled with retard strength is a UNSTOPPABLE combo, my trainer told me so.

i havent seen him fight or do anything in real time during a real fight but trust me, he is badass in training!!

once i master the 58 years of training, i will challenge Brock Lesnar or his great grandson.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Am I not allowed to ask questions when someone states their opinion? Didn't they state their opinion in the spirit of discussion? Why the defensiveness?
> 
> 
> I mean I wasn't even actually talking to you.



Its a pulic thread buddy. If you didn't want to have anyone else but the guy you quoted, you should have sent a private message. And if I disagree with you or have an opinion on what you said its my perogative to say something about it...thats what discussion is. 

Also I wasn't trying to be defensive. If it came off that way I apologize. I was just trying to say that being bias and prefering a specific art aren't the same things. 

edit: Also upon reading through it, paragraph 1 appeared defensive as well, another apology would be appropriate.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Its a pulic thread buddy. If you didn't want to have anyone else but the guy you quoted, you should have sent a private message. And if I disagree with you or have an opinion on what you said its my perogative to say something about it...thats what discussion is.
> 
> Also I wasn't trying to be defensive. If it came off that way I apologize. I was just trying to say that being bias and prefering a specific art aren't the same things.
> 
> edit: Also upon reading through it, paragraph 1 appeared defensive as well, another apology for you...


No worries. All I am asking is why he believes what he does. He is obviously free to his belief regardless, as are you. One should not be surprised when they are asked questions about a belief they post on a public message board, though, or take offense if others are skeptical of that belief in the absence of proof.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

I thought everyone knew not to question tai chi?

Sh1t, do that stuff for 15 years and you'll be making fools look like kids in the octagon.


----------



## naturlystoned (Nov 18, 2007)

How many more threads asking about the lesser used martial arts do people plan on making this month/week/today? You would think the mods would lock or merge them. This is at least the 50th since January.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> How many high level kickboxers has your tai chi instructor defeated?


I cant say for sure but probably several. He is not a average tai chi teacher. 



> CARL MEEKS
> 
> Louisville and surrounding area.
> 
> ...


http://www.kentuckytaichi.com/CInst-Meeks.html

obviously he had trained allot before moving to tai chi. He told me stories of how he got his ass handed to him when he was training with Yang jun. 
I am currently learning the Yang 103 with combat applications from him. Its fun watching him throw around guys that are twice his size half his age. Not so fun being the dummy though. I have a year of kickboxing a year of TKD and a year of karate as well as high school wrestling. What he did to me was laughable. One time he would say punch me then he would show me how easily he could break my arm then throw me to the side like a rag doll.

i use to think it was somewhat BS till I had it done to me.



Squirrelfighter said:


> That's probably the most awesome way I've ever heard the comparison between kickboxing and traditional Martial Arts. Your tai chi teacher sounds like a really smart and experienced guy.


He is I was lucky to get him givin his status in the martial arts world I was execring him to be a hard ass but he was exacty the oposite. It's funny I had an instructor before that was teaching a style called ba gua. He was big headed. and he insisted that I call him Sifu. I talked to my teacher I asked would you prefer me call you sifu or master. He laughed and just call me Carl.



HexRei said:


> Im just wondering what he's basing his belief that "Tai chi is the best fighting style once mastered" on. I mean it's a little convenient that it takes so long to master that most can't reasonably compete, so how can you ever test the theory, and thus, why believe it?
> 
> I can only suppose that he believes it because of his training under his master, so I am wondering who his master defeated to gain this confidence. or who he saw defeated, and by who. Theory is nice, but testing proves.


i understand you skepticism HexRei I use to feel the same this tai chi stuff is crapp and its all fake. However I was always interested in it so I met an instructure that kicked my ass and has said that despite all the other martial arts he has trained in tai chi was the best when mastered.

In history there were allot of tai chi fighters that were very sucessfull. However its just not popular as a fighing style. Its been played of as strictly for health and lots of young guys that want to be fighters dont have the patients and dedication requiered for tai chi. 

If you hada bunch of peopele interested in being a fighter and a tai chi in told them ok you can train in tai chi and become one of the best fighters ever but it will take about 10 to 15 years before you can start fighting. Then a Kick-boxing coach came up and said train with me and i can get you fighting in a year and you could be one of the elites in 5. Only a very small precent would chose tai chi and of that small precent a large majority would quit and go to kick-boxing. 

Tai chi just isnt apealing to the younger generation and definatly not to someone that wants to be a fighter. Tai chi is not discover by many people untill their later years in life. Many people with tai chi dont realy have asperations to become an MMA champ.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

It's about time someone who does tai chi took up MMA training. Since their tai chi takes 10-15 years to be useful, they could probably learn wrestling, muay thai and bjj in that time too.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Yeah, so was Shotokan, so was Muay Thai originally, so did Jujutsu->judo and hapkido and Aikido(but in various countries)->BJJ. They all needed alteration from their origins. Sanda is no different, i.e. Cung Le.


Yeah but Cung Le sucks. He has lots of great flashy looking moves but a guy like Melvin Manhoef would leave him in a heap of a mess in no time and nobody looks good picking up teeth. The thing is that as a sport in China any kind of Kung Fu or anything like that your ability to make a living depended on your ability to look good in competition and the guy that got the students was the guy who looked impressive so moves became more acrobatic, kicks became more out streched and in general they all became greatly exaggerated and the overall ability as a form of combat has became secondary to the visual effect something the rise of Kung Fu movies and popular culture only compounded further. Kick Boxing and Muay Thai have remained full contact sports in which has left what is effective and those flashy moves got removed because they don't work.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I can't wait to see the Machida Karate Students roll over the whole MMA world in a couple of years by storm :thumb02:

everybody will switch over to Machida Karate :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain Stupid (Feb 3, 2008)

Everything you need to know is in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

Captain Stupid said:


> Everything you need to know is in this clip.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I


This was a comment on that video:



> that old masters name﻿ is masterbates


I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Isn't he allowed to have his own opinion? I think Shotokan is the greatest MA in the world(for me). Does that mean I'm some unrealistic biased shitbag? No, its my opinion. It doesn't matter why he believes it, just that he does.


You can have an opinion but it doesn't mean shit unless you back it up with some facts. A shotokan fan can claim their art is the best in the world and have some evidence to back it up because a practioner of it is successful at the sport that is the closest thing to real life fighting that we have.

A Tai chi guy doesn't have that and I find it laughable when someone essentially says "I could do that but I don't want to" which is what the claim that Tai chi is the most effective martial art is. We have MMA which is the truest test of fighting available outside of real combat and has tens of thousands of dollars, or more, at stake on each bout. In that environment evolution is very rapid and we find out quickly what is actually the best because people will use it. 

The idea that there are some Shaolin monks or ancient kung fu masters out there (or Tai chi) that could own MMA fighters but don't because they have better things to do or because it takes too long or because the sun got in their eyes is lol


----------



## War (Feb 28, 2007)

> The idea that there are some Shaolin monks or ancient kung fu masters out there (or Tai chi) that could own MMA fighters but don't because they have better things to do or because it takes too long or because the sun got in their eyes is lol


I'm afraid I have to agree with this. I've been involved in one way or another with Martial Arts, MMA and Wrestling since I was 15 years old and have seen a lot of things. The one thing I haven't seen was someone come out of the woodwork claiming to use some ultra powerful non-used style and destroy his competition.

I believe that all Martial Arts have their place and that all Martial Arts, in a real fight, can be useful. In the context of MMA or more specifically in the cage it's way different. While I believe that a few styles have yet to come to the forefront (I seriously believe that a hybrid of wrestling will be developed) I think those that do come through will be altered enough to survive. 

MMA has become like evolution. If these styles want to compete they will change and grow. 

If they want to not participate but proclaim themselves the best, that's fine, but no amount of beating up people in your own dojo is going to win you the respect of defeating someone in the cage. 

I would like to see someone doing Tai Chi in MMA just because if it is THAT effective, then I'd assume it would be any eye opener for many, myself included.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

Drogo said:


> *You can have an opinion but it doesn't mean shit unless you back it up with some facts.* A shotokan fan can claim their art is the best in the world and have some evidence to back it up because a practioner of it is successful at the sport that is the closest thing to real life fighting that we have.
> 
> A Tai chi guy doesn't have that and I find it laughable when someone essentially says "I could do that but I don't want to" which is what the claim that Tai chi is the most effective martial art is. We have MMA which is the truest test of fighting available outside of real combat and has tens of thousands of dollars, or more, at stake on each bout. In that environment evolution is very rapid and we find out quickly what is actually the best because people will use it.
> 
> The idea that there are some Shaolin monks or ancient kung fu masters out there (or Tai chi) that could own MMA fighters but don't because they have better things to do or because it takes too long or because the sun got in their eyes is lol


If an opinion is backed up by a fact wouldnt that just make it a fact????........Its his freaking opinion...If your against it thats your opinion...My opinion I could care less DRUNKEN BOXING IS THE BEST!!!!


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

G_Land said:


> If an opinion is backed up by a fact wouldnt that just make it a fact????........Its his freaking opinion...If your against it thats your opinion...My opinion I could care less DRUNKEN BOXING IS THE BEST!!!!


Opinions do not all have the same value. Reasonable opions are based on facts. For some things (most things) the facts involved are not conclusive or 100% percent applicable. You use those facts to bolster your opinion so it is a reasonable opinion that other people understand. In some cases, math say, opinions and facts become the same thing. You can't really have the opinion that 2+2=5 because we have indisputable proofs on what is right and wrong in math (generally).

For other things, colour say, there is no indisputable proof or objective scale. Your opinion on what your favourite colour is can't be disputed in any meaningful way.

Most things, like MMA, are more in the middle. There are some measures or scales that we use as evidence to base opinions on. In the case of MMA we have a scale with which to measure what the best martial art is, organized competitions like the UFC with many competitors and significant amounts of money at stake so that people can devout all their time to training. Is this scale a perfect measure of the best martial art? No, but it is the closest thing that I know of and if your opinions aren't based on results from it then they carry considerably less weight to rational people then unsubstantiated verbal claims.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

Again Im not saying your wrong or anybody is wrong but when looking at value isnt a way of basing an opinion because again worth is up to the person...You can ask a person in LA and they would say theres nothing better than cock fighting...does that mean that fighters should strap steel spikes to their feet and go at it? No. But I do see what your saying but I think Jet Li's movie "Fearless" Had it right in the end....if you havnt seen it plz do because the over all moto of the movie is actually what we are dicusing right now


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Yeah but Cung Le sucks. He has lots of great flashy looking moves but a guy like Melvin Manhoef would leave him in a heap of a mess in no time and nobody looks good picking up teeth. The thing is that as a sport in China any kind of Kung Fu or anything like that your ability to make a living depended on your ability to look good in competition and the guy that got the students was the guy who looked impressive so moves became more acrobatic, kicks became more out streched and in general they all became greatly exaggerated and the overall ability as a form of combat has became secondary to the visual effect something the rise of Kung Fu movies and popular culture only compounded further. Kick Boxing and Muay Thai have remained full contact sports in which has left what is effective and those flashy moves got removed because they don't work.


The same holds true for styles like TKD. When I was training one of my students he was trained in TKD and the amount of bad technique in that style is absolutely ridiculous at times. Sure, 90% of it is truely effective but there are things taught in that style that would get you destroyed in an actual fight.


EDIT: Drogo that was a damn fine post, took the words out of my mouth.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I am so proud of you guys right now  I didn't even have to come back and reply. you did it for me. *wipes tear from eye*


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Okay so I've noticed that there are a lot of Martial Arts that don't seem to make an appearance in the UFC, or in MMA in general...
> 
> Kung Fu in general(Shaolin or Wing Chun, or other less well known variations) And why no Sanda fighters in the UFC. For those who don't know Sanda is another name for Sanshou, Cung Le's striking art.
> 
> ...


