Muay Thai superiority?

Only so much your body can harden up to though. Particularly in MT you'll notice the way shins work. The best point to snap, or contort a long solid cylinder is by applying stress at the middle point. Read: Leg. Even a trained MT veteran won't do much if they kick with all their strength and then 'wrap' their leg around the other person. Shall we see the video everyone? :twisted:

Anyway in the heat of fight, you'd want to be more level headed than a killing frenzy to land up yourself in court. :x

Damn, I guess no Kendo for me :(

As for that tai chi becoming a martial form, that's a load of crap. No doubt the practitioners of said 'martial art' often believe it, but kata cannot realistically be used against an able bodied opponent. Of course, I'd pit tai chi practitioners agianst your average 70 yo from a retirement home, if there were any geriatric martial arts tournament.

As for the shinbreak video, if it's the one you can find on kazaa, that's pretty rare, and in this case (don't recall the name of the guy who's shin was broken, but the other is Lloyd Van Dams, a Dutch K-1 fighter. The guy with a broken shin recovered and was still competing as of last year (don't know if he still does now).

But yeah, unless you train in Thailand, don't expect intense training sessions which will brutalise your body. And don't take that kickboxing crap which is basically aerobics with kicking. Find a gym where they train full contact sparring. Muay thai is superior to any standup/striking martial art period.

K-1 demonstrated this, the K representing TKD, Kung Fu, Karate etc. It's the world's premiere standup martial arts organisation. And muay thai has demonstrated it's superiority for the past decade.

The only martial art forms that can beat muay thai are grappling martial arts. Judoka who've taken a little cross-training, and definately Brazilian Jiu Jutsu practitioners, can beat a pure kickboxer nine times out of ten.

yeah their shin breaks because they kicked in the wrong spot, and that happens so rarely, besides, id rather throw kicks and spinning elbows at the person's head...

Training for MT would build your body up, fighting using it would do alot more damage to you than fighting using a style such as Wing Chun Kung Fu.

Personally, I'm enjoying learning Kung Fu. It suits me, it suits the way I think and suits my physical build. I've always found skill and finesse impressive, and never been impressed much by brute strength.

I'll use my best assets (mental capacity, light frame) in a way thats both effective and enjoyable to me. I would appreciate it if you didn't use every second post here to say "Kung Fu is crap".

About Tai Chi 'becoming' a martial art. It started as THE martial art, quite a few hundred years ago. Also Tai Chi is not about just plain beating the other guy up, it's channeling your body up so you can beat the other guy without so much strain to yourself.

Back in the old age. Chinese KF master started out, he and master beat up. master die. he nearly dead. snake save him. he lose memory. he live as sheep. he gain back memory. he watch turtle. he learn turtle moves. emphasise. kick bad person arse. no kill. he win. other guy nuts. all happy. And that ends today's history lesson people. Next week. Screaming women.

btw, you can't compare a martial art against another martial art so easily. even if MT has proven itself - there is always someone better. somewhere... possibly with another varying style of fighting.

also, MT is a sport. ;) many rules involved... no straight kicks to the knee, no groin kicks, no standing on toes/feet. Kung Fu you are allowed to stand on feet to stop kicks, breaking knee caps isn't disallowed either. MT is a very forward (striking) style as you said, which is a problem in some situations.

sorry just finished watching a video of it :) 65 mins of interesting stuff about Muay Thai. i have slightly changed my opinion towards it... very insightful...

i wonder what would happen if they versed someone that studied that martial art that involved fighting within a few inches of each other....

anyway

i wonder if i should take up Kung Fu after school finishes...

Quote from Aravi:
Training for MT would build your body up, fighting using it would do alot more damage to you than fighting using a style such as Wing Chun Kung Fu.

Depends on who you're fighting.

If sparring with other muay thai practioners, especially those who are more skilled than yourself or much larger, then yes, your body will be damaged. But that applies to pretty much any full contact martial art with any degree of realistic sparring.

You could replace WC Kung Fu with Tai Chi or Wushu (specifically, sports Wushu), and your statement still holds the same. But anyone here taking up Kung Fu obviously does so for the martial aspects of it, not the philosophy which you come to appreciate/extoll after investing a lot of time and money into it.

If you want to learn how to fight, you will need to condition yourself. Even the Chinese martial arts are highly cognizant of this fact, although they overcompensate in this regards (Iron Testicle?!).

Quote:
Personally, I'm enjoying learning Kung Fu. It suits me, it suits the way I think and suits my physical build. I've always found skill and finesse impressive, and never been impressed much by brute strength.

What is brute strength? There is no vacuum where you can use skill without any strength coming into play. The Japanese Judoka used to believe in this philosophy, until they were faced with Dutch Judoka in the sixties who trained with weights. Even though they fought at the same weight division, the Japanese judoka were manhandled. Today all olympic Judoka hit the weights.

Strength is always a factor, and there will always be someone who's stronger than than you. If I'm 6'5 300lbs with 10% body fat, then I could train in ballet and still be a dangerous fighter to any 5'7 125 lb blackbelt in Karate/TKD/Judo.

If you're not a big guy (I'm 5'9 134 lbs/61kg) then you have to compensate for the fact that most people are larger and stronger than you. If you train in a system that is highly inefficient in techniques (and ALL styles of Kung Fu are guilty of this, that I have seen, to various degrees), then you're setting most likely deluding yourself.

That said, WC Kung Fu is one of the few styles of Kung Fu that has some street cred, and if forced to choose between various Kung Fu styles, I would choose that one. There are plenty of martial arts though, that are superior to WC Kung Fu in pretty much every sense except aesthetics.

If you have two people at the same weight, same experience in the same martial art, then the stronger one will generally win. That's accepted by everyone, even in martial arts such as BJJ where the purpose is for skill to compensate for lack of size.

Quote:
I'll use my best assets (mental capacity, light frame) in a way thats both effective and enjoyable to me. I would appreciate it if you didn't use every second post here to say "Kung Fu is crap".

A light frame is great for speed, but I wouldn't call it an advantage. As for being crap, as long as their are people extolling the virtues of said martial art, there will always be people to pull it down.

Most people take martial arts because of the first word, martial. They want to learn to fight. The time investment in styles such as Karate/Kung Fu is far greater than other martial arts for this purpose, so people will denigrate them. San Shou has become extremely popular in China and is rapidly growing because it's becoming clear to people that traditional styles of their martial arts are inferior as fighting arts to modern striking/grappling arts, which is why they incorporated hybridised muay thai into their curriculum and now call it a Chinese art.

Kung Fu is crap, but only relative to a number of other martial arts. For a good aerobic workout and some basic fighting skills it's on par with WTF TKD and most styles of Karate.

Quote from Jay:
Also Tai Chi is not about just plain beating the other guy up, it's channeling your body up so you can beat the other guy without so much strain to yourself.

You've lost me here. 'Channeling your body up'?

Quote from Seqo:
btw, you can't compare a martial art against another martial art so easily. even if MT has proven itself - there is always someone better. somewhere... possibly with another varying style of fighting.

This is about styles, not individual fighters. You will always find great fighters from most martial arts. There are a few Judoka and TKD stylists who've shown themselves to excel at competing with alternate styles, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Also, we're talking about major branches of martial arts. There are tens, if not hundreds of hybridised martial arts which are superior to any single traditional martial art.

when i said varying, i meant a different mainstream style. one that wasn't Muay Thai.

Quote from Trojan:
im gonna do muay thai, and trust me, you should do it too. They teach it at the man-ho academy in nightcliff at the clocktower building, so you should go down there and check it out sometime.....

Check it out, but be careful. There's two classes, the larger kickboxing class (the one with a few gorgeous girls mixed in) is basically aerobics. The guys that train near the ring or in the ring are the real kickboxing class. Make sure you specify which one you want.

Quote:
also they teach jujitsu as well

I'd call it submission wrestling. It's good for the basics, but the instructor has no qualifications or formal training in it that I know of. It's also fairly expensive, compared with Judo. The Brazilian Jiu Jutsu style is a direct descendant of Judo, except it chose to focus on ground work (called Newaza in Judo) whereas Kodokan Judo focused on standup grappling. The PCYC Judo club teaches about 40% groundworkd compared with 60% standup grappling, so it's also a good introduction to groundfighting. There's another Judo club in Larakeya (sp?) and one in Marrarra. Don't know anything about them though.

Quote:
if you don't know what jujitsu is, it's a very effective fighting style that teaches you submissions on the ground. as 70% of all fights end up on the ground, jujitsu is one of the best martial arts in the world....

That 70% crap is marketing to promote the martial art. Also, it's Brazilian Jiu Jutsu he purports to teach, which is completeey different from Jiujutsu. I'm making the distinction because at the uni we have a club of Jiujutsu, which is nothing to do with the brazilian jiut jutsu Trokan is talking about. I wouldn't recommend you take the JJJ class, but the BJJ class is highly recommended.

Quote:
muay thai is hands-down the best striking martial art you can ever do....

Agreed.

