# Kung Fu whiners



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

I notice a lot that a lot of Kung Fu practioners or fans like to whine and complain and make a mountain of excuses when a Kung Fu, Wing Chun or Shaolin fighter loses to any other style.

I myself believe that these styles, though beautiful, and rich in history and culture, are out dated and useless in today's martial arts world. And a lot of these people are too busy on Jet Li's nuts to realize that Brazilian Jujitsu, Japanese Jujitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Muay Thai, American Kickboxing, Boxing, Krav Maga, ***** even Eskrima are much more effective. Especialy when combined in MMA.

Now dont get me wrong, I love Jet Li movies, old Jackie Chan movies like Drunken Master. But as great as these things look they dont help you against a real fighter.

Now I would LOVE it if a Kung Fu master walked into an MMA fight and kicked ass but unfortunately I have yet to see it.

If you train in these styles I have no problem with that. I wouldnt mind studying Drunken Boxing for the simple fact that it looks cool as hell. But Kung Fu people should know that the style they study isnt the best in actual fighting. My friend studied capoeira for 5 years and would never use it in a real fight. 
So what I mean is enjoy it for what it is but dont talk crap that you cant back up and end up like this Kiai "Master"

YouTube - Kiai Master vs MMA


----------



## ricefarmer (Oct 16, 2006)

i agree the entire asian continent needs to let go of their kung fu crap... it doesn't work.. although we would loose alot of culture if they did stop... and kung fu pretty much made made movies what they are today... 

but yeah... its useless ass hell


----------



## Cochise (Aug 3, 2007)

They only problem I see with Kung Fu in the MMA, is that not every fighter is an Andy Wang.

What I mean by that is that when someone gets knocked to the ground with some serious striking (kung-fu), they aren't going to get back up and continue striking, they are going to go for a take down. It could just be my thought of Kung Fu is all striking, ut on the ground I don't really see what they can do.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

ricefarmer said:


> i agree the entire asian continent needs to let go of their kung fu crap... it doesn't work.. although we would loose alot of culture if they did stop... and kung fu pretty much made made movies what they are today...
> 
> but yeah... its useless ass hell



i dont think they should loose their martial arts. but they should just practice it for what it is. tradition, art, culture and heritage.


----------



## Trainee (Nov 18, 2006)

Kung Fu doesn't transition well into MMA, because most of the moves that make almost every form of Kung Fu special...are illegal. 
It all depends on your training. Most kung fu practioners that I've ever seen fight seemed unable to take a hit (like that Kiai master)...took a jab, fell and looked like he was crying. If kung fu practitioners sparred more hardcore, they have the potential to kick ass.

And it also comes down to common sense. Practitioners should know what to use when, and what moves are just for exhibitions and what moves are applicable in fights. (For example, no one should attempt to flip over someone's head in a fight).

My point: Kung Fu can be useful in the real world, if you train properly. However, it's useless in MMA, seeing as how a lot of key moves are illegal in the sport.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I agree with the OP as well. Kung Fu comprises a myriad of beautiful arts but they are not that effective for MMA. I am fighting a Wing Chun guy soon in non-sanctioned fight but I feel bad, he has no idea what MMA is really about... He didn't know what the guard was when I spoke with him.


----------



## Uchaaa (Apr 22, 2007)

Ground Game(bjj) would be useless if you could poke in the eyes or fight against 2 opponents. Its all about the rules. Not effective in mma does not mean it is uneffective in general. Also, there is a lack of fighters and organisations.. For example, there is no karate full contact organisations except kyokoushinkai(which is has a different style compared to other karate stiles.) So, it is not possible for the most of the karate practitioners to fight full contact. The next problem are how to set the rules. Karate works only without gloves. But this is dangerous.

Another aspect of traditional martial arts is to improve and find yourself.


----------



## SafyreSchool (Aug 15, 2007)

Someone's probly already said it, but these kung fu masters would lose quick in mma for the simple reason that they are masters...in the single art form of kung fu. If you don't cross train, you will get slain. on top of that, many of those kung fu moves are romanticized, inefficent, and not practical. [although i wouldn't mind seeing someone try to pull a patented jean-claude bloodsport split kick!]

...on a similar note, since discovering mma, i can't watch old martial arts flicks anymore. it looks so ridiculous now. not even bruce lee or jackie. it's amusing, but i can't even let myself get immersed.


----------



## Asian Sensation (Oct 9, 2006)

ricefarmer said:


> i agree the entire asian continent needs to let go of their kung fu crap... it doesn't work.. although we would loose alot of culture if they did stop... and kung fu pretty much made made movies what they are today...
> 
> but yeah... its useless ass hell


you do know judo,jujitsu, and karate were founded in japan right? Muay thai was founded in Thailand right? and that both are in the asian continent. when refering to kung fu its mostly refering to the chinese


----------



## Split (Sep 28, 2006)

damn stop puttting BJJ so high. It's all about the rules. If there wasnt any, pull guard on me and i will knee your balls.

And as for what you see on youtube, that's not kung-fu, thats a phony who waste his life thinking he was doing something he wasnt. 

This is not an excuse, but simple facts.

MMA was made for BJJ, at least the UFC was made for it. 

The reason why it was so succesful was that at least 90% of martial artists, no matter what they were training, did not know what the hell was jiu-jitsu. And even after learning it's basics, they would try to fight their game by pounding on the ground, while you never see a BJJ fighting standing up.

As for Kung-fu, its pretty simple, it has never adapted itself for the today's people, and for today's fighting. It's practionners also. 

Look at GSP for instance. He was a KyoKushin(sorry for the spelling) fighter(black belt?), yet he doesnt have any karate fighting pose, or it's punching or anything. At some point, striking is striking, no matter what style you practice.

Muay Thai has changed as well for MMA, and yet people call it Muay Thai still because it is sucessful. I wonder if Kung-fu ever will, but i dont beleive there has been that many fighters from kung-fu background in MMA.. a remember 1 at UFC 1, and a few others..but very few others, esp any that have mixed it with something else.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

The problem with Kung Fu is that there is so much tradition. It's a good thing and a bad thing. The fact is, so many of the modern kung fu practitioners don't think outside of the box, they aren't constantly thinking about the application of their skills in a practical setting.

The problem with any martial art is almost never the style it self (though there are some exceptions thanks to this whole McDojo fad), it's the practitioners.

The Kung Fu practioners that I have fought have all been guys who just study their style for the sake of studying their style. When you do that, you forget about the biggest piece of the whole thing: this is about self defense.

A good fighter, in any style, knows that the be all and the end all is how effective the techniques are on the street. Guys like Bruce Lee knew that, and they made sure that they knew the reasoning behind every technique that they used. The rest, they threw out the window.

With traditional styles, the questioning of techniques is discouraged. There is cultural richness, and so it's easy to get lost in that culture and that flourish when you should be thinking about how the hell the technique is going to work when your in an alley at 3 AM.

MMA is just a simulation of a one-on-one streetfight, so if your first thought isn't "how does this work when I'm being attacked?" then you might as well not even step into a cage or a ring, because the other guy knows what moves will work when he attacks you.

Some Kung Fu guys believe in the culture of the style, and that's great. I will never talk down about the spirituality of martial arts, and it's something that I think alot of MMA fighters today are missing out on. However, I will say this:

When the styles were first founded, do you think that the guy said "I'm going to create a richer spiritual and cultural style."

No.

There are only a handful of styles dedicated primarily to the study of peace and spirituality, Kung Fu is not one of them. This whole notion of culture has developed over time. It will do the same thing with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and today's modern styles, and we can see the beginnings of that now.

The fact that all martial artists need to come to terms with is that you are only as good as your ability to defend your self. Kung Fu fighters, and many other styles, sometimes forget that.


----------



## Rexqwondo (Aug 2, 2007)

IronMan said:


> The problem with Kung Fu is that there is so much tradition. It's a good thing and a bad thing. The fact is, so many of the modern kung fu practitioners don't think outside of the box, they aren't constantly thinking about the application of their skills in a practical setting.
> 
> The problem with any martial art is almost never the style it self (though there are some exceptions thanks to this whole McDojo fad), it's the practitioners.
> 
> ...



Well Put. The bottom line is Kung Fu and Karate are good martial arts. I love all arts. But a one on one fight will 9 times out of ten result in the BJJ fighter winning. Now I have friends who do not train but since they watch UFC they think they are BJJ experts and always talk down towards other styles outside of BJJ. Little do they know that if they fought a Karate or kung fu practitioner they would get their a## beat. No matter what style you do whether BJJ, Karate, Muay Tai, Kung Fu, Kraf, and so on at LEAST YOU ARE TRAINING.


----------



## DrederickTatum (May 20, 2007)

Trainee said:


> Most kung fu practioners that I've ever seen fight seemed unable to take a hit (like that Kiai master)...took a jab, fell and looked like he was crying. If kung fu practitioners sparred more hardcore, they have the potential to kick ass.


This has been my experience as well. The thing is, the more 'traditional' martial artists spar, the less it becomes traditional. Everything changes, starting with their stance which imo is the signature of the style. Because what they do simply doesn't work to defend themselves. Most work on the premise that you can completely neutralize an opponents strike, when the reality is you have to mitigate as much damage as possible.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

Rexqwondo said:


> Well Put. The bottom line is Kung Fu and Karate are good martial arts. I love all arts. But a one on one fight will 9 times out of ten result in the BJJ fighter winning. Now I have friends who do not train but since they watch UFC they think they are BJJ experts and always talk down towards other styles outside of BJJ. Little do they know that if they fought a Karate or kung fu practitioner they would get their a## beat. No matter what style you do whether BJJ, Karate, Muay Tai, Kung Fu, Kraf, and so on at LEAST YOU ARE TRAINING.


Yeah, a fighter trained in any style definitely kicks the sh*t out of the UFC fan who sits on the coach drinking beer and eating potato chips.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I hate people dissing on any martial art. Its down to the person doing it.
Even if you take randomers on the street, with no training, there are guys who can fight and guys who cant. You know the kinda guys I am talking about, the ones that turn their backs and duck their head if they take a few punches.


----------



## DrederickTatum (May 20, 2007)

The fighting ability you are born with and developped out of school playground fighting is equal if not more important than the training 95% of martial artists receive.

Top fighters are well trained AND tough guys. Don't think for a minute just b/c you trained for a few years in some martial art you are automatically a tough guy (ESPECIALLY if it's one of the traditional arts).

The guys I know who have been in 50++ street fights aren't martial artists. They are just tough motherfuckers. When they spar trained opponents they get dismantled. However in a real life situation things are different.

These guys are able to achieve a berzerker rage that is very hard for a martial artist to overcome (especially when they try to duplicate what a UFC or competition fight looks like). This berzerker rage gives them:

1) Incredibly high threshold of pain.: I've seen guys get punched in the face multiple times and still go at the guy like caged animal. Even with a broken nose.

2) Incredible power: Their incessant haymakers bruise and break even when they are blocked.

Keeping these guy at bay until they gas is not an option. You have to KO them. Which I have seen. By other tough guys...

When I look at generations of UFC, I look at it in the following way:

Early 90's: 

Highly trained martial artists in their own discipline. This is when some styles started to fall by the wayside b/c they were not effective in real combat.

Mid-late 90's:

Tough guys like Tank Abbott came into the picture to show that tough guys could KTFO of trained martial artists.

Late 90's: This is when we started seeing tough guys who were well trained and the era of guys like tank abbott was done


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

As usual, IronMan, you have put a lot of thought into your post. You're absolutely right. Bringing these things back to Bruce Lee is getting pretty tired, but he had the same idea. He was fed up with rigid systems protected by rigid teachers who refused to change, to accept input and adapt. That's what Jeet Kun Do was all about, at least at first, taking different elements from different styles and creating a dynamic martial art that was always changing. If you're going to survive in a sport like MMA, which is always changing, you have to keep changing yourself. The problem with so many kung fu and karate practitioners and teachers, like you said, is that they don't allow any deviation from tradition, even if that tradition is outdated.
Jason DeLucia might be a bit of a nutbar, but he proved very open-minded after Royce beat him at UFC 2. He saw the advantages of BJJ and learned it, adapted his own kung fu style to be more effective.


----------



## Z-man-mma-fan (Mar 4, 2007)

lol.. i think this "berzerker rage" crap youre talking about is just an inability to control emotions and adrenaline. thats an incredibly BAD thing, if you are too emotional in a fight you will be reckless and make mistakes. look at all of the top fighters in MMA. Fedor, Noguiera, Silva, Filho, BJ Penn, etc. all of them are calm and controlled when they fight. its a known fact that a guy whos overly emotional and comes in throwing haymakers will get his ass handed to him to a guy who can control himself and act calmly.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Split said:


> damn stop puttting BJJ so high. It's all about the rules. If there wasnt any, pull guard on me and i will knee your balls.


Lol and that's legal in which Kung Fu tournaments? :laugh: 
If you are talking about a street fight, BJJ can be adapted quite nicely to that scenario too.


----------



## taiwnezboi (Apr 8, 2007)

Z-man-mma-fan said:


> lol.. i think this "berzerker rage" crap youre talking about is just an inability to control emotions and adrenaline. thats an incredibly BAD thing, if you are too emotional in a fight you will be reckless and make mistakes. look at all of the top fighters in MMA. Fedor, Noguiera, Silva, Filho, BJ Penn, etc. all of them are calm and controlled when they fight. its a known fact that a guy whos overly emotional and comes in throwing haymakers will get his ass handed to him to a guy who can control himself and act calmly.


Nice post. All that adrenaline is not going to keep you standing after eating several knees in a clinch, or keep you awake when you're in a rear naked choke.


----------



## DrederickTatum (May 20, 2007)

Z-man-mma-fan said:


> lol.. i think this "berzerker rage" crap youre talking about is just an inability to control emotions and adrenaline. thats an incredibly BAD thing, if you are too emotional in a fight you will be reckless and make mistakes. look at all of the top fighters in MMA. Fedor, Noguiera, Silva, Filho, BJ Penn, etc. all of them are calm and controlled when they fight. its a known fact that a guy whos overly emotional and comes in throwing haymakers will get his ass handed to him to a guy who can control himself and act calmly.


Ok agreed. But you're talking about professional MMA fights....movies are also like that. I'm asking you to think about real life fights you have seen....how many times does the charging bull win? Over 90% in the many many fights I have seen.


----------



## TGIB (Apr 15, 2007)

streetfighting and mma are totally different, being good at one doesnt mean youd be good at the other


----------



## TGIB (Apr 15, 2007)

have you tried applying a rear neck choke in a street fight or in a bar with smashed glass everywhere or the persons who your fighting with has friends who would stamp your face off while your trying to apply a series of submission moves


----------



## TGIB (Apr 15, 2007)

The good thing about mma is it can be adapted to incorperate the different rules/conditions of a street fight also though.


----------



## Z-man-mma-fan (Mar 4, 2007)

DrederickTatum said:


> Ok agreed. But you're talking about professional MMA fights....movies are also like that. I'm asking you to think about real life fights you have seen....how many times does the charging bull win? Over 90% in the many many fights I have seen.


is this the street fight forum? didnt think so. and id say in ANY fighting situation the "charging bull" gets punched in the face with a straight right while hes winding up a haymaker.


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

Jushiness said:


> YouTube - Kiai Master vs MMA


is that kai master running an acting class?!? he was like 10 feet from his students & they were acting like they were hit w/ lightning bolts. how, in sober mind, could that dude put up a 5000 offer to fight a mma fighter & think he'd win?!?

he got what he deserved, straight up. it was almost like he'd NEVER been hit before. i respect the kai's artistry, but he was a fool.


