Any martial artists here?

[Kal]

Personally, I think the Bruce Lee mythology is more a result of his popularizing martial arts in the west. John Wang told me a story of how, after Enter the Dragon came out, no martial arts school could get students without the head instructor being able to perform Bruce Lee's triple kick, even if the school's art had no relation to the move. Everyone interested in joining would come in and ask "can you do the triple kick?"

 

[Vermanubis]

Just to avoid humongous quote towers.

Spoiler

I don't see how that follows, and while it's certainly possible and plausible, I think you'd need more evidence than simply "Shaolin is the first school."

Of course you would, but given that I do have practical experience in a variety of allegedly diametrically opposite styles of Kung Fu, and that historical evidence does <support> the notion that Shaolin was among the first actuated styles, I feel comfortable making the assertion that Shaolin was a progenitor, if not <the> progenitor of Kung Fu. Yes, doubt can be cast on this, but all the same, more evidence is present for the influence of Shaolin over the development of Chinese MA than not.

I often interchange the terms BJJ and Martial Arts when I'm speaking, but I don't think it's pedantic to distinguish between the two. And the same applies to the distinction between Wing Chun and Kung Fu. Regardless of whether Bruce Lee was an expert, I doubt his interchanging the terms Wing Chun with Kung Fu was to imply that all Chinese martial arts are interchangeable.

"Martial arts" has no defining philosophy. "Wushu/Kung Fu" aren't generalizations like martial arts. The Zhuangzi, a Daoist text, contains a lot of the philosophies that guided the development and formative ideas of Kung Fu. So yes, there is a unifying philosophy to Kung Fu--Kung Fu doesn't equate to martial arts.

I don't see how listing all of the Chinese martial arts under the blanket of "Wushu" any more implies that they all have the same fundamentals than listing both Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai under the blanket of "Martial Arts" suggests that they have the same fundamentals. Given that there are both Chinese grappling arts and Chinese striking arts, this just seems a peculiar sentiment to me.

See above.

You're just addressing my credentials instead of the actual points I've made. If you feel something I've said is wrong, we can just discuss it.

I'm contesting everything you've said on the basis of those credentials. I'd hoped it'd be implied that I'm calling everything you've said into question on the grounds that I'm not convinced you have any feasible way of knowing. I'm doing this because debating a practical subject with one who does not have experience is asking for trouble. I know first-hand that romantic theories on combat pragmatism are borderline vacuous, which is why, in this instance, I've insisted on a presentation of credentials. Normally, I'm completely for the discussion of new ideas, but again, I know first-hand that fight speculation is 95% inaccurate--even my own.

A study done in 2003 by George Washington University found that the chances of being injured in the study of martial arts is close to 100%, estimating that, on average, one would sustain an injury ever 48 practice hours (which they evaluated as even more frequent than Rugby). Comparatively, you have about a .5% chance of being injured in a violent crime every year in America.

I can't refute that particular sample, but I've practiced MA for a grand total of 5 years, and I've neither witnessed nor sustained an injury.

If you want to defend yourself, getting a 9mm or pepper spray is a better way to go; people can aim and shoot a firearm in under a second. No form of hand-to-hand combat will defend against that. It's also plainly more cost effective to just use a firearm (or surrender when your life isn't in danger). Even given conservative estimates, most martial arts schools will cost you at least $500 a year. With all this in mind, I don't see how anyone can say, in good conscience, that martial arts are practical.

As Kuma and I spoke about, there's something more attractive to people about MA than strict self-defense. And I think it's practical, because you won't always be able to have a gun or pepper spray on your person. One shouldn't rely on contingencies for their safety. Granted, yes, carrying some kind of projectile is wise for self-defense. But there're a near infinitude of instances in which a person would not be given the opportunity to reach for their gun or spray. If one is truly serious about being able to protect oneself, then investing in both a weapon and hand-to-hand would be wise.

As I said earlier, I don't think these rules really restrict what's useful in combat to the degree you're suggesting. You can't effectively use in combat what you have not drilled, and most of the things UFC bans are quite difficult to drill, even in a sort of "light-contact" context. It also assumes that these things are significantly more common in "real fights."