 
They arent as popular in the states. You need to be aware of these forms of arts in order to study them and sadly, many people are not....

In other words lack of desire to study them.....


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Drogo said:


> A Tai chi guy doesn't have that and I find it laughable when someone essentially says "I could do that but I don't want to" which is what the claim that Tai chi is the most effective martial art is. We have MMA which is the truest test of fighting available outside of real combat and has tens of thousands of dollars, or more, at stake on each bout. In that environment evolution is very rapid and we find out quickly what is actually the best because people will use it. l


I know where you are comeing from. I use to feel the same way. But I was a guy that was beating high ranking belts in tkd sparing (blue belt which was 3ed highest) and hanging in there with black belts. Then get my ass handed to me by a tai chi guy. Also having a guy with his credibility say it's the best convinced me. There is another style called Bagua that is similer and I fought that guy and beat him 1 out of 3 times but this tai chi guy was a ghost and threw me around like a rag doll and spared me a broken are several times.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> I know where you are comeing from. I use to feel the same way. But I was a guy that was beating high ranking belts in tkd sparing (blue belt which was 3ed highest) and hanging in there with black belts. Then get my ass handed to me by a tai chi guy. Also having a guy with his credibility say it's the best convinced me. There is another style called Bagua that is similer and I fought that guy and beat him 1 out of 3 times but this tai chi guy was a ghost and threw me around like a rag doll and spared me a broken are several times.



I think you might be in disguise.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

khoveraki said:


> I think you might be in disguise.


Have you discovered My secret idenity?


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> Have you discovered My secret idenity?


A 14 year old who recently googled tai-chi and wants to sound like he has some insider-info no one else has about it?


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I guess that means he signed up when he was 10?


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

khoveraki said:


> A 14 year old who recently googled tai-chi and wants to sound like he has some insider-info no one else has about it?


Lol well it wouldn't be hard to tirick you guys but no.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> Have you discovered My secret idenity?








Yes, yes I have.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

lol Tai Chi alongside Aikido has to be the most bullshido "Martial Art" in the world. It's not a freaking martial art, it's a bunch slow moving old people combined with mystical mumbo jumbo. All "fighting" demos are slow choreography of some complying dude running like a retard at the "master" who takes his sweet time grabbing his arms and just pushing the guy back. Of course the "enemy" just stands around and twiddles his thumbs while all this happens.

In real life the "master" would get socked. Or even better, throw 2 mins of mystical poses and then start windmilling like a little girl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S19VsB7__v0

If you want your religion/cult to make you feel badass, that's fine. Just don't expect it to ever show or hold up in real world fighting or MMA, and your delusion will be safe.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)




----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Toxic said:


> Yes, yes I have.


hillarious


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> lol Tai Chi alongside Aikido has to be the most bullshido "Martial Art" in the world. It's not a freaking martial art, it's a bunch slow moving old people combined with mystical mumbo jumbo. All "fighting" demos are slow choreography of some complying dude running like a retard at the "master" who takes his sweet time grabbing his arms and just pushing the guy back. Of course the "enemy" just stands around and twiddles his thumbs while all this happens.
> 
> In real life the "master" would get socked. Or even better, throw 2 mins of mystical poses and then start windmilling like a little girl:
> 
> ...


hey man the is no need to be an ass hole 

As i said before i thought the same thing till I fought Carl. IDK what your talking about but thats not traditional tai chi. Tai Chi has got a false image as only for old people and only for health. . 

those videos that you see online are all wrong. When a Taichi fighter fights they will throw punches and kicks and stuff just like a traditional martial arts in adidtion to the aplications. 

the shit you see on line gives it a bad image. 

(1:10 to 3:00)is an example of what a real tai chi fight would look like and these guys are amatures it seems like they should have been able to find a differint video. 5:06 to 5:40 is called push hands and what they are trying to do is catch the person of ballance and throw them to the ground. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc4YKgNpyBc


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

that video has some of the sloppiest fighting I have ever seen outside of the playground behind my highschool. and it's clearly heavily edited... I can't even imagine what was so bad that they decided not to include it.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> that video has some of the sloppiest fighting I have ever seen outside of the playground behind my highschool. and it's clearly heavily edited... I can't even imagine what was so bad that they decided not to include it.


i told you thos guys were horrible i honestly dont know why they would include that but the point was that its not the BS you see on the internet every where. there is a lot of kicks and punches. Where I train carl is a black belt in karate so when he trows kicks and punches they look much better than those.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I cant convince you just as no one could convice me. 

The fact of the matter is 
1. The tradiional fighting tai chi is dying out and being replaced buy this health stuff. 
2. The only way you can prove it to yourself is go find someone who trained fight tai chi for 10 plus years and ask them to fight. Thats what I did. 


Hell come to louisville and pick a fight with Carl I would love to see him do you to someone else what he did to me.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

americanfighter said:


> hey man the is no need to be an ass hole
> 
> As i said before i thought the same thing till I fought Carl. IDK what your talking about but thats not traditional tai chi. Tai Chi has got a false image as only for old people and only for health. .
> 
> ...


Well ok, with all due respect what I meant is I don't buy it. I just believe in hard proof and results... That video of yours also only shows it against other ineffective fighters that don't really know what to do except throw slow TM stuff. Also it seems more like very controlled sparring than an all out "hurt the other guy" kinda thing.

Even then there are only a couple of takedowns from the first Tai Chi guy (and absolutely nothing from the second one) that seem borrowed from Judo/Karate, and are nothing related to those slow painful Tai Chi movements in the rest of the video. But good luck with it, I'll bow out of this thread now ... I tend to hijack these way too often.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> hey man the is no need to be an ass hole
> 
> As i said before i thought the same thing till I fought Carl. IDK what your talking about but thats not traditional tai chi. Tai Chi has got a false image as only for old people and only for health. .
> 
> ...


The only thing that didn't look like a 5 year old fighting in that video were the throws.


Throws from Tai Chi might be viable, throw the rest out though.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> I cant convince you just as no one could convice me.
> 
> The fact of the matter is
> 1. The tradiional fighting tai chi is dying out and being replaced buy this health stuff.
> ...


Wait... are we talking about Carl Meeks here? Oh gods. You have lost all credibility when it comes to talking about martial arts. The man is huge fraud. I've been to his seminars before and trained with him. He loses badly to anybody with any real training. Very badly. Painfully badly. If he threw you around it's because you had bad training somewhere not because he is the tai chi god.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Yeah but Cung Le sucks. He has lots of great flashy looking moves but a guy like Melvin Manhoef would leave him in a heap of a mess in no time and nobody looks good picking up teeth. The thing is that as a sport in China any kind of Kung Fu or anything like that your ability to make a living depended on your ability to look good in competition and the guy that got the students was the guy who looked impressive so moves became more acrobatic, kicks became more out streched and in general they all became greatly exaggerated and the overall ability as a form of combat has became secondary to the visual effect something the rise of Kung Fu movies and popular culture only compounded further. Kick Boxing and Muay Thai have remained full contact sports in which has left what is effective and those flashy moves got removed because they don't work.


This is exceedingly generalized and shows a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to Kung Fu. For example, Shaolin kung fu does indeed include alot of unnecessary circular movements, the art is designed to immitate the flowing nature of the natural world...

However...Wing Chun Kung Fu is (according to its histories) taught to Wing Chun by her master in the 1600s who used it for self-defense purposes and taught it for that purpose. Unlike Shaolin it uses a low rooted stances and direct forward attacks rather than circular rotational movements. Sanda is however the sport version of Kung Fu...in more recognizable terms, compared to Shotokan...

Shotokan->Shaolin
Ishuun-ryu->Wing Chun
Machida Karate->Sanda

And honestly your tone creates this feeling that in your social life you think all that matters is Muay Thai and BBJ, also wrestling...your whole post seems quite narrowminded. 



Hiro said:


> It's about time someone who does tai chi took up MMA training. Since their tai chi takes 10-15 years to be useful, they could probably learn wrestling, muay thai and bjj in that time too.


The point isn't hey, lets learn a shitload really quickly, its, hey, lets get so good at this that no one will ever take me standing...and since it takes so little time to learn BBJ(According to your logic)then its no problem to cross-train.



Drogo said:


> Opinions do not all have the same value. Reasonable opions are based on facts. For some things (most things) the facts involved are not conclusive or 100% percent applicable. You use those facts to bolster your opinion so it is a reasonable opinion that other people understand. In some cases, math say, opinions and facts become the same thing. You can't really have the opinion that 2+2=5 because we have indisputable proofs on what is right and wrong in math (generally).


So you think your opinion is worth more than someone elses because you think differently than someone else? You have some serious issues that need worked out.



coldcall420 said:


> They arent as popular in the states. You need to be aware of these forms of arts in order to study them and sadly, many people are not....
> 
> In other words lack of desire to study them.....


Which is disheartening to me.



Liddellianenko said:


> lol Tai Chi alongside Aikido has to be the most bullshido "Martial Art" in the world. It's not a freaking martial art, it's a bunch slow moving old people combined with mystical mumbo jumbo. All "fighting" demos are slow choreography of some complying dude running like a retard at the "master" who takes his sweet time grabbing his arms and just pushing the guy back. Of course the "enemy" just stands around and twiddles his thumbs while all this happens.
> 
> In real life the "master" would get socked. Or even better, throw 2 mins of mystical poses and then start windmilling like a little girl:
> 
> ...


This is one of the worst possible things I think anyone could ever have said.



Captain Stupid said:


> Everything you need to know is in this clip.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I


God! I am so gettin' tired of seeing this video dragged out whenever someone brings up little used Martial Arts. 
1. This is not Kung Fu or Tai Chi
2. This is called Kiai its a generic concept in all old-school (and a few choice new-school) Martial Arts. It says you can manipulate your body's energy and project it at your opponent. And is obvious bullshit. This is the stuff you see in shitty fighting movies

Want a further demonstration? Watch Dragon Ball Z.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

deadmanshand said:


> Wait... are we talking about Carl Meeks here? Oh gods. You have lost all credibility when it comes to talking about martial arts. The man is huge fraud. I've been to his seminars before and trained with him. He loses badly to anybody with any real training. Very badly. Painfully badly. If he threw you around it's because you had bad training somewhere not because he is the tai chi god.


Not the same guy the the guy I train with doesn't leave Louisville. There are a few guys with that name the guy I know has a black belt in karate and has trained extisively in judo. Also he is anything but a tai chi god. There are much beter tai chi fighters than him. If you consider training with the co-founder of Gracie bara bjj and kickiboxing with mma champs bad training then I want to know who you train with.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Sorry. I know exactly who you are talking about with Carl Meeks. I've met the man and he couldn't manhandle me at a point where I was far less complete of a fighter than I am now. In the earlier post you said you had a year of tkd, a year of kickboxing, and a year of something else. That doesn't sound like you had great training with MMA fighters and the founder of anything special but if you really want to know the kinds of people I have trained with. Alan Belcher for parts of my mma training. Renalto Tavares - the head bjj guy for American Top Team - who gave me a standing invitation to train there. There have been others but is that good enough for the moment?