----------



## taiwnezboi (Apr 8, 2007)

TGIB said:


> The good thing about mma is it can be adapted to incorperate the different rules/conditions of a street fight also though.


yeah, instead of throwing devastating knees to the ribs and face, throw 'em to the groin =P


----------



## plazzman (Mar 29, 2007)

Many of the Masters that you see getting their asses handed to them dont usually get punched in the face repeatedly, Im sure if a calm and focused expert wouldnt do that bad, Kung Fu is just another art that does not work well with todays MMA, as todays MMA is no longer about styles, yet adaptation.

Theres tons of other Martial arts that dont work well with Kung Fu, why you gotta hate on Kung Fu. MMA has had 15 years to sort out which art works best, and we found out within the first 3 years that no ONE art works well. You cant really say BJJ alone or Boxing alone works well because theyre are both ultimately missing their opposite sides.

Kung Fu is mostly a wide striking art, sure it would work against average people or other Kung Fu experts that utilize strictly Kung Fu, but in a sport where someone knows 9 different Arts, one descipline isnt going to get you anywhere.


----------



## Gluteal Cleft (May 12, 2007)

Jushiness said:


> I notice a lot that a lot of Kung Fu practioners or fans like to whine and complain and make a mountain of excuses when a Kung Fu, Wing Chun or Shaolin fighter loses to any other style.


 I dunno if they have any monopoly on the excuses. You get them from just about anyone who adheres to only one style or discipline...


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Theres one big relevant mistake here a lot of people have made, referring to kung fu as if its one discipline. The term kung fu loosely translates to being "skilled with your hands" and encompasses Hundreds of different styles. Saying something like, 'kung fu uses wide-sweeping techniques' doesnt make sense. Wing-Chun and Wu-Shu are both kung fu, not the same. Praying Mantis and Drunken Boxing are both kung fu, not the same though. Notice the pattern emerging.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

i dont thing BJJ is the best fighting style of all. I do feel its the best ground fighting style around [and ground fighting is where i feel most comfertable] but there are other great styles such as Muay Thai, Judo, Japanese Jujitsu, American Kickboxing, all styles that i believe are close to equal with eachother in effectiveness [not a word. i know ^^] and over all i believe in order to be a great fighter you need a little of everything.

and the whole street fighting thing, anyone will be down for the count with a swift knee to the balls. though with biting or trying to poke out eyes.. if some one in a street fight bites me or tries to poke out my eyes while i'm grapling them i will break their F---ing Arm, Shoulder, Wrist, Knee, or Ankle. so really eye gouging or biting will only put you in a worse possition in the end. and also the whole "what if there are like 5 guys" if there are five guys trying to jump me i am going to run like hell, and if i cant run i will at least try to grab one and break something of theirs, this will either scare the rest off or make them beat the crap out of me. but its better then getting your ass kicked and not at least hurting one of em.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

I got bit once, it doesnt really do much in a fight. i was trying to break his neck or something and he just bit my nipple, i saw it stretch out when i pushed him away... point is, all it did was piss me off, you dont really feel those little flesh wounds with all those cerebral chems flowin.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> I got bit once, it doesnt really do much in a fight. i was trying to break his neck or something and he just bit my nipple, i saw it stretch out when i pushed him away... point is, all it did was piss me off, you dont really feel those little flesh wounds with all those cerebral chems flowin.



my biggest worry about being bitten is if they break the skin and get me sick. a lot of people around here are dirty as hell. if some one got me sick i would find them and kick their ass again


----------



## Gluteal Cleft (May 12, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> I got bit once, it doesnt really do much in a fight. i was trying to break his neck or something and he just bit my nipple


 You sure he wasn't just getting turned on by all of it? :thumb02:


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

I think the problem with Kung-Fu styles where simply that they became too focused on technique rather than sparring. In contrast to say boxing, which focused on sparring over technique and as such became impractical for its own reasons. The problem with both styles were that they became set in stone.

If a martial art is willing to change it is still a good martial art, GSP fights a new form of karate for example, using kicks to good effect against Matt Hughes. 

The only difference I see between UFC/Pride (and such) and a street fight, is the impact of falling on your back on concrete and head-butts (Watch old Coleman or Kerr to see the impact of head-butts).


----------



## Uchaaa (Apr 22, 2007)

Actually chuck norris fought in mma and retired undefeated.

YouTube - Chuck Norris MMA HL


----------



## mikehmike (May 28, 2007)

I dont know very much about kung fu, but from the looks of the video it doesnt seem to be very helpful in mma


----------



## Split (Sep 28, 2006)

HexRei said:


> Lol and that's legal in which Kung Fu tournaments? :laugh:
> If you are talking about a street fight, BJJ can be adapted quite nicely to that scenario too.


No, but Kung-fu, or any other striking art, dont spread their legs to invite a leg to squash your balls. BJJ is just like any other martial art : Once you know how it works, the edge you have is not as big as it is pictured. 

I sure can see the usefullness of it. Me and a friend were drunk and hes 5 6 190 pounds, and thats not because hes fat. We start just messing around fighting and before you know it, despite being drunk and never having trained BJJ, while he shoots on me(Like most big drunk guys do) and by the time i hit the ground im already on his back securing a choke. Like i said, BJJ, just like other martial arts, works very well against people who dont train, and perhaps better because the techniques are easier to apply..

An armbar is an armbar, and if it's locked, its over. A punch has a lot of factors, like where it hits, how, at what power, and on who, just to name a few. 

Back on topic, if you ask me, the difference between karate, kung-fu, taekwando, Muay thai is only on the emphasis they put on different aspect of striking.. for instance, Kung-fu also has knees, but they just dont use it that much. taekwando have almost all the same kicks as karate(or kung-fu, or muay thai), but they have a few extra flying kicks that nobody has. But that doesn't prevent a guy like Shogun, a muay thai based fighter, to throw "tornado kicks" on arona and Rampage.


----------



## LiverShot (Aug 4, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> You should go and watch the early UFC's with No rules. You could groin hit, poke eyes and everything. You just coudlnt bite the opponent. Now you will realise that very few guys hit the balls and very few grabbed hait and none poked eyes. WHY? cause its not practical, if your taken to the ground, pressing against your opponenets eyes will not stop his attack, he will just stop your attack and then attack your eyes from the top position or punch you out.
> 
> You will also realise by watching those fights that the Karate guys were only punching and kicking and quite crappy at that. No fancy moved


Eye-gauging was never allowed in the UFC, or any mma organization to my knowledge. And I can't speak from experience, but I'm not quite sold on your "eye-gauging is not practical" theory.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> You should go and watch the early UFC's with No rules. You could groin hit, poke eyes and everything. You just coudlnt bite the opponent. Now you will realise that very few guys hit the balls and very few grabbed hait and none poked eyes. WHY? cause its not practical, if your taken to the ground, pressing against your opponenets eyes will not stop his attack, he will just stop your attack and then attack your eyes from the top position or punch you out.
> 
> You will also realise by watching those fights that the Karate guys were only punching and kicking and quite crappy at that. No fancy moved


No they were not allowed. And watch Big Jon Hess in his first fight.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

It's clear how effective eye gouging is by looking at the effect it has when it happen by accident in UFC. Though sometimes people in streetfights don't want to leave the other guy blind. If eye gouging was allowed strikers would have an advantage. Unless the other guy wore goggles


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

It isn't the style that matters it's who uses it and how they use it.

Seth Petruzelli uses Silverback Kung Fu and i love watching him fight.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Judoka said:


> Seth Petruzelli uses Silverback Kung Fu and i love watching him fight.


Not to start shit, but that sounds pretty contrived. Miletich camp has very little kung fu background and frankly seth fights like your typical medium-sized heavyweight in my opinion. His only significant win is against Dan Severn and Dan is like 90 years old or something. He couldn't even beat Gan McGee... I wouldnt put much stock in his kung fu...


----------



## Uchaaa (Apr 22, 2007)

The ultimate aim of karate lies not in victory or defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Yes they were allowed. One or Two of the UFC's between UFC 1-5 had NO RULES. ABsolutely none. And many had no rules against groin shots but no-one used them for a reason. DIrty tactics aren't practical like everyone thinks. In the heat of battle, skin attacks and groin hits dont have the effect they normally do. And 99% of guys dont even think about attacking someone in the groin in a fight.
> 
> Ive been a fight in which i had a hold of the guy and he went and put his fingers over my eyes and started to gouge it and i just hip tossed him to the ground with many strikes to the head.


Shut the **** up you fool. Watch Keith Hackney against Joe Son. Warch Jon hess against Andy Anderson.
I mean, why on Earth would Big John Mccarthy be shouting at Hess to 'Watch the eyes' every time he raked them?
There is a reason these techniques are illegal in MMA organisations. It is because they cause serious damage. A strike to the groin is extremely painful, it is a perfect move to use in a streetfight. And I don't believe your story.
I mean, how ******* dumb can you get? Do some research.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Go **** yourself. By the way you speak, i can tell you've never been in a fight in your life. You ******* couch potato, go keep reading about the anatomy instead of laerning first hand.
> I've worked at enough bars and clubs and had enough fights and also seen enough fights to know what works and what doesnt. And also i see what people think of in the heat of battle.
> 
> In a Street fight, the only time a person is at a proper position to gouge is when grappling, and at that time, you cant get a perfect gouge of the eyes because your in a fight. So what you see is guys grabbing over to eyes and any other part they can grab on the face and try to inflict pain to get out of the currect position. What usually happens is the attacker flicks the hand away and is unfazed. There no direct hits to the eyes, they cant be in a 30sec street fight.
> ...


Yeah, I am a couch potaeto and I have never been in a street fight:thumb02: 

You were wrong about the UFC having no rules.

You are wrong about the ineffectivness of both eye gouges and Groin strikes. Why do you think fights are stopped when someone is poked in the eye? Or kicked into the balls? Why do you think these are against the rules?

Silent agreements? People in street fights agreeing not to hit each oher in certain areas? Where do you live? Disneyland? I am talking about real fights where real people are really trying to hurt each other, not some stupid after school showdown at the jungle gym.

But really, keep talking. Show me some proof the early UFC had no rules. Show me someone getting a smack in the groin and being unfased by it, or getting eye gouged, cos I can certainly show you plenty of times when it has ended fights and/or been a deciding factor.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> You have no idea what your talking about. How many street fights have you even seen? and when have you seen a groin hit or gouge hit stop a fight? Never.
> 
> Also watch the early UFC's, cant remmeber the names, a short asian wrestler getting punching in the groin about 10 times on the ground, didnt look like it fazed him at all, anyone whos seen early UFC's will know which fight. Also another early UFC fight with 2-3 knees to the balls and no effect.


That was Keith Hackney and Joe son. Guess who won? Guess who got out of a chokehold due to those strikes?

You seem to know a lot about what I have and haven't seen.

Gilbert Yvel was stopped by a kick to the groin by wanderlei silva. How many examples of this happeneing do you want?
Remember Liddell and Couture, when Couture was poked in the eye?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Thers times which strikes to any part of the body caused a fighter not to continue. I didnt say that groin shots and gouging are nothing, it said that they;re not as effective as everyone likes to think in a fight and rarely used cause its hard to get a good shot like that in that will finish a fight. As you have mentioned few fights that have stopped with stikes to those part of the body. And giving up in a MMA fight is different to a street fight in which if you give up, u keep whooped even harder which pushes a person not to give up.


Would you ever shut the **** up and educate yourself.

Times when strikes to any part of the body caused a fighter not to continue? You don't seem to realise that the ufc didn't just decide to not allow people to fish hook, eye gouge and groin strike. Its because they are dangerous.

Why are you still trying to argue? You should have quit after your first post, gone and looked at the fight I told you to, checked out the rules to the early UFC events. But no, you continue to argue about something you know nothing about.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Eat a dick you internet warrior. Im not gona look at the UFC collection so i can tell you which UFC allowed groin hits. I've seen it, i told you, between 1-5, somewhere inbetween you ******. Fish hook is bullshit, your finger will get bitten off. Groind shots dont work all that great ,its clear, youve never seen a street fight with a groin shot ending a fight or a eye gouge ending a fight. Its a bullshit move. Punches to the chin and knees to the stomach and head are much more effective for the streets. YOU DUMB INTERNET WARRIOR


There ya go. You refuse to educate yourself and make claims based on nothing.

And just so you know. groin strikes were made illegal at UFC 15, and there was never a UFC with no rules.

Now **** off.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

No1_Brawler said:


> Eat a dick you internet warrior. Im not gona look at the UFC collection so i can tell you which UFC allowed groin hits. I've seen it, i told you, between 1-5, somewhere inbetween you ******. Fish hook is bullshit, your finger will get bitten off. Groind shots dont work all that great ,its clear, youve never seen a street fight with a groin shot ending a fight or a eye gouge ending a fight. Its a bullshit move. Punches to the chin and knees to the stomach and head are much more effective for the streets. YOU DUMB INTERNET WARRIOR


Apart from your language, your posts are stupid.

If I put you in a Thai clinch and knee you in the crotch, it's going to be over. If Wanderlei Silva puts you in a Thai clinch and knees you in the crotch, you are going to start vomiting and going into shock.

I have a friend how is a soccer player and got into a street fight. He kicked the guy in the groin. It was the nastiest thing I have ever seen. Imagine that coming from a world class athlete trained to break people in half with his kicks. Imagine that coming from CroCop. It's a serious health risk.

Now, when you think about fish hooks, you clearly don't understand how they work. I slip my finger inside your mouth and wrench it against your cheek. You can't bite because the finger, because it is pulling the skin on the inside of your mouth away from your teeth.

There's a scene in Pan's Labrynth where a guy gets his lip torn into his cheek, that's the kind of injury that can come out of a fish hook.

Consider this, too, if I sink my thumb and forefinger in to your eyes sockets, it's going to be awefully easy for me to blind you for the rest of the fight, and possibly for the rest of your life. If I have big enough hands and I decide I want to shake you a little bit, I can cause brain hemmorragin and you can die.

Eye gouges are one of the old school streetfighting, closed combat and military techniques that, if used properly, can result in death. No one in the history of MMA has wanted a fight to end that way, we get demonized enough as it is.

After years of practicing close-combat and streetfighting, I can tell you that all of the worlds serious street fighters agree that these techniques are effective and very dangerous. Bas Rutten says it in his instructionals, and he preaches it in his streetfighting seminars: "Everyone underestimates the kick in the groin."

Come on. Do you really think that these techniques would be removed from MMA just because they look nasty? Do you think anyone would have bothered to remove them if they weren't effective?


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

IronMan said:


> Apart from your language, your posts are stupid.
> 
> If I put you in a Thai clinch and knee you in the crotch, it's going to be over. If Wanderlei Silva puts you in a Thai clinch and knees you in the crotch, you are going to start vomiting and going into shock.
> 
> ...


no 1brawler is not gonna stop. arguing w/ him is pointless. everyone BUT no1 brawler is on point. great posts iron man & the negation.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Remember Liddell and Couture, when Couture was poked in the eye?


Or his second fight with Belfort...


----------



## Uchaaa (Apr 22, 2007)

I think he wants to say that a true street fighter can stand a kick in the crotch because he can overcome the pains. I cant judge on that.


----------



## jehu pitchfork (Feb 4, 2007)

Uchaaa said:


> I think he wants to say that a true street fighter can stand a kick in the crotch because he can overcome the pains. I cant judge on that.


i can. it hurts. ANYone who ahs been kicked in the groin will tell you that it hurts BAD. you're a fool or are balless if you say otherwise.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

jehu pitchfork said:


> no 1brawler is not gonna stop. arguing w/ him is pointless. everyone BUT no1 brawler is on point. great posts iron man & the negation.