You're making assertions with no experience again. Elbowing does not take extensive drilling to be useful. Kneeing to the head does not take extensive drilling to be useful. Biting does not take extensive drilling to be useful. These are three enormous inhibitions that would render grappling next to useless. Groin kicks do not require extensive drilling to be useful. I would continue, but I feel my point is well-made. In "real fights," people bite, kick, pull hair, spit, elbow, knee and elbow/knee drop, poke, tickle, pee on and hit when down.

Also, one should keep in mind that the first few UFCs had almost no rules. In fact, you were only forbidden from biting and eye gouging, though headbutting and fish-hooking were discouraged. This might not influence your opinion, since I don't think there have been many Kung Fu practitioners who have ever competed in UFC. I know Delucia billed himself as a Kung Fu fighter in UFC 2 and he lost to Gracie by arm bar.

I can't really comment on that since I haven't seen it. Though, I do know that while grappling does have <some> holds that aren't affected by dirtier tricks (rear naked choke, for example) armbars are invariably susceptible to bites.

I am not referencing some person's authority. I am referencing data (the results of UFC) which suggest that people with a boxing background perform better than people with virtually any other striking background (the obvious exception being Muay Thai). You can, of course, disagree with the conclusion based on these data, but it's silly to compare this to an appeal to authority, or to say that the "nature of fallacy" is the same.

You're applying a double-standard to your arguments. Data presentation is up for interpretation, and you've been asserting an opinion based on that data. A potentially biased sample doesn't necessarily make something correct in the same vein that an appeal to authority does, but they are both similar in nature. One's credentials and fight data are both things that require interpretation and neither are necessarily conclusive.

No, I'm saying I disagree with his opinion and asking for a source. I don't care if he's a Chinese historian or a hobo, because his credentials have nothing to do with it.

Which is precisely what I've been asking you in regard to your practical experience to make the statements you have been thus far. There is no meaningful difference. You're asking him for a source for his statements instead of addressing <why> Bruce Lee was not an expert (which is precisely what you accused me of doing to you), yet rejecting appeals to authority while presenting inherently biased data.

Most of what we have discussed are matters of opinion, and I wouldn't expect any source-siting for that. If you think, for example, that boxing is not a martial art because it lacks a philosophy or something, I would not ask for a source. But when you make statements that are overtly factual (or at least lean into being factual, like the claim that Bruce Lee is a Kung Fu expert), and I disagree with the statement, I ask for a source. I didn't say anything about Holder's qualifications, because they aren't relevant here.

See above.

I didn't say that the techniques were impossible. I said that drilling techniques that risk causing serious long-term damage is impossible.

I've never fully contacted someone with my elbow, teeth, head or otherwise. But contact is immaterial to the point of drills--they're to develop engrams so that one doesn't have to think before doing. I've done a variety of "dangerous" drills but never contacted someone, and I feel my elbows, bites, headbutts, knees and so forth are in perfectly usable condition.

 

[Kal]

I guess I'll collapse my thingy too, though I think we're done discussing the topics of whether all Kung Fu derives from Shaolin and whether martial arts are practical.

Spoiler

You're making assertions with no experience again. Elbowing does not take extensive drilling to be useful. Kneeing to the head does not take extensive drilling to be useful. Biting does not take extensive drilling to be useful. These are three enormous inhibitions that would render grappling next to useless. Groin kicks do not require extensive drilling to be useful. I would continue, but I feel my point is well-made. In "real fights," people bite, kick, pull hair, spit, elbow, knee and elbow/knee drop, poke, tickle, pee on and hit when down.

In the first few UFCs, all of these things were allowed and grapplers still dominated. It's also getting tedious hearing mention of what you think my credentials are (I am not that inexperienced, as I have studied Shuai Jiao, TKD (albeit at a McDojo), BJJ and Muay Thai). Regardless, there is a degree to which you only learn these measures effectively by drilling. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I am skeptical to think that you can effectively utilize these in a life threatening situation (or even a controlled sport) where passions are higher and your mind is not clear when you aren't even able to practice them in a controlled environment.

I can't really comment on that since I haven't seen it. Though, I do know that while grappling does have <some> holds that aren't affected by dirtier tricks (rear naked choke, for example) armbars are invariably susceptible to bites.