Quote from Seqo:
also, MT is a sport. ;) many rules involved... no straight kicks to the knee, no groin kicks, no standing on toes/feet. Kung Fu you are allowed to stand on feet to stop kicks, breaking knee caps isn't disallowed either. MT is a very forward (striking) style as you said, which is a problem in some situations.

- Kicks to the knee are commonplace in muay thai. You will certainly learn to do so in almost any muay thai class you go to.
- Of course there's no groin kicks. I'm sure when any other martial arts incorporate groin kicks into their curriculum, they certainly don't kick each other in the groin. And believe it or not, when you're taught to kick every part of the body it won't be hard to learn where the groin is or kick ther. In fact, muay thai practitioners have to train to avoid kicking andkneeing each other in the groin.
- Stomping on the feet seems fine in theory, but in practise, it's not that effective. Watch some UFC/PFC and watch for how often it's used (it's a legal strike). Almost never.

Quote:
i wonder what would happen if they versed someone that studied that martial art that involved fighting within a few inches of each other....

It could just be lack of sleep, but I don't understand what you mean?

Quote:
i wonder if i should take up Kung Fu after school finishes...

Noooooo!

Jaian, the jujitsu i mean is the style invented by the gracie family.

Quote from Seqo:
when i said varying, i meant a different mainstream style. one that wasn't Muay Thai.

The only standup martial arts I'd substitute Muay Thai with are Kyokushin Karate (one of the few styles of Karate which is effective) - which involves full contact bare knuckle sparring, and boxing.

In fact, i'd say boxing is the best art to learn if you're after a quick introduction to fighting. The main negative of groundfighting is that it's only useful in one on one fights. If faced with multiple opponents and you lack the common sense to run, you'll need a standup fighting art. TKD, Karate and many Kung Fu styles claim to teach this, but it's most crap. Stick with boxing or kickboxing for this.

If you want to learn grappling, take Judo (cheap and easily accessible) or BJJ (expensive and only one choice in Darwin).

Quote from Trojan:
Jaian, the jujitsu i mean is the style invented by the gracie family.

I know, they call it Gracie Jiu Jutsu, everyone else calls it Brazilian Jiu Jutsu. If you don't add the 'Brazilian' in front of it, then it's a completely different martial art entirely :)

I just didn't want anyone to get confused over it, especially since there is a club here in Darwin that teaches Jiujutsu.

i reckon the most important aspect to be taken into account is to know which style works best in reality...........

Doesn't matter a shit because what percentage of the population are black belts at anything? and then what are the chances of two black belts meeting randomly in a street fight situation?

Unless you are doing it as a sport it's just excercise with extra kicking no matter what you do. You will possibly be able to defend yourself in a dangerous situation but only if they have say... a stick.. maximum.

that's one of the reaons i say kung fu is virtually useless in a streetfight, and muay thai is effective....

tell me: how many people know how to block a high kick to head?
and then a sudden elbow to head?
and THEN a grapple and a brain-smashing knee to the head?

i rest my case...

I'd have to disagree there. You don't need to be a blackbelt in a martial art to be able to use the techniques. Someone who's trained in boxing for a few months would have much better cardio than your average person, would learn to take punches, and learn to bob and weave to avoid them.

Learning to take punches is most important because

a) punches are the most commonly used fighting tool
b) most people aren't prepared for the shock of getting hit in the face, or getting a strong punch in the kidneys; they generally go down and don't come back up, or they're on the ground and open to getting their head kicked.

Same with boxing. I'd also take anyone with a single year of experience in BJJ against anyone else who's not trained in any martial art, and who's no more than 30 kilos heavier than them.

As for the weapons scenario, I wouldn't take any martial arts to fight unarmed against someone with a weapon. I'd rather run.

there is a martial art where the entire fight takes place within a few inches of each participant.

it is illegal, even in UFC, to do a straight knee kick according to Muay Thai rules. stomping on feet is also not allowed under muay thai rules. standing on a muay thai fighters feet would greatly depreciate their ability to do a powerful roundhouse or side kick/knee whilst leaving them vulnerable in the front/abdomenal area.

after watching a few UFC fights, mainly involving Muay Thai - i have to say it is very powerful in all quarters close, short, medium and long. however, counter-throws, kicks to the knee and stopping their kicks would hinder a muay thai fighter... all things that Kung Fu is rather apt at doing..

just as getting close to a Jeet Kune Do fighter completely destroys their ability to do damage.

yeh, i saw soem kyokushin fighters in my browsing.. interesting, more pure form of karate. seems to be about as powerful as Muay Thai.

still, i'd probably go Kung Fu... or aikido. aikido is cool.

Quote from Jay:
Each to his own. You guys can go with MT if you like aggressive things.

Myself I'd go for TC/KF/Judo/CKB - More of defensive, level-headed (possibly :P ), flowing forms and easier on the body.

Since when is Judo easy on the body? :p My first day at a Judo club was more exhausting and physically punishing than any day at muay thai.

Also, Tai Chi and KF may be easier on the body, but if you want to learn effective fighitng techniques/self defence, then you're not being realistic. If you';re looking to have fun and a good workout (although why you added Tai Chi here I don't understand), that's cool.

What's CKB? Cardio Kickboxing?

I think you all just missed my point

I'm saying that theres no point comparing the relative fighting styles when the advantage in the fight is going to be determined by:

a) power
b) speed
c) technique

technique is definitely going to be the least important in any fight because generally people aren't going to have learned a martial art, and your average mugger probably didn't learn mushi tatsikumi with master betty while his parents were doing heroin.

all you are doing is exercise, the difference is relative difficulty and cost, that is all, the rest is call "posing".

i still stick with MT, after a year or two of training, you would be capable of kicking your opponent relentlessly with maximum force. this method will scare the shit out of anyone who doesn't have good reflexes, and you will be feared, especially if you're an agressive fighter who can take alot of damage.

Truly, if you did muay thai for 5 years or so, a few gangsters won't scare you. Jiu Jutsu is hopeless when you have to deal with more than one person at a time, so you'd wanna hope you can choke em' quick.

Say you were in a gangfight, (street fight, like 10 on 10) you can easily kick the crap out of a few dudes, (when you've done MT for several yrs.)
and only with a single high to the head....it's that easy....

your balance and strength would have to be exceptional, mind you.

Quote from Seqo:
still, i'd probably go Kung Fu... or aikido. aikido is cool.

Before I respond to anything else I'd say, I'm going to call you on that.

Out of all the wussy martial arts available, only tai chi and maybe sports wushu could possibly be worse than Aikido. It looks great, and combat-wise is 50% acting.

Judoka would wipe the floor with Aikidoka any day of the week. Ask any blackbelt Aikidoka to compete with a Judoka in friendly sparring, I've seen it happen. The Aikidoka don't return. It's mostly B.S.

Quote from Harbinger:
I think you all just missed my point

I'm saying that theres no point comparing the relative fighting styles when the advantage in the fight is going to be determined by:

a) power
b) speed
c) technique

technique is definitely going to be the least important in any fight because generally people aren't going to have learned a martial art, and your average mugger probably didn't learn mushi tatsikumi with master betty while his parents were doing heroin.

all you are doing is exercise, the difference is relative difficulty and cost, that is all, the rest is call "posing".

you're quite wrong, Harb. A muay thai fighter with exceptional technique can take down someone even twice as strong as himself....

Aikido is mainly kicks... very powerful kicks.

a lot of people probably act, but that was not the intention of Aikido when it was created. like Jay said, each to his own. i'd still like to see anyone on these forums go up against a seventh dan aikido or kung fu grandmaster and see their arses get handed to them... with a knife and fork no less. (or a straw.. that's all you'll be able to use...)

Quote from Seqo:
there is a martial art where the entire fight takes place within a few inches of each participant.

Quote:
it is illegal, even in UFC, to do a straight knee kick according to Muay Thai rules.

?

The UFC doesn't use muay thai rules, so I don't know what you're talking about. In the UFC, kicks to the knee are not illegal, and every muay thai class I've seen or heard about incorporates kicks to the knee.

Here are the UFC rules:

http://www.boxinginsider.com/mma/ufcrules.php

Quote:
stomping on feet is also not allowed under muay thai rules.

Whether it is or not I don't know. It doesn't change the fact that in a fight where permitted it's not a significant factor.

Quote:
standing on a muay thai fighters feet would greatly depreciate their ability to do a powerful roundhouse or side kick/knee whilst leaving them vulnerable in the front/abdomenal area.

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to picture someone standing on another fighters feet. Dude, you try and do that to someone, and you're asking to be elbowed, kneed or thrown.

Quote:
after watching a few UFC fights, mainly involving Muay Thai - i have to say it is very powerful in all quarters close, short, medium and long. however, counter-throws, kicks to the knee and stopping their kicks would hinder a muay thai fighter... all things that Kung Fu is rather apt at doing..

Crap.

The first statement about UFC fights 'involving muay thai'...what does that mean? All fighters train in wrestling, brazilian jiu jutsu, muay thai etc. There is no way to 'stop' a muay thai fighter from kicking you save by getting him in a clinch, or taking him to the ground.