Everything Iron man posts is very informative and well thought. I'd love to have him as a mentor in my MMA class :fight01: 

no1brawler is just some fanboy hunched over his laptop, ass embedded in the couch, angry because the hotpocket his mother made him burned his mouth.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> I wudnt be talking. 99% of you **** here are internet posers who spend all there days here. All you see is your screen. None have ever fought a proper fight. All posers. All talking about faults and what should be done and none of you with enuf balls to do it. GROW SOME BALLS.


Talk if you must but I know what I do =D once I start competing I'll have matches on youtube so you can kiss my left one. The reason I began training in MMA is because I got into too many street fights, and I'm not afraid to admit that even though I'm a tough kid and got my fair share of wins I got my ass kicked plenty. But that doesnt happen any more. 

Don't forget to take your weekly shower no one


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> I wudnt be talking. 99% of you **** here are internet posers who spend all there days here. All you see is your screen. None have ever fought a proper fight. All posers. All talking about faults and what should be done and none of you with enuf balls to do it. GROW SOME BALLS.


I am not the one online talking about hip tossing people who tried to eye gouge me lol.
Stop embarassing yourself. There is a reason no-one agrees with, its because you are wrong.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Groin strikes and eye gouges are rarely used with proper accuracy and strength. Eye gouges are used while grappling and by the time you try to gouge the eyes, the other guy can take your hands away. Its not like a 1 sec blinding like you think. And groin strikes are not easily done. Once the first strike is thrown, who and how you gona throw a groind strike. You mostly think about hitting someones head, not a kick to the groin which at that time u cud be hit in the head.
> 
> It can be used, YES. But its hard to use it effectively in a street fight. There are more practical ways to finish a fight.
> 
> And i think you guys are forgetting the fact that most street fights dont last more than 30sec. Which means everything is in fast motion. Moves which need alot of accuracy cant be done at that time. You need big strikes, slams and easily done moves at that time.


if you really think that groin strikes wouldnt work then let someone kick you in your nuts then come back and tell us that if that happened to you in a fight you wouldnt be done and dont say that those types of strikes are impossible to get in a fight b/c if you really have ever been in a street fight you would realize almost anytime you have an opportunity to hit someone anywhere else in their body there is also an opportunity to hit them in the nuts.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> TAn eye gouge needs alot of accuracy and a kick to the groin also needs accuracy and distance.


It all depends on how big the target is. It might take a lot of accuracy to get you with a groin strike but please don't speak for the rest of us.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Thats the most stupid thing ive heard. Anything will cause pain if sum1 stands there and takes it.
> 
> Can you plz think for one second. I dont care if you've never been in a fight which is true for most of you. How many street fights have you seen? Now how many fights have you seen finished with a groin shot or eye gouge? I've never seen one that has. WHO HAS? If normal guys cant use it, that means its not really practical.
> 
> ...


Who hasn't seen a street fight? You are a bouncer, so you see oh so many street fights lol. Are you forgetting about the people at and outside the places you bounce at? They see these fights too.

I have seen a few peple go down after taking a knee to the balls, which is very easy to hit if you are in a clinch. I have seen one person go down after taking a straight kick.
I have seen a fight where a friend of mine was totally outclassed and out muscled by another guy, they guy caught him up by the throat against a wall and was punching him in the face. My friend poked his index and middle finger into his eye, blinding him. Worked very well.

You are not even arguing the same points that you started out with, becuase they were wrong. Please stop, it's pathetic.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> If normal guys cant use it, that means its not really practical.


there are a lot of normal guys that don't know how to do submissions like armbars etc does that mean that that isnt a very effective move cuz if you think an armbar doesnt work go ask tim sylvia how his arm felt after mir broke it.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> None of you guys can admit to the fact that the times in which a groin shot or gouging worked to finish a fight was rare. Its not a thing you see for a reason. Yes it can be done. Doesnt mean it can be used to finish any fight. Its less practical then a punch or kick. It can be done Yes. But rarely. And abour your freind. if he was fighting someone who knew what he was doing, he wudnt have the chance to poke eyes.
> 
> I've had around 40 street fights while on the job. Sometimes against multiple guys. Never have i hit or been hit in the groin with a proper shot or been gouged effectively. But i have been kicked in the head from the side and punched in the face. I have beaten every1 I fought with fists, kicks and some slams on concrete. From that you can see that those type of petty hits arent used


People don't use them becuase they are stupid, like you. If you are close enough to hit me, I am close enough to poke you in the eyes, if our reaches are the same, or even if you have a slight advantage in reach(extended fingers).


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> So your saying in a fight situation you will have enough accuracy and clear mindedness to get my eyes with the chance that you miss and i counter with a hook?


Why wouldn't I? It is no different than attempting a punch, there is always a chance you will miss. But if it hits, you are fucked. If I get in close and take you down, and stick my thumb in your eyes, you are fucked. If a punch hits, it may or may not knock you out, or even daze you. If someone gets to your eyes, you are in serious trouble.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> exactly. arm bars are not practical in a street fight


the only time an armbar wouldnt be practical in a street fight is when there was more then one person attacking you otherwise anyone with a slight bit of grappling knowledge would be able to take the person down and break their arm, choke them out etc.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> I just cant believe youve been in many confrontations. You dont understand. In that situation all thats going through your mind is to throw your hardest hits and keep hitting. Your heart is beating faster and many things going through your mind. You might think you would do that but its not what you would do. Thats why i said in a street fight with all the anger involved. Its best to use something thats easy which has alot of power so even if you miss the chin, you can maybe get the head, neck or something like that and inflict some pain


Once before I was in a fight, I got hit from behind into the eye/face with what was either a rock or a large knuckle duster. I ducked low, spun and caught the guys arm and pulled it behind his back while pushing him into a car, putting all my weight into his back and clinging onto his arm, held him there until I recovered somewhat. I had enough sense to do this after receiving a near concussion, having a few bones in my face fractured and getting my jaw knocked outta place. I don't think about doing stuff in a fight, I just do it. If you think about doing something, your chance to do it is gone.

I live in Ireland. I drink and end up in violent situations. It is what I DO at the weekend.

Eye gouges and groin strikes are not complicated and they are highly effective. End of discussion.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Your talking about using it while your in his guard right seeing that it would be the best time to use it. IF thats the sitaution your in, you would be eating a few bare knuckle punches to the head. But if theres no one around and you survivie the early onslaught then ye, its a good time to use it. But it takes a bit of time to get it seeing that in the first 20 seconds the guy would most likely going all out and wudnt let your grab his wrists.


if a guy comes running at me swinging with haymakers like you say everyone does in a fight then im just gonna duck under them pick him up slam him down and if that doesnt ko him then i would just slap on the choke or armbar and end the fight in 20 seconds i wouldnt waste my time trying to fight someone in their guard esp since in a street fight it would be easy to pass someones guard cuz most ppl dont even know what a guard is.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Your talking about using it while your in his guard right seeing that it would be the best time to use it. IF thats the sitaution your in, you would be eating a few bare knuckle punches to the head. But if theres no one around and you survivie the early onslaught then ye, its a good time to use it. But it takes a bit of time to get it seeing that in the first 20 seconds the guy would most likely going all out and wudnt let your grab his wrists.


Guys in street fights pull guard a lot do they lol?


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Guys in street fights pull guard a lot do they lol?


thats exactly what i was trying to say most people dont even know what a guard is let alone how to pull guard not that its hard to do.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Exactly. You have to not think before a fight and just do it. If you think 2 long you get clocked. So not thinking about something means the action doesnt need thought and must be ingrained in your brain and easy to use. Do you know what doesnt git that criteria? As accurate finger poke to the eyes. You;ve been in many fights you say. Be serious, in how many have you used a eye gouge?


eye gouging and shots to the groin are ingrained in everyones brain b/c it is human nature to want to attack the weakest part of someone and one of the weakest areas of a person is their eyes or their groin b/c of the damage an attack to them can do very quickly


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Exactly. You have to not think before a fight and just do it. If you think 2 long you get clocked. So not thinking about something means the action doesnt need thought and must be ingrained in your brain and easy to use. Do you know what doesnt git that criteria? As accurate finger poke to the eyes. You;ve been in many fights you say. Be serious, in how many have you used a eye gouge?


I don't need to think any longer to poke with my fingers than I do to punch with my fist.

I never needed to eye gouge anyone. Just like I never needed to use a Kimura on anyone. I haven't ever beaten anyone too severely even, not in years. I am a nice guy. If I can simply punch someone a few times and push them to the floor, make my point and not hurt anyone, why would I want to?


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> There not ingrained. Groin shots are seen as bitchy to guys and gouging seems like dirty fighting and ppl dont wanna be seen that way. So in a fight most will try to win the manliest way which is punching. Find as many fights as you can on youtube, youll see that less than 5% finish in a groin shot


i hope your not serious because if you are then you prolly got your ass beaten badly in those 40 street fights you said you've been in. in a fight where you are basically fighting for your life your not going to be thinking o wait i cant do that thats not very manly of me the other guy might think im a bitch. your going to be thinking shit he's gonna try and beat my ass and kill me and you are gonna try to do anything to win and that could include eye gouging and groin shots.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> There not ingrained. Groin shots are seen as bitchy to guys and gouging seems like dirty fighting and ppl dont wanna be seen that way. So in a fight most will try to win the manliest way which is punching. Find as many fights as you can on youtube, youll see that less than 5% finish in a groin shot


Exactly. It is because people are stupid that they don't use these things, not because they are ineffective. They are highly effective.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Can you define street fight cause i wasnt talking about fighting for your life. I dont know which fights you have been in but ive never been any in which i fought for my life.
> 
> And i never said i thought they were bitchy, i said most ppl think they are so its not the first thing that cums to ur mind.


A street fight can be anyhting from two kids fighting a boxing match while drunk with there friends cheering them on to a group of people attempting to put you in a coma for the rest of your days by beating you while you lie unconscious on the floor.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Can we agree that Strikes to the groin and eyes are most effective if they are the first strikes thrown? Right after the first hit is thrown and the fight starts, pokes and kicks to the groin are much less effective. Can we agree on that? And they becum more effective when the fight slows down or goes into grappling?


Obviously, but that doesn't make them any less effective in general.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Can you define street fight cause i wasnt talking about fighting for your life. I dont know which fights you have been in but ive never been any in which i fought for my life.
> 
> And i never said i thought they were bitchy, i said most ppl think they are so its not the first thing that cums to ur mind.


i was just using the fighting for your life as an example but in most street fights the other guy is trying to hurt you he isnt just fighting you for fun although some ppl do do that and just b/c someone thinks a move is bitchy doesnt mean you shouldnt use it when im fighting in a street fight i could give a rats ass what someone standing there watching is gonna think all im thinking about is winning and beating the guy before he beats me and if i did do something like a groin shot and then someone called me out on it and said i was a bitch i would ask them if they wanted their ass whupped juss like the guy i just beat.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Can we agree that Strikes to the groin and eyes are most effective if they are the first strikes thrown? Right after the first hit is thrown and the fight starts, pokes and kicks to the groin are much less effective. Can we agree on that? And they becum more effective when the fight slows down or goes into grappling?


ill agree with you that they are more effective once the fight goes to grappling but they are still effective throughout the fight you just have to know when to use them just like any other move however they are the most effective once it turns into grappling.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> If the fight gets to grappling and if your aim at that point is to attack the groin or gouge the eyes as hard as you can, then it can be done. But what im saying is most ppl even though they say it, wont think of that in that time. And even if they do, they wudnt gouge with all their power and they wudnt grab the nuts and squeeze. PPL arent that savage minded and not dat calm in a fight to think of such things.


most people prolly wouldnt think of that but i guarentee that if they were being punched on the ground and saw an opportunity to do something like that to stop themselves from being hit then they would do that b/c no one wants to sit there and get punched and also i highly doubt anyone takes a fight to the ground thinking that they are just gonna try for a groin shot or eye gouge they are going to be thinking about punching someone in the face but if you were losing and the opportunity arises why wouldnt you take it? i also think that most ppl that would use something like an eye gouge or groin shot would be the ppl losing in the fight because there is no need to do something like that if you are winning


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> If the fight gets to grappling and if your aim at that point is to attack the groin or gouge the eyes as hard as you can, then it can be done. But what im saying is most ppl even though they say it, wont think of that in that time. And even if they do, they wudnt gouge with all their power and they wudnt grab the nuts and squeeze. PPL arent that savage minded and not dat calm in a fight to think of such things.


You underestimate peoples savagery and ability to deal with violent situations. I know of a guy who had his nose bitten off by a drug addict(I also know the addict)


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> There's 2 times in which it has most chance of inflicting pain.
> 
> 1st: Throwing the groin shot or poke as first hit and hope it gets him.
> 
> ...


That could be said about headbutts too. Doesn't mean they are not a brilliant move.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> There's 2 times in which it has most chance of inflicting pain.
> 
> 1st: Throwing the groin shot or poke as first hit and hope it gets him.
> 
> ...


i'll agree with you that its a lot harder to poke someone in the eyes while standing but it is easy to kick them in the nuts i know because ive done it before when i was going for an inside leg kick its the same move all you have to do is aim a lil higher and you don't even need to connect fully all you have to do is clip them there and they are going to be feeling it and that could be enough of a distraction to finish the fight with strikes


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Im not denying the pain these moves can inflict. Ye you said it, its like headbutts. Very effective if used but also rarely used.


This is retarded. You are clearly contradicting everything you said earlier.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

you guys are so completely off topic.. this is about Kung Fu being practical and usefull in the modern world where MMA is becoming more and more popular.

if people want to argue about street fighting i think they should start a different thread


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Jushiness said:


> you guys are so completely off topic.. this is about Kung Fu being practical and usefull in the modern world where MMA is becoming more and more popular.
> 
> if people want to argue about street fighting i think they should start a different thread


Shut up.


----------



## Jushiness (Aug 1, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Shut up.


mature.

its my thread jackass


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

Jushiness said:


> mature.
> 
> its my thread jackass


Oh yeah. Well I don't see your name on it.

Oh, wait, never mind.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Jushiness said:


> mature.
> 
> its my thread jackass


I find it hard to deal with all the stupidity floating around these boards. I can only intelligently attack about 50% of it, I run out of energy man.

Sorry for going off topic in 'your thread' lol


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Jushiness said:


> you guys are so completely off topic.. this is about Kung Fu being practical and usefull in the modern world where MMA is becoming more and more popular.
> 
> if people want to argue about street fighting i think they should start a different thread


The most controversial aspect of kung fu is that many of its techniques are not appropriate for competition, and therefore not tehcnically comparable to MMA. From this, it's apparent that kung fu is designed to protect yourself by any means in real life situations... so, in actuality we ARE talking about street-fighting. If not, then i cant wait to hear what you would consider a practical application of kung-fu 'in the modern world'


----------



## sfitzen (Aug 17, 2007)

I haven't read everything yet but I'm making this reply now anyway. Not all Kung Fu practitioners suck, look at Shaolin Monks, don't they practice differing forms of Kung Fu? I'm almost positive a Shaolin Monk could destroy an MMA fighter. Don't quote me.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Why do you think a shaolin monk could destroy an MMA fighter?


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

kung fu is good to practice


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

No1_Brawler said:


> FUCKEN IDIOT> that is the most idiotic thing ive ever heard. Are you retarted. *Shaolin monks cant fight*. Everythign they do doesnt relate to fighting. Get some knowledge


I don't know about that, I like to see you fight a Shaolin monk (not that I really agree with sfitzen's comment). And insults are not a good way to argue your point.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

I just don't understand, if the shaolin monks are as good as they say they are, then why don't they prove it by competing in at least some contact fight?