Something tells me a hardened fighter will be able to finish his armbar before the pain from a bite forces him off the opponent.

You're applying a double-standard to your arguments. Data presentation is up for interpretation, and you've been asserting an opinion based on that data. A potentially biased sample doesn't necessarily make something correct in the same vein that an appeal to authority does, but they are both similar in nature. One's credentials and fight data are both things that require interpretation and neither are necessarily conclusive.

They're not similar in nature. One is an informal logical fallacy suggesting that the truth of a statement relates to the qualifications of the person presenting it, whereas the other is merely a question of whether I am interpreting the data properly.

Which is precisely what I've been asking you in regard to your practical experience to make the statements you have been thus far. There is no meaningful difference. You're asking him for a source for his statements instead of addressing <why> Bruce Lee was not an expert (which is precisely what you accused me of doing to you), yet rejecting appeals to authority while presenting inherently biased data.

No, it's not "precisely" what I accused you of doing; you responded to my claim regarding injuries by asking what qualifies me to make the statement and I replied that my qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of the statement. This is not the same as someone claiming that Bruce Lee was a Kung Fu expert and asking for a source to verify that he was, in fact, a Kung Fu expert. Combine that with the fact that I did actually provide a source for the injury-statistic I mentioned, and that it's not really possible to provide a source that Bruce Lee was not an expert, and I don't see how you can possibly relate what I've asked of Holder to your non-stop inquiry regarding my qualifications.

To clarify: my original post was

Right, but nearly 100% of practitioners of martial arts are eventually injured from practicing martial arts. Comparatively, most people never run into a situation where their martial arts will be useful. If you want practical self-defense (especially in the U.S.), you buy a 9mm or pepper spray. You don't spend hundreds of hours drilling scenarios that will likely never come up.

and your reply was to ask what qualifies me to think this. Perhaps my mistake was not immediately posting the George Washington University study and the FBI statistics that I did later, instead opting to address that it's intellectually disingenuous to claim my qualifications have any bearing on the facts in the above quote.

I've never fully contacted someone with my elbow, teeth, head or otherwise. But contact is immaterial to the point of drills--they're to develop engrams so that one doesn't have to think before doing. I've done a variety of "dangerous" drills but never contacted someone, and I feel my elbows, bites, headbutts, knees and so forth are in perfectly usable condition.

If you say so. As I said, I'm skeptical.

Which really means that we're just discussing some irrelevant nonsense about informal logical fallacies and whether UFC results make for good data. This will be my last post discussing the former issue, because I'm trying to become a better person by way of topicality. Or I'm just tired and this whiskey isn't going to drink itself.

 

[Teran]

When I was boy I kick Bruce Lee ***.

 

[Kal]

Also found this video of Gracie vs. Delucia. Pretty good example, in my opinion, of what happens when someone who knows Kung Fu but is not competent in grappling goes up against a grappler.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Yeah but something something bites, dude.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Watching related videos showed clips of MMA knock outs, and I simply must ask: why do fighters continue to beat on those whom they knock out until the referee, who is yards or feet away (who knows even less of how knocked out the dude is than the man on him and beating the **** out of his unconscious body), tears him off? A lot of the time they even do it when they can see him coming and/or feel the referee touching them, like they just have to get as many unwarranted punches in before being removed. What the adrenaline-filled ****?

 

[Kal]

I think it's part adrenaline-fueled ***-kicking. Mostly, it's that you don't want to prematurely stop beating the **** out of your opponent before the ref stops you to declare a victory; in UFC 1, Gracie stopped his submission after the opponent tapped, but the ref did not call it (in fact, the ref did not see it) and so the opponent could have just continued fighting. However, the opponent had a good attitude and admitted that he tapped.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Watching related videos showed clips of MMA knock outs, and I simply must ask: why do fighters continue to beat on those whom they knock out until the referee, who is yards or feet away (who knows even less of how knocked out the dude is than the man on him and beating the **** out of his unconscious body), tears him off? A lot of the time they even do it when they can see him coming and/or feel the referee touching them, like they just have to get as many unwarranted punches in before being removed. What the adrenaline-filled ****?