Quote:
just as getting close to a Jeet Kune Do fighter completely destroys their ability to do damage.

I don't even want to go into that :p

Quote:
yeh, i saw soem kyokushin fighters in my browsing.. interesting, more pure form of karate. seems to be about as powerful as Muay Thai.

Close, but not quite. It's strength lies in the similarity of their techniques to muay thai, and their demands that you fight full contact and without padding.

Quote:
still, i'd probably go Kung Fu... or aikido. aikido is cool.

Get thee away from me minion of Satan!

As for stepping on people's feet. Anticipate, step, get a moment, return with something a bit more promising. It's not sissy oh oh I'm stepping on your feet heheh I broke your toenails. More like foot starting to move up, step on it stay there. Don't diss this because I did use in a small scrim with not so happy overactive Year8 during HS.

Quote from Trojan:
you're quite wrong, Harb. A muay thai fighter with exceptional technique can take down someone even twice as strong as himself....

you missed it again, ANY martial artist with exceptional technique can do that. not just stupid mushy toofies:|

Quote from Seqo:
Aikido is mainly kicks... very powerful kicks.

You're thinking of Taekwondo.

Quote:
a lot of people probably act, but that was not the intention of Aikido when it was created.

Incorrect. The founder of aikido forbade true sparring. Your partner is meant to go along with your wristlocks and throws. Which is why it looks beautiful, but will only work against drunkards and little girls.

Judo, on the other hand, expects your partners to resist your throws/grappling, and counter them with your own. Judo is full contact. Aikido is acting.

Aikido is horrible. HORRIBLE.

Quote:
like Jay said, each to his own. i'd still like to see anyone on these forums go up against a seventh dan aikido or kung fu grandmaster and see their arses get handed to them... with a knife and fork no less. (or a straw.. that's all you'll be able to use...)

I would happily go agaist a 7th dan Aikidoka who weighed no more than 10 kilos than myself. Let me me quote from Ueshiba's memoirs:

1. "Suddenly the earth trembled. Golden vapor welled up from the ground and engulfed me. I felt transformed into a golden image, and my body seemed as light as a feather. All at once I understood the nature of creation: the Way of a Warrior is to manifest Divine Love, a spirit that embraces and nurtures all things. Tears of gratitude and joy streamed down my cheeks. I saw the entire earth as my home, and the sun, moon, and stars as my intimate friends. All attachment to material things vanished."

2. "Around two o'clock in the morning as I was performing ritual purification, I suddenly forgot every martial art technique I ever learned. All of the techniques handed down from my teachers appeared completely anew. Now they were vehicles for the cultivation of life, knowledge, virtue, and good sense, not devices to throw and pin people."

Aikido was founded by a liar and delusional moron. You should read what many Aikidoka write about his alleged historical feats, the crap about him flying, uprooting trees with his bare hands etc.

you step on their feet stopping the kick, not standing on the feet for any length of time. in fact, it is very effective and just becuase you haven't seen it does not mean it is not employed in fights. step on feet and the other person is suddenly thrown off because the weight distribution has gone backwards on one foot and they have gone to move the kicking foot and leg, throwing them off.

i think you keep missing the 'straight' part. it is a straight kick to the knee, from the front. and it is illegal, perhaps i was mistaken about the UFC rules. but under the rules for muay thai (which, if you were in any way into the sport as much as you preach, you would abide by these rules) no STRAIGHT kicks to the knee from directly in front.

there are many ways to stop a muay thai fighter from kicking you, as i have stated, you lock them in a grapple or throw quick enough, or a counter kick or punch in the right place will stop a kick. dependent on the implementation of that kick and the fighter. ie, axe kick, kick the back of the thigh and suddenly their foot drops with their knee still up - leaves them open once again.

i still stand by the fact that muay thai has weaknesses, there is no way that you can dispute that. it IS a very powerful style, but NOT in any way, unbeatable.

Quote from Jaian:
Aikido was founded by a liar and delusional moron. You should read what many Aikidoka write about his alleged historical feats, the crap about him flying, uprooting trees with his bare hands etc.

Main feature here is: Legend. Legend is different to myth. Legend is something that is remembered for the fantastic things (not necessarily always good). Quite often the true things get bent overproportion.

Flying could have just been his great agility of leaping jumps and stuff like that. Considering the time this seems it would be correct. Myths however are things that are completely untrue that were formed from people's imaginations.

Quote from Harbinger:

I'm saying that theres no point comparing the relative fighting styles when the advantage in the fight is going to be determined by:
a) power
b) speed
c) technique

Various techniques focus on varying degrees of those factors. Sports wushu is amazingly fast, but lack the fighting speed and power to make effective use of that speed.

muay thai forms the best balance of all three techniques IMO. The challenge matches between the best of the Kung Fu practitioners and muay thai fighters in the seventies demonstrated that.

Quote:
technique is definitely going to be the least important in any fight because generally people aren't going to have learned a martial art, and your average mugger probably didn't learn mushi tatsikumi with master betty while his parents were doing heroin.

I didn't really understand what you were saying.

Quote:
all you are doing is exercise, the difference is relative difficulty and cost, that is all, the rest is call "posing".

Not cost. As for difficulty, define difficulty.

Two guys of the same build and speed; one has one year of kickboxing experience, one has fifteen years of aikido training. The Aikidoka only has luck on his side, even though he spends more time on his martial art.

Muay thai is not only the most efficicent of the traditional standup martial arts, but the most powerful. It's speed is nothing to be laughed at...it won't compare to say, TKD in that regards, but TKD fighters consistently lose to muay thai fighters despite their superior speed.

Quote:
As for stepping on people's feet. Anticipate, step, get a moment, return with something a bit more promising. It's not sissy oh oh I'm stepping on your feet heheh I broke your toenails. More like foot starting to move up, step on it stay there. Don't diss this because I did use in a small scrim with not so happy overactive Year8 during HS.

I'm still having difficulty in picturing this in a real fight. I can imagine doig it to a little kid, but against someone near your size who's trying to hurt you? Won't work.

Quote from Harbinger:
you missed it again, ANY martial artist with exceptional technique can do that. not just stupid mushy toofies:|

Remove the word 'exceptional', and then respond to his statement. :)

maybe i was thinking of tae kwon do... hold on i'll take a look.

Stepping. Do not take word literally. Stepping entails putting foot down. So when person motions to pull their foot up, you start putting foot down while they're bringing up. Naturally gravity on your side. Most likely they will lose balance or concentration for a moment and you get a moment to do whatever you wish let it be find a spot to run. When I had to do a very rough thing of this to stop someone kicking me I was also at their size. If not smaller.

Saying MT is superior to all others is plain arrogance. Everything is different and just saying it in all MT nazi mode doesn't prove anything. MT does have it's weaknesses too. Yes there is no argument MT is superior in striking attacking ability.

But if I were to be a blackbelt in anything it would be TC/KF.

sorry was thinking of Savate :oops:

San Shou KF (similar to Muay Thai - less emphasis on the toughening up the body part - similar emphasis on striking - more emphasis on defence whilst striking), Wing Chun KF and Savate would interest me the most.

Muay Thai seems too thuggish to me.

ok lets finish this I will make it clear so that you understand this time...

You do your stupid martial art, you think its top shit...

Someone else does some other stupid martial art, they think theirs is top shit...

If you fight that guy, what is the reason?? is it sport?? why are you doing that?? what on earth is the purpose?

otherwise, has he picked a fight with you on the street? does this really happen? why? and why would he be fighting YOU, and if so, whats the chances of him being a black belt in some other martial art which requires you to do your uber one in order to beat him. Especially considering that people who pick fights in the street are generally drunks who have difficulty standing.

Now if you are having to defend yourself vs A GANG, then you are FUCKED, because they will have WEAPONS, and you will get PWNED.

If you are facing A MUGGER, he will be SHIT, and anyone with any martial arts ability will PWN HIS ARSE, unless he has a knife or gun, in which case you once again will be PWNED

If you are IN a GANG, then you are A TARD, and WTF ARE YOU DOING HERE.

If you are fighting in the street, for reputation, you are a poser, and I hope you get bashed into hospital by someone who does akido :P

Ok what other forms of martial arts are availabe up here?

Quote from Seqo:
you step on their feet stopping the kick, not standing on the feet for any length of time. in fact, it is very effective and just becuase you haven't seen it does not mean it is not employed in fights. step on feet and the other person is suddenly thrown off because the weight distribution has gone backwards on one foot and they have gone to move the kicking foot and leg, throwing them off.

Stepping on someone's feet to stop a kick? And you're suggesting doing this against a muay thai practitioner? No offence, but you're being delusional.

Quote:
i think you keep missing the 'straight' part. it is a straight kick to the knee, from the front. and it is illegal, perhaps i was mistaken about the UFC rules. but under the rules for muay thai (which, if you were in any way into the sport as much as you preach, you would abide by these rules) no STRAIGHT kicks to the knee from directly in front.