I mean, even if they don't wana join the UFC cuz it's too much attention or whatever, they could at least challenge one of the UFC's top fighters to a low-contact fight outside of UFC, the point is, why don't they do ANYTHING to prove their skill?

Btw, the excuse of "UFC rules" is bullshit, if a kung fu master is as good as he claims, he should be able to win even with the rules. The rules only outlaw the most dangerous moves, while most fighting moves are still allowed, why should a kung fu master who claims to be so good be all of a sudden rendered useless just because groin strikes and eye gouges are not allowed?

The fact that kung fu schools are spread out all thruout the world preaching that they teach the most awesome self defense, is a slap to human integrity and honesty and just plain pathetic if not one of them dares to fight a top MMA guy!!!

And the most fucked up thing is, it's not like they have to make the fight dangerous either. They could just pair up a few top shaolin masters against a few top MMA guys (1 on 1), and it could be agreed in advance to be low-contact, just to prove a point as to who's better. You don't need full contact to see who's a better fighter. If you put your two brothers in the backyard and told them to spar but to hold 40% of their power back, you can still tell who's the better fighter after a bit of sparring.

I'm just sick of all these kung fu schools in the world, i mean think about it there's a hundreds of thousands of schools, and not one kung fu master is interested in proving a point.

The point of kung fu being "only strikes" is also insufficient. Shaolin masters claim mastery over all forms of fighting - long range strikes AND close range grappling; they have claimed over and over again that they have the most effective self defense in all areas of fighting.

My point is, EVEN IF A TOP SHAOLIN MASTER REFUSES TO FIGHT A TOP MMA GUY CUZ FIGHTING IS AGAINST HIS "PRINCIPLES", THERE IS ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD REFUSE TO AT LEAST SPAR WITH A TOP MMA GUY JUST SO THE WORLD CAN SEE WHO'S ACTUALLY BETTER. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO A FIVE ROUND FIGHT, BUT TO REFUSE EVEN ONE ROUND OF LOW-CONTACT SPARRING IS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED.

Sorry for the caps, but if you're the teacher of a school that claims to be that good at self defense, and you don't even care enough to spar with a top MMA fighter, then I don't think your school even deserves to exist because it COMPLETELY contradicts the notion of self defense which requires at least some proof.

How can some1 claim that they have a better football team but then constantly refuse to let their team play in a real game?

This is so incredibly frustrating to me because it's like the most illogical thing ever and it's like the epitomy of Dishonesty which i hate. That's pretty ******* dishonest to say you have the greatest system of self defense but to know deep down you're scared to fight fighters from other styles.


----------



## traf_quake (Jan 17, 2007)

dude you know the reason that a lot of kung fu masters probly don't take up the challenge is because the actual soul of kung fu is to practice without fighting....they really don't care who is the best because it's such an inane thing to real kung fu practioners......its all about the soul and finding spiritual peace more than fighting....but apperently when matt furey visited the shaolin temple he said that like any of the monks would seriously destroy any decent fighter....not being favortised for the monks but they've been training since birth every day for their whole lives...i'm assuming they know how to fight....but kung fu master did get his ass beat by royce gracie in a challenge match in his gym in brazil


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> Btw, the excuse of "UFC rules" is bullshit, if a kung fu master is as good as he claims, he should be able to win even with the rules. The rules only outlaw the most dangerous moves, while most fighting moves are still allowed, why should a kung fu master who claims to be so good be all of a sudden rendered useless just because groin strikes and eye gouges are not allowed?


A Wing Tsun Kung Fu guy said something similar to me after talking a whole lot of shit- that he wanted to fight no rules. I pointed out what a stupid idea it was to allow eye gouges and groin strikes, and he admitted that he didnt want to get hit there, but kept insisting. I think it was basically because he knew I wouldn't agree to a no rules fight.


----------



## pankration (Jan 24, 2007)

One of the posts said it well, kung fu masters can't seem to take a hit. I had the good fortune when I was young to practice several styles of Asian martial arts, including kung fu. My reality was this: great for technique, stretching and coordination but a terrible fighting style in the ring (street defense is another topic). For that matter, taekwondo (which I hold black belts in) wasn't a whole lot better. You want tough? I coached high school wrestling for a few years and those kids were hard as nails. I boxed for a year and got my head handed to me (albeit by a future world champion...although he was 13 and I was 20 at the time!!!). The MMA works because it takes the most efficient, direct techniques from a variety of styles to create one all-encompassing art. Kung fu, monks, tournament fighters etc. don't stand a chance against MMA fighters because they don't train that way. The traditional arts are a great place to START not finish.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

traf_quake said:


> dude you know the reason that a lot of kung fu masters probly don't take up the challenge is because the actual soul of kung fu is to practice without fighting....they really don't care who is the best because it's such an inane thing to real kung fu practioners......its all about the soul and finding spiritual peace more than fighting....but apperently when matt furey visited the shaolin temple he said that like any of the monks would seriously destroy any decent fighter....not being favortised for the monks but they've been training since birth every day for their whole lives...i'm assuming they know how to fight....but kung fu master did get his ass beat by royce gracie in a challenge match in his gym in brazil



Thanks for your response but there is Absolutely No Way I or anyone should agree with this. The so-called "Soul" of kung fu necessarily INCLUDES the effectiveness of it; as well, you suggested that kung fu masters "do not care" about who is best which can't possibly be true, because if they didn't care who is best, then WHY would they claim their system is the best even in terms of combat ?

Most importantly, kung fu masters spar with each other right? NOBODY said they have to necessarily agree to fight Five Rounds with a UFC champion, all i'm saying is that they have no reason to refuse to SPAR ( not fight!!!) even one round with a UFC champ. You can tell a lot from one round, and both parties can agree to withhold 50% power to keep it safe. There is simply no excuse for dodging this! If there is a valid reason no-one has mentioned it yet. 

three things.

ONE: Sparring is not a five round fight. Refusing to fight does not give you permission to refuse to spar, if you are making claims about the effectiveness of your art. If you're going to make a claim and then refuse to provide any proof whatsover, you're a bitch.

TWO: kung fu masters spar with each other all the time, low-contact style (safely). It stands to reason they have no reason to accept sparring from a fellow kung fu artist but not from an MMA artist.

THREE: A small element of proof is required in ALL areas of life. A car salesman is required to give you a test drive, this doesn't mean he has to let you drive the car for 24 hours. Football teams have to play one season a year, this doesn't mean they play 365 days a year. You don't propose to a girl to marry you when you haven't dated her at all do you? So it's not just sports, it' sports, people, money, everything requires a "10% proof" policy. WHY SHOULD MARTIAL ARTS BE GIVEN A SPECIAL BYPASS on this???

The sickest thing is, Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie etc. are glamorized to death over an art that no-one dares to prove. I have heard that bruce had a few public real fights, but one: were they even televised or recorded? two: even if they were recorded it was probably a long time ago and can you name one friend who knows how to access these videos? i don't. To make things even better, i bet those public fights he had were probably with another kung fu practitioner! Why didn't he challenge muhammed ali to one round of 50% power sparring, if he was so confident that his art is so great? Or a champion muay thai artist?

Ever since the emergence of UFC I have found myself unable to to enjoy the kungfu heroes i idolized as a kid anymore simply because there is not one shred of evidence to support the superiority of their skills over MMA.

I will try to find a kung fu teacher who can answer my curiousity about this, but until then I simply do not see how their schools even have a right to exist if all they do is dodge a responsibility for your claims decade after decade.

Most Importantly, my biggest point of all is Honesty. I DON'T CARE if a kung fu school was opened by some guy who didn't make any bold claims, he can open as many schools as he wants. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with someone who opens a school and then MAKES CLAIMS about how their art really is the best, but then won't spar with Champions. The moment you make a claim, then you shouldn't be allowed to open your school if you're not willing to provide 10% proof. Otherwise, he should have opened his school WITHOUT making those claims. He could have opened a kung fu school and said "my art will teach you how to be a better defender than if you had no training at all, but it's not necessarily better than MMA." But notice that EVERY kung fu teacher says that kung fu is MORE EFFECTIVE than what you see in UFC. Okay, why won't you spar with the champ then? one round not even?

Same thing goes with writing books. What on earth gives Bruce Lee the right to write a book boasting the effectiveness of Jeet Kune Do when NOT ONE of us even knows how to access a recorded video of his real fights? Anybody know a web link or a company that you can order DVDs from showing rare footage of bruce in a real fight? no. And yet his jeet kune do books sell by the millions. how ridiculous is that.

So theoretically Bruce Lee should be able to kick the shit out of an experienced 250 lb. bouncer at a club, based on how many people have bought his books and believe in him. Theoretically. He should also be able to kick the shit out of my friend Haz, who has had over 30 street fights and not lost one of them. (Haz is just one of those guys with "inborn" fighting talent. He's untrained but in a real fight he turns into a person he himself doesn't even know.) Theoretically. But should these two fights really take place, do you know who would win? Do I know? NOT ONE OF US ******* KNOWS and that's pretty pathetic, considering that millions of people think they know.


----------



## pankration (Jan 24, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> Thanks for your response but there is Absolutely No Way I or anyone should agree with this. The so-called "Soul" of kung fu necessarily INCLUDES the effectiveness of it; as well, you suggested that kung fu masters "do not care" about who is best which can't possibly be true, because if they didn't care who is best, then WHY would they claim their system is the best even in terms of combat ?
> 
> Most importantly, kung fu masters spar with each other right? NOBODY said they have to necessarily agree to fight Five Rounds with a UFC champion, all i'm saying is that they have no reason to refuse to SPAR ( not fight!!!) even one round with a UFC champ. You can tell a lot from one round, and both parties can agree to withhold 50% power to keep it safe. There is simply no excuse for dodging this! If there is a valid reason no-one has mentioned it yet.
> 
> ...


Note that Bruce Lee was ostracized by the kung fu community for many years because he believed that martial arts had to include all disciplines. In effect, Lee was one of the first modern proponents of an MMA style. He may have been raised with kung fu but he was not restricted to that style. Read his books or even watch Enter the Dragon again. You'll see boxing, grappling, wrestling etc. in all these mediums.


----------



## sfitzen (Aug 17, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> FUCKEN IDIOT> that is the most idiotic thing ive ever heard. Are you retarted. Shaolin monks cant fight. Everythign they do doesnt relate to fighting. Get some knowledge


You prove YOUR knowledge through your excessive cussing and your inadequate vocabulary. Shaolin Monks can't fight? I'm sure one could whoop your ass? Also, I said don't quote me. Meaning I'm not positive that it was true. I feel for you, i know it must've been hard being beaten by your mother every day. i feel for you, i truly do. i understand that your only outlet for anger is bad mouthing people on forums like this one, its ok, i accept your apology.


----------



## sfitzen (Aug 17, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Saying that a shoalin monk can beat any1 with any fighting experience is obsurd. Its like saying your the best basketball player but never playing even one game, only doing drills and technique work. Everyone knows the most important part of anything is actually doing it. For fighting its sparring.
> 
> Show me a guy whos never sparred and ill show you a guy who doesnt know how to fight properly. All the training in the world is useless without hands on training with another person. Remember, doing moves in your head or just against the air means nothing when versing a resisting opponent.
> 
> ...


No one in this forum said that Kung Fu practitioners could beat anyone they fought against. That statement was made by the kung fu guy in the video who got stomped. Also, learn to type and spell. And again, aside from that video i've never heard anyone claim Kung Fu to be superior to MMA? let me repeat myself, DON'T QUOTE ME on that statement, just quoting from MY experience with the subject. Shaolin Monks can't fight? During the Ming Dynasty they were used as Military Soldiers, even though they couldn't fight.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

pankration said:


> Note that Bruce Lee was ostracized by the kung fu community for many years because he believed that martial arts had to include all disciplines. In effect, Lee was one of the first modern proponents of an MMA style. He may have been raised with kung fu but he was not restricted to that style. Read his books or even watch Enter the Dragon again. You'll see boxing, grappling, wrestling etc. in all these mediums.




I think you have missed my point. I idolized kung fu heroes growing up so i know all about what you're saying. I know that what Bruce preached, was, in effect, very much a MMA style of thought. But the keyword here is THEORY. He sold books, he made movies, but to this date i have not watched A SINGLE VIDEO of a recorded real fight of his. 

This is my main point. Bruce is treated like a god because he preached MMA, but he didn't provide any proof that he could actually pull it off. This is extremely offensive to me.

If you were the prime minister and your advisor said your military has 100 tanks and 50 planes that should work Theoretically, wouldn't you fire this advisor IMMEDIATELY? If your the chief of a tribe and your assistant said we have 200 bows and 400 arrows and theoretically they should work but we don't want to shoot them at any trees, because that goes against out environmentalist philosophy of preserving trees, wouldn't you be pretty upset?

What I'm saying is, The Responsibility of Proof when it comes to physical danger and defense, is not only equal to other categories of life, but Greater. The responsibilty for proof in self defense claims is Greater than claims in other areas of life. As prime minister you might let your advisor get away with theoretical claims about the effectiveness of your country's gardening tools, but how the hell can you let him get away with making theoretical claims about whether or not your tanks and guns work without testing them?

The thing is, IT DOESN'T MATTER if Bruce Lee preached MMA from the moment he woke up till the moment his went to bed at night. He is still wrong to have devoted at least 25months to make the dozen or half dozen movies he made, and the however many months it took him to write his books, but then at the same time to have devoted not a single month to recording a video of real fights that we can have access to.

Think about it. He made movies. He directed them even. IT'S NOT LIKE HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE A CAMCORDER. Why then didn't he record some real-life sparring with champions and himself?

I bet you if I tried really hard for several weeks straight I could probably track down someone who would be able to find rare video footage of Bruce in a real sparring match. But you know what? I bet that when i DO find that one rare video, it will be like ****ing 10 seconds long, fuzzy, and his opponent will probably be 10 years older than him and have a potbelly too. AND, he probably wouldn't even be a MMA guy like Bruce, he would probably be a "rigid minded" one-style guys so even if Bruce whooped him in the sparring it wouldn't have proved Bruce's skill at all. For all you know, his opponent in this rare 10 second video could be one of those idiot teachers who rarely sparred at all. What would a victory over someone like that mean?

Bruce is idolized by millions and as such, he should be able to win a sparring round against not only the "one-style" artists, but also against other MMA top-ranked guys. If not, then he shouldn't have given the impression that he was so good.

What do i mean by "impression"? He went on interviews, etc. etc. the point is every time he made an appearance, he made the point taken that he was a master.

By the way, even if I did find this rare 10 second video of his, it STILL doesn't relate to my main point, which is that IF HE WAS SO PASSIONATE ABOUT IT, he should've publicized the video himself instead of making me spend 4 weeks trying to find someone who can find it.

If Bruce can spend years publicizing his movies and books, what excuse does he have for not making the SLIGHTEST effort to publicize recorded footage of his real fights (or sparring), if he's really that skilled? Think about it, it makes no sense.

From the age of 28 to 30 alone, he could've spent just one month, or one week, recording real sparring sessions between himself and some top-ranked champions from other disciplines. But no, one week or even one day, is too much to ask from Bruce, who supposedly "loves" his art.

To all those who think "proving" is not a part of "kung fu culture", think again. Look at all the traditional kung fu books, comics, movies, and television shows, and you will see that 60% of the traditinal storylines always contain some kung fu hero proving himself against other heroes. The "proof" part of combat has ALWAYS been a part of kung fu culture. As to why it has suddenly disappeared in the last 100 years, your guess is as good as mine.