You kinda explained it with that last sentence: Adrenaline. Until they are 100% certain it's over their brain tells them to keep going.

IMO it's less brutal than having a ****ing ten count so the guy can get to his feet and get hit in the face some more, go down, then get back up and get hit even more times right in the head, but hey that's just me and my obvious bias for UFC over Boxing.

 

[Kal]

Actually, I recall some evidence pointing to MMA being an overall safer sport than boxing. It turns out that those huge *** gloves don't really protect you from brain damage, instead only making it easier to take more hits (ironically, making them less safe in the long term). The smaller gloves (combined with the obviously lesser emphasis on striking) of MMA actually makes the sport safer than boxing.

 

[Big-Cat]

Personally, I think the Bruce Lee mythology is more a result of his popularizing martial arts in the west. John Wang told me a story of how, after Enter the Dragon came out, no martial arts school could get students without the head instructor being able to perform Bruce Lee's triple kick, even if the school's art had no relation to the move. Everyone interested in joining would come in and ask "can you do the triple kick?"

I figured things would've been dumb after Enter the Dragon came out, but wow.

Actually, I recall some evidence pointing to MMA being an overall safer sport than boxing. It turns out that those huge *** gloves don't really protect you from brain damage, instead only making it easier to take more hits (ironically, making them less safe in the long term). The smaller gloves (combined with the obviously lesser emphasis on striking) of MMA actually makes the sport safer than boxing.

I wonder why that is. Guess I'll go look it up.

And with that Gracie fight, what exactly was the kung fu guy's style? The video never really specified what it was.

 

[Kal]

The reason, from what I understand (I am no biologist or doctor or anything, except maybe a mathematician, so take this with a grain of salt), is that the force applied to your head is what causes brain-damage. Boxing gloves don't really reduce the force that is applied to your opponent's head, instead merely allowing you hit more often without hurting your hand. So, at the very least, boxing gloves don't reduce the risk of brain damage. They really only reduce the risk of superficial facial injuries.

I believe Delucia studied the "Five Animals" style and Aikido.

 

[Big-Cat]

I had a feeling that was the reason. Newtwon's 3rd Law wouldn't have such as great of an effect with the big gloves.

And I think one thing that hasn't been said about the effectiveness of styles is that it is entirely dependent on the practitioner. It's one reason why the word "art" is in martial arts. Not surprisingly, it's also a lot like fighting games. From the looks of things, Delucia didn't "know the matchup" to prepare himself for that kind of thing. If BJJ was a 6-4 against Aikido (these are just arbitrary numbers), the Aikido fighter can win if he or she is knowledgeable of what the BJJ knows and that specific fighters strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Kal]

Personally I think that's a facile argument. Yeah, the application of a style has a lot to do with the practitioner, but that doesn't mean some styles aren't more effective than others.

 

[Vermanubis]

Textwall:

Spoiler

In the first few UFCs, all of these things were allowed and grapplers still dominated. It's also getting tedious hearing mention of what you think my credentials are (I am not that inexperienced, as I have studied Shuai Jiao, TKD (albeit at a McDojo), BJJ and Muay Thai). Regardless, there is a degree to which you only learn these measures effectively by drilling. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I am skeptical to think that you can effectively utilize these in a life threatening situation (or even a controlled sport) where passions are higher and your mind is not clear when you aren't even able to practice them in a controlled environment.

I'm not sure what seems so unrealistic about very primal strikes and tactics such as biting or elbowing or bashing one's knee against one's head. It is perfectly possible to engrave these actions into one's repertoire to a point where they can react with them--they're simple. It'd be one thing if we were talking about some of the more advanced Chin Na techniques, but in reality, how difficult is it to bite someone's leg or throw an elbow? You're absolutely right about certain things being questionable in a life-threatening situation, but depending on how one practices, this shouldn't be a problem. At this point, it's becoming pedantic to maintain your point on the grounds that a person will be incapable of implementing a technique in the absence of fully contacting somebody with it.

Something tells me a hardened fighter will be able to finish his armbar before the pain from a bite forces him off the opponent.