I never claimed to be into the sport of muay thai like that. I'm a big follower of K-1 (thailand sends their best to compete), Pride FC (biggest martial arts tourney in the world) and the UFC.

As for these rules of yours, I checked online:

"Item 18: FOULS AND STRIKES VIOLATING THE RULES
18.1. Biting, eye gouging, spitting, or head butting.
18.2. Wrestling, back or arm locks or any similar judo or wrestling hold.
18.3. Deliberately falling on his opponent.
18.4. Holding the ropes for any reason.
18.5. Swearing or the use of abusive language during the match.
18.6. Knocking out or injuring his opponent after the referee has ordered the match to
stop for any reason.
18.7. Deliberately striking the groin area"

Source: Muaythaio.com

Where does it say kicks to the knee are disallowed?

Quote:
there are many ways to stop a muay thai fighter from kicking you, as i have stated, you lock them in a grapple or throw quick enough,

Um, yes? Which is why I've specified muay thai is the best STANDUP martial art. I've also said it should be supplemented by grappling.

Quote:
or a counter kick or punch in the right place will stop a kick. dependent on the implementation of that kick and the fighter. ie, axe kick, kick the back of the thigh and suddenly their foot drops with their knee still up - leaves them open once again.

Actaully, what you're talking about are techniques that are part of muay thai. Honestly, you don't think a 'counter punch' is included in thai kick boxing? Have you never watched a muay thai fight?

Quote:
i still stand by the fact that muay thai has weaknesses, there is no way that you can dispute that. it IS a very powerful style, but NOT in any way, unbeatable.

Of course it has weaknesses. However, the alleged weakness you pointed (standing on their feet) out is not a weakness at all. I've already said that muay thai should be complemented by a grappling martial art, ideal Brazilian Jiu Jutsu, or if unavaiable, Judo.

Quote from Jay:
Main feature here is: Legend. Legend is different to myth. Legend is something that is remembered for the fantastic things (not necessarily always good). Quite often the true things get bent overproportion. Flying could have just been his great agility of leaping jumps and stuff like that. Considering the time this seems it would be correct. Myths however are things that are completely untrue that were formed from people's imaginations.

Jay, he states a lot of these things in his memoirs. And he's not so far in the past that you can't see videos of him (black and white of courese) teaching his students. They are obviously staged.

Quote from Seqo:
sorry was thinking of Savate :oops: San Shou KF (similar to Muay Thai - less emphasis on the toughening up the body part - similar emphasis on striking - more emphasis on defence whilst striking), Wing Chun KF and Savate would interest me the most. Muay Thai seems too thuggish to me.

San Shou is a result of trying to compete with muay thai. In fact, the current San Shou champion (Cung Le) competes occasionally in K-1 (under San Shou rules though).

It's basically an inferior imitation of the real thing.

Savate is French! That speaks for itself :p Are there any Savate clubs in Darwin? If so, check it out, I don't know much about it, which means it's unlikely to be effective.

Quote from Jaian:
Stepping on someone's feet to stop a kick? And you're suggesting doing this against a muay thai practitioner? No offence, but you're being delusional.
.

Okay let's take step and call it stomp which probably is closer to MT language. Would that be easier to understand how it would work. It's not slowly step on their toes and stop it. It's a very quick movement.

Quote from Seqo:
Soo Bahk Do at Nightcliff. Type of Kung Fu.

there is one down at Leanyer primary on wednesday, friday and monday's which my little brother attends. korean karate.. tang soo do or something.

www.yellowpages.com.au

Also, Wing Chun Kung Fu down near NTU (Alawa Community Hall) Monday and Wednesday nights.

Quote from Jaian:
What is brute strength? There is no vacuum where you can use skill without any strength coming into play.

No, but some martial arts depend more on strength than others. Others more on technique. I prefer skill over strength.

Quote:
If you train in a system that is highly inefficient in techniques (and ALL styles of Kung Fu are guilty of this, that I have seen, to various degrees), then you're setting most likely deluding yourself.

How so? one of the major philosophies in Wing Chun is the efficiency that you claim it doesn't have.

Quote:
A light frame is great for speed, but I wouldn't call it an advantage. As for being crap, as long as their are people extolling the virtues of said martial art, there will always be people to pull it down.

A light frame is what I have, I may consider building myself up a little bit. And you have a pretty linear definition of 'advantage' - if a light frame grants speed than that is an advantage, but since it can't take as many hits or strike with as much force, it is also a disadvantage. Both are seperate factors.

While both you and Trojan appear to be the most knowledgable in Martial Arts on this forum, and I note that you provide many valuable arguments - I know of AMD\Intel\ATi\nVidia fanboys who could provide equally good arguments for there chosen object of worship - and yet the real truth is much less clear, if even existant.

Quote from Jay:
Stepping. Do not take word literally. Stepping entails putting foot down. So when person motions to pull their foot up, you start putting foot down while they're bringing up. Naturally gravity on your side. Most likely they will lose balance or concentration for a moment and you get a moment to do whatever you wish let it be find a spot to run. When I had to do a very rough thing of this to stop someone kicking me I was also at their size. If not smaller.

This will not work against a muay thai practitioner unless his leg is broken or you have ungodly speed. Sorry, just not possible. If a muay thai practitioner with years of experience cannot stop a kick to his thigh half the time, then he's not going to be able to stop a kick before the leg lifts.

Quote:
Saying MT is superior to all others is plain arrogance.

I have a passion for the martial arts. Not practising them so much as following them. I can judge that MT is superior based on it's performance agianst other martial arts in combat. K-1 has shown which striking martial arts are dominant and superior.

Quote:
Everything is different and just saying it in all MT nazi mode doesn't prove anything. MT does have it's weaknesses too. Yes there is no argument MT is superior in striking attacking ability.

I've never said anything else. Brazilian Jiu Jutsu is superior to MT in the ring under NHB rules. As a striking art MT is superior.

Quote:
But if I were to be a blackbelt in anything it would be TC/KF.

And that's called obstinence, not arrogance :)

under pro muay thai rules according to the international kickboxing muay thai federation there shall be no kicks to the groin or joints of the legs.

an inferior imitation developed around the same time, in different areas... hmmmmm.

savate is french... whoop dee doo. and just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it isn't any good.

sorry but the way you are coming out makes me think that you hold yourself too highly in your own mind.

Quote from Jay:
Okay let's take step and call it stomp which probably is closer to MT language. Would that be easier to understand how it would work. It's not slowly step on their toes and stop it. It's a very quick movement.

That makes more sense, but I don't believe it would work against a muay thai practitioner. You're free to take a few free classes and try out your theory :)

If it were feasible, it would be used in the ring. But it isn't. It reminds me of a flying kick...I was good at them when I was still practising TKD, and when I sparred in friendly matches at my club (without trying to hit them hard) it seemed successful, and I thought I'd wipe the floor with my weight division at the next tournament I competed in.

I didn't get a single flying kick in...everytime I tried, they either moved out of the way to avoid it, or countered it. In theory it was unstoppable, and against incompetnent people or people who were not trying to actually stop you, but otherwise it was no good. :)

As I said, don't take my word for it. Feel free to try it out for yourself by joining some classes.

Quote from Jaian:

This will not work against a muay thai practitioner unless his leg is broken or you have ungodly speed. Sorry, just not possible. If a muay thai practitioner with years of experience cannot stop a kick to his thigh half the time, then he's not going to be able to stop a kick before the leg lifts.

Of course it is not going to work all types of kicks, but it will obviously work in places it will obviously work. Just like when someone is about to be kicked in the head, they will do the right thing for that situation.

You cannot say impossible because nothing is impossible. Yet a martial artists of another style focusing on different aspects, having the same years of experience should be able to do accomplish this if they know how to. If it works on other martial arts it does not mean it will not work on MT. MT is fast but does not make person move like a god. So the other person shouldn't have to move at some ungodly speed.

You said yourself before you have never seen it so don't mock it just yet.

Strangely, many Martial Arts practitioners would say that the style should fit the person, and that there is no one great martial art.

While my main reason for taking up Kung Fu is recreation (i find it enjoyable), I beleive I'd be more effective knowing Kung Fu than knowing Muai Thai - doesn't mean you'd be the same. It fits in with me very well (which is a part of why I enjoy it).

Another point of comment. Tournaments will never be the same as real fights, even in a minimal rules environment (which most tourneys are not) you still have a very simple arena.

A real world environment would likely include walls, obstacles, various forms of inhibiting spaces. Such things would change the dynamics of combat alot, providing new advantages and disadvantages.

What happens in the arena may be relevant to a degree, but not so much as you make out.

Quote from Seqo:
under pro muay thai rules according to the international kickboxing muay thai federation there shall be no kicks to the groin or joints of the legs.

What the hell is the 'international kickboxing muay thai federation'? Did you just make that up?

According to both the World Muay Thai Council (and United World Muay Thai Association?), kicks to the legs are not forbidden. Please cite this 'pro muay thai' federation.

Kicks to the groin are forbidden in pretty much every striking martial art tourney in the world.