This isn't an ego trip either. To win against another opponent in sparring is not for the purpose of proving youre worth something and he's worthless or some stupid sh** like that. The sparring is SIMPLY VALUABLE because it proves which art actually WORKS BETTER. A lot of people say "kung fu masters don't need an ego trip" and these people are missing the point. Even the traditional kung fu storylines i mentioned above always featured kung fu heroes sparring with one another NOT because they were idiots who wanted to prove that the other guy was not worthy of living or something, but simply because they needed to prove that their knowledge and hard work and all that art and soul and spirituality CAN ACTUALLY WORK IN COMBAT. That's why these fictional kung fu heroes would always spar but would never kill each other because they sparred to prove a point, not to harm. What this shows is that Proof has always been a part of traditional kung fu culture no matter how you look at it.

And don't give me that crap about "it doesn't prove which art is better because it depends on the indiviual." If you pair up one guy versus one guy, then of course you're not going to find out, but are you seriously telling me that if you took the top 30 kung fu masters in the world and paired them up with the top 30 MMA guys from the world, one on one, in safe sparring, that after 30 ****ing matches we still wouldn't be able to tell? What about 60 matches? 90? Eventually you can tell.

After so many decades of kung fu teachers telling us how effective their art is, they owe it to the world community to prove to us once and for all, otherwise they shouldn't have spent 40 years making commercials and advertisements about how superior their self defense skills are, and making so much money too.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

sfitzen said:


> No one in this forum said that Kung Fu practitioners could beat anyone they fought against. That statement was made by the kung fu guy in the video who got stomped. Also, learn to type and spell. And again, aside from that video i've never heard anyone claim Kung Fu to be superior to MMA? let me repeat myself, DON'T QUOTE ME on that statement, just quoting from MY experience with the subject. Shaolin Monks can't fight? During the Ming Dynasty they were used as Military Soldiers, even though they couldn't fight.



Actually, almost every single kung fu teacher and master will say that kung fu is superior to MMA. If you go up to them and ask them directly "what is better MMA or kung fu", they ALL answer kung fu very, very confidently. I know because I've asked more than a handful. To give you an example one of the shaolin schools in my city, i asked the instructors there and they VERY confidently said "our master would win in a fight over any of the UFC or MMA champions." Uh huh. Their master however was not present at the time i visited but even if he was, do you think he would be willing to participate in a sparring match with UFC champs? No he would find some intelligent way to justify not doing so, forever robbing us of the opportunity to know if he's bulls****ing us or if he really is in fact that good.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

MMA isn't a style in itself, nor should it be. It can't be compared to a rigid system.


----------



## pankration (Jan 24, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> I think you have missed my point. I idolized kung fu heroes growing up so i know all about what you're saying. I know that what Bruce preached, was, in effect, very much a MMA style of thought. But the keyword here is THEORY. He sold books, he made movies, but to this date i have not watched A SINGLE VIDEO of a recorded real fight of his.
> 
> This is my main point. Bruce is treated like a god because he preached MMA, but he didn't provide any proof that he could actually pull it off. This is extremely offensive to me.
> 
> ...


An excellent reply. As far as I know, none of his "real" fights were recorded although there are rumors about the one at the California tournament that may have been recorded by Ed Parker. And you're right: it would have been a few seconds long, poor quality etc. And it also would have been against a strict stylist, mainly because that's all there was at the time. I understand the arguments you're putting forth and agree but with one caveat: you have to measure the fighter within his era. MMA didn't exist then. Bruce Lee is idolized for bringing his art to the masses in the most explosive manner possible. But real fights? If they took place, they were underground. I'm old enough to have seen the martial arts go from being big secrets to being mainstream. MMA evolved because the world modernized and fighters opened their minds. Martial artists my age (50) and over can well remember the days when we often (in my case dozens and dozens) fought challenge matches against other schools, rogues etc. Although many fights I and others fought in degenerated quickly into brawls, none of us were really MMA stylists and unfortunately Bruce Lee falls into the same category. Again, your points are bang-on but there are different factors to consider.


----------



## mikehmike (May 28, 2007)

pankration said:


> An excellent reply. As far as I know, none of his "real" fights were recorded although there are rumors about the one at the California tournament that may have been recorded by Ed Parker. And you're right: it would have been a few seconds long, poor quality etc. And it also would have been against a strict stylist, mainly because that's all there was at the time. I understand the arguments you're putting forth and agree but with one caveat: you have to measure the fighter within his era. MMA didn't exist then. Bruce Lee is idolized for bringing his art to the masses in the most explosive manner possible. But real fights? If they took place, they were underground. I'm old enough to have seen the martial arts go from being big secrets to being mainstream. MMA evolved because the world modernized and fighters opened their minds. Martial artists my age (50) and over can well remember the days when we often (in my case dozens and dozens) fought challenge matches against other schools, rogues etc. Although many fights I and others fought in degenerated quickly into brawls, none of us were really MMA stylists and unfortunately Bruce Lee falls into the same category. Again, your points are bang-on but there are different factors to consider.



Well put, and I also agree with the post above. Bruce was never recorded or put into a cage b/c at the time MMA did not exist. I think bruce was a VERY good fighter and in VERY good shape, and if in todays time with his skill etc if he trained in MMA he could be awesome.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

another main point i forgot to mention is that it's not just about Honesty it's also about Fairness.

Kung Fu has long sold the public about how glamorous and great this art is and how effective it is in self defense. Teenage boys and men in their 20s are forcefed all these jet li and other kung fu movies that create this image that kung fu is this great art that really really works. The public is fed books written by Bruce Lee and many other kung fu guys who promise that their shit really works.

What I'm saying is that in a way, the Kung Fu community has continually TEASED us with the notion that they really do possess a great knowledge that works, but then eternally refuses to provide us the satisfying proof we crave from having received that image for so long.

This is so hard to explain. It's like if my girlfriend teased my dick for 3 hours straight, and then at the end of the night PURPOSELY refused to have sex with me even though she doesn't really have a problem with having sex, she just wants to see me pissed. Is that okay? I think I would have to stop dating her if she had such a sadistic and twisted sense of humor.

But with kung fu ( i know sex isn't the best analogy ) , we're dealt kind of the same cards.

In a way, it is sick, and disgusting, and inhumane and unfair, for the kung fu community to rake in millions of dollars, and not only money cuz money doesn't really matter in the end, but to create in us an impression that this great effective kick-ass art really does exist and to do so for decades on end, and then to end it all with a simple refusal to spar with other champions, a simple, "nope". Isn't that cruel?


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

pankration said:


> An excellent reply. As far as I know, none of his "real" fights were recorded although there are rumors about the one at the California tournament that may have been recorded by Ed Parker. And you're right: it would have been a few seconds long, poor quality etc. And it also would have been against a strict stylist, mainly because that's all there was at the time. I understand the arguments you're putting forth and agree but with one caveat: you have to measure the fighter within his era. MMA didn't exist then. Bruce Lee is idolized for bringing his art to the masses in the most explosive manner possible. But real fights? If they took place, they were underground. I'm old enough to have seen the martial arts go from being big secrets to being mainstream. MMA evolved because the world modernized and fighters opened their minds. Martial artists my age (50) and over can well remember the days when we often (in my case dozens and dozens) fought challenge matches against other schools, rogues etc. Although many fights I and others fought in degenerated quickly into brawls, none of us were really MMA stylists and unfortunately Bruce Lee falls into the same category. Again, your points are bang-on but there are different factors to consider.



thanks for your response and True, MMA was not really created yet in Bruce's time, but this is not really relevant to my main point which is that Bruce made NO EFFORT to record nor publicize his own fights.

Let me clarify: even if MMA wasn't around back then, Bruce could have easily, if he wanted to, recorded some sparring sessions between himself and a Muay Thai expert, for example, and to do this at the very least to prove that he is as good as he projects himself to be.

He projects himself to be a master who teaches something that really really works and works well. If he really is a MASTER in such a thing, then he should be able to spar with another Muay Thai champ and make the champ look bad during the sparring.

If not, then what right does he have to project himself with the kind of Greatness that he projects on every single interview movie etc.?

It seems more that he is taking totally advantage of the public's naivety, i.e. "I know you'll still buy me even without my proof, so why should i make an effort to provide any?" But then how could you say you love your art if you only care to provide proof when others demand it but not because you are curious on your own? Why shouldn't Bruce himself be craving to know how well he would fare against a kickboxing guy, for example? And if he did good, why wouldn't he want to publicize this video to further his promotion of jeet kune do?

If Bruce was really so passionate about "mixing all arts" and being super adaptative "like water", then surely he could conceive that in a real fight he MAY in some cases be taken to the ground into some grappling, right? Then shouldn't he have wanted to spar with some wrestlers&grapplers, just to see how his short distance combat skills would pan out? And let's say he really did wrestle these grapplers and didn't do that well, then what right does he have to continue going on interviews talking like he's a grand master of combative skills, when combative skills include AT LEAST 50% short distance and grappling skills?

Even the most skilled long-distance fighter in the world has to be prepared for the chance that he may slip and accidently let an opponent take him to the ground even if tried to prevent it. That's why all the traditional Shaolin teachers always say that they are equally skilled in grappling as they are in striking. It is nonsense that all the modern people saying kung fu is mainly long distance strikes, they don't really know kung fu culture. Shaolin historical journals even record how Shaolin monks defeated tigers in the wild, showing that short-distance combat was no strange thing to them. I KNOW THESE JOURNALS MAY OR MAY NOT BE FICTIONAL, but the point is that even if they're fictional they still prove that short-range combat and grappling have always been a part of kungfu culture and thought.

Kung fu has long been advertised as the most effective combative art, strikes AND grappling, neither half has EVER been excluded from kung fu. The inability for any single kung fu shaolin master to step up to the plate and show us if this image is really true, is unjustified.

Occasionally, we see some kung fu guy get wasted in an MMA match, but this doesn't prove anything because this kung fu guy could've sucked to begin with, he could've had a fake-ass teacher and everything. Kung fu is unlike MMA - it has been around for 4000 teachers and there are fake teachers everywhere raking in money. How do you know that the occasional kung fu guy who gets owned by an MMA guy in some YouTube video was even practising genuine kung fu? That's right you don't. And like I said, all the Shaolin historical documents say kung fu DID emphasize both strikes and wrestling, so this only goes to further suggest that the occasional kung fu guy we see getting owned may really not have trained under a "real" teacher.

Think of anything else that has been around for 4000 years and you will imagine there are a lot of fake teachers.

So my point is, until the very BEST and GENUINE members from the kung fu community actually step up to the plate and agree to some Relatively safe sparring with some MMA champs, until , say, some badass mother****ker shaolin monk from a non-commercial real shaolin temple in China all of a sudden gets a lightbulb moment to spar with modern champs, we will forever be left with TWO POSSIBILITIES.

One: that kung fu really is an art that will kick MMA's ass any day if mastered, but that for some reason beyond our comprehension those who have mastered it will never show it; 

or Two: that kung fu as some kind of awesome extremely great and effective way of self defense was really a myth from the beginning, and that in the end, boxing (including kickboxing and muay thai) and wrestling (including all forms of grappling and bjj etc etc) combined are the only true ways of advanced self defense.

We simply at this stage do not have enough willing competitors to find out.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Seriously man, (thhis is to jakemsn4). Noooobody wants to read you rant for 3 pages. An intelligent person should be able to communicate potential insights in a concise way. Brevity is the soul of wit -William Shakespeare
Think lots, speak little -Old chinese porverb

Now about Shaolin Kung Fu, what your suggesting about their lack of applicable fighting skill isnt necessarily wrong. However, your perception of a what a Shaolin Martial Artist IS and claims to be is very cliche and very misinformed. Instead of asking 'Why won't they fight' consider why they won't choose to fight.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Seriously man, (thhis is to jakemsn4). Noooobody wants to read you rant for 3 pages. An intelligent person should be able to communicate potential insights in a concise way. Brevity is the soul of wit -William Shakespeare
> Think lots, speak little -Old chinese porverb
> 
> Now about Shaolin Kung Fu, what your suggesting about their lack of applicable fighting skill isnt necessarily wrong. However, your perception of a what a Shaolin Martial Artist IS and claims to be is very cliche and very misinformed. Instead of asking 'Why won't they fight' consider why they won't choose to fight.




It's funny that you mention intelligence because i don't find it intelligent when you complain about a post's length when you simply don't need to read it.

How's this for a proverb: Don't complain about something nobody is forcing you on?

Secondly I AM asking why won't they choose to fight.

Thirdly while my posts may be long your post is too short to make any of your claims sensible and that's much more frustrating.

You claim that my perception of shaolin is misinformed but i have edited my message above to clarify there there is a distinction between real and fake teachers.

Most importantly, I AM NOT SAYING AT ALL that they lack applicable skill. In fact i am saying the opposite, I'm saying we are robbed of the opportunity to know because the best and most genuine teachers refuse to fight/spar mma champs


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

oooooomg, sorry jakey i didnt read ur bit on the late great Bruce Lee. First of all, Bruce Lee never boasted his talents, on the contrary he advocated the abandonment of ego. If you have read his compiled works "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" you would soon realize this. You would also learn that he did in fact study grappling and submission arts as part of his 'completeness in technique' philosphy. Considering what 'Martial Arts' meant during his time... Bruce Lee was a revolutionary, wtf are you?


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Bakc to Kung fu... Please understand, asking why they CHOOSE not to fight is the answer to why they do not fight. Also, and more importantly, they don't publicize themselves as war machines. Hence your misinformed cliche, the idea that they are all-powerful combatative masters is a title thrust upon them, they train as a way of life, not a way to fight. 
Regardless of that, comparing MMA and Shoalin is like comparing Jiu-Jitsu and Boxing. The match would inevitably be predetermined by the rules. Cage-match UFC style, MMA guy wins. Out in a field with a spear and butterfly swords, Shaolin wins.

ps. this debate would be easier on msn.. [email protected]


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> oooooomg, sorry jakey i didnt read ur bit on the late great Bruce Lee. First of all, Bruce Lee never boasted his talents, on the contrary he advocated the abandonment of ego. If you have read his compiled works "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" you would soon realize this. You would also learn that he did in fact study grappling and submission arts as part of his 'completeness in technique' philosphy. Considering what 'Martial Arts' meant during his time... Bruce Lee was a revolutionary, wtf are you?


omg u are so missing it i don't even know if i should reply to you.

my whole point was he DID study and he DID preach all techniques but he didn't PROVE any of it because he didn't make an effort to sparr and to make his sparring accessible to the public, THEREFORE he has no right to talk like he's some kind of master.

If you constantly can't understand this point, what the f*** does that make you?

If an MMA champion was to talk like a master on an interview, he is justified because at any moment he can say "look, i have a video collection of me winning matches where my opponents were this this and that."

Bruce Lee talks like he knows stuff that really works, but then look at his video collection and all he has is movies of choreographed fights, not real sparring. HE HAS NOTHING to justify talking like a master.


----------



## Deadpool (Dec 14, 2006)

> Challengers On The Set
> 
> Bruce Lee's celebrity and martial arts prowess often put him on a collision course with a number of street toughs, stunt men and martial arts extras, all hoping to make a name for themselves. Lee typically diffused such challenges without fighting, but felt compelled to respond to several persistent individuals.
> 
> ...


From Wikipedia, go to a Bruce Lee article it has the appropriate references. But hey yes there's a possibility that it was choreographed.