The Carl Meeks I met and trained with was based out of Kentucky. Lousiville in particular. I can say with 100 percent certainty that he is a martial arts fraud. Full bore bullshido. Tai-chi as an ultimate combat art. Tai-chi wasn't even developed as a combat art and has never been used that way.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Well I train with him and here at the sametime. 
http://corelouisville.com/component/portfolio/1-Trainers
it's been a while since I fought him may be things changed. I know tai chi has helped be dramaticly in my other styles. I know in my bjj I have used a tai chi move to take down people in open mat.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> This is exceedingly generalized and shows a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to Kung Fu. For example, Shaolin kung fu does indeed include alot of unnecessary circular movements, the art is designed to immitate the flowing nature of the natural world...
> 
> However...Wing Chun Kung Fu is (according to its histories) taught to Wing Chun by her master in the 1600s who used it for self-defense purposes and taught it for that purpose. Unlike Shaolin it uses a low rooted stances and direct forward attacks rather than circular rotational movements. Sanda is however the sport version of Kung Fu...in more recognizable terms, compared to Shotokan...
> 
> ...


I don't care what they were created for in the 1600's, If you think your taking the same kung fu that anybody learnt over 400 years ago your absolutely out of your mind. Study younger arts like (not train learn the history) Judo and BJJ and notice how drastically they have changed from there origins and you think a sport over 5 times as old that was around for that long hasn't changed? Is Kung Fu gonna help you beat up some scrub standing on a street corner well absolutely is it gonna prepare you for a fight with a kick boxer or muay thai fighter absolutely not. There may be things that can be borrowed from each because I don't believe anything can be complete garbage but certain martial arts are simply more effective, whether 100 years ago it was the same who knows but there are styles that are clearly dominate.


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Am I not allowed to ask questions when someone states their opinion? Didn't they state their opinion in the spirit of discussion?
> 
> Why the defensiveness? I mean I wasn't even actually talking to you.


Yeah I call shenanigans too, me thinks your instructor likes students to pay for 15 years of training...raise01:


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

in all seriousness

mexican judo is probably the greatest martial art not used enough.

ju do want some problems??

ju don't know i gotta gun??


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Toxic said:


> I don't care what they were created for in the 1600's, If you think your taking the same kung fu that anybody learnt over 400 years ago your absolutely out of your mind. Study younger arts like (not train learn the history) Judo and BJJ and notice how drastically they have changed from there origins and you think a sport over 5 times as old that was around for that long hasn't changed? Is Kung Fu gonna help you beat up some scrub standing on a street corner well absolutely is it gonna prepare you for a fight with a kick boxer or muay thai fighter absolutely not. There may be things that can be borrowed from each because I don't believe anything can be complete garbage but certain martial arts are simply more effective, whether 100 years ago it was the same who knows but there are styles that are clearly dominate.


Umm, remind me wasn't your cheif complaint that Kung Fu was flashy and rediculous...:confused02: And yet when I explain that Wing Chun is not at all circular and is a straight for the throat art with no flashy BS and that there is more depth to Kung Fu that what the movies have taught you, you have a fit.

Whats the problem? Or is it that you're so wrapped up in Muay Thai that you can't see past your amazing makes-it-the-best-thing-ever-if-you-don't-pay-attention-to-anything 4 points of contact? And by the way, I don't take Kung Fu, I never have and never will. I don't like it. It doesn't fit my style.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Umm, remind me wasn't your cheif complaint that Kung Fu was flashy and rediculous...:confused02: And yet when I explain that Wing Chun is not at all circular and is a straight for the throat art with no flashy BS and that there is more depth to Kung Fu that what the movies have taught you, you have a fit.
> 
> Whats the problem? Or is it that you're so wrapped up in Muay Thai that you can't see past your amazing makes-it-the-best-thing-ever-if-you-don't-pay-attention-to-anything 4 points of contact? And by the way, I don't take Kung Fu, I never have and never will. I don't like it. It doesn't fit my style.


Kung Fu has developed into ridiculous and flashy (exagerated) moves that isn't its origins its what it has become.

I am not wrapped up in anyting I have never taken Muay Thai or kick boxing but I can see what works and what doesn't.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

But everybody said the same thing about Karate until Lyoto came around and proved the haters wrong! Every traditional Martial Art can come up again with the right person who performs it, even Kung Fu or TKD and so on.. They just need to train the effective part of it not only the art. Every Martial Art also Muay Thai changed tremendously over the last decades. But guys like Lyoto studied the old parts of it again, not this gimmickry you get teached in a Dojo today.

The actual meaning of the Art needs to be studied again, the art for what it actual was invented for.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

BobbyCooper said:


> But everybody said the same thing about Karate until Lyoto came around and proved the haters wrong! Every traditional Martial Art can come up again with the right person who performs it, even Kung Fu or TKD and so on.. They just need to train the effective part of it not only the art. Every Martial Art also Muay Thai changed tremendously over the last decades. But guys like Lyoto studied the old parts of it again, not this gimmickry you get teached in a Dojo today.


This idea Lyoto Machida brought back Karate is complete garbage. Keith Hackney a Karate fighter was one of the UFC's first big stars, Guys like Chuck Liddell and GSP both studied Karate. Bas Rutten was a black belt in karate. Karate never left it has been relative since Tela Tuili's teeth ended up in some fans drink at UFC 1.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Toxic said:


> This idea Lyoto Machida brought back Karate is complete garbage. Keith Hackney a Karate fighter was one of the UFC's first big stars, Guys like Chuck Liddell and GSP both studied Karate. Bas Rutten was a black belt in karate. Karate never left it has been relative since Tela Tuili's teeth ended up in some fans drink at UFC 1.


I know even Frank Mir has a Karate background but the thing is they don't really use it like Machida who relies nearly all of his striking in this particular art. All these other guys you mentioned train Kickboxing, Boxing and so on as well. Sure Lyoto also studied Muay thai, but nobody executed Karate back into the actual combat sport like he did. They all didn't trained the real art for what it was made for. Sammy Schilt has also a Karate background.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

..... Chuck Norris.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

BobbyCooper said:


> I know even Frank Mir has a Karate background but the thing is they don't really use it like Machida who relies nearly all of his striking in this particular art. All these other guys you mentioned train Kickboxing, Boxing and so on as well. Sure Lyoto also studied Muay thai, but nobody executed Karate back into the actual combat sport like he did. They all didn't trained the real art for what it was made for. Sammy Schilt has also a Karate background.


The only difference IMO is that Machida uses a Karate stance (which I doubt we will see make a return after the Shogun fight) and the fact that people want to believe that Machida is some kind of ninja from the jungle, a real life Ryu straight out of a kung fu movie. If GSP had been brazillian or Asian instead of a French Canadian would he have been the modern day Samuri Machida is thought of?


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Toxic said:


> The only difference IMO is that Machida uses a Karate stance (which I doubt we will see make a return after the Shogun fight) and the fact that people want to believe that Machida is some kind of ninja from the jungle, a real life Ryu straight out of a kung fu movie. If GSP had been brazillian or Asian instead of a French Canadian would he have been the modern day Samuri Machida is thought of?


No he wouldn't! Machida is non-recurrent the only Samurai who is left out there 

The stance is just from his particular Karate art, not every Karateka uses the Southpaw stance! It's just what he has been taught and what he internalized from his particular Karate art. The are thousands of different kind of Karatekas out there. 

The main thing about Lyoto is, that he really only relies on his Karate wich nobody else does in the World right now. No Sammy Schilt, no GSP, no Frank Mir and so on..
Do you really think Sammy Schilt would have made it that far, without his Kickboxing?? Or do you think GSP would had made it that far with his Karate alone? Nobody thought Karate is still effective in a combat Sport, thats why everybody stdudied Muay Thai and Kickboxing, because that was the art ppl said wich actually wins you a real fight. 

Nobody would have fought with only a Karate background, they were scared to use it, because they thought it wasn't effective enough to make it anymore. Hell even Lyoto was scared of using his Karate in his early days.


----------



## Thelegend (Nov 2, 2009)

Toxic said:


> The only difference IMO is that Machida uses a Karate stance (which I doubt we will see make a return after the Shogun fight) and the fact that *people want to believe that Machida is some kind of ninja from the jungle, a real life Ryu* straight out of a kung fu movie. If GSP had been brazillian or Asian instead of a French Canadian would he have been the modern day Samuri Machida is thought of?


i thought he was more of a real life ken to be honest:dunno:

The fact is no single art is gonna cut it in mma anymore. you have to be multifaceted if you want to succeed. As far as old styles being used in the ufc its gonna take a person who can adjust the art like machida and add and subtract what will or will not work in a real or sport fight situation. 

if gsp was not candian and was asian he would not be thought of as a samurai because of the way he uses wrestling as a base rather than a form of karate like machida. machida just brings back the old school samurai thought to his fights. the guy literally punches wood to strengthen his hands. I mean i cant help myself thinking of an old kung fu movie when i see him.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

Angry angry people......I dont kno enough about the different arts to jump in this...I would get schooled lol


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Thelegend said:


> i thought he was more of a real life ken to be honest:dunno:
> 
> The fact is no single art is gonna cut it in mma anymore. you have to be multifaceted if you want to succeed. As far as old styles being used in the ufc its gonna take a person who can adjust the art like machida and add and subtract what will or will not work in a real or sport fight situation.
> 
> if gsp was not candian and was asian he would not be thought of as a samurai because of the way he uses wrestling as a base rather than a form of karate like machida. machida just brings back the old school samurai thought to his fights. the guy literally punches wood to strengthen his hands. I mean i cant help myself thinking of an old kung fu movie when i see him.


Man, people have short memories. When GSP burst onto the scene and was first considered the future of the sport, back when Matt Hughes was dominating everybody who dared to step in front of him, it was not GSP the wrestler everybody was raving about. The wrestling may have became his strength but his base was NEVER in wrestling hell he never wrestled till after he got into mma.


----------



## Thelegend (Nov 2, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Man, people have short memories. When GSP burst onto the scene and was first considered the future of the sport, back when Matt Hughes was dominating everybody who dared to step in front of him, it was not GSP the wrestler everybody was raving about. The wrestling may have became his strength but his base was NEVER in wrestling hell he never wrestled till after he got into mma.


i meant base as biggest strength but my mistake should have been more specific, i know he used his kickboxing more back then.

still the fact is nobody is doing what machida is doing right now as far as using a form of karate and having real success.thats why people think of him as a modern day ninja/samurai. yea, some of it is because he is Asian but its not like he doesn't think of himself as a samurai as well.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Kung Fu has developed into ridiculous and flashy (exagerated) moves that isn't its origins its what it has become.
> 
> I am not wrapped up in anyting I have never taken Muay Thai or kick boxing but I can see what works and what doesn't.


Did you even read my post that you quoted? Any of them on this thread that you quoted? There is more than one form of Kung Fu, just like with almost every other art. 

The "flashy" and "exagerated" Kung Fu you're talking about is Shaolin, which is only those in a subjective sense, from seifu(teacher)to seifu it changes dramatically depending on the lineage. Where as Wing Chun, which is a totally different form of Kung Fu, is not at all flashy. There are no animal forms, its a very japanese way of looking at Kung Fu, straight in at your opponent, nothing unnecessary, just punches, blocks and kicks. 

Saying Wing Chun and Shaolin Kung Fu are alike is like saying Shotokan and McDojo Karate are alike!


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

deadmanshand said:


> Sorry. I know exactly who you are talking about with Carl Meeks. I've met the man and he couldn't manhandle me at a point where I was far less complete of a fighter than I am now. In the earlier post you said you had a year of tkd, a year of kickboxing, and a year of something else. That doesn't sound like you had great training with MMA fighters and the founder of anything special but if you really want to know the kinds of people I have trained with. Alan Belcher for parts of my mma training. Renalto Tavares - the head bjj guy for American Top Team - who gave me a standing invitation to train there. There have been others but is that good enough for the moment?
> 
> The Carl Meeks I met and trained with was based out of Kentucky. Lousiville in particular. I can say with 100 percent certainty that he is a martial arts fraud. Full bore bullshido. Tai-chi as an ultimate combat art. Tai-chi wasn't even developed as a combat art and has never been used that way.


 perhaps you could tell me something about him that isn't on the Internet so I could verify your telling the truth.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

tell him about that birthmark on his butt.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> tell him about that birthmark on his butt.