Quote:
an inferior imitation developed around the same time, in different areas... hmmmmm.

Huh? muay thai has been around for the past few hundred years, except that they've slowly ruled out more violent techniques such as using broken glass against opponents, and bare knucle fighting etc.

Kyokushin Karate was founded by Mas Oyama around sixty years ago.

How the hell were they developed at the same time?

Quote:
savate is french... whoop dee doo. and just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it isn't any good.

I never said I never heard of it. I said it never registered on my radar as an effective martial art. If it were effective, their best fighters certainly would have competed in K-1 events.

Quote:
sorry but the way you are coming out makes me think that you hold yourself too highly in your own mind.

I'm curious, haven't I displayed more familiarity with martial arts in general than yourself? You're the one who's confused muay thai and the UFC, as well as Aikido and Savate, and have no idea as to the history of muay thai and Kyokushin Karate.

If you want to say that I believe my knowledge of the martial arts is superior to yours, I won't disagree. Does that make me full of myself? I don't know, I'll let you be the judge of that.

well if I was going to be a black belt in something I'd be...

a Lumberjack.

Quote from Jay:
Of course it is not going to work all types of kicks, but it will obviously work in places it will obviously work. Just like when someone is about to be kicked in the head, they will do the right thing for that situation.

Kicks to the head and counters are seen in Pride FC, since they are legal and useful techniques.

Your footsteppping technique is legal...and if it were even remotely effective, why haven't we seen it used?

Quote:
You cannot say impossible because nothing is impossible. Yet a martial artists of another style focusing on different aspects, having the same years of experience should be able to do accomplish this if they know how to. If it works on other martial arts it does not mean it will not work on MT. MT is fast but does not make person move like a god. So the other person shouldn't have to move at some ungodly speed.

I'm not talking about just muay thai. I'm thinking of mixed martial arts events, where competitors from any and every martial art are free to try their styles and techniques agaisnt other styles.

Your suggested technique is not feasible.

Quote:
You said yourself before you have never seen it so don't mock it just yet.

That's precisely why I mock it. First of all, I'm familiar with trying to block kicks to the lowerleg. It's extremely difficult, and I consider myself to have good reflexes. If I have trouble doing that, then doing what you suggest will be next to impossible. Professional fighters also fail to block maybe half (if they're lucky) the lower leg kicks, so it's not just my problem.

It would be akin to carrying a five cent coin in my pocket to defend myself from armed robbery. True, I could flick the coin in a muggers eye, forcing him to drop the knife as he clutches at his eye, but...think of the odds, no matter how much you practise.

And yes, it would be a technique someone would mock if they heard your anti-mugging technique. :)

Quote from Jaian:
According to both the World Muay Thai Council (and United World Muay Thai Association?), kicks to the legs are not forbidden. Please cite this 'pro muay thai' federation.

I meant knees :p

I don't think you're even close to visualising what Seqo and I have been. What you have been feeding back is nowhere near to what we have in mind. So I'll stop here as it's wasting my time trying to explain it to you when you clearly have it set that your MT and associated plug-ins make it impossible to even be useful. What what Seqo and I have seen, felt.experienced.felt.pain.etc we know it is useful and feasible.

Why hasn't it been used, dunno watch more TV I guess.

Quote from Jaian:
Kicks to the head and counters are seen in Pride FC, since they are legal and useful techniques.

WTF? dunno what this has to do with anything you're saying

Quote from Jaian:
And yes, it would be a technique someone would mock if they heard your anti-mugging technique.
My antimugging technique? Again no idea.

Quote from Aravi:
Also, Wing Chun Kung Fu down near NTU (Alawa Community Hall) Monday and Wednesday nights.

What are the costs associated with it? I'm interested in trying it out, but only if it allows full contact sparring.

Quote:
No, but some martial arts depend more on strength than others. Others more on technique. I prefer skill over strength.

In theory, I agree with you. Which is why I now focus on grappling; against non-grapplers it helps me compensate for their superior strength with my superior technique.

Quote:
How so? one of the major philosophies in Wing Chun is the efficiency that you claim it doesn't have.

In striking, it's inefficient compared to muay thai. In terms of grappling it's inefficient compared with BJJ/Judo. Compared to most other forms of Kung Fu, it's high efficient, but that's relative to them, not to the non-Chinese martial arts.

Quote:
A light frame is great for speed, but I wouldn't call it an advantage. As for being crap, as long as their are people extolling the virtues of said martial art, there will always be people to pull it down.

Quote:
A light frame is what I have, I may consider building myself up a little bit. And you have a pretty linear definition of 'advantage' - if a light frame grants speed than that is an advantage, but since it can't take as many hits or strike with as much force, it is also a disadvantage. Both are seperate factors.

I worded that poorly. I meant the speed advantage is generally negated by the weight advantage to such a degree that it's a disadvantage. True, they are separate factors, but the affect each other directly.

Quote:
yet the real truth is much less clear, if even existant.

Perhaps. However, how would you try to judge these things? If you want to judge the standup skills of various Kung Fu styles, why not send them to compete in standup fights with other martial arts? It's already happened in K-1, as well as those early Kung Fu/MT matches from the seventies.

What about their grappling skills? ADCC is the largest no-gi grappling tourney in the world. Not a single Kung Fu practitioner of any school has even made the qualifiers.

What about a combination of the two? The UFC and similar NHB competitions have shown that none of the KF styles can compete.

Only San Shou can compete in the standup aspect, but you can't really call that Kung Fu...

Quote:
Strangely, many Martial Arts practitioners would say that the style should fit the person, and that there is no one great martial art.

I completely agree.

Quote:
While my main reason for taking up Kung Fu is recreation (i find it enjoyable), I beleive I'd be more effective knowing Kung Fu than knowing Muai Thai - doesn't mean you'd be the same. It fits in with me very well (which is a part of why I enjoy it).

Unless you suffer from arthritis or some other debilitating condition, I'd say muay thai would benefit you more. Having a light frame doesn't change that. K-1 Max is something you might be interested in watching if you can get your hands on it. It's basically a kickboxing event for the skinny guys like us.

Quote:
Another point of comment. Tournaments will never be the same as real fights, even in a minimal rules environment (which most tourneys are not) you still have a very simple arena.

Yes, but soft contact/step sparring will never be able to compensate for full contact sparring experience.

Quote:
What happens in the arena may be relevant to a degree, but not so much as you make out.

What will it not show? For instance, if I would to start throwing rocks at you, would you have already learn how to knock them aside or dodge them in WC? That's an aspect of 'the street' that you aren't trained for. It won't be replicated in the arena, nor in your martial arts class.

Have you learn how to fight once you get knocked on the ground? How do you fight when are mounted and the guy is raining punches on you? That's a very likely scenario in a streetfight, and one you do train for in other martial arts mentioned. One in which an arena situation trains you for.

What do you do if someone knees you repeatedly? That's something that can happen in a real fight, and you're trained to receive and counter in other martial arts and the arena.

There are alwas many variables on the street, I do not believe pure WCKF will help in that regards. I know in Sydney a number of WC schools have added BJJ classes to their curriculum to try and cover their deficiences in that regard, but standup wise they still are inferior to streetfighting/tourney fighting striking.

Quote from Jay:
I don't think you're even close to visualising what Seqo and I have been. What you have been feeding back is nowhere near to what we have in mind. So I'll stop here as it's wasting my time trying to explain it to you when you clearly have it set that your MT and associated plug-ins make it impossible to even be useful. What what Seqo and I have seen, felt.experienced.felt.pain.etc we know it is useful and feasible.

If you say so. But anything near as you have described are legal in other full contact martial arts, and are not AFAIK used.

Quote:
Why hasn't it been used, dunno watch more TV I guess.

Huh?

Quote:
WTF? dunno what this has to do with anything you're saying

Actually, you brought up kicks to the head as comparable to your footstepping technique.

I responded by saying that kicks/stomps to someones head when they're on the ground are legal in the Pride Fighting Championships and are used because they are effective.

Your move which you believe is effective is not used. Regardless of what you may believe, I think all these generations of full time kickboxers would have worked out your technique and applied it if it would work in the ring.

Quote:
My antimugging technique? Again no idea.

Refer to the analogy I was using.

Sh*t, I think I've doubled my post count today in this thread.

Quote from jaian:
Gibber Gibber Gibber Gibber Gibber Spam

well im sorry but the IWA (international woodcutters association) says that

I'm a lumberjack and I'm Ok

Additionally they mentioned that while MT is an interesting hobby that in all reality, I sleep all night and I work all day.

also it has been seen in international competitions that when the ARFTSNKLRPQ rules are applied it is an obvious victory because I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, and I go to the lavatory.

Quote from jaian:
Gibber Gibber Gibber Gibber Gibber Spam

on wednesdays I go shopping, and have buttered scones for tea.

Quote from Jay:
Of course it is not going to work all types of kicks, but it will obviously work in places it will obviously work. Just like when someone is about to be kicked in the head, they will do the right thing for that situation.