Also this



> In 1959, at the age of 18, Lee got into a fight and had badly beaten a feared Triad gang member's son.[10]His father became concerned about young Bruce's safety, and as a result, he and his wife decided to send Bruce to the United States to live with an old friend of his father's.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Bakc to Kung fu... Please understand, asking why they CHOOSE not to fight is the answer to why they do not fight. Also, and more importantly, they don't publicize themselves as war machines. Hence your misinformed cliche, the idea that they are all-powerful combatative masters is a title thrust upon them, they train as a way of life, not a way to fight.
> Regardless of that, comparing MMA and Shoalin is like comparing Jiu-Jitsu and Boxing. The match would inevitably be predetermined by the rules. Cage-match UFC style, MMA guy wins. Out in a field with a spear and butterfly swords, Shaolin wins.
> 
> ps. this debate would be easier on msn.. [email protected]




nooo you don't understand. The title is NOT thrust upon them because EVERY kung fu teacher that i have asked said that their master can whup any mma champ. THEY SAY IT THEMSELVES, it's not a title cast on them.

Secondly your cage-match argument i already mentioned. It is nonsense, if a kung fu fighter cannot win a fight the moment groin kicks and eye attacks are disallowed, then they have no right to say that their master coulda whooped an mma champ.

THINK ABOUT IT!!! If Michael Jordan was to play basketball on you one-on-one, and the rules were both players cannot dunk, DON'T YOU THINK HE SHOULD STILL WIN?????? If Jordan's entire game is based on dunking, then he does not deserve the title of the greatest basketball player! Of course he would win!

Similarly, a kung fu master does not have a right to talk highly of his art if he is unwilling to sparr an MMA fighter "because groin kicks and eye gouges are not allowed". How much more insane can you get?

No matter what you say, the truth is that every kung fu teacher DOES say their system beats mma in a real fight, and so that IS a very bold claim which MUST be proven other wise the claim should NOT have been made.

Think about it, if kung fu's victory must rely on eye and throat attacks... sigh, i don't even wana bother --- can you not see the insanity in that way of thinking?

let me spell it out to you. if a kung fu artist cannot win an mma fighter because of the rules, that would mean kung fu DEPENDS on eye throat and groin attacks, LITERALLY DEPENDS AND COMPLETELY RELIES ON THEM. Wouldn't that be insanity in the most extreme, to create an art that depends on these attacks to win over other styles? no way on earth could this be the design nor intention of genuine kung fu masters.

same thing goes with the spears and knives you brought up. Again, kung fu has for thousands of years claimed to be the most superior combat form, whether BOTH oppenonents have weapons or whether BOTH opponents are unarmed. I have NO idea why people still persist in bringing up the weapons argument. It's not like the creators of kung fu said "hm let's design and practise a way of defending ourselves that only works if we remember to carry our weapons when we travel to the local market. But if by chance i forget to carry my butterfly knife with me, and i end up in combat with a trained fighter, then surely i would lose because my art wasn't designed for that" hell no that's not what was going thru their minds.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Deadpool said:


> Challengers On The Set
> 
> Bruce Lee's celebrity and martial arts prowess often put him on a collision course with a number of street toughs, stunt men and martial arts extras, all hoping to make a name for themselves. Lee typically diffused such challenges without fighting, but felt compelled to respond to several persistent individuals.
> 
> ...




thanks for the information but again, why won't Bruce Lee record any of these sparring matches that he had if he realy did perform so well in them?

You have to remember, Bruce Lee was a man who made and directed many films. It's not has if he DISLIKED filming things.

If he was really that SKILLED in combat and if he really did LOVE it, then WOULDN'T he have made recording his real fights his FIRST priority, and then recording fake movie fights his SECOND priority?

INSTEAD, you have the EXTREME OPPOSITE. He made recording dozens of fictional films his FIRST priority, and then, out of THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE DAYS IN ONE YEAR, TEN YEARS IN EVERY DECADE, not one day did he wake up and take the same camera that he used yesterday to make movies, to record some of his own real sparring.

Does that really, really make sense? come on.

and the gang member's son, give me a break! how does that even relate to this discussion? his son could be a regular untrained joe, how does injuring him badly say anything?


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Why should Bruce Lee have to prove himself to you? or anyone, he developed his skill and philosophy of his art for his personal development. In actuality, you can always spot a genuine, talented martial artist by their modest responses to the type of challenges you're proposing. If Bruce Lee were to slump so low as to advertise various footage of himself beating the shit out of randoms he wouldnt be the respected Martial Arts icon and legend he is.

Am i to understand that your basing all of your opinions on Shaolin Kung Fu on the personal interactions you've had with random kung fu practitioners? You need to expand you're knowledge base, this forum is a good place to do it 

btw, originally kung fu was designed to protect the temples from bandits and oppressing regimes. so yeah, carrying butterfly knives was for the purpose of self-preservation on the way to the market is exactly what they were thinking. in fact, the blades of the butterfly knife are specifically designed to maim and not kill the opponent so that the monks could defend themselves without killing and contradicting their religious beliefs. Now obviously this practicality is not necessary in this day, but the weapons arts are carried on as an integral part of traditional kung fu.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> thanks for the information but again, why won't Bruce Lee record any of these sparring matches that he had if he realy did perform so well in them?
> 
> You have to remember, Bruce Lee was a man who made and directed many films. It's not has if he DISLIKED filming things.
> 
> ...


Your wrong about Bruce Lee's priorities, he was always very clear that his art came first, then his acting career. Also, it's well known that Bruce did a lot of fighting, in fact he was sent to America by his father BECAUSE of his problematic tendency to test his art in the street. Also, along with that story i know of an infamous incident where Bruce was challenged by a chinese grand master in America because Bruce was teaching white people, and the Asian community was thoroughly opposed to this, white people learning their secrets. To make a long story short, the grand master waltzed into his dojo, got owned in under 3 minutes... which actually made bruce train harder because he felt the time took too long.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Why should Bruce Lee have to prove himself to you? or anyone, he developed his skill and philosophy of his art for his personal development. In actuality, you can always spot a genuine, talented martial artist by their modest responses to the type of challenges you're proposing. If Bruce Lee were to slump so low as to advertise various footage of himself beating the shit out of randoms he wouldnt be the respected Martial Arts icon and legend he is.
> 
> Am i to understand that your basing all of your opinions on Shaolin Kung Fu on the personal interactions you've had with random kung fu practitioners? You need to expand you're knowledge base, this forum is a good place to do it




yes he has a responsibility to prove himself because he is PROJECTING the public image of someone who can do very well against other fighters. If you project this image but don't prove it, it IS wrong, even morally wrong.

Nobody said he has to advertise videos of himself beating up random chumps. What I'm saying is that if he can spend years making movies, he certainly should have filmed some of his own real sparring, NOT with random chumps, but with top ranked fighters in other disciplines?

Reason? Because he talks as if his Jeet Kune Do is better, than, say Muay Thai alone or whatever, because his Jeet Kune Do is supposedly a "mix" of the best of everything, right? And he talks like he really knows his stuff right?

Then he should be able to spar against a muay thai champ and make him look bad!

And to clarify, i DIDN'T mean he should advertise such a video! He simply could have recorded it and said "here, this is where to go and so forth IF you want to view these videos, this is the company you can order these videos from IF you want."

and if you really must mention advertising, he did INTENTIONALLY go on stage to perform two finger pushups, side kicks, and one inch punches, did he not? So why is he shying away from a public sparring then? Does THAT make any sense?

My interactions with real kung fu practitioners is VERY informative and you have no reason to call that insufficient. I DID ask them who would win a fight, mma or kung fu master, and they DID answer kung fu very, very confidently and the information could not be more sufficient than that.

If you asked your brother "did you murder him" and he says "yes", how much more sufficient info can you get dude? He already answered the frekin question! These masters ALL answered me that they would win over mma champs, THAT IS A BOLD CLAIM to make without being willing to enter into a single sparring round with any of the champs.

You say i need to expand my knowledge base but that is wrong because there is only two ways to get more knowledge than what we have now.

the first way is to actually train in kung fu and mma and then to spar with willing individuals from both disciplines and to see for yourself. Seeing how I work ELEVEN hour manual labor shifts six days a week currently, i don't think i have enough energy left for that.

the second way is like i said, for a genuine kung fu master to step up to the plate and safely sparr some mma champs. this has not happened to date.

therefore currently there is no way to "expand" the knowledge base, for me nor for you.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Lets be serioud. When talking about fighting, i would rather fight a shaolin monk rather than any normal boxer/kickboxer or wrestler. I would have much better chance of whooping a shaolin monk seeing that there small guys who think they know instead of fighting with a trained fighter who actually knows.
> 
> P.S - I've seen a clip of bruce lee sparring for 1minute, prety gud quality at a show. Its on the internet somewhere. Bruce and the guy are both wearing black clothes and alot of protective gear. And Bruce looks real crappy there, he just tries to look flashy without any effective strikes.



i wouldn't necessarily think the shaolin monks don't know anything, because the ones you see on TV are all commercialized stunt-performers which is a completely different category than shaolin monks who practise but do NOT perform stunts in public. Like i said, fake and commercial teachers, versus genuine teachers.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Where are these kung fu practitioners whom you've spoken to? Where do they train? 

Bruce did crowd pleasing tricks in order to advertise ALL of martial arts and get people interested, not to make himself look like a great martial artist. He knew better than anyone that breaking boards, two-finger pushups and one-inch punches does not mean you can fight.
His Jeet Kune Do is not a style or a mix of anything, its an idea, the concept of throwing 'style' out the window and suiting your fighting style to what works for you. Really, he wished it didnt have a name, because then it implies that it is a style which is the opposite of his actual philosphy. He sparred many many great fighters, again, he just didnt have a reason to show people, why woudl he? WTF IS SO HARD TO GRASP ABOUT THIS?? Why do u think people need to impress you in order to prove themselves.
Im not talking about Bruce Lee with you anymore cause you're purposely being ignorant in order to not give up your bogus opinion.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> i wouldn't necessarily think the shaolin monks don't know anything, because the ones you see on TV are all commercialized stunt-performers which is a completely different category than shaolin monks who practise but do NOT perform stunts in public. Like i said, fake and commercial teachers, versus genuine teachers.


And how are you sure that the kung fu practitioners youve encountered are 'genuine'?


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

mikehmike said:


> Well put, and I also agree with the post above. Bruce was never recorded or put into a cage b/c at the time MMA did not exist. I think bruce was a VERY good fighter and in VERY good shape, and if in todays time with his skill etc if he trained in MMA he could be awesome.



I agree with you about how Bruce appeared to be a good fighter and in tremendous shape, 'especially that awesome speed of his, 

HOWEVER, it does not suffice to say that Bruce was not recorded because MMA did not exist. The only thing that you need for recording is a video camera and he CERTAINLY had that. 

Plus, if he had the nerve to record a bunch of choreographed movies, what is to stop him from saying to the guy next to him, "yo press the record button while i spar with so and so champion?"


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> And how are you sure that the kung fu practitioners youve encountered are 'genuine'?


omg you still don't get it.

i didn't say that i KNEW that the practitioners i've encountered WERE genuine. I said that i've encountered NUMEROUS of them and the FACT that NONE of them are willing to spar mma champs, while at the SAME time ALL of them claim that their master can win over an mma champ, is PROOF that WE WILL NEVER KNOW if they are genuine or not.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

"you say i need to expand my knowledge base but that is wrong because there is only two ways to get more knowledge than what we have now.

the first way is to actually train in kung fu and mma and then to spar with willing individuals from both disciplines and to see for yourself. Seeing how I work ELEVEN hour manual labor shifts six days a week currently, i don't think i have enough energy left for that.

the second way is like i said, for a genuine kung fu master to step up to the plate and safely sparr some mma champs. this has not happened to date."

-I have trained in kung fu and ahve sparred with otehr styles, i also have known of Kung Fu stylists beating MMA fighters... jsut because you've never seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. your knowledge base is clearly limited to general sources, go take the time to research the shit your talking about


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> omg you still don't get it.
> 
> i didn't say that i KNEW that the practitioners i've encountered WERE genuine. I said that i've encountered NUMEROUS of them and the FACT that NONE of them are willing to spar mma champs, while at the SAME time ALL of them claim that their master can win over an mma champ, is PROOF that WE WILL NEVER KNOW if they are genuine or not.


LOL... thanks, you just pwnd urself. SO... you believe you can protest that there is no proof of Shaolin skill because the few kung fu practitioners who may or may not be genuine have told you they could beat MMA guys. seriously, go read


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Where are these kung fu practitioners whom you've spoken to? Where do they train?
> 
> Bruce did crowd pleasing tricks in order to advertise ALL of martial arts and get people interested, not to make himself look like a great martial artist. He knew better than anyone that breaking boards, two-finger pushups and one-inch punches does not mean you can fight.
> His Jeet Kune Do is not a style or a mix of anything, its an idea, the concept of throwing 'style' out the window and suiting your fighting style to what works for you. Really, he wished it didnt have a name, because then it implies that it is a style which is the opposite of his actual philosphy. He sparred many many great fighters, again, he just didnt have a reason to show people, why woudl he? WTF IS SO HARD TO GRASP ABOUT THIS?? Why do u think people need to impress you in order to prove themselves.
> Im not talking about Bruce Lee with you anymore cause you're purposely being ignorant in order to not give up your bogus opinion.



OMFG you are the ignorant one not me.

It's not me who is not grasping it, it's you. It's not about Bruce impressing anyone, it's about proof.

It is simply and morally wrong for him to create the image he has created for himself and for kung fu, and to not be willing to provide any videofootage proof of it whatsover.

This would be completely identical to me travelling to Egypt and witnessing flying elephant and having a camera in my hand and not taking a picture of it, then coming back and telling you day in and day out that i saw this flying elephant and when you ask me why i didn't take a picture i just say "cuz i din feel like it".

It would be different, if, say, i came back and i didnt say a word about it.

But imagine, if EVERY ****ING DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR, i kept telling you i saw a flying elephant and i know which trail to take to go right back to it and photograph it, but i don't feel like it, then that's wrong.

With Bruce Lee its the same thing. It would be OKAY if he didn't make any claims. 

But that's not the case. 365 days he's in the media, even in 2007. He's in the news, he's in the video store, he's on posters, he's on the web, he's everywhere, everyday, even after he's ****ing dead, and everytime he appears, he's talking and projecting this image that he has a good mastery of combative skills.

And yet, like the flying-elephont analogy, he could easily have recorded JUST ONE INCIDENT DISPLAY of such skill and mastery (i.e. SPARRING with a CHAMPION not some reg. chump), and nope, he doesn't "feel like it", so yes that is wrong.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Its been made perfectly clear that Bruce Lee has proved himself time and time again in modest ways... just not to you, get over it


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> LOL... thanks, you just pwnd urself. SO... you believe you can protest that there is no proof of Shaolin skill because the few kung fu practitioners who may or may not be genuine have told you they could beat MMA guys. seriously, go read




dude omfg you are hanging on to semantics you don't get it.

true, i don't completely know if the ones i talked to are genuine or not, but THAT DOESNT matter because we KNOW for a fact that kung fu fighters very very rarely spar with mma fighters, right?