You're clearly thinking in terms of submission. If someone's trying to kill you or gravely injure you, they're not gonna respond to a tap. The average human bite can easily rip flesh. I think you're the one treading in the realm of mysticism now if you believe one can be so immune to nociception that they can maintain certain holds with a chunk of flesh being ripped from them. Even if you look at Royce Gracie, it takes him a moment to get his opponents into armbars--the opponent <will> be struggling and it will <not> be so easy. I've grappled with all sizes, and even little guys can put up a serious fight unless they're on their stomach. It's worth mentioning as well, but, isn't that the same kind of reasoning you've said you dislike, i.e. contingent efficacy? I could say that a hardened enough striker could strike with a knee before the grappler had a chance to wrap their legs, couldn't I?

They're not similar in nature. One is an informal logical fallacy suggesting that the truth of a statement relates to the qualifications of the person presenting it, whereas the other is merely a question of whether I am interpreting the data properly.

You're equivocating what you did. You made a conclusion (boxing is the best striking art) based on the data your presented--that is an informal fallacy. I didn't make an assertion with Bruce Lee. If you remember the quote, I said "I think we can all agree that he was a Kung Fu expert, yes?" I didn't appeal to authority so much as asking if it was agreeable as a premise.

No, it's not "precisely" what I accused you of doing; you responded to my claim regarding injuries by asking what qualifies me to make the statement and I replied that my qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of the statement. This is not the same as someone claiming that Bruce Lee was a Kung Fu expert and asking for a source to verify that he was, in fact, a Kung Fu expert.

This is sophistry! No matter how elegantly one equivocates, the fundamental difference between the two instances in nonexistent. You made a claim, but didn't provide anything material to your position. I then made not a claim, but rather, a <suggestion>, and you asked that I furnish proof that he was an expert. If we're going to be pedantic about rigor and contingencies, his credentials are not material to his actual status as an expert. They are, however, <highly> desirable and it'd frankly be difficult to believe he was without them. See where I'm going with this?

 

[Kal]

Wow, you call what I'm saying sophistry when you've said nothing but sophistry the entire time? How absurd.

Anyway, I found this video featuring Tai Chi Master Ng Gong Yee and White Crane Ryu Kung Fu Master Chun Huck Fu fighting.

 

[Raaz Montanagro]

Lol what the hell is even going on in this thread

 

[Big-Cat]

The inevitable TMA vs. MMA debate.

 

[Raaz Montanagro]

Too boring.

Iron Man vs. Spider Man.

Cast your votes everyone.

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

Are we talking the comic book spider man or the ****ty movie remakes?

 

[Raaz Montanagro]

Doesn't matter- Iron Man would still kick his ***

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Correction:

Are we talking about the halfway decent, early-ish Spider-Man, or The Asstacular modern one?

That video: I wanna say it was the Kung Fu practitioner, but that one guy that started off on the right kept eating a lot of potshots to the head. Lol

Smooth Criminal

 

[Raaz Montanagro]

Old Spider man vs. Old Iron Man

New Spider Man vs. New Iron Man

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

So it's like a tag team? In that case deffo spidermen.

 

[Raaz Montanagro]

Nah

Iron Man has guns and can fly and ****

 

[Big-Cat]

Back on topic please.

Iron Man would win because he's Robert Downey Jr.

 

[Kal]

Lots of compelling arguments, but I think it's pretty obvious that Iron Man would ruin Spider Man. Especially given that Robert Downey Jr. is way better than Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield.

Correction:

Are we talking about the halfway decent, early-ish Spider-Man, or The Asstacular modern one?

I have to ask what's wrong with the modern Spider-Man.

That video: I wanna say it was the Kung Fu practitioner, but that one guy that started off on the right kept eating a lot of potshots to the head.

Every fault in every martial art ever should be attributed to the practitioner. It's common knowledge.

Also, I found this Cracked article that reminded me of the discussion in this thread.

For a long time, martial artists held out hope that word of this MMA stuff would reach a Shaolin monastery or a reclusive tai chi master and they would enter the cage and transform into a tiger.