Ok i don't want to know what you are doing looking at the guys ass but how about something a little less personal because I have no intention of seeing his ass. Lol 

Or just answer this question when he was training judo there is something about his training in that is out of the ordinary what was it.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Is it compare apples and oranges time again?? Yaaaayyy!!!

Study a few arts, some striking, some grappling and some intermingled if you have an MMA gym near you, then take the elements that work best for you and use them.

And remember, on the street, all them nice rules is off.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

swpthleg said:


> Is it compare apples and oranges time again?? Yaaaayyy!!!
> 
> Study a few arts, some striking, some grappling and some intermingled if you have an MMA gym near you, then take the elements that work best for you and use them.
> 
> And remember, on the street, all them nice rules is off.


Which means Krav Magra is the bestest.


MMA is essentially Jeet Kune Do. As Swp is saying, you study the art, you leave the most effective and what works for the fight, everything else is garbage.

If you guys really want a good outlook on what MMA is, read the Tao. Sure, Bruce didn't incorporate a lot of what we deem essential into his version of Jeet Kune Do, but if he were alive he would be the first to tell you that he didn't create a style or a Martial Art, he created a philosophy.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> Which means Krav Magra is the bestest.
> 
> 
> MMA is essentially Jeet Kune Do. As Swp is saying, you study the art, you leave the most effective and what works for the fight, everything else is garbage.
> ...


 
^^^THIS^^^


Jeet Kune Do - The Way of the Intercepting Fist

As Tra points out it isn't a style is a philosophy or way of thinking developed solely by Bruce Lee....


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> Which means Krav Magra is the bestest.
> 
> 
> MMA is essentially Jeet Kune Do. As Swp is saying, you study the art, you leave the most effective and what works for the fight, everything else is garbage.
> ...


True I have the book. Bruce under stood this stuff better than any one will.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Hex

Being that it's been so long since I asked my question and you haven't been able to answer it or give me a reasonable question to ask him. Also being that you are located in Portland forgive me if I don't belive you. 

All I can say is I train under Carl for tai chi and under Soneca for bjj and my tai chi has dramiticaly helped me control the other person's weight and throw him. What you said about tai chi is compleatly wrong. It was origionaly a fighting art.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> Hex
> 
> Being that it's been so long since I asked my question and you haven't been able to answer it or give me a reasonable question to ask him. Also being that you are located in Portland forgive me if I don't belive you.
> 
> All I can say is I train under Carl for tai chi and under Soneca for bjj and my tai chi has dramiticaly helped me control the other person's weight and throw him. What you said about tai chi is compleatly wrong. It was origionaly a fighting art.



I've found there is a rediculous amount of ignorance on the subject of non-sport oriented Martial Arts that shows up as vehement antipathy. People don't understand it so they hate it in many cases. Especially asian Martial Arts. I don't understand why they get so little respect. Anyone can freakin' get on Google and learn that Tai Chi originated from the Nai Chai school of thinkings and was taught by Chang San-feng as a self-defense art.

Or that there is more than one kind of Kung Fu that is rooted and straight-forward and not "flashy"...yeah I'm talkin to you *Toxic*!

Or that there is a legitimacy to all little used Martial Arts, you just can't get in a cage and win in eight months with them easily. So they are taken so lightly.



swpthleg said:


> Is it compare apples and oranges time again?? Yaaaayyy!!!


Whatcha mean? :confused02:


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

It's not that Asian arts or traditional martial arts don't get respect because they're misunderstood, they don't get respect because they're inherently flawed for combat in our age. Seriously, throwing punches from your hips is not going to help you not get hit in the face, nor is it going to generate much power (Karate/Kenpo etc). Martial Arts are being left behind due to evolution of combat and the survival of the fittest. Like the Tao says, if it's not effecient, damaging and viable in a fight, it's worthless. Many Traditional martial arts are made up of moves that are all but useless in a combat situation outside of maybe 5-20% of the art and therefore the entire art is discounted. Why spend your time learning something that you can use 5-20% of when you can learn something that you can use absolutely 100% of?


EDIT: Also, before you jump on me and assume I don't understand martial arts, I've been doing martial arts since I was six. I've trained with masters of different arts, many of whom have trained overseas. My partner that started my mma gym? His master that taught him TKD was taught by a grandmaster in South Korea. A man I trained with here in Ohio was trained in JJ from a master in Japan. He also has belts given to him by many masters over in Japan, also trained under George Dillman in many styles including Ryuku Kenpo. My BJJ trainer trained under Carlson Gracie. I understand martial arts and I understand the difference between Americanized bullshit and true Asian martial arts. There is more deadly technique in many of the true Asian arts, but much of the technique is just not viable in a fight.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I agree tramai it is important to study multiple arts as Bruce said the best style is no style at all. However actualy studying the marial arts can givDMSOme benefits that you wouldn't get from an mma class. For instance I gained better ballance in 4 months of pakua than 4 years of wrestling and one of kick-boxing. Also in taking tai chi I have learned better how to control someones weight than in wrestling and bjj. Throwing stikes from the hips is more of an exersize to get your hips to move with your punches not something you would use in combat. You say there is only a littebit that would be efective against trained fighters. However you will get atributes that you can carry along. As I said before I have gained a greater ability to redirect someone's force and I use that in my other martial arts.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> I agree tramai it is important to study multiple arts as Bruce said the best style is no style at all. However actualy studying the marial arts can givDMSOme benefits that you wouldn't get from an mma class. For instance I gained better ballance in 4 months of pakua than 4 years of wrestling and one of kick-boxing. Also in taking tai chi I have learned better how to control someones weight than in wrestling and bjj. Throwing stikes from the hips is more of an exersize to get your hips to move with your punches not something you would use in combat. You say there is only a littebit that would be efective against trained fighters. However you will get atributes that you can carry along. As I said before I have gained a greater ability to redirect someone's force and I use that in my other martial arts.


And I get that there are things traditional martial arts offer, but as you have noticed, combat technique is generally not one of them.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> And I get that there are things traditional martial arts offer, but as you have noticed, combat technique is generally not one of them.


yes but tai chi is not buit on a bunch of combat techniques but rather on angles and minipulation and redirecion of the other fighters force. In the yang 103 posture form there are only really about 35 postures that are repeated. 

There are only so many ways you can punch and kick but you go to a style like this to gain the ability I discribed. When I fight I still use the traditional kick boxing style but I go to the tai chi moves when I see my opening. TheN I go to bjj mode once on the ground.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

That's precisely what you SHOULD be doing too. The striking and multiple stances of Tai Chi obviously wouldn't work well in a combat situation, but if you're taking things like that from it it's different.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

TraMaI said:


> That's precisely what you SHOULD be doing too. The striking and multiple stances of Tai Chi obviously wouldn't work well in a combat situation, but if you're taking things like that from it it's different.


See he gets it. 

Its not about using entirely one art as your standup. Its all cross-training and using the advantages of every art you learn. 

Kickboxing is great, but eventually every kickboxer will meet someone who is more versatile, and he'll lose. Its the same with anyone who uses just one art for their striking. Its called MIXED martial arts for a reason.



TraMaI said:


> It's not that Asian arts or traditional martial arts don't get respect because they're misunderstood, they don't get respect because they're inherently flawed for combat in our age. Seriously, throwing punches from your hips is not going to help you not get hit in the face, nor is it going to generate much power (Karate/Kenpo etc). Martial Arts are being left behind due to evolution of combat and the survival of the fittest. Like the Tao says, if it's not effecient, damaging and viable in a fight, it's worthless. Many Traditional martial arts are made up of moves that are all but useless in a combat situation outside of maybe 5-20% of the art and therefore the entire art is discounted. Why spend your time learning something that you can use 5-20% of when you can learn something that you can use absolutely 100% of?


I changed my mind, he doesn't get it. You never ever throw reverse punches fron the hip. They are cocked up in the underarm, mid rib level. If you were taught from the hips, you know the strangest MA ever, or you were taught wrong. And the point of the reverse punch, from a logical modern stand point isn't as an actual strike, though it happens, watch Machida knockout Evans, he started throwing straights from the ribs when he got him on the fence. The modern idea is one of endurance, throw 200 reverse punches 2 per second Kiaiing with each and see how your shoulders/arms/back/lats, even lungs feel. 

And I am so tired of people referencing the Tao as the key anti-martial arts memo. Its not anti-martial arts. Lee had more respect for traditional martial arts than most people ever did. But he looked at it logically and took each art's strengths to heart and neglected its weaknesses. That is why I like the philosophy of Jeet Kun Do, whether I like the art itself or not, its some of the most genius ideations that are so simplistically logical I wish I would have realized them earier.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

LOL, I liked the change of mind post.


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

This thread is hilarious, reminds me of almost every internet Scientology debate I've seen.

The people who believe in Tai Chi won't be able to convince people who don't believe in it or don't actually have a strong grasp about it that its a legit combat martial art that can be used, and the people who don't believe wont be convinced over the internet without some proof.

I have to say though, I haven't been to a demo or trained in it so I'm not going to pass judgement, I'm just wondering, if it is the "most effective martial arts" or however you put it, why do no top mixed martial artists use it? If it is as legit as you say, surely at least one person has thought "this is the most effective martial art, I'm going to train in it and fight MMA". If you are going to say "but there probably is" then it probably isn't effective since no one has heard anything about it.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Hawndo said:


> This thread is hilarious, reminds me of almost every internet Scientology debate I've seen.
> 
> The people who believe in Tai Chi won't be able to convince people who don't believe in it or don't actually have a strong grasp about it that its a legit combat martial art that can be used, and the people who don't believe wont be convinced over the internet without some proof.
> 
> I have to say though, I haven't been to a demo or trained in it so I'm not going to pass judgement, I'm just wondering, if it is the "most effective martial arts" or however you put it, why do no top mixed martial artists use it? If it is as legit as you say, surely at least one person has thought "this is the most effective martial art, I'm going to train in it and fight MMA". If you are going to say "but there probably is" then it probably isn't effective since no one has heard anything about it.


I explained it through the thread. Many people who are interested in being a fighter want to get their training going quickly so they can get in to mma as fast as possible. Tai chi takes a long time before you become proficient at it as a fighting style but once you do it becomes very effective. They don't want to take that time so the get involved in kickboxing, wrestling and BJJ which you can become pretty proficient with rather quickly. 

like my master said Take to guys one with 3 years in kickboxing one with 3 years in tai chi and the kick boxer will win hands down. However take them both with 10 to 15 years of training and it will be a different story. Tai chi has a learning curve that rises up slowly but continues for a lifetime kickboxing Has a steep learning curve that levels off in a couple years. i incorporate tai chi into mma. I have taken kickboxing and am taking BJJ along with tai chi. When in open mat drills I often time use tai chi moves to get my opponent to the ground but i also have kickboxing and BJJ.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Hawndo said:


> This thread is hilarious, reminds me of almost every internet Scientology debate I've seen.
> 
> The people who believe in Tai Chi won't be able to convince people who don't believe in it or don't actually have a strong grasp about it that its a legit combat martial art that can be used, and the people who don't believe wont be convinced over the internet without some proof.
> 
> I have to say though, I haven't been to a demo or trained in it so I'm not going to pass judgement, I'm just wondering, if it is the "most effective martial arts" or however you put it, why do no top mixed martial artists use it? If it is as legit as you say, surely at least one person has thought "this is the most effective martial art, I'm going to train in it and fight MMA". If you are going to say "but there probably is" then it probably isn't effective since no one has heard anything about it.


tai chi is effective because it is unexpected. Instead of meeting force with force we meet force with softness and redirection and move with our opponents force. 