So from this fact alone, we can deduce that to DATE, we still DO NOT know if ANY genuine kung fu masters have sparred with mma champs, because the OCCASIONAL kung fu guy we see getting owned on youtube could easily be from one of the fake schools, GET IT?

not hard to understand.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Its been made perfectly clear that Bruce Lee has proved himself time and time again in modest ways... just not to you, get over it




lol, it has been proved time after time that Bruce has not provided us any proof whatsover, you're the only one not seeing this, get over it.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

But thats not true either, i personally know of mantis practitioners ******* up professional MMA guys. You seem to think that if you havent witnessed something than it doesnt occur. You have a lot to see and learn grasshopper


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Why should Bruce Lee have to prove himself to you? or anyone, he developed his skill and philosophy of his art for his personal development. In actuality, you can always spot a genuine, talented martial artist by their modest responses to the type of challenges you're proposing. If Bruce Lee were to slump so low as to advertise various footage of himself beating the shit out of randoms he wouldnt be the respected Martial Arts icon and legend he is.
> 
> Am i to understand that your basing all of your opinions on Shaolin Kung Fu on the personal interactions you've had with random kung fu practitioners? You need to expand you're knowledge base, this forum is a good place to do it
> 
> btw, originally kung fu was designed to protect the temples from bandits and oppressing regimes. so yeah, carrying butterfly knives was for the purpose of self-preservation on the way to the market is exactly what they were thinking. in fact, the blades of the butterfly knife are specifically designed to maim and not kill the opponent so that the monks could defend themselves without killing and contradicting their religious beliefs. Now obviously this practicality is not necessary in this day, but the weapons arts are carried on as an integral part of traditional kung fu.



Wrong. Yes they were thinking of carrying butterfly knives while travelling to the market, yes, but NO, they were not thinking that if the opportunity should arise that they should become unarmed, that they would be unable to fare well against a trained fighter. Knives CAN drop out of you hand while fighting, can you not understand that? The shaolin monks have ALWAYS made fighting with and without weapons EQUALLY important. Read up on nonfictional AND fictional shaolin documents if you need. And, both fake and genuine shaolin teachers will tell you that shaolin does NOT depend on weapons, both armed and unarmed combat were claimed to be superior to other styles, not just the armed.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

I own and have read Tao of Jeet Kune Do, along with 5 O'hara series books on Bruce Lee's techniques and philosphies, along with 3 full length documentaries, one made for TV movie (which is too hollywood), and read countless articles on his life and art. The Wing Chun master i trained under learned from Ip Chun and Ip Ching, the same who taught Bruce Lee the foundations of his art while in China. What do u know of Bruce Lee? If you read as much as you talk you could potentially have something relevant to say, peace out nub


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> "you say i need to expand my knowledge base but that is wrong because there is only two ways to get more knowledge than what we have now.
> 
> the first way is to actually train in kung fu and mma and then to spar with willing individuals from both disciplines and to see for yourself. Seeing how I work ELEVEN hour manual labor shifts six days a week currently, i don't think i have enough energy left for that.
> 
> ...



Stop being a smartass, your logic is shitty.

just cuz you've seen a kung fu student beating an mma student doesnt mean anything, I ALREADY ANSWERED THIS. We have seen a kung fu guy getting owned on Youtube too have we not? I SAID THIS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TOO, did i not? Why? because the kung fu guy that got owned wasn't the best out there.

similarly, the mma guys you saw lose, coulda sucked!

I have trained in some shaolin myself, also some MMA from a friend on weekends.

Why do i have to repeat the following to you again: The only way we can know is if the BEST guys from kung fu spar with the BEST guys from mma. Currently the best guys from mma are mma's champions. As for kung fu's best guys, we DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY ARE because they refuse to come out and spar with the mma champs.

why cant you understand


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Your wrong about Bruce Lee's priorities, he was always very clear that his art came first, then his acting career. Also, it's well known that Bruce did a lot of fighting, in fact he was sent to America by his father BECAUSE of his problematic tendency to test his art in the street. Also, along with that story i know of an infamous incident where Bruce was challenged by a chinese grand master in America because Bruce was teaching white people, and the Asian community was thoroughly opposed to this, white people learning their secrets. To make a long story short, the grand master waltzed into his dojo, got owned in under 3 minutes... which actually made bruce train harder because he felt the time took too long.



pathetic. you are basing all this without seeing it. how do you know bruce didn't look bad in that fight? just cuz he won the fight that's evidence of being a good fighter? I've won some streetfights too so does that give me the right to write a book claiming to be a master?


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> I own and have read Tao of Jeet Kune Do, along with 5 O'hara series books on Bruce Lee's techniques and philosphies, along with 3 full length documentaries, one made for TV movie (which is too hollywood), and read countless articles on his life and art. The Wing Chun master i trained under learned from Ip Chun and Ip Ching, the same who taught Bruce Lee the foundations of his art while in China. What do u know of Bruce Lee? If you read as much as you talk you could potentially have something relevant to say, peace out nub



lol you're such an idiot. Why don't you go rent a room and Bruce can write all day and you can read all day.

At the end of the day nothing matters if he's not willing to prove it when there are SAFE ways of proving it easily.

But you're so stupid you can't understand this simple truth.
You just like to read lol


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

so anywho, hows your mma going mr. weekend warrior?


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

i'm not doing mma.


i said, i used to train in some shaolin from a school that claims to be genuine, and i learned some mma from a friend in the weekends.

Now i work 11 hrs mon.-sat. and sure as hell don't train or do anything physical on sunday my work is all physical.

I have a few days off and stumbled onto this site as you can see these are my first posts.


----------



## sfitzen (Aug 17, 2007)

I think what it boils down to is that there is no superior martial art or mixture of martial arts, only superior fighters. Its not Kung Fu thats challenging MMA, its a Kung Fu practitioner challenging an MMA fighter. So its not that the flaw lies in kung fu, just the people who practice it. I think some aspects of all martial arts, including kung fu, could be combined and utilized in an MMA situation as long as you find the right skill and the right situation to use it in?


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

so you dont train, you dont research... your pretty much all mouth. Well shit, jokes on me for wasting my time with u.

ps. i work 56 hour weeks handballin freezers and fridges off trucks, unlike some people who might use that as an excuse i still train


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> so you dont train, you dont research... your pretty much all mouth. Well shit, jokes on me for wasting my time with u.
> 
> ps. i work 56 hour weeks handballin freezers and fridges off trucks, unlike some people who might use that as an excuse i still train



f*** your job is nothing compared to mine, one, and two, even though you may currently train more than me doesn't take anything away from the fact that you're still a Dic*head for not being able to understand that bruce lee did NOT provide proof, nor have any other kung fu masters.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

and quite frankly, while i do admit my training was in the past, i do NOT understand why you keep saying research,

that doesn't make any sense. The proof is not there and no matter how much you argue this, the fact remains that the top kung fu masters have NOT consented to sparring with mma CHAMPIONS.

This does NOT require research,

SO JUST WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, just shut up please


----------



## sfitzen (Aug 17, 2007)

Its like arguing religion.


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

sfitzen said:


> I think what it boils down to is that there is no superior martial art or mixture of martial arts, only superior fighters. Its not Kung Fu thats challenging MMA, its a Kung Fu practitioner challenging an MMA fighter. So its not that the flaw lies in kung fu, just the people who practice it. I think some aspects of all martial arts, including kung fu, could be combined and utilized in an MMA situation as long as you find the right skill and the right situation to use it in?


not really because almost every kung fu master claims he can own mma top fighters. this is a claim about their art as a whole, not just the individual.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

wrong, this is the point, the proof IS there if you take the time to look for it, you just dont ******* know what your on about, you dont practice martial arts and you dont know shit about martial arts, your a straight-up wannabe makin noise on forums because its the only way your not totally disassociated from martial arts. knowledge man, you need knowledge. i pity you, its kinda sad that you want to say somethin but you dont have nothin to talk about


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> wrong, this is the point, the proof IS there if you take the time to look for it, you just dont ******* know what your on about, you dont practice martial arts and you dont know shit about martial arts, your a straight-up wannabe makin noise on forums because its the only way your not totally disassociated from martial arts. knowledge man, you need knowledge. i pity you, its kinda sad that you want to say somethin but you dont have nothin to talk about


LOOK motherf***er i have won MORE than a handful of streetfights and the only knowledge i need is that proof is everything, you accuse me of talking AND YET, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE PROOF you claim exists.

You seeing regular kung fu guys win regular mma guys is nothing, neither are masters nor champions. Okay? PLEASE STOP BEING SO STUPID!

And if your Wing Tsun and Jeet Kune Do is the only KNOWLEDGE that you have then i pity you because it is likely my streetfighting knowledge alone would win over you, dumbass

how funny it is that you claim to be more knowledgeable than because you study under so and so teacher whose teacher also teached this teacher and that teacher LMFAO who knows if you could even fare well against me, u shit

you keep saying knowledge is everything, WRONG, proof is


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

hahahahahaha....
BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Classic 'im a toughguy' mentality. cry more noob.
ps. i already explained Jeet Kune Do is not a style, i train Muay Thai now. u anywhere near guelph, ont.?


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> hahahahahaha....
> BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> Classic 'im a toughguy' mentality. cry more noob.
> ps. i already explained Jeet Kune Do is not a style, i train Muay Thai now. u anywhere near guelph, ont.?




i don't Think i'm a toughguy, bruh, i Know it from experience, as for you I'll have to see, Calgary Alberta anytime baby


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> hahahahahaha....
> BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> Classic 'im a toughguy' mentality. cry more noob.
> ps. i already explained Jeet Kune Do is not a style, i train Muay Thai now. u anywhere near guelph, ont.?



and you're wrong about jeet kune do not being a style

even though bruce lee continually said it wasn't, it still is because it contains heavy elements from wing chun, how can you say it's not a style if it contains heavy influence from another style? nonsense. it doesn't look like you're more knowledgeable than me at all.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

I like this, you have mad anti-logic... you dont train in any martial art, no sparring or shite, but you somehow have extraordinary innate fighting skill. havent you just been bashing bruce lee and shaolin monks for the past 20 posts for not proving their worth? and you cant even move your armchair athlete ass to the gym... gg 4 joo


~Fin~


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Thats funny, you sound just like the guy that Bruce fucked up on set. Who cares how many fights you've had, tossing around drunks doesnt mean shit. Maybe youve had too many bottles to the back of the head, try not to let this slip out of your thick skull... he didnt jsut fight bums, he fought a lot as a youth on teh streets and on teh rooftops in china. After he came to America he developed his skill at a mature level with top competitors from all styles, there are also eye-witness accounts of him defending himself against highly competent fighters in real scenarios. If you dont know anything about bruce lee than why bother talking shit? Hes not my idol, i have no 'idols' but i know enough about him to realize he was extremely dedicated and a highly skilled fighter.
And who the **** would you consider to be a real 'master' back then? there was no UFC, no MMA as we know it, who the **** are you to say? Go ahead an list me the top MMA fighters of his time, go ahead and try without googling it for 20 minutes. ******* waste my time talking shit just to sound tough when you know fuckall about the subject, is there any proof you've been in those fights u claim? IVE never seen it, it must not be true! How can you find any proof if oyu never bothered looking for it? BS im wasting my time with you, **** it, who the **** cares what some uninformed knucklhead thinks im done with this thread


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

jakemsn4 said:


> and you're wrong about jeet kune do not being a style
> 
> even though bruce lee continually said it wasn't, it still is because it contains heavy elements from wing chun, how can you say it's not a style if it contains heavy influence from another style? nonsense. it doesn't look like you're more knowledgeable than me at all.


You obviously dont understand what Bruce Lee was trying to convey... i suppose i shouldnt expect more from someone who doesnt even train


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> Thats funny, you sound just like the guy that Bruce fucked up on set. Who cares how many fights you've had, tossing around drunks doesnt mean shit. Maybe youve had too many bottles to the back of the head, try not to let this slip out of your thick skull... he didnt jsut fight bums, he fought a lot as a youth on teh streets and on teh rooftops in china. After he came to America he developed his skill at a mature level with top competitors from all styles, there are also eye-witness accounts of him defending himself against highly competent fighters in real scenarios. If you dont know anything about bruce lee than why bother talking shit? Hes not my idol, i have no 'idols' but i know enough about him to realize he was extremely dedicated and a highly skilled fighter.
> And who the **** would you consider to be a real 'master' back then? there was no UFC, no MMA as we know it, who the **** are you to say? Go ahead an list me the top MMA fighters of his time, go ahead and try without googling it for 20 minutes. ******* waste my time talking shit just to sound tough when you know fuckall about the subject, is there any proof you've been in those fights u claim? IVE never seen it, it must not be true! How can you find any proof if oyu never bothered looking for it? BS im wasting my time with you, **** it, who the **** cares what some uninformed knucklhead thinks im done with this thread


You are so goddam stupid lol. I respect Bruce and I have read his books, but there is about as much proof of him being a great fighter as their is of marlon sims.
EDIT: Actually there is less. There is a video of marlon ******* up some guy in like 20 seconds online.


----------



## Deadpool (Dec 14, 2006)

I think the name Bruce Lee should be banned from the forums.

This is about 18 pages regarding hypothetical situations. Some MMA practicioners can beat some Martial Artist, some martial artist can beat some MMA practicioners. Everyone can be beaten by someone.

End.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Deadpool said:


> I think the name Bruce Lee should be banned from the forums.
> 
> This is about 18 pages regarding hypothetical situations. Some MMA practicioners can beat some Martial Artist, some martial artist can beat some MMA practicioners. Everyone can be beaten by someone.
> 
> End.


Do you know what MMA stands for lol?


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Since you are so big on Proof, wheres yours that he was a great fighter, wheres your Proof that a master could not beat a champian. you have spewd at the mouth for pages and pages about proof yet have not brought any to the table yourself. 

The bruce lee topic has been talked about on too many threads on this forum so I will not humor you on my side and views on the subject. 

When demanding Proof bring Proof yourself and lack there of Proof on the other persons side is not Proof.


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Chinese martial arts also include a variety of wrestling and grappling techniques?


----------



## pankration (Jan 24, 2007)

You're both right. Lee would have given a great gift to the world if he had kept some sort of historical record of his skill in a real world setting. But he didn't. His early death precluded it. If you re-read Tao of Jeet Kune Do I believe you'll get a better view of his mindset on the arts. I doubt you'll find a conceit or arrogance there.
I've met (and fought) with stylists from every discipline and EVERYONE especially in the days before MMA thought they were the best so I wouldn't label kung fu as a villain even though they like to play that mysterious, Shaolin crap all the time. MMA is tough because its training is harder than all the others but just as there are braggarts in the traditional arts there are the same in MMA schools. Time, place and circumstance determines the best fighter at that particular moment. A lucky punch, a slip...can have an unlikely winner. 
Even though excellent points are being made it's getting repetitive (and by the way Jake, length is no problem).:thumb02:


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

After doing some researching on the net it started to bug me that these so-called *Kung Fu Masters* who get their butts handed to them in an MMA fight don't use the grappling and wrestling holds available in Chinese martial arts like in Chin Na (several sources say that the Japanese founded Jujutsu after being inspired from Chin Na, can't say if the sources are legit.) and Shuai Jiao.