 

[Lore]

Ok, no more spamming up the thread with Spiderman discussion. Come on, guys.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Vermanubis]

Well, on a more pertinent topic, that Cracked article has a lot of good points. A lot of the martial arts world is filled with romantics who believe that fights don't get sloppy, or that you don't have to work for that punch. But restating my overall point, it is entirely possible to put martial arts training to good use. In the instance someone throws a sloppy hook and I managed to catch their elbow from a duck, it sure would be helpful to know how to take control of their arm. If you're throwing fists at somebody and you get tangled in each other's arms, it sure is helpful to be familiar with how to work with the various angles of the arms so you can take advantage of that contact rather than try to break their forearms to get to their face.

The divide here is that you believe that most martial arts, sans ones commonly found in UFC, are fraudulent and only have application in mysticism. Essentially, it seems as though you don't believe there can be any finesse in a fight, or that all fights of all kinds are always the same. As much as I know you dislike Bruce Lee, and I'll take this opportunity to also say that I'm by no means a fanboy, his philosophy was undeniably superior: test what you learn; keep the good and discard the useless. Every style has good in it. I didn't think much of TKD as a whole, but I certainly find the hind kicks useful in making someone respect my space. If someone seizes me by the throat and pins me to a wall with a buddy, I don't see what good punching them will do me. If someone gets me in a triangle, unless they weigh more than 430lbs, I could literally just squat them off of the ground and bodyslam them (which is to say, grappling has its definite place, but it's risky, bordering foolish against a significantly stronger opponent who <also> knows how to grapple). [I grappled pretty regularly with a guy over whom I had a roughly 30lbs advantage, and most of the time, I didn't even <need> to apply technique, rather, I could just brutally overpower him]

Like I said before, there are an infinitude of scenarios in which one might find themselves. Cage fighters know the scenario they'll be fighting in, so they train accordingly: open space, similar height and weight, no weapons, no obstacles and with well-defined boundaries (of course, that isn't to say that outside of the cage, they're suddenly rendered completely incompetent). A good martial artists takes these things into account. Every style has it strengths and weaknesses, and what separates success from failure is application of "good" knowledge in the "right" scenario. There is no "supreme" martial art or one specific combination of them that completes a martial artist. [just to push the point home, what if someone grabs you by the neck and puts you at knifepoint? This is an application of Chin Na, since neither your own knife, gun, pepper spray, striking or grappling will likely help. Knowing how to free your neck and put whatever limb they give you into disuse would be invaluable]

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Vermanubis]

I didn't say that most martial arts outside of UFC are fraudulent or have any application in mysticism. When I commented on mysticism, it was regarding your belief that boxing is not a martial art. I think there are plenty of legitimate martial arts, even traditional martial arts, outside of the ones most commonly used in professional MMA. I just think they are, in general, less effective.

And it's not that I believe that there can't be finesse in a fight. It's just that, as you said, fights get sloppy. Very frequently. I've seen examples of trained BJJ guys pinning drunks and it was nothing but finesse by way of leverage. Though I don't believe all fights are the same and I'm not really sure how you reached that conclusion.

I also agree that Bruce Lee's philosophy was great (and I mentioned earlier that he had good ideas, I just dislike the exaggerated claims of his prowess as a fighter). His philosophy, while somewhat innovative within the context of martial arts at the time, is almost tautological (and I believe had already been expressed by other Chinese philosophers), so I think dismissing it would be silly. Of course you should use what works and reject what doesn't work.

Anyway, the guy who wrote that article (Seanbaby) is hilarious and has some other articles on MMA. I'm gonna go work on transforming into a tiger in the ring. Also, if you can squat 430 pounds, holy ****.

Yeah, I see your point regarding the tautology of his philosophy. But I think it's tautological only in the same way words are be synonymous. That is, ostensibly, they're identical, but there's always a connotative distinction between them. By that I mean that explicitly bringing the concept of not adhering to one style, or believing that one style was infallible was what was revolutionary as opposed to just suggesting, cut-and-dry, to not doing stupid things.

And yeah, the article was really, really good. I'll definitely check out more of his stuff, 'cause it definitely was funny as ****.