Does not say anywhere about kick to head relating directly to the stepping. Simile, comparison. Not do this.

I did not mention in any spot an 'antimugging' technique of any sort.

Quote from Harbinger:
well im sorry but the IWA (international woodcutters association) says that

You're full of crap, there's no such thing. There's the United Woodcutters Association, although I doubt you're a member.

Quote:
I'm a lumberjack and I'm Ok

Do you have any qualifications? Who did you train under?

Quote:
Additionally they mentioned that while MT is an interesting hobby that in all reality, I sleep all night and I work all day.

That has absolutely no bearing on this thread topic.

Quote:
also it has been seen in international competitions that when the ARFTSNKLRPQ rules are applied it is an obvious victory because I cut down trees, I eat my lunch, and I go to the lavatory.

There is no such organisatoin as the ARFTSNKLRPQ.

Also, we're talking about unarmed combat, cowardly murdering trees with axes does not bear into this. If we're discussing the merits of Kenjutsu or fencing, then fine, but until bladed combat is the topic at hand, you're wildly off topic.

To cut things straight. You keep referring to. The ring, the tournament etc.
We are all thinking. The real world.

Things coming at you. Check. that is taught at self defense kung fu.

We have been posting our own views on what we believe we would prefer. Personally I'd prefer it if you didn't keep pimping MT would kick arse over what we suggest.

Quote from Jay:
Does not say anywhere about kick to head relating directly to the stepping. Simile, comparison. Not do this.

You chose the comparison, not me. You also don't seem to have understood my point in extending it.

You mentioned two techniques, both of which are legal in martial arts tourneys discussed so far.

One, the kicks to the head are legal, and UTILISED.
The other, stepping on the foot, are legal, and NOT UTILISED.

Thus the reason for comparison.

You seem enamoured of the idea that you've thought of a technique that professional trainers, kickboxers etc have not seen and used. The other guy who originally proposed this as a weakness of muay thai while claiming it's illegal (and failed to provide evidence of his claim, whereas I showed muay thai organisations did allow it), but you'll have to forgive me if I doubt you. If you saw flaws in boxing that you think other boxers/trainers haven't seen, then I would doubt you just as much.

Quote:
I did not mention in any spot an 'antimugging' technique of any sort.

Repeat: analogy.

Quote from Jay:
Of course it is not going to work all types of kicks, but it will obviously work in places it will obviously work.
Expression. Explaining how it will and wont work depending on the place.
Just like when someone is about to be kicked in the head, they will do the right thing for that situation.
Comparison. Just like - If someone did this - then of course they would do that. Meaning refering to previous. They would only use it when called for.

Quote from Jaian:
And yes, it would be a technique someone would mock if they heard your anti-mugging technique

Quote from Jaian:
You seem enamoured of the idea that you've thought of a technique that professional trainers, kickboxers etc have not seen and used.

Nowhere have I said it is perfect. Nor have I said I thought of it. Nor have I said I have not seen it. It seems you are the one who is firmly fixed at every point emphasising that it is impossible. Nowhere have I said it is completely possible and nowhere I have said it is impossible to defend again.

The other guy who originally proposed this as a weakness of muay thai while claiming it's illegal (and failed to provide evidence of his claim, whereas I showed muay thai organisations did allow it), but you'll have to forgive me if I doubt you. If you saw flaws in boxing that you think other boxers/trainers haven't seen, then I would doubt you just as much.

I don't know why you're still chasing this up, perhaps it's doubt I don't know but you're making me cranky that you're still pestering on this such a small point. I have no idea why you're chasing after me if I care if it's legal in matches or not as I have no persued this topic. Have I argued this as a weakness in muay tai. no. have i argued it is possible. yes.

Quote from Jay:
To cut things straight. You keep referring to. The ring, the tournament etc. We are all thinking. The real world.

I've referred to both.

Quote:
Things coming at you. Check. that is taught at self defense kung fu.

Which is almost as much BS as the 'death touch' techniques taught by Kung Fu exponents. Assuming they actaully prepare you for that.

Are you telling me

a) you have balls (representing these rocks) thrown at you while your'e sparring with a partner?
b) you are actually successful at avoiding these 'rocks'?

Is this at the WCKF school? I'd like to go there and check it out for myself, it's no more than fifteen minutes walk from where I live, I believe.

Quote:
We have been posting our own views on what we believe we would prefer. Personally I'd prefer it if you didn't keep pimping MT would kick arse over what we suggest.

What you prefer is one thing. What works in the real world is another.

If you suggest a poor martial art for a specific purpose, I will of course point out it's inferiority to others. What advantages do Kung Fu styles offer over muay thai in the street?

Jaian said:
Quote from Jay:
]Nowhere have I said it is perfect. Nor have I said I thought of it. Nor have I said I have not seen it. It seems you are the one who is firmly fixed at every point emphasising that it is impossible. Nowhere have I said it is completely possible and nowhere I have said it is impossible to defend again.

Since you didn't bother reading my analogy, let me repeat:

What you and Sergo suggested/claimed is a possible technique, but so far fetched that it's highly unlikely to be carried out in reality.

It's akin to the analogy of throwing a 5 cent coin in a muggers eyes as self defence. It's possible, but ludicrous.

Quote:
I don't know why you're still chasing this up, perhaps it's doubt I don't know but you're making me cranky that you're still pestering on this such a small point.

You're making what I deem to be a ludicrous claim.

Quote:
I have no idea why you're chasing after me if I care if it's legal in matches or not as I have no persued this topic.

Chased after you? Dude, I'm just replying to the post in this topic I disagree with. And only once. I'm neither rpeatedly brinding up an old post/quote to harass you, nor following you into other threads.

If you can reply to my posts, why can I to yours?

Quote:
Have I argued this as a weakness in muay tai. no. have i argued it is possible. yes.

I've also allowed that it is possible. But unfeasible. Also, he first brought up the footstepping technique as a weakness in muay thai (while at the same time providing incorrect information about muay thai/UFC rules). You chose to back him up in saying that it's a feasible technique.

Ive moved this to the flames forum. Split. I have left the posts answering the question originally answered. The posts so far out of proportion eg. MT is now here in the flame wars.

The only reason I proclaim it is useful is because I believe and have seen and have used it myself for stopping a foot attack. Thus it is useful in my belief. It would of course not be useful in a situation where you cannot use it. Obviously.

At myself you have proclaimed that I meaning things within my words which I have clearly stated by own quotations with explanations. You are still not listening to what I have said.

At every turning point - you have put what we have suggested as a martial art down in every aspect of which Muay Tai is superior. Your opinion not ours. You can bring up the UFC, f-1, FPCADIK but we couldnt really care.

Others seem to understand what I was saying before. Now I cant give a damn. I have been explaining before what I meant, and hope you said I said things I did not say. Arguing to a wall. Arguing on the internet. We all know the saying.

Harbinger Said:

Quote from Jaian:
What advantages do Kung Fu styles offer over muay thai in the street?

how about MT makes you so god damn arrogant you don't think that puny mortals can harm you?

Do you come up with this on your own, or do your instructors feed you their propaganda to stop you abandoning them?

Jaian Said

Quote from Harbinger:
how about MT makes you so god damn arrogant you don't think that puny mortals can harm you?

Do you come up with this on your own, or do your instructors feed you their propaganda to stop you abandoning them?

I don't train in muay thai. I have tried it out, as I've tried out many other martial arts. I am, however, familiar with it's track record, and it's strengths and weaknesses.

Doesn't that give me an advantage over soemeone who's neither trained in it, nor familiar with the martial arts in general?

I've never claimed to be a muay thai practioner, nor an expert at it.

Quote from Jay:
The only reason I proclaim it is useful is because I believe and have seen and have used it myself for stopping a foot attack. Thus it is useful in my belief. It would of course not be useful in a situation where you cannot use it. Obviously.

As I said, it's perfectly legal in K-1 rules. It's not feasible. I'm not sure if you're noting this distinction.

Quote:
At myself you have proclaimed that I meaning things within my words which I have clearly stated by own quotations with explanations. You are still not listening to what I have said.

Then you chose to take it out of the context of the discussion.

1. Seqo specified this stepping on foot technique to be a weakness of muay thai.
2. You stepped in to defend this when I stated it would not work against a muay thai practitioner.

In fact, you quoted me when I stated it would not work against a muay thai practioner. Check the post from Sun Nov 02, 2003 1:02am for confirmation of this.

So please don't accuse me of not listening to what you have said.

You have chosen both an uninformed and deliberately ignorant, not to mention irrational position.

Quote:
At every turning point - you have put what we have suggested as a martial art down in every aspect of which Muay Tai is superior.

Incorrect.

Seqo went about making false claims about muay thai/UFC rules, and other false statements which belittled muay thai. While promoting Kung Fu by making false claims promoting it.

Refer to the post made on Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:01pm

I have a lot of respect for muay thai, even though I'm not a practitioner. Putting down amartial art I like on valid grounds is one thing, making false statements to put it down is another.

You're full of crap.