Here is an example of what i mean. I had seen a little tai chi before i started High school wrestling. Most of the time I stuck with what the coaches told me to do but one day I decided to try something new. They had up against some guy a weight class ahead of me and much stronger. One time the guy shot in on me however I didn't sprawl instead i got double under-hooks rolled backward with his force and ended up rolling him overtop me next thing I knew I was sitting on top his chest looking down at a real pissed senior because a freshmen had just pined him.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

americanfighter said:


> I explained it through the thread. Many people who are interested in being a fighter want to get their training going quickly so they can get in to mma as fast as possible. Tai chi takes a long time before you become proficient at it as a fighting style but once you do it becomes very effective.


I don't buy that "Tai Chi takes longer" at all. 10-15 years is the standard to master anything, not just Tai Chi. See the "ten thousand hour rule" that Gladwell talks about in "Outliers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book).

I find it a much more believable explanation that Kick boxers own Tai Chi guys after 3 or 5 years because it is a more effective martial art than Tai chi, not because of a different learning curve. Let them spar again after 10 years and I bet you see the same thing.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Hawndo said:


> I have to say though, I haven't been to a demo or trained in it so I'm not going to pass judgement, I'm just wondering, if it is the "most effective martial arts" or however you put it, why do no top mixed martial artists use it? If it is as legit as you say, surely at least one person has thought "this is the most effective martial art, I'm going to train in it and fight MMA". If you are going to say "but there probably is" then it probably isn't effective since no one has heard anything about it.


if you go way back to the beginning, this is the question that spawned the debate that's been raging.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Drogo said:


> I don't buy that "Tai Chi takes longer" at all. 10-15 years is the standard to master anything, not just Tai Chi. See the "ten thousand hour rule" that Gladwell talks about in "Outliers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book).
> 
> I find it a much more believable explanation that Kick boxers own Tai Chi guys after 3 or 5 years because it is a more effective martial art than Tai chi, not because of a different learning curve. Let them spar again after 10 years and I bet you see the same thing.


ok but its its just common since a more complicated task would take longer to master than a simpler one. That goes for anything. I incorporate in to my mma training and it is quite effective and I haven't been doing it but for a few months. 

as it has been said before i cant convince you over the internet. They say seeing (or in this case feeling) is believing and thats what you got to do.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> if you go way back to the beginning, this is the question that spawned the debate that's been raging.


hey did you ever come up with an answer to my question or give me a reasonable question to ask him so i can confirm you met him.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> hey did you ever come up with an answer to my question or give me a reasonable question to ask him so i can confirm you met him.


that wasnt me bro


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> that wasnt me bro


oh yha convenient he hasn't been back this thread isn't it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> oh yha convenient he hasn't been back this thread isn't it.


I thought he knew meeks' last name before you mentioned it, which is a pretty good indicator.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> I thought he knew meeks' last name before you mentioned it, which is a pretty good indicator.


well being that i posted a link to his websight along with all his info on the 2ed page its not a good indicator.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> well being that i posted a link to his websight along with all his info on the 2ed page its not a good indicator.


ah, ok. forgot. well maybe he will come back. or maybe he was bullshipping. either way, i still think you're a bit daft if you really believe that Tai Chi is the most effective art BUT it just takes so long to master that you can never compete. It's a classic untestable argument fallacy. Make an assertion with conditions such that it can never be disproven. And as long as it's appealing, you will probably gain adherents. Kinda like religion.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> ah, ok. forgot. well maybe he will come back. or maybe he was bullshipping. either way, i still think you're a bit daft if you really believe that Tai Chi is the most effective art BUT it just takes so long to master that you can never compete. It's a classic untestable argument fallacy. Make an assertion with conditions such that it can never be disproven. And as long as it's appealing, you will probably gain adherents. Kinda like religion.


well it depends on who you go to hell go fight yang jun if you want to. 

Maybe I was reaching when i called it the best. Because in reality the is no one best style. I train with in incorporate it in to my mma training and have been very successful with it as nobody can figure out what I am doing.


----------



## TheGreenMachine (Aug 19, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> They had up against some guy a weight class ahead of me and much stronger. One time the guy shot in on me however I didn't sprawl instead i got double under-hooks rolled backward with his force and ended up rolling him overtop me next thing I knew I was sitting on top his chest looking down at a real pissed senior because a freshmen had just pined him.


That's wrestling/BJJ 101 right there (the underhooks/rolling). I gurantee you that most wrestlers/BJJ's would know how to do it much better than some Tai Chi practioner because 90% of what they do involves underhooks in sparring. That wrestler must really suck too because if anyone gets a good double leg on someone, you aren't going to be able to get underhooks with their level being so low and their arms in tight (unless you have your back against a wall/cage). Hence why the sprawl/cross face was invented.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

TheGreenMachine said:


> That's wrestling/BJJ 101 right there (the underhooks/rolling). I gurantee you that most wrestlers/BJJ's would know how to do it much better than some Tai Chi practioner because 90% of what they do involves underhooks in sparring. That wrestler must really suck too because if anyone gets a good double leg on someone, you aren't going to be able to get underhooks with their level being so low and their arms in tight (unless you have your back against a wall/cage). Hence why the sprawl/cross face was invented.


you right i was just using it to describe the principal of using someone's force against them. That was a move that was easily explainable that displayed the principal in tai chi. The guy was a senior i was a freshmen he was just cocky and got careless.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> well being that i posted a link to his websight along with all his info on the 2ed page its not a good indicator.


I haven't been back to thread because I was in the hospital. I had an infection in an incision from a previous surgery and they wanted to keep me for observation.

As for your question I attended a seminar. I didn't date the guy. I got the spiel on Tai Chi being awesome and some shitty demonstrations. Sorry if I didn't prepare myself for the inevitable event of disputing his awesomeness on the internet at some future point. So I don't know about any birthmarks or embarrassing events from his past so that you can verify that I have actually met the man. All I can say is believe me or don't. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me. I have more important things to worry about than the quality of training you are getting or the bs that you are swallowing from the guy.

Huh. Not the post of yours I clicked to quote. Weird. Oh well.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

deadmanshand said:


> I haven't been back to thread because I was in the hospital. I had an infection in an incision from a previous surgery and they wanted to keep me for observation.
> 
> As for your question I attended a seminar. I didn't date the guy. I got the spiel on Tai Chi being awesome and some shitty demonstrations. Sorry if I didn't prepare myself for the inevitable event of disputing his awesomeness on the internet at some future point. So I don't know about any birthmarks or embarrassing events from his past so that you can verify that I have actually met the man. All I can say is believe me or don't. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me. I have more important things to worry about than the quality of training you are getting or the bs that you are swallowing from the guy.
> 
> Huh. Not the post of yours I clicked to quote. Weird. Oh well.


well sorry to hear that glad your better and I wish you good luck in the future.

well there is some basic stuff that he tells all his new students about his history that I figured you would pick up on. He doesn't give seminars and if he did i doubt he would pick a fight with someone in it he is very soft spoken man. I sorry that I dont see how an average fighter like yourself could defeat a man who is a second degree black belt in karate prominent judo player as well as trained in sholin kung fu and chi na. 

I wish there was a way you could prove it to me because then i would find someone else to train with besides Helio Soneca and the guys Core louisville.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Amazing the lengths a person will go to to preserve their self-delusions.


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

Its as limitless as the universe, but then some will argue that it is not and they are 100% sure of God,Scientology,etc. I don't put much faith in faith, you want me to believe then I need facts, empirical evidence, scientific data. You know things not based on opinion, but thats just me.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> Amazing the lengths a person will go to to preserve their self-delusions.


you talkin to me? lol

all I know is that Tai chi has helped me allot in my other styles that i practice. like i said i don't use only tai chi when i fight nor does my instructor but it complements my other styles. I have better balance form and footwork now than ever before. I also can manipulate my opponents force using tai chi when in close and get some good throws in BJJ. 

when i incorporate it in to my Krav training and bjj training it does very well. I dont rely on tai chi when fighting at all but it works very well when i get the chance to use it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

no, i am talking about your choice to basically call deadmanshand a liar. I doubt there is really any proof he could give that would change your mind regardless.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

HexRei said:


> no, i am talking about your choice to basically deadmanshand a liar. I doubt there is really any proof he could give that would change your mind regardless.


if he could tell me something to prove it then i would believe it honestly. But It doesnt make since they guy I know doesn't give seminars only private and semi privet lessons as well as his regular classes. and all of that takes place in louisville. The only time he leaves the state is to go to see yang jun when he comes to the us and gives seminars. Carl never teaches seminars. Also the guy i know is a soft spoken nice guy that would never pick a fight with a unless the guy just went out and tried to hurt him. 

look I know carl pretty well i dont know Deadmanshand at all so clearly I would trust carl more than DMH. However if DMH would produce some thing that would prove it then i would believe it. The fact that he teaches tai chi has nothing to do with my skepticism.

I don't mean to insult DMH or call him a lier but I am just not convinced. Even if he said he beat up Rolando or beau my Krav instructeors or soneca my BJJ instructor I would still naturally be skeptic because I know them and not him. Plus the guy is in his 50s or older. He started martial arts in 71 so my guess is he was in his teens when he did i would like to think that DMH wouldn't step up and challenge a 40+ year old man at his own seminar. 

I should have made it clear when i took my first private lesson with him i didn't all out fight him it was more of a free spar and I couldn't really get anything going as he was able to either counter or evade damn near everything I threw then he would show me the applications he used.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Drogo said:


> I don't buy that "Tai Chi takes longer" at all. 10-15 years is the standard to master anything, not just Tai Chi. See the "ten thousand hour rule" that Gladwell talks about in "Outliers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book).
> 
> I find it a much more believable explanation that Kick boxers own Tai Chi guys after 3 or 5 years because it is a more effective martial art than Tai chi, not because of a different learning curve. Let them spar again after 10 years and I bet you see the same thing.


The is no such thing as a more effective martial art. Even art has its own advantages and disadvantages. And if you did the slightest amount of research into Tai Chi you'd know that this kickboxer would be fighting something he'd never seen before. The counters are different, the movements are different. Everything is different. And that alone gives the tai chi practitioner an advantage IMO. 

And I can say that from experience, first time I sparred with my partner(Shaolin Kung Fu)he started hitting me with weird shit, I had no clue what to do. And after a while I adapted and things were alright, but he was really new to the art and didn't know how to capitalize on his advantage. 15 years of training, he'd know exactly what to do. 1-2 years of training, kickboxer hands down. Kickboxer may win even up to 3-5, but after a decade, if everything about them elsewise is equal(conditioning, stength, reaction time, etc) then i would give the advantage to the Tai Chi practitioner and give the kickboxer a puncher's chance. 




HexRei said:


> if you go way back to the beginning, this is the question that spawned the debate that's been raging.


Well originally I had hoped for logical debate about traditional martial arts and their applicability in the UFC. Instead, there has been a great amount of MT/Kickboxing/BJJ hugging of the testies, without logical debate on the topic. 

Less a few exceptions, no one seems to respect traditional martial arts. And then reference the Tao in their hatred. I had hoped for more from MMAF, there are alot of intelligent people on here. I just expected everyone to be less pregidicial and ignorant(not ignorant meaning dumb or inferior, just uneducated on the subject).


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

HexRei said:


> if you go way back to the beginning, this is the question that spawned the debate that's been raging.


I saw it but was trying to get a definitive answer. I don't buy the "takes 15 years to master" excuse because there must be someone out there right now with 15 years expeience who _can_ compete MMA. There must be a reason no one is.