As far as the squat thing goes, you'd be amazed how much people can squat without realizing it. 430 seems like a Herculean load, but the reason most people feel they can't squat a good amount is because they lack confidence in their ability to do so. It's a hugely inhibiting factor, since squats, of all exercises, require the absolute most confidence to do since the risk for injury is so present. With only a year of training, most people could easily squat a guy in or above their weightclass (for several reps).

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't know about you, but both sayings say the same thing to me, just in different forms. The practitioner can find what is most practical in his or her art and keep just that or at least realize that some techniques are mostly situational.

To change topics a bit. I resumed my formal training last night after being away due to the winter break. My shifu commented that I had gotten stockier though he thought I had put on some gut pounds when I told him I'm now at 210 as opposed to the 195 I was back in August. In reality, I had only put on five pounds since the start of the break.

So anyway, I was told that I'd be doing my monkey form for a grand opening on the sixteenth next month. I was a bit rusty last night since I had no way of really practicing my jumping and stuff without causing a ruckus in the house. As such, my jumps weren't quite as high as I'd like. My shifu told me that I needed to lose weight and start running every day. When he said that, I really wanted to respond with, "Yes, Master Shifu."

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Vermanubis]

The problem here is that one can't really compare things like BJJ and Wing Chun. I think the only viable considerations in comparing two martial arts are system completeness and efficiency. The problem then becomes application, since neither BJJ nor Wing Chun try to emulate each other, so it's comparing apples to elephants.

I do understand where you're coming from: that, philosophically speaking, one martial art could be rigidly quantified and overall better. But in an applied context, I don't think that's necessarily relevant.

Also, I did a little homework on some of the "big boys" of professional MMA and I noted a few things that I think apply to my earlier argument. Royce Gracie is considered one of, if not <the> best BJJ practitioner, if I'm not mistaken? In his fight with Kazushi Sakuraba, roughly 75% of his grappling left his nutbag dangling in the wind. When it came to him armbarring people (I watched a few others, too) it took most people a solid 10+ seconds to set it up and get the submission. During which time I think enough bite force could be applied to loosen things up. I also found out that neck cranking to get out of a triangle is banned in most competitions, which is one of the surest ways to escape one. In addition, Brock Lesnar tried desperately to take Alistair Overeem to the ground, but never succeeded, and Overeem ended up winning with strikes. Lesnar doesn't really seem like a terrific fighter, but one would assume that if grappling were the most applicable and practical, that a man of Lesnar's mythic dimensions would've had absolutely zero problem taking down a guy 25+ pounds lighter than him. (I know you said that's not necessarily what you're saying, but I'm throwing it out there anyway)

So, what I'm saying is tantamount to every martial art lacking a certain pragmatism in certain contexts, and thus none of them are really comparable outside of the criteria I mentioned.

 

[Kal]

Certainly, if you're pedantic enough, you can't compare anything. But we're not comparing things that are so abstractly different that a comparison is useless; we're comparing BJJ and Wing Chun in their versatility for self-defense. Obviously, this can be done in the most general way, but is a cumbersome analysis (because I don't think either defense is going to be extremely useful in the myriad of ways that involve someone shooting you). So we simplify things a little and use MMA. As I've said before, the results of MMA (especially UFC) suggest that grappling, particularly BJJ, us better than striking. And, as far as striking goes, Muay Thai and Boxing tend to be superior than other forms.

I also don't think Royce Gracie would be regarded as the best BJJ practitioner today. I sincerely doubt he would be the best MMA fighter, anyway. In fact, he was chosen over his brother for UFC 1 because he was smaller, and his father wanted to try and show BJJ's versatility against larger opponents. As for Lesnar, your point merely shows that a sufficiently skilled striker can beat a grappler. Lesnar's biggest problem was that he never prepared himself for a decent striking opponent; his two fights against Mir basically involved tackling into GNP. Whenever Lesnar did get hit, he tended to get overly flustered as a result of his poor training. In other words, Lesnar had already had a weakness against strikers in the first place.

No one in modern MMA trains with only grappling anyway. It's a bad idea. It's overall results suggest the strength of grappling over striking. You cannot use the results of any individual match to determine the strength of an art, because it always depends on the practitioner.