Quote:
Your opinion not ours. You can bring up the UFC, f-1, FPCADIK but we couldnt really care.

Of course you couldn't care. In fact, you don't bother noticing that the UFC/muay thai connection was not brought up by me, but by your friend Seqo. The one you were agreeing with.

Also, it's K-1, not F-1. Not that you'd want to know, because you've decided you like some particular martial arts, and learning about the strengths and weaknesses of said martial arts, or of new ones you're unfamiliar with, is something you're obviously not willing to do.

Which makes me wonder why you bother participating in this at all.

Quote:
Others seem to understand what I was saying before. Now I cant give a damn. I have been explaining before what I meant, and hope you said I said things I did not say. Arguing to a wall. Arguing on the internet. We all know the saying.

Ignorance is bliss?

Now, here's the actual situation.

People were suggesting various martial arts.

Various martial arts have their own weaknesses and strengths. Some are overall better martial arts than others.

Muay thai is a better striking art than karate. Or the striking aspects of any school of Kung Fu.
BJJ and Judo are better grappling arts than JJJ or Aikido. Or the grappling aspects of any school of Kung Fu.

You can deny this, but both have proven themselves against other martial arts. Kung Fu hasn't.

So I stated that muay thai is a better striking art than Kung Fu, specifically WC. My evidence for that is it's track record.

That is me responding to the claims of other people.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, rather than whining about how I'm 'promoting' muay thai or whatever, then go ahead and show it.

Here are some rules on illegal moves according to Wing Chun Tournament sparring:

Quote:
Article 37. FOULS
One point will be deducted for the following offences:
A. Loss of temper,
B. insulting an opponent in any way,
C. biting/scratching/clawing,
D. attacking with the knee, elbow or forehead,
E. attacking a fallen opponent,
F. contact.

Article 38. WARNINGS
Warnings will be assigned for the following offences:
A. Attack to an illegal target,
B. stepping completely out of the ring (both feet),
C. falling down, whether intentional or not (this means any part of the body, other than the feet, touching the ground),
D. holding/grabbing/pushing,
E. sweeping,

First of all...NO CONTACT?! That seems f*cked up. But in case that's some kind of typo, I'll disregard it for now:

1. No attacking with the knee, hence no defences to this. Muay thai, on the other hand, has both attacks with the knees, and defences to it.

I can't think of a reason for people not to use their knees on the street.

2. You can't fall down? Do WC KF practioners think they have some superhuman sense of balance? If you're not allowed to fall down, then obviously you have no training to defend yourself on the ground.

BJJ and Judo both have takdowns and defences once you're on the ground. I'm curious, do people not fall down on the street?

3. No holding, grabbing or pushing? People don't do this in real life outside of rings? At least with muay thai, BJJ and Judo you have defences and attacks to this.

4. Sweeping is part of BJJ and Judo, and I think with muay thai.

Pity Jay and Seqo choose to troll instead of providing a reason for the superiority of kung fu over muay thai and co.

Anyway, it's to bed with me.

Quote from Jaian:
[quote:65dc86cd00="Trojan"]im gonna do muay thai, and trust me, you should do it too. They teach it at the man-ho academy in nightcliff at the clocktower building, so you should go down there and check it out sometime.....

Check it out, but be careful. There's two classes, the larger kickboxing class (the one with a few gorgeous girls mixed in) is basically aerobics. The guys that train near the ring or in the ring are the real kickboxing class. Make sure you specify which one you want.

[/quote:65dc86cd00]

Also there's Kali/Escrima.

My advice? Take the regular man ho classes. You cycle through the entire coverage: some nights you'll do muay thai, another you'll drill Kali stick fighting, and another you'll be working your trapping range. When you find an aspect of fighting that you like, you can take the specialist class in that topic. That's how things were set up when I was there.

Quote from Jaian:

Quote:
also they teach jujitsu as well

I'd call it submission wrestling. It's good for the basics, but the instructor has no qualifications or formal training in it that I know of.

I don't know if Corey has any qualifications, I'll grant you. But he does know the material, and he has trained with the best. Go in there some time and ask when the next ground fighting seminar will be run, and who'll be running it.

Quote from Jaian:

Quote:
i wonder what would happen if they versed someone that studied that martial art that involved fighting within a few inches of each other....

It could just be lack of sleep, but I don't understand what you mean?

I'd call it trapping range. And although I know you don't like kung fu, Jaian, if there's something that win chun excels in, it's fighting at trapping range. Training in trapping technique is also good for hybridisation with kali/escrima knife fighting techniques.

In general, if you're serious towards Man Ho they'll be serious towards you. To be balanced, however, Corey is a disorganised man. He expects enormous committment from his best students and he gives little back. But they keep coming back. He's just a good all-rounder. Chai Sirisut could lick him in muay thai, Paul Erikson on the ground and so on; but he has at least trained and cross-trained with these sort of guys very extensively.

When I sparred with me the bastard could drive me around the ring like a sports car. I only ever kept up with him by focusing on my punching - I boxed for a while. You get a feel for where openings will appear and you get better at taking them. Although I still suck :)

Quote from El Presidente:
I don't know if Corey has any qualifications, I'll grant you. But he does know the material, and he has trained with the best. Go in there some time and ask when the next ground fighting seminar will be run, and who'll be running it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's trained with the best. AFAIK, he's had some lessons with a top level grappler a few times, but that's about it. The rest of it he's picked up in bits and pieces from a variety of sources.

Quote:
I'd call it trapping range. And although I know you don't like kung fu, Jaian, if there's something that win chun excels in, it's fighting at trapping range. Training in trapping technique is also good for hybridisation with kali/escrima knife fighting techniques.

I won't go into escrima here, but please explain to me the advantages of trapping over, say, clinching in muay thai or standards BJJ grappling. I'm seriously interested in discussing these :)

The biggest names in Wing CHun are Emin Boztepe and 'Grandmaster' William Cheung...both fought each other at a seminar, and guess what happened when they fought in the equivalent of NHB competition? They ended up rolling on the ground like white belts at a BJJ class. In fact, you can watch the video (Boztepe's students taped it) online. I thought it was pathetic, and it underscored for me why even WC KF is more based on fantasy than reality.

Quote:
IChai Sirisut could lick him in muay thai, Paul Erikson on the ground and so on; but he has at least trained and cross-trained with these sort of guys very extensively.

I think you meant Erik Paulson :p

He's been rather vague about his training with Paulson, and given his noted lack of credentials, I'm fairly suspicious about any 'training' he's had with Paulson. More likely he's just attended some seminars.

Now I really will go to bed!

Starting fresh. The problem in all this is how we feel you were treating our opinions. This will be the last post I read and reply to. I no longer have any wish to argue again in circles over details about any MA.

Quote from Jaian:
Pity Jay and Seqo choose to troll instead of providing a reason for the superiority of kung fu over muay thai and co.
.

We are not pimping the 'superiority' of kung fu in any way. We have been arguing the grounds of eveness for all forms of martial arts.

The problem has been your arguing to disprove anything we have said.
About tai chi we said it was a martial art.
Quote from Jaian:
As for that tai chi becoming a martial form, that's a load of crap.
In saying 'becoming' - it shows that you started putting it down without even really knowing facts and history of it in the first place.

You make yourself a hypocrit in saying that you wish to place things on fair grounds. The reason seqo and I took this up is because you would find a way to show we were wrong.

Our opinion: that we may see other things in other martial arts that perhaps you don't
Quote from Jaian:
Also, Tai Chi and KF may be easier on the body, but if you want to learn effective fighitng techniques/self defence, then you're not being realistic. If you';re looking to have fun and a good workout (although why you added Tai Chi here I don't understand), that's cool.
Straight away it's hop into saying that the MA's we suggested were not even usable for self-defence, rather only for fun and a good workout?

We value our opinions as much as the next person so of course we would keep defending them. However note that people were accepting of your statement that MT was superior in striking.

However when it came to stepping, which we both have some sort of expression over from previous experiences.
Quote from Jaian:
Stepping on someone's feet to stop a kick? And you're suggesting doing this against a muay thai practitioner? No offence, but you're being delusional. Quote from Jaian:
This will not work against a muay thai practitioner unless his leg is broken or you have ungodly speed. Sorry, just not possible. If a muay thai practitioner with years of experience cannot stop a kick to his thigh half the time, then he's not going to be able to stop a kick before the leg lifts. Bit of an arrogant statement of course we would get offended. Straight way completely discounting possibility of even feasibility of it being used.

Granted against MT it would have limited uses but it does not make it completely useless as you were suggesting. In persisting to argue this point throughout while we were simply explaining it shows a pretty closed minded approach to our opinions and forcing yours upon us.

I started in explaining stepping in what it was and its use.

Quote from Jaian:
I'm still having difficulty in picturing this in a real fight. I can imagine doig it to a little kid, but against someone near your size who's trying to hurt you? Won't work. Then on this comment it was not about whether against a MT fighter or not. You were instantly discounting something we had brought up as even being usable, simply because you could not visualise it.