I've seen a clip fo that Wing Chun guy winning an MMA fight against a wrestler so I'm very open to the concept but I would really need a solid reason how this could be used as an effective martial to be used in mixed martial arts.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't se who this is too farfeched for you. I mean something more dificult to do is going to take longer to learn and master. First you have to learn the 103 posture form and as you go along in the form you need to gain some great balance and footwork. Then you have to improve your angles
on your form and push hands and aplications. Of course it's going to take a long time.

In mma you wouldn't souly rely on
this but use it to complement your other styles as i do.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Hawndo said:


> I saw it but was trying to get a definitive answer. I don't buy the "takes 15 years to master" excuse because there must be someone out there right now with 15 years expeience who _can_ compete MMA. There must be a reason no one is.
> 
> I've seen a clip fo that Wing Chun guy winning an MMA fight against a wrestler so I'm very open to the concept but I would really need a solid reason how this could be used as an effective martial to be used in mixed martial arts.



Hey, all anyone can ask for is an open mind. You don't have to like the art, or the idea of the art and its training practices, just be willing to believe it has the potential to, in the hands of the right fighters, have a place. :thumb02:


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Hey, all anyone can ask for is an open mind. You don't have to like the art, or the idea of the art and its training practices, just be willing to believe it has the potential to, in the hands of the right fighters, have a place. :thumb02:


But why though? Why should we be willing to believe something that has absolutely zero real proof or logic behind it? Just because it doesn't hurt your feelings? 

What if I asked you to just be willing to believe that the world is flat? Or that all weapons are equally effective in the right hands ... whether it's a paper clip shooter or a rocket launcher. After all there is no such thing as a "more effective weapon" ... all weapons are equally effective, just different :confused05:

I'll believe it when I see it work thank you.


----------



## lagmonkey (Apr 23, 2008)

alizio said:


> slap boxing coupled with retard strength is a UNSTOPPABLE combo, my trainer told me so.


Alizio, you just became my new idol. Pure win!


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> well sorry to hear that glad your better and I wish you good luck in the future.
> 
> well there is some basic stuff that he tells all his new students about his history that I figured you would pick up on. He doesn't give seminars and if he did i doubt he would pick a fight with someone in it he is very soft spoken man. I sorry that I dont see how an average fighter like yourself could defeat a man who is a second degree black belt in karate prominent judo player as well as trained in sholin kung fu and chi na.
> 
> I wish there was a way you could prove it to me because then i would find someone else to train with besides Helio Soneca and the guys Core louisville.


Wow... I love how you know that I am an average fighter without ever meeting me or seeing me fight. Or how you know I'm lying because a guy didn't give me enough personal information to satisfy your needs. or how you put words in my mouth by saying that I said he attacked somebody for no reason. Cute. Arrogant and a little condescending but cute.

Let me give a look at my background in martial arts. I am a black belt in both judo and tae kwon do. I have significant training in bjj, muay thai, wrestling, and boxing. I have a little bit of training in kendo and aikido. The first two I have done for twenty years. The second two I have been training for ten years give or take. And the last two I trained in for maybe 6 months to a year.

I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that I am an average fighter at best because the assumption would be wrong. I haven't competed yet because of illness. An illness that - thanks to the aforementioned surgery - is finally gone. I hope to compete by the end of the year.

And I never said he wasn't soft spoken. I said he was full of shit. There's a difference but you aren't going to believe me no matter what I say. You will keep saying that tai chi is freakin' awesome and nobody else can claim other wise - despite a wealth of evidence that supports the more common view of it. 

So I will concede this argument because I just plain don't feel like arguing with your delusions.

Edit: I just saw that you said in another post that I stepped up and challenged him at his own seminar? Where in the hell did you get that from? He did sparring matches with a few of us. I sparred with him and was not at all impressed. His balance and precision were no better than mine - at best. If you are going to call me a liar at least use the things I said instead of making up your own shit and saying that I said it.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> But why though? Why should we be willing to believe something that has absolutely zero real proof or logic behind it? Just because it doesn't hurt your feelings?
> 
> What if I asked you to just be willing to believe that the world is flat? Or that all weapons are equally effective in the right hands ... whether it's a paper clip shooter or a rocket launcher. After all there is no such thing as a "more effective weapon" ... all weapons are equally effective, just different :confused05:
> 
> I'll believe it when I see it work thank you.



Really? Wow. Absolutely no proof? Have you seen Lyoto Machida at all, heard of him? He's one of the best posterboys for the potential of traditional martial arts. His entire defensive setup is based off of Shotokan. Dodge first, deflect second. Don't try to win, just don't lose. His stance is a Shotokan back-stance for christ sake. Its textbook. 

You cannot compare a human being to a rocket launcher and a paperclip gun. A rocket launcher is designed to destroy armored vehicles, a paperclip gun is designed by shitbag teenagers to annoy one another. Are you implying that Kung Fu, Karate, Jeet Kun Do, TKD, and anything else I mentioned are in fact inferior to MT and Kickboxing or are not designed for the same process. 

A more appropriate comparison using guns, since you want to go off on an insane tangent, would be an M21(veitnam era) vs an M4A4(modern carbine). They are both effective long ranged weapons, but in the right hands the much older M21 is still capable of delivering rounds downrange with better accuracy, its all in the user.

And as for me caring if you hurt my feelings...the opinions of the ignorant do not hurt my feeling. But I do feel sorry for you. :thumb02:


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Really? Wow. Absolutely no proof? Have you seen Lyoto Machida at all, heard of him? He's one of the best posterboys for the potential of traditional martial arts. His entire defensive setup is based off of Shotokan. Dodge first, deflect second. Don't try to win, just don't lose. His stance is a Shotokan back-stance for christ sake. Its textbook.
> 
> You cannot compare a human being to a rocket launcher and a paperclip gun. A rocket launcher is designed to destroy armored vehicles, a paperclip gun is designed by shitbag teenagers to annoy one another. Are you implying that Kung Fu, Karate, Jeet Kun Do, TKD, and anything else I mentioned are in fact inferior to MT and Kickboxing or are not designed for the same process.


First off, Machida Karate is tailored t o fight MMA, traditional martial arts such as Karate, Kung Fu (LOL) and TKD are not and therefore will never be as effective as a martial art that is refined for a combat situation. Sure Machida's defense may hinge a lot on his Karate back ground, but that's it. His offensive strikes resemble almost nothing of Karate and more like a boxer or a kick boxer, his ground game is based off of Judo and Jujitsu.

Also, Jeet Kune Do IS NOT A GOD DAMN MARTIAL ART. It is a PHILOSOPHY. There are no techniques inherent to it. There is nothing to Jeet Kune Do other than "use what works, forget what doesn't," and a few other philosophies. JKD is NOT a style, Bruce Lee never intended it to be. If you're going to go off on why you're right about traditional martial arts being as effective in the right hands as MT or Kickboxing in a combat situation then at least get your facts straight. 

Fact of the matter is that a person who has dedicated themselves to training Kung Fu for ~15 years will get their ass handed to them by someone who has trained in Muay Thai or Kick boxing for the same amount of time. Why? Because the movements in Muay Thai are more refined, meant to hurt or incapacitate someone in a single, extremely devastating blow. When Kung Fu (and MANY other traditional martial arts) was devised they took into account things such as mystical beliefs in Gods and their powers along with the belief that Chi will help a fighter stop a sword with his pinky (hyperbole, don't read into it like I know you want to). More modernist combative arts such as *****, Krav Maga, Muay Thai and Kick boxing are not designed like that. Many of them were designed by warriors in a war for the sole purpose to destroy another human being. That or they were designed for a fighter in a combat sport (Boxing/kickboxing) in order to either win that fight or to incapacitate their opponent as fast as possible.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

Whatever your impression on Tai Chi is, nothing beats "Kiai Yanagiryuken."


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

"Kaia Master" vs a real MMA'ist. You have to see this.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

VolcomX311 said:


> Whatever your impression on Tai Chi is, nothing beats "Kiai Yanagiryuken."


I'm trying to find out if stuff like that is a placebo effect or just students trying to tout their gym, that shit's such a joke.


EDIT: That second video, the old man has to be thinkgin "OMFG WHY AREN'T MY TECHNIQUES WORKING!?!?!?"


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

I would have knuckle punched that old man too, for all his B.S. He has a HUUUGE following in Japan for "No Touch Fighting." Taking Qi power to whole new supernatural level. He really thinks he's Dragon Ball Z or something.



TraMaI said:


> I'm trying to find out if stuff like that is a placebo effect or just students trying to tout their gym, that shit's such a joke.
> 
> 
> EDIT: That second video, the old man has to be thinkgin "OMFG WHY AREN'T MY TECHNIQUES WORKING!?!?!?"


LOL. I just got knuckle cracked, WTF!!


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

VolcomX311 said:


> I would have knuckle punched that old man too, for all his B.S. He has a HUUUGE following in Japan for "No Touch Fighting." Taking Qi power to whole new supernatural level. He really thinks he's Dragon Ball Z or something.


I've trained with guys like that in Ryuku Kempo. It's hilarious when they make up excuses as to why it doesn't work on you. 

I trained with George Dillman while I was there (who also does that "no touch knock out" thing) and I asked him to demonstrate it on me. Wasn't happening. Sorry, respect for your teacher is one thing, blowing his shit out of proportion and lying is a whole other matter.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

Aikido is legit (I suppose), but even that requires some form of compliance by the opponent to fall correctly or offer their limbs in the perfect position. I took Aikido for awhile and maybe at some triple red belt 9th dan level you could really kick some @$$ defensively with it, but anything less, trying to catch someone with any of the multi stage moves Akido has at "full speed" is damn near impossible. Full speed choreographed Akido demos look good, but 99% of the time, I could have chosen NOT to flip with the throw, or fall down properly and slap the ground or simply elbow someone in the face while they're working their steps.

The sensai could grab your wrist and leverage you any direction he/she wanted, but that's with someone giving them their wrist. Catching a punch at full speed, I'm ferociously skepticle, from personal experience.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Really? Wow. Absolutely no proof? Have you seen Lyoto Machida at all, heard of him? He's one of the best posterboys for the potential of traditional martial arts. His entire defensive setup is based off of Shotokan. Dodge first, deflect second. Don't try to win, just don't lose. His stance is a Shotokan back-stance for christ sake. Its textbook.
> 
> You cannot compare a human being to a rocket launcher and a paperclip gun. A rocket launcher is designed to destroy armored vehicles, a paperclip gun is designed by shitbag teenagers to annoy one another. Are you implying that Kung Fu, Karate, Jeet Kun Do, TKD, and anything else I mentioned are in fact inferior to MT and Kickboxing or are not designed for the same process.
> 
> ...


I was talking about Tai Chi, not Karate. Karate is still a relatively weak base compared to MT, but an exceptionally adapted version like Machida's that borrows from successful disciplines and used by an athlete like Machida works.

Tai Chi doesn't even have that ... even if Anderson Silva stood around and did those lame "energy" movements, he'd get his ass handed to him by . Tai Chi is not an M21 ... an M21 would be something like Judo or Karate. Something that is not part of the standard modern MMA base (MT, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing), but has it's strategic advantages. Things like Tai Chi, Aikido and Kiai really are those paper clip shooters ... invented by the equivalent of 10 year old kids for their own amusement and glorification, and only believed to be deadly by the same type of people. Perhaps Tai Chi has therapeutic uses, but a deadly martial art it is not.

Even before Machida, there were some people that had a karate base that were seen in MMA, mixed with other disciplines. There has not been a SINGLE Tai Chi (or Aikido) practitioner in ANY real fight sport in the world, EVER, in almost 2 decades. What are they afraid of?

You can pity my ignorance, I can pity your emotional commitment to a lie.