 

[Big-Cat]

Do you recall that fighting game analogy you made earlier? While it's absolutely true that individual results are entirely dependent on the player, this does not extend to all characters being equal. I don't really keep up with Brawl, so I can't comment on the tier list there. But, with Melee, it's certainly true that a great Pikachu player can beat a worse Marth player (like when Axe totally ruined me). However, it doesn't follow that Pikachu and Marth are equally good; Marth is still a better character.

I see the same thing with "styles." While individual results depend on the practitioner, the overall results are what imply the utility of the style. So, while I could see an amazing Wing Chun fighter beating a BJJ white belt, this doesn't mean that BJJ isn't still a "better" style than Wing Chun. It's just sort of a faux pas to discuss within most schools because they have devoted so much time and effort to their style. The notion that their style is inferior in some way is so awful to them that they tend to reject it immediately.

With most martial arts, they're generally going to be designed to take on different things because things have have been put in or taken out into the style's core "curriculum" over time. This is the same thing as a game constantly being rebalanced for years. With the case of Melee, though, the game is very much imbalanced. A much better reference would've been Virtua Fighter or Tekken as those games are very well balanced, especially the former.

I still think, though, you're giving the martial arts themselves too much credit in the effectiveness of a fighter. While I have not watched any UFC fights in their entirety (though I probably should), I wouldn't be surprised if there are people with the same mix of fighting styles yet they fight differently from one another. It's one reason why I think personality and to a lesser extent body type are also big factors in the effectiveness of a style.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Vermanubis]

Certainly, if you're pedantic enough, you can't compare anything. But we're not comparing things that are so abstractly different that a comparison is useless; we're comparing BJJ and Wing Chun in their versatility for self-defense. Obviously, this can be done in the most general way, but is a cumbersome analysis (because I don't think either defense is going to be extremely useful in the myriad of ways that involve someone shooting you). So we simplify things a little and use MMA. As I've said before, the results of MMA (especially UFC) suggest that grappling, particularly BJJ, us better than striking. And, as far as striking goes, Muay Thai and Boxing tend to be superior than other forms.

Does it suggest it's better, or that there's a preponderance of individuals who're just generally more talented at BJJ than the competitors trained in striking? The data has to be interpreted.

I also don't think Royce Gracie would be regarded as the best BJJ practitioner today. I sincerely doubt he would be the best MMA fighter, anyway. In fact, he was chosen over his brother for UFC 1 because he was smaller, and his father wanted to try and show BJJ's versatility against larger opponents. As for Lesnar, your point merely shows that a sufficiently skilled striker can beat a grappler. Lesnar's biggest problem was that he never prepared himself for a decent striking opponent; his two fights against Mir basically involved tackling into GNP. Whenever Lesnar did get hit, he tended to get overly flustered as a result of his poor training. In other words, Lesnar had already had a weakness against strikers in the first place.

Either way, he's said to be an undeniably <great> BJJ practitioner, and presumably, his brothers are as well. Enough so that one can at least derive semi-valid conclusions from their grappling. The general point was just that I was able to spot spots wide open most of the time. Whether it was his Sacajawea, leg, or whatever. As far as Lesnar goes, I think that justifying the loss of grappling to strikes as inexperience and Lesnar's tempestuousness is disingenuous. Again, not to say that one is better than the other inherently, but the antithetically opposite. In my mind, Lesnar just had grappling's weaknesses exploited, just as that pseudo-Kung-Fu master in that video you posted had striking's weaknesses exploited.

No one in modern MMA trains with only grappling anyway. It's a bad idea. It's overall results suggest the strength of grappling over striking. You cannot use the results of any individual match to determine the strength of an art, because it always depends on the practitioner.

Which extends to larger data spreadsheets as well: adeptness of the practitioner. Like I said before, grappling is useful mostly when you're not grappling with someone significantly stronger than you. We see grappling succeed with people of similar weight classes. If we're going to rigidly rank styles, we have to have a frame of reference in which the data was obtained, in this case, certain techniques prohibited and never anyone significantly stronger.

Were one to compare MA styles like characters, we'd have to compile a data table of MUs between each style, which would then beg the question of how frequently said style is used to initiate violence in the real world. After all, the tier list is never static, and it changes depending on the popularity of given characters.