Chin Na - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shuai jiao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Deadpool said:


> I think the name Bruce Lee should be banned from the forums.
> 
> This is about 18 pages regarding hypothetical situations. Some MMA practicioners can beat some Martial Artist, some martial artist can beat some MMA practicioners. Everyone can be beaten by someone.
> 
> End.


yeah i agree with u, that was garbage.. my view and anyone elses of Bruce Lee is ultimately irrelevant. Theres no video to prove he was a real master in combat and theres no records to suggest he wasnt a great fighter... no use arguing over opinions. From seeing what kind of person Bruce was from his written work, interviews and the opinions of those who knew him personally, thats more than enough proof to me that he trained as hard and with as much diversity as any MMA fighter in UFC today.
And Pankration, your right about every fight being unpredictable in reality, i totally agree but theres got to be some measure of estimation depending on the fighters' abilities, and i think thats worth debating


----------



## pankration (Jan 24, 2007)

Bloodlusting said:


> yeah i agree with u, that was garbage.. my view and anyone elses of Bruce Lee is ultimately irrelevant. Theres no video to prove he was a real master in combat and theres no records to suggest he wasnt a great fighter... no use arguing over opinions. From seeing what kind of person Bruce was from his written work, interviews and the opinions of those who knew him personally, thats more than enough proof to me that he trained as hard and with as much diversity as any MMA fighter in UFC today.
> And Pankration, your right about every fight being unpredictable in reality, i totally agree but theres got to be some measure of estimation depending on the fighters' abilities, and i think thats worth debating


Healthy debate is ALWAYS worth it so let's not stop. But in this case, so little empirical evidence exists as to Lee's true martial skills that we end up arguing senselessly. It would have been great to analyze video, gather anecdotal reports or look for eyewitnesses. I don't think much is out there so why fight with each other when in this case we all make valid points.


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

What I can say about Bruce Lee is that, he was revolutionary in the Kung Fu movie genre. About MMA well, he did start to study ground work and grappling holds adding them to his Jeet Kune Do before he died, still I wouldn't call him the *Father Of MMA* like Dana White did. I would say he's one of the huge number of contributors to the evolution of MMA along with the likes of Helio Gracie.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

The Elemental Warrio said:


> What I can say about Bruce Lee is that, he was revolutionary in the Kung Fu movie genre. About MMA well, he did start to study ground work and grappling holds adding them to his Jeet Kune Do before he died, still I wouldn't call him the *Father Of MMA* like Dana White did. I would say he's one of the huge number of contributors to the evolution of MMA along with the likes of Helio Gracie.


Alright seriously, this is the kind of stuff thats aggrivating. To someone who knows about Bruce Lee, you obviously dont know dick-all about him or what he did. You people who just 'know of' Bruce Lee can't just start saying shit because it seems like the popular thing to do. What's wrong with your post you may ask?
-He didnt 'start to learn ground work', he studied jiu-jitsu and other grappling arts in detailed depth for a number of years
-Jeet Kune Do is not a style its a concept, and idea, anybody who claims otherwise is missing the point of Jeet Kune Do
-He WAS revolutionary in his perception and practice of martial arts because he broke a number a taboo's of the asian arts, the biggest being that each style should be learnt in a traditional manner in its entirity. He Used what was useful from each art he studied and threw away what he found too flashy or ineffective. Even UFC in its infancy was still pitting style Vs. style, only in the last 5 years has UFC developed torealize what Bruce Lee knew long ago. He also taught white people when he came to america which pissed off other asian masters, he was even challenged for it and won.

By the way, i dont know you at all, but id bet my balls Dana White knows more about the culture of MMA than you do, aaand, Helio gracie was just a Jiu-jitsu expert with basic striking, Bruce Lee had a more diverse and rounded game... like the type you see in modern Pride and UFC


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

Bloodlusting said:


> Alright seriously, this is the kind of stuff thats aggrivating. To someone who knows about Bruce Lee, you obviously dont know dick-all about him or what he did. You people who just 'know of' Bruce Lee can't just start saying shit because it seems like the popular thing to do. What's wrong with your post you may ask?
> -He didnt 'start to learn ground work', he studied jiu-jitsu and other grappling arts in detailed depth for a number of years
> -Jeet Kune Do is not a style its a concept, and idea, anybody who claims otherwise is missing the point of Jeet Kune Do
> -He WAS revolutionary in his perception and practice of martial arts because he broke a number a taboo's of the asian arts, the biggest being that each style should be learnt in a traditional manner in its entirity. He Used what was useful from each art he studied and threw away what he found too flashy or ineffective. Even UFC in its infancy was still pitting style Vs. style, only in the last 5 years has UFC developed torealize what Bruce Lee knew long ago. He also taught white people when he came to america which pissed off other asian masters, he was even challenged for it and won.
> ...


First of all, I wasn't saying anything bad about him. 

Second, I know Jeet Kune Do isn't a style. 

Third, I know he broke a lot of taboos and that he was revolutionary at the time but he wasn't the only one, he was the most well known one and he didn't invented the MMA ideal, he helped revive it as the idea is ancient that's how other styles were created. 

Fouth, I know a lot about Bruce Lee, I've read about him, saw documentaries..etc, so I try to keep an open mind about this subject.

Fifth, I'm a big Bruce Lee fan.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

The Elemental Warrio said:


> Third, I know he broke taboos but he wasn't the one who invented MMA ideal, he helped revive it as the idea is ancient that's how other styles were created.


For sure. MMA as a sport in itself is of course very new. People need to look at the big picture. Throughout thousands of years of development in fighting techniques, there have been many Bruce Lees. Every time someone adapted a martial art to make it better by adding other elements, they were doing the same thing Lee did. That's why there are many different styles, not just one.

Wow, this thread is unreal. It's taken on a life of its own.


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

vandalian said:


> For sure. MMA as a sport in itself is of course very new. People need to look at the big picture. Throughout thousands of years of development in fighting techniques, there have been many Bruce Lees. Every time someone adapted a martial art to make it better by adding other elements, they were doing the same thing Lee did. That's why there are many different styles, not just one.


Exactly, unfortunatly many seem to much pride in their styles to admit this.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

vandalian said:


> For sure. MMA as a sport in itself is of course very new. People need to look at the big picture. Throughout thousands of years of development in fighting techniques, there have been many Bruce Lees. Every time someone adapted a martial art to make it better by adding other elements, they were doing the same thing Lee did. That's why there are many different styles, not just one.
> 
> Wow, this thread is unreal. It's taken on a life of its own.


Yeah thats right, but no-one is disuputing that... the fact is that there HASN'T been an icon like Bruce Lee in the past few thousand years, because there couldnt have been anyone with his kind of influence. Film, TV, Radio were non-extistant and literature was limited to hand written text, Bruce used his fame to catapult MMA into american culture... the mistake is made, as it had been even when he was alive, that because he was a film star he could not also be a talented fighter. Thats like saying somebody couldnt be a body building champion because they were a film star. Both just require dedication in training.

and yes, he wasnt the first to break the tradition of sticking to style, but he was the first that was able to share it on a global scale, especially in the west where martial arts were still very secretive and foriegn at that time period.


----------



## The Elemental Warrio (Jul 8, 2006)

No1_Brawler said:


> Hey bloodlusting, who said that Bruce lee won the fight against the asian master in 3minutes? From what ive read, there was less than 10ppl in the closed area in which they fought. In the words of the guy himself and a few others, it was said that before the fight they had an arangement.
> 
> The guy cudnt kick with his right leg and no illegal moves. He said that as soon as the fight started, bruce gouged his eyes and kept doing illegal shit, the fight lasted 20mins with bruce lee being puffed out and both agreeing to a draw.
> 
> ...


I really don't give a damn about that story, in the end Bruce still got to teach non-Chinese after the fight and break a taboo that needed to be broken. The important thing about Bruce Lee is that he was like the "*face*" of crossing styles in the 20th Century with his Jeet Kune Do concept and the fact that he made movies made him more known to the global masses than other cross training martial art practitioners before him.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

No dice man, i never said he was the best, only that he was most influential and one of the best of his time, mostly i was defending against you and the other dude talking shit about him


----------



## jakemsn4 (Aug 23, 2007)

The Elemental Warrio said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Chinese martial arts also include a variety of wrestling and grappling techniques?
> 
> 
> After doing some researching on the net it started to bug me that these so-called *Kung Fu Masters* who get their butts handed to them in an MMA fight don't use the grappling and wrestling holds available in Chinese martial arts like in Chin Na (several sources say that the Japanese founded Jujutsu after being inspired from Chin Na, can't say if the sources are legit.) and Shuai Jiao.
> ...





thank you SOOO much Elemental Warrior, this is what i've been trying to say all along.

The Chinese martial arts have ALWAYS included wrestling, THAT IS WHY it is so frustrating for me to not have seen one genuine TOP level kung fu artist spar with mma champions. Kung fu is NOT limited to striking.

As for Bloodlust's posts, i simply cannot bring myself to argue with him anymore. Arguin with him is more difficult than any workout i've ever had, and I have worked out harder than 99% of the popoluation. He thinks just because I'm not training now that makes me unable to have this discussion, well guess what, i'm thru discussin with your dillusional ass.

Asian martial arts have ALWAYS had grappling. Mongolian wrestling is still popular today and has a history older than the wrestling done in Rome. The wrestling in Kung Fu has been rumored to make mongolian wrestling look like nothing.

I still wait for the day a genuine kung fu artist will step up and really spar with an mma champ, so we can all find out how good kung fu really is or isn't. There simply is no proof now.

And I'm not saying Bruce was overrated or anything, I'm simply saying we will never know because there are no accounts of him fighting champions. (I'm not referring this statement to bloodlust specifically, just clarifying my position). It is VERY POSSIBLE that Bruce was overrated. But there's no proof. If I had to GUESS, I would guess he is very overrated because he had all the time in the world to make movies but not a single hour in his life did he focus of filming real fights.

With Shaolin, we still don't know because no top-ranked monk has agreed to spar a mma champ. The highly commercialized stunt-performing shaolin students on TV do not necessarily represent genuine Shaolin, because the Shaolin teachers i have talked to say there are a lot of fake and real teachers of Shaolin. Today, the shaolin you see on TV consists of shaolin schools in china offering hotel or bootcamp style training, where you pay thousands of dollars each month and in return you get to live and train with the shaolin temple, all of which is coordinated with the governemnt for money-making and tourism purposes. In other words, the monks in these "temples" are more interested in making money and cooperating with the government, they are not even true warriors. (The mma competitors today would be more of a "warrior" than these stunt-performers who are only interested in making money).

As for where the real shaolin teachers and/or monks are, neither you nor I necessarily know.

Lastly, Shaolin isn't even the only form of kung fu out there. There are literally dozens and dozens of other kung fu arts which date back to Before Christ periods, all of which supposely include both striking and wrestling.

Here's one tidbit for all of you to consider: you know the Egyptian pyramids? Well TO THIS DAY modern engineers STILL cannot figure out how they were able to lift the stones to build these pyramids without modern machinery. They have made caculations and supposedly ropes and manpower alone could NOT have lifted these stones to such heights. TO THIS DAY modern engineers still cannot figure out how pyramids have been built.

Some modern engineers and scientiests have been so frustrated at this dilemma that they haved resorted to suggesting if maybe the Egyptians thousands of years ago used some kind of SOUND system to raise these stones. Don't call me crazy cuz I'm not the one suggesting this. It sounds crazy to me but that is what they are suggesting because they are at a total loss as to how they could have built these pyramids.

My Point? There are EASILY skills which our ancestors have which may have been lost down to road towards modern civilization, which have not been discovered yet.

For example, if these egyptians really did have this crazy sound system, then obviously it has been LOST because no one today knows how to reproduce it.

Similarly, my point is that for kung fu, this MAY or MAY NOT be the case. Take Shaolin for example. It is rumored that political corruption and chaos in China starting THOUSANDS of years ago resulted in government officials forcing shaolin monks to reveal their secrets. These monks are said to have INTENTIONALLY taught the wrong way of doing their techniques so that these governement officials from thousands of years ago would all end up learning nothing.

As a result, all the money-making shaolin stunts we see on tv today could be far from the real thing. I agree with No.1 Brawler when he mentioned the shaolin stunt guys you see on TV HARDLY look like they could ever take on an mma champ. EVER.

This does not rule out the possiblity that genuine kung fu teachers may still exist or DID exist and maybe, like the Egyptian engineering skills, maybe have F***ing DISAPPEARED (i.e., died out). This IS possible because if you had skills this powerful, wouldn't you be very selective as well in terms of who you choose to teach it to? Hell, if some government official threatened to burn down my temple, I would teach him fake skills too just so i could survive this corruption.

All I know is that Chinese historical documents DO document kung fu as a skill which is supposed to make modern MMA LOOK LIKE CHILD'S PLAY. This INCLUDES both strikes and wrestling. Like I said, kung fu artists have been documented as so incredibly far above average fighting skill that they have the ability to LITERALLY defeat a tiger in the jungle and have even been documented to have done so.

Call me crazy but I AM FULLY AWARE these documents may or may not be fictional.

YES, i know there many times historical documents are fabricated and manipulated to glorify certain groups and "glamourize" them, but sometimes they are accurate you never know.

Take Christianity for example. I, personally, do NOT believe in Christianity, but i BELIEVE it should be a fact that Jesus was a human prophet who DID exist. So yes, the stories of him walking on water were probably fiction, but the stories of some guy named Jesus lecturing to people was probably REAL.

With Kung Fu, you never know, the case could be similar to the above example. Obviously fictional stories of kung fu heroes literally destroying MOUNTAINS (like Dragon Ball Z) are TOTAL FICTION, but historical documents of kung artists with enough skill to defeat a tiger, we simply cannot dismiss this as fiction for sure. Sure, you might say "what the f*** ? How can a human defeat a tiger unarmed?". Well, how can a bunch of people with no machinery lift giant stones hundreds of feet above their heads? If the Egyptians have created pyramids beyond EVEN TODAY'S ENGINEERS' ability to comprehend how to build, it would not surprise me one bit if in fact ancient chinese kung fu artists possessed skills WAY beyond today's mma fighters' level of comprehension. Fictional or not we may not know for a long time.

To watch some kung fu guy get owned on YouTube and to make a conclusion, would be the equivalent of somebody watching Justin Timberlake act in a movie and making a conclusion about the quality of Hollywood drama, without having seen Al Pacino and Robert De Niro or Denzel Washington, etc.


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Alright thats fine, i hear what your saying and its less opinionated and a little more realistic than what you were initially conveying... but its not logical to think that ancient civilizations were somehow imbued with innate combat knowledge. They were people like us and learn like we do, the difference is that they didnt have the scientific knowledge and media resources we do today... they were at a disadvantage. So as for killing tigers and shit, yeah im sure people killed tigers, like we have been doing for thousands of years, but not barehand against a full-grown wild animal.

The mysticism regarding shaoling is as much a fabrication as religion and astrology. Which reminds me, Jesus Christ was a figure that a was misintepreted as an actual person from the personified figures of pagan astrology, i could go one but its easier to link this to you.. OLD VERSION [ZEITGEIST FULL] - PLEASE SEE NEW 'OFFICIAL RELEASE'

As for the pyramids, yes formally they dont know how the pyramids were made, but thats only because there are no factual records. But in teh scientific community there are a few hypothesis that are accepted, its not a big strange mystery, thats nonsense. They wouldnt have had to lift anything over their heads, you build the base, and roll the blocks on lumber up slopes along the sides of the progessive structure... or yeah maybe ******* aliens did it lol.

Anyways, again, as i ORIGINALLY posted, i think you have teh wrong idea about shaolin... they used to be warriors yes, but not since the era of dynasties has such coombat been necessary, since then it has transformed to a way of spiritual expression, a way of life, it still boggles me that you expect them to want to fight MMA. No i dont think they could beat MMA, they are traditionalists. Robin Hood was legendary in his day, but you cant bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight, no matter how beefy your legend is. Whether or not some of the shaolins themselves realize this si a different story


----------



## Uchaaa (Apr 22, 2007)

What about the fighters at pankration in greek a long time ago

Pankration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe the are better(or harder) than mma fighters?

And they fought naked!?!


----------



## Bloodlusting (Jul 3, 2007)

Yo thx for the link, i jsut spent 3 hours reading about greek military... Dioxippus pwns


----------