VolcomX311 said:


> Aikido is legit (I suppose), but even that requires some form of compliance by the opponent to fall correctly or offer their limbs in the perfect position. I took Aikido for awhile and maybe at some triple red belt 9th dan level you could really kick some @$$ defensively with it, but anything less, trying to catch someone with any of the multi stage moves Akido has at "full speed" is damn near impossible. Full speed choreographed Akido demos look good, but 99% of the time, I could have chosen NOT to flip with the throw, or fall down properly and slap the ground or simply elbow someone in the face while they're working their steps.
> 
> The sensai could grab your wrist and leverage you any direction he/she wanted, but that's with someone giving them their wrist. Catching a punch at full speed, I'm ferociously skepticle, from personal experience.


How is it "legit" when you just admitted it's basically useless if someone doesn't voluntarily flip and instead punches you in the face? Real people aren't there to play along. It's choregraphed, plain and simple, all the people that don't see through it are basically the ones that believe all the fear fed, that if they don't play along their arm will break etc. It doesn't ... I've tried, all you do is resist instead of waiting to be flipped, pull back, jostle like an actual wrestling/BJJ session, and the flips are useless.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> I was talking about Tai Chi, not Karate. Karate is still a relatively weak base compared to MT, but an exceptionally adapted version like Machida's that borrows from successful disciplines and used by an athlete like Machida works.
> 
> Tai Chi doesn't even have that ... even if Anderson freakin Silva stood around and did those lame "energy" movements, he'd get his ass handed to him by . Tai Chi is not an M21 ... an M21 would be something like Judo or Karate. Something that is not part of the standard modern MMA base (MT, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing), but has it's strategic advantages. Things like Tai Chi and Kiai literally are those paper clip shooters ... invented by the equivalent of 10 year old kids for their own amusement and glorification, and only believed to be deadly by the same type of people.
> 
> ...


I wasn't defending it, but I didn't want to come off offending anyone who is practicing it, nor do I like giving "absolute" judgement on anything, as anything has their exceptions. Which is why I put "I suppose" in parenthesis, following my opening statement, which indicates skepticism, not a defense. 

Read and process the information critically. Apart from my opening statement, which included an (I suppose), I don't know how the rest of my post could sound like I was making a case "FOR" Akido, when I repeated the gist of what you just wrote.

You just like picking fights or what? Read my damn post and process before you speak.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

You're preaching to the choir that Akido is whack, so.... aim your speech elsewhere.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

My take on this topic is, that every traditional Martial Art can be very very effective in a real combat situation. Every traditonal Martial Art was created to fight and to defend your Lord to the death. A weapon to defend yourself and your Lord without a actual weapon, just with your hands. Like Karate (Empty Hand)! 
But over the decades wich have past, it changed dramatically. Every Martial Art changed so much not only the tradional forms like Karate, Kung Fu but also Muay Thai and so on...

I truly believe, that every *real* Martial Art wich was created to fight could make it to the top of a combat sport like the UFC. 

I just think, that it takes a lot more training and years of practice to actually be able to compete against Muay Thai fighters or Kickboxers who just need quarter like they do. 

For example you can be a great Boxer in just a few years, same with Muay thai and Kickboxing. But you will not be able to learn a Martial Art like Kung fu or Karate in let's say 5 years or so and be able to compete against a Kickboxer. But if a guy comes along, who trained this art his whole life and trained the actual part of it the actual meaning behind it and for what it was created, not the art they teach you in a Dojo today.. then yes he can even be the best in the World!!!


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

VolcomX311 said:


> I wasn't defending it, but I didn't want to come off offending anyone who is practicing it, nor do I like giving "absolute" judgement on anything, as anything has their exceptions. Which is why I put "I suppose" in parenthesis, following my opening statement, which indicates skepticism, not a defense.
> 
> Read and process the information critically. Apart from my opening statement, which included an (I suppose), I don't know how the rest of my post could sound like I was making a case "FOR" Akido, when I repeated the gist of what you just wrote.
> 
> You just like picking fights or what? Read my damn post and process before you speak.


sorry I misunderstood you ... that first statement is a pretty strong postitive statement, calling it legit instead of going .. you know.. "i'm not sure" or something. No offence, I usually like your posts ... and man I don't like being overly argumentative, some things tick me and it's the internet ya know :dunno:. Gotta work on it


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

TraMaI said:


> Fact of the matter is that a person who has dedicated themselves to training Kung Fu for ~15 years will get their ass handed to them by someone who has trained in Muay Thai or Kick boxing for the same amount of time. Why? Because the movements in Muay Thai are more refined, meant to hurt or incapacitate someone in a single, extremely devastating blow. When Kung Fu (and MANY other traditional martial arts) was devised they took into account things such as mystical beliefs in Gods and their powers along with the belief that Chi will help a fighter stop a sword with his pinky (hyperbole, don't read into it like I know you want to). More modernist combative arts such as *****, Krav Maga, Muay Thai and Kick boxing are not designed like that. Many of them were designed by warriors in a war for the sole purpose to destroy another human being. That or they were designed for a fighter in a combat sport (Boxing/kickboxing) in order to either win that fight or to incapacitate their opponent as fast as possible.


You do know that Shotokan was designed by Gichin Funakoshi in the 1800's its not ancient. You can't associate it with your belief that its all based in mysticism. And I am aware Machida Karate is sport oriented, its the sport version of Shotokan. 

And Kung Fu is(just like every other art) broken into parts. While I agree Shaolin has a significant divine presenece Wing Chun as a general rule(unless the master who teaches it ruined it)has little if any belief in divity. According to the histories the first student of Wing Chun was never defeated by a Shaolin practitioner in his entire life. That is in both the Shaolin and Wing Chun geneology so likely has some form of basis in reality. 

And by the way your entire post, just like with almost every other post on the thread(sadly), lacks any kind of knowledge into Kung Fu, Karate, or any other art you bashed. Perhaps you should glean further information before claiming I have none. The philosophic aspects such as mediation and deep breathing execises are to be taken completely separately from the actual combat aspects. One of the most basic rules of Shotokanractice kata exactly. Combat is another matter...As well, I know Jeet Kun Do is a philosphy, I included it because it is taught as a legitimate martial art, even though Bruce Lee didn't want it that way.




BobbyCooper said:


> My take on this topic is, that every traditional Martial Art can be very very effective in a real combat situation. Every traditonal Martial Art was created to fight and to defend your Lord to the death. A weapon to defend yourself and your Lord without a actual weapon, just with your hands. Like Karate (Empty Hand)!
> But over the decades wich have past, it changed dramatically. Every Martial Art changed so much not only the tradional forms like Karate, Kung Fu but also Muay Thai and so on...
> 
> I truly believe, that every *real* Martial Art wich was created to fight could make it to the top of a combat sport like the UFC.
> ...


Finally a voice of reason!


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Tai Chi doesn't even have that ... even if Anderson Silva stood around and did those lame "energy" movements, he'd get his ass handed to him by . Tai Chi is not an M21 ... an M21 would be something like Judo or Karate. Something that is not part of the standard modern MMA base (MT, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing), but has it's strategic advantages. Things like Tai Chi, Aikido and Kiai really are those paper clip shooters ... invented by the equivalent of 10 year old kids for their own amusement and glorification, and only believed to be deadly by the same type of people. Perhaps Tai Chi has therapeutic uses, but a deadly martial art it is not.
> 
> Even before Machida, there were some people that had a karate base that were seen in MMA, mixed with other disciplines. There has not been a SINGLE Tai Chi (or Aikido) practitioner in ANY real fight sport in the world, EVER, in almost 2 decades. What are they afraid of?
> 
> You can pity my ignorance, I can pity your emotional commitment to a lie.


You cannot compare Tai Chi to Kiai! Are you kidding. Kiai is an absolute BS concept that made Dragonball Z famous. It has no basis in reality. Tai Chi isn;t about manipulating some magical wave of energy to knock your opponent around. Its about using your opponents *force* i. e. his momentum and kinetic against him by using torsion and leveage to positive effect. Its the same concept as arts like Judo and Aikido, it just comes from China so everything has a very unique and description. But if you cut thorugh the bells and whistles, its very similar to those arts, it just does it in its own way. 

As for pitying me for my commitment to a lie. I do not practice Tai Chi, I don't trust it. I practice Shotokan Karate. However I am not narrowminded enough to say that simply because it is strange and not prevelent that it has no reason for existing in MMA, as you do. I like to look at things logically not with MT nutgoggles.

I appoligize for the double post. I meant to add this to the previous one.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> The is no such thing as a more effective martial art. .


Uh, yes there is. Some are more effective than others when you actually fight people. We can tell which ones by observing actual, real evidence, the results of thousands of MMA matches. 

I'm not saying Tai Chi is ineffective or useless. I'd agree that all martial arts are helpful but the idea that none are more effective than another is obviously wrong. 

It takes 10-15 years to master any reasonably complicated task. Tai Chi is in no way an exception so the "it takes longer argument" is BS. 

If you want to say Tai Chi is an effective martial art and helps you to be a better fighter, I won't argue. When you say it is the most effective martial art, then it is lol time.

Tai chi is more complicated. How so? What are you basing this on? I don't see anything to suggest to me that it is inherently more complicated than any martial art (which also take 10-15 years to master).


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

deadmanshand said:


> Wow... I love how you know that I am an average fighter without ever meeting me or seeing me fight. Or how you know I'm lying because a guy didn't give me enough personal information to satisfy your needs. or how you put words in my mouth by saying that I said he attacked somebody for no reason. Cute. Arrogant and a little condescending but cute.
> 
> Let me give a look at my background in martial arts. I am a black belt in both judo and tae kwon do. I have significant training in bjj, muay thai, wrestling, and boxing. I have a little bit of training in kendo and aikido. The first two I have done for twenty years. The second two I have been training for ten years give or take. And the last two I trained in for maybe 6 months to a year.
> 
> ...


look man I am sorry if my tone comes off different on the internet than i am intending it to be. I dont know if your a lier or dont remember correctly or were mistaken or are telling the truth. I just wanted to explain why i am reluctant to believe you. Its just a matter of trust. I trust and know more about carl than I do you because I have never met you and would like to see something that would prove you fought him before I make up my mind. I trust people i know more than people on the internet as i would expect you to do.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Drogo said:


> Uh, yes there is. Some are more effective than others when you actually fight people. We can tell which ones by observing actual, real evidence, the results of thousands of MMA matches.
> 
> I'm not saying Tai Chi is ineffective or useless. I'd agree that all martial arts are helpful but the idea that none are more effective than another is obviously wrong.
> 
> ...


1. I agree I may have misspoke to a certain degree. I consider applicable and effective to separate concepts, but in the context of an MMA match, I misspoke. 

2. That was my original goal with the thread to discuss the advantages gleans from various traditional martial arts...you see how that has gone.

3. I states something similar to that, however I meant in the context of the basic...I don't know the chinese term so I will use the japanese term, kihons, there are simply more of them in Tai Chi than kickboxing. 

4. I never said it was the most effective, that would have been Tai Chi's voice in the thread americanfighter. And he may have meant for him. I said something similar about Shotokan, but only in the context of me personally and my skillset. 

5. I suspect becoming a master is not more difficult than mastering another art. But in the context of, again sorry for use of the japanese name, kihons there is more there, and very much disputably(even from me, a big supporter of traditionals)more complexity there.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Well originally I had hoped for logical debate about traditional martial arts and their applicability in the UFC. Instead, there has been a great amount of MT/Kickboxing/BJJ hugging of the testies, without logical debate on the topic.


It's hard to debate when there's no actual evidence in favor of the topic being debated... i.e. Tai Chi's viability as a combat art... actually, as the BEST combat art.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

HexRei said:


> It's hard to debate when there's no actual evidence in favor of the topic being debated... i.e. Tai Chi's viability as a combat art... actually, as the BEST combat art.


God damnit! I never said it was the best. Why are you quoting me! I said i thought it could be effective, not the best. I said that i interpreted americanfighter's post to mean that for him, but I don't believe either of us said it was the best ever.

But I agree that debate is difficult. But at least it can be done in a hypathetical(did I spell it right?) sense


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> God damnit! I never said it was the best. Why are you quoting me! I said i thought it could be effective, not the best. I said that i interpreted americanfighter's post to mean that for him, but I don't believe either of us said it was the best ever.
> 
> But I agree that debate is difficult. But at least it can be done in a hypathetical(did I spell it right?) sense


i didn't know where the picked it up either so i went back and i said it by accident i meant to say one of the best unused or rarely styles and that i think people could really benefit from training in it. I guess i thought people would know i was talking a bout rare styles unknown to mma since that was the topic of the thread. Then everything got out of hand. Man i was wondering why it was getting so heated. 

there is no one best style they all just show different strengths and advantages.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Squirrelfighter said:


> God damnit! I never said it was the best. Why are you quoting me! I said i thought it could be effective, not the best. I said that i interpreted americanfighter's post to mean that for him, but I don't believe either of us said it was the best ever.
> 
> But I agree that debate is difficult. But at least it can be done in a hypathetical(did I spell it right?) sense


I quoted you because I was replying to you. I never said you said it, I was explaining why it was difficult to have the logical debate you were hoping for. 

And FWIW I think the fact that the debate is solely hypothetical is what is keeping it from being a useful debate.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> i didn't know where the picked it up either so i went back and i said it by accident i meant to say one of the best unused or rarely styles and that i think people could really benefit from training in it. I guess i thought people would know i was talking a bout rare styles unknown to mma since that was the topic of the thread. Then everything got out of hand. Man i was wondering why it was getting so heated.
> 
> there is no one best style they all just show different strengths and advantages.


Yup. But when I looked back, I understood what you meant, just like the first time. I guess its the difference between those used to discussing these kinds of arts vs those who aren't. We all kind of understand each others tone and description where the rest don't!




HexRei said:


> And FWIW I think the fact that the debate is solely hypothetical is what is keeping it from being a useful debate.


Yeah I suspect you're correct...

Come on Wing Chun fighter somewhere who's really open-minded to crosstraining and adaptive!ray01:


----------



## Inkdot (Jun 15, 2009)

Wow, this thread reminds me of the youtube series "Why do people laught at creationists?"






Check it out its some hilarious stuff! Some 30+ videos there.

Thats about all I'm gonna contribute to this "debate". :thumbsup: Qudos for all the ppl who valiantly tries to voice some reason, though I fear your efforts are about as futile as trying to break a concrete wall by headbutting! (I'm sure there is SOME ancient, far superior, chinese martial art that teaches you to do that though, aswell as shooting fireballs from your hands like in Street Fighter)

Fighting is just fighting, trying to make it out as something else is mysticism. Mysticism will not win you fights.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Sorry been super busy past few.....

Okay....everyone is having a dick measuring contest so I'm gonna throw mine in the mix....I have a Black in Shotokan Karate and a 2nd Degree Black under KC Chung.....I wrestled in highchool....DONT KNOW where that puts me on the scale but here's some thoughts......

Tai Chi would not be effective for the most part its been established on this thread which HexRei owned in the beginning and then Tra cleaned up at the end. Also a few other great posts and some freakin stupid one's.....

















HexRei said:


> Im just wondering what he's basing his belief that "Tai chi is the best fighting style once mastered" on. I mean it's a little convenient that it takes so long to master that most can't reasonably compete, so how can you ever test the theory, and thus, why believe it?
> 
> I can only suppose that he believes it because of his training under his master, so I am wondering who his master defeated to gain this confidence. or who he saw defeated, and by who. Theory is nice, but testing proves.


I agreed here but testing would shut folks up but the reality is the best your going to benefit isn't in strikes but in throw's, and frankly they dont seem viable against someone more rounded than say another Tai Chi fighter....



alizio said:


> slap boxing coupled with retard strength is a UNSTOPPABLE combo, my trainer told me so.
> 
> i havent seen him fight or do anything in real time during a real fight but trust me, he is badass in training!!
> 
> once i master the 58 years of training, i will challenge Brock Lesnar or his great grandson.


 
Alizio with a funny post.....if you have taken the time to read the whole thing this came at a good time in the thread....



G_Land said:


> If an opinion is backed up by a fact wouldnt that just make it a fact????........Its his freaking opinion...If your against it thats your opinion...My opinion I could care less DRUNKEN BOXING IS THE BEST!!!!


This shit made me LOL.....



Drogo said:


> Opinions do not all have the same value. Reasonable opions are based on facts. For some things (most things) the facts involved are not conclusive or 100% percent applicable. You use those facts to bolster your opinion so it is a reasonable opinion that other people understand. In some cases, math say, opinions and facts become the same thing. You can't really have the opinion that 2+2=5 because we have indisputable proofs on what is right and wrong in math (generally).
> 
> For other things, colour say, there is no indisputable proof or objective scale. Your opinion on what your favourite colour is can't be disputed in any meaningful way.
> 
> Most things, like MMA, are more in the middle. There are some measures or scales that we use as evidence to base opinions on. In the case of MMA we have a scale with which to measure what the best martial art is, organized competitions like the UFC with many competitors and significant amounts of money at stake so that people can devout all their time to training. Is this scale a perfect measure of the best martial art? No, but it is the closest thing that I know of and if your opinions aren't based on results from it then they carry considerably less weight to rational people then unsubstantiated verbal claims.


 
This was when the thread got a lil out of hand, we're talking about the different ways to measure value????



HexRei said:


> that video has some of the sloppiest fighting I have ever seen outside of the playground behind my highschool. and it's clearly heavily edited... I can't even imagine what was so bad that they decided not to include it.


 
Terrible fighting, I really cant see the argument for this in MMA at all.....really no good mechanic's or fundamentals and there are opening's everywhere....



Toxic said:


> This idea Lyoto Machida brought back Karate is complete garbage. Keith Hackney a Karate fighter was one of the UFC's first big stars, Guys like Chuck Liddell and GSP both studied Karate. Bas Rutten was a black belt in karate. Karate never left it has been relative since Tela Tuili's teeth ended up in some fans drink at UFC 1.


Machida didn't bring "back" Karate.....his father adapted one form(Shotokan) into their own EFFECTIVE style that troubles all fighters....dam Toxic.......GSP really(and I wish he did) doesn't use his karate at all really....:thumbsup:



Toxic said:


> The only difference IMO is that Machida uses a Karate stance (which I doubt we will see make a return after the Shogun fight) and the fact that people want to believe that Machida is some kind of ninja from the jungle, a real life Ryu straight out of a kung fu movie. If GSP had been brazillian or Asian instead of a French Canadian would he have been the modern day Samuri Machida is thought of?


 
WOW, now your showing your man crush on GSP.....seriously....dont compare him or his style to Machida's....GSP is karate is Kyokushin that stems from Shotokan and GSP never uses it, further more Machida's style isn't only different, it's a hybrid in itself, in that there are many different angle and pivots to attack from as opposed to a typical Shotokan fighter and certainly a Kyokushin....Machida makes his style unique....PERIOD. 

As far as stance goes your correct IMO in one respect, it does make a difference for him in a positive way for his style, however the lack of that stance or suggested "change" will NEVER happen. Those leg kicks can be countered using Yoshizo "Machida" Karate, and Lyoto's own Muay Thai(who by the way, was Anderson Silva's long tme coach after Machida)....Lyoto needs to work on this as eluded to by his father in a interview shortly following Lyoto's win over Shogun.....:thumb02: 



Toxic said:


> Man, people have short memories. When GSP burst onto the scene and was first considered the future of the sport, back when Matt Hughes was dominating everybody who dared to step in front of him, it was not GSP the wrestler everybody was raving about. The wrestling may have became his strength but his base was NEVER in wrestling hell he never wrestled till after he got into mma.


Yes but GSP has a different style of striking than Machida, if we're comparing(I am) and his Karate was seldom used where Machida really relies on that and his Sumo....also Machida is able to strike from traditional stance and also south paw, throw the footwork in and I'm not gettin a match....:confused02: 




TraMaI said:


> That's precisely what you SHOULD be doing too. The striking and multiple stances of Tai Chi obviously wouldn't work well in a combat situation, but if you're taking things like that from it it's different.


^^^THIS^^^



HexRei said:


> if you go way back to the beginning, this is the question that spawned the debate that's been raging.


 
LOL @ Hex....this thread is freakin funny dude if you read it from page one to the end...it took too much time but it was fun.....:thumbsup:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Inkdot said:


> Wow, this thread reminds me of the youtube series "Why do people laught at creationists?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not sure a hay-duken could be properly performed with mma gloves on.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

americanfighter said:


> look man I am sorry if my tone comes off different on the internet than i am intending it to be. I dont know if your a lier or dont remember correctly or were mistaken or are telling the truth. I just wanted to explain why i am reluctant to believe you. Its just a matter of trust. I trust and know more about carl than I do you because I have never met you and would like to see something that would prove you fought him before I make up my mind. I trust people i know more than people on the internet as i would expect you to do.


As I said before I don't care whether you believe me or not. I just didn't like you making a bunch of asinine assumptions about me or outright lying about what I said. Trust who you want. Receive all the bs training you want.


----------



## CFT_Ian (Nov 4, 2008)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Okay so I've noticed that there are a lot of Martial Arts that don't seem to make an appearance in the UFC, or in MMA in general...
> 
> 
> How about the various forms of Karate that have no patrons(Goju-Ryu, Isshun-ryu, as well as less known varieties) Or Aikido, or Japanese Jujitsu.



I don't feel like reading every post in this thread, I read a lot of them and well... pissing contests aren't fun.

Now as far as Isshun-Ryu, No idea what that is, but did you perhaps mean Isshinryu? If you did I can talk a bit about that. The japanese jujitsu as well.

Just got 2nd black in both of those.

So.... if you have a specific question fire away, but just to let you know, there is actually alot of very similar techniques already used from those style's in MMA, especially the jujitsu.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

CFT_Ian said:


> I don't feel like reading every post in this thread, I read a lot of them and well... pissing contests aren't fun.
> 
> Now as far as Isshun-Ryu, No idea what that is, but did you perhaps mean Isshinryu? If you did I can talk a bit about that. The japanese jujitsu as well.
> 
> ...


Please excuse the spelling error. I did mean Isshinryu, I am at work 90% of the time on here and have to move quickly. I sometimes can't check for errors. 

I would be very much inclined to hear the opinion of a practitioner of Isshinryu and jujitsu. It'd help add some variety to the discussion, and I'm interested in Isshinryu besides.


----------



## mtt_c (Jun 15, 2008)

I think Martial Arts styles become popular for their ass-kicking effectiveness lies in it's top practitioner. Gracies (Gracie BJJ), Couture (Wrestling), Lyoto (Karate), etc. And as MMA is evolving, you'll probably HAVE to have guys skills with the commonly used styles but need to excel in just one.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

mtt_c said:


> I think Martial Arts styles become popular for their ass-kicking effectiveness lies in it's top practitioner. Gracies (Gracie BJJ), Couture (Wrestling), Lyoto (Karate), etc. And as MMA is evolving, you'll probably HAVE to have guys skills with the commonly used styles but need to excel in just one.



I would tend to agree in most cases. There are alot of people who don't think an art is worth their time until someone before them uses it to tremendous effect(i think i debated this subject with many of them on this thread!). That's why I hope there's someone out there who would be willing to crosstrain who specializes in Kung Fu, or Tai Chi, or Hapkido, or TKD, or any other art listed on that first post.


----------