When I brought up that some KF schools teach defence against projectiles being thrown Quote from Jaian:
Which is almost as much BS as the 'death touch' techniques taught by Kung Fu exponents. Assuming they actaully prepare you for that.Completely different things they obviously are but you're just telling me that I'm completely wrong. :?: Obviously 'death touch' is a bit of a no (mind you there are a couple of acupuncture points that will accomplish this - and no I have friends and relatives who are studying and do do acupuncture). The point I was making some training is better than none. It wasn't at the WCKF either, but my gf was the one who went through this training so I do not know where it is, but it was not one of the main assoc in Darwin. The master was from mainland though.

Also telling Aravi how he feels about the martial art he is doing is suiting himself.
Quote from Aravi:
Personally, I'm enjoying learning Kung Fu. It suits me, it suits the way I think and suits my physical build. I've always found skill and finesse impressive, and never been impressed much by brute strength.Quote from Jaian:
If you train in a system that is highly inefficient in techniques (and ALL styles of Kung Fu are guilty of this, that I have seen, to various degrees), then you're setting most likely deluding yourself.
...
A light frame is great for speed, but I wouldn't call it an advantage
This was quite unfair on him. He is doing something he feels suits him and are advantagous for him. Telling him that he is wrong in how feels in the martial art he is currently training is just forcing him down to your opinion.

We are neither promoting KF as superior nor are we saying MT is flawed.

The problem from all this is that you were discounting our opinions and telling us we're simply wrong. Just be a little more open minded to how we view things. If I could breathe in that 'stepping' had limited use. Don't put our opinions straight away as incorrect.

man what an exhausting debate

So what's the best way to block or dodge or whatever a kick to the head?

duck

the best way is not to get your self in a position that requires you blobk a kick

Quote from ruin:
So what's the best way to block or dodge or whatever a kick to the head?

Techniques I know of.

Depending on method of delivery:

Spin Kick: Move in closer as they prepare to execute it, or come in with a double palm strike as they begin to (timed to strike them in the back).

Hammer kick: Dai Sau as it goes up.

Jaian, note the FAQ posted by Jacques:Quote:
While some people advocate that "my style fits any individual", it is very debatable if any single individual would adapt to *any* style.
Link

methinks you peeps play to much tekken

i agree with jay, MT makes you arragont, anyone trained properly in kung fu will always try to avoid a fight however when forced to fight will finish it fast and aggressively whereas MT is mainly for show, kung fu vs MT, kung fu will almost always win for many reasons.

Internation Kickboxing Federation, Pro Muay Thai Rules.

and once again you confuse my argument, still sleepy?

i said that San Shou and Muay Thai were thought to have been developed around the same time, in different parts of the world. NOT kyokushin karate. READ please. i was comparing SAN SHOU with MUAY THAI...

want me to repeat it again?

yes, you are more knowledgeable, but you seem to think that you are the only person that could possibly know this. you dismiss everybody else's arguments as being ludicrous, yet, they are not. you dismiss other forms of an ART as if they were pitiful.

look, think about it this way. if muay thai was unbeatable, and if it was the greatest martial art/sport ever created.... then EVERYBODY would be doing it. people make decisions, if it was the best, they would go for it. why? because it is no extra cost to them and it puts them on a playing field which, according to you, is so far above everybody else :roll:

besides that, Jay summed it up beautifully.

i don't agree that Muay Thai is the greatest martial art known to man, as you do, and you won't ever be able to convince me that it is.

[quote=He who knows all][quote:8982174d4a="Aravi"]Strangely, many Martial Arts practitioners would say that [b]the style should fit the person, and that there is no one great martial art.[/i][/quote]

[u]I completely agree.[/u]

[quote=Aravi]While [b]my main reason for taking up Kung Fu is recreation[/b] (i find it enjoyable), I beleive I'd be more effective knowing Kung Fu than knowing Muai Thai - [b]doesn't mean you'd be the same. It fits in with me very well (which is a part of why I enjoy it).[/b][/quote]

[u]Unless you suffer from arthritis or some other debilitating condition, I'd say muay thai would benefit you more.[/u] Having a light frame doesn't change that. K-1 Max is something you might be interested in watching if you can get your hands on it. It's basically a kickboxing event for the skinny guys like us.[/quote:8982174d4a]

what on gods earth gives you the right and the arrogance to tell a person, whom [u]you don't know[/u], what art form would suit them better? perhaps if you stopped masturbating your ego long enough to read what others have written you'd realise that your replies are contradictory and that you are - contrary to your own beliefs - not the fountain of knowledge.
the original thread was started in order to gain an insight into other people's martial arts preferences, yet you took it upon yourself to spread the propaganda of your own preferred style. to reiterate what has been said, and what you yourself agreed to, there is no singular perfect style, hence your overzealous response to competing opinions is unjustified.

now, as for this new thread; i find the aesthetics of kung fu appeal to me more than muay thai. but then that's just me. because you yourself have agreed that there is no definitive style, this argument is therefore moot.

Quote from Jaian:
[quote:6a3811d708="El Presidente"]I don't know if Corey has any qualifications, I'll grant you. But he does know the material, and he has trained with the best. Go in there some time and ask when the next ground fighting seminar will be run, and who'll be running it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's trained with the best. AFAIK, he's had some lessons with a top level grappler a few times, but that's about it. The rest of it he's picked up in bits and pieces from a variety of sources.[/quote:6a3811d708]

My understanding is that he spent time travelling for a few years. Honestly I wouldn't know. There's been a string of seminars come through, and they all know him. There's no money in coming to Darwin for seminars, so why else are the coming?

Quote from Jaian:

Quote:
I'd call it trapping range...

I won't go into escrima here, but please explain to me the advantages of trapping over, say, clinching in muay thai or standards BJJ grappling. I'm seriously interested in discussing these :)

One thing that Corey always drilled into us was the concept that fighting happens in several ranges and modes, each of them requiring distinct approaches to prevail. Your fighter relying solely on trapping will get drilled on the ground, sure. But at the range where you start to use elbows in Muay Thai you can also start working to lock down the person's arms - trapping.

Quote from Jaian:

Quote:
IChai Sirisut could lick him in muay thai, Paul Erikson on the ground and so on; but he has at least trained and cross-trained with these sort of guys very extensively.

I think you meant Erik Paulson :p

Fah! You knew who I meant. So I haven't trained in 4 years. Sue me. :P

Quote from Jaian:
He's been rather vague about his training with Paulson, and given his noted lack of credentials, I'm fairly suspicious about any 'training' he's had with Paulson. More likely he's just attended some seminars.

I couldn't quote you either way; perhaps a good way to look on Corey is as an upgraded garage guru. Not formally recognised in all that he teaches, but able to teach it nonetheless. AFAIK his formal recognition lies with the Man Ho Academy in Hong Kong; I don't think that they cover a syllabus as wide or eclectic as Corey does.

I mean I never gave a serious thought to whether Corey was recognised or not. He knew the material. He never uhmed or ahh'd, and he always knew six ways to drill you from any position. He'd spar with visiting specialists and he'd hold up fairly well. He never claimed to have all the answers, and he never claimed to have some sort of ultimate martial style. He's very much in the JKD tradition: learn everything, use what works, integrate, synthesize. This is why the core classes cover everything the school teaches: modified win chun, including a lot of traditional material when you grade, muay thai, filipino weapons (kali/escrima), and BJJ.

His outlook is that you need to fill the gaps in your art. You might fight standing up at kicking, punching, trapping or grappling range, or on the ground, with weapons or without. The senior students who've stuck with Corey for years have developed just that: all-rounder fighting abilities.

Okay, If I get back online later tonight, I'll reply. In the meanwhile, I have this to say:

You're all a bunch of morons. Illiterate morons at that. Because of this, I'm going to use caps when trying to make a point in this post.

Quote from Jaian:
Muay thai is superior to any standup/striking martial art period

That is what I said. I backed this up by specifying it's track record against other forms of standup/striking martial arts. Few people dispute this, even in this thread.

Quote from Seqo:
MT is a sport. many rules involved... no straight kicks to the knee, no groin kicks, no standing on toes/feet. Kung Fu you are allowed to stand on feet to stop kicks, breaking knee caps isn't disallowed either. MT is a very forward (striking) style as you said, which is a problem in some situations.

1. He's incorrect about the 'no straight kicks to the knee'.
2. He's incorret about the 'no standing on toes/feet'

Here we have someone who goes out of his way to make false statements about MT. He then proceeds to make these claims about Kung Fu "Kung Fu you are allowed to stand on feet to stop kicks, breaking knee caps isn't disallowed either."

We can ask Aravi if this is true, whether he gets to kick his sparring partners in the groin, and kick them hull on to break knee caps. Aravi is the one who was saying that MT was too damaging to the body, as oppose to his WC Kung Fu.

I don't think Seqo is deliberately lying. He's also made wrong claims about the UFC/Muay Thai, and confused Aikido with Savate. He's also mostly clueless about those even when I did point out he confused the two.

However, the fact is that false claims are being made about MT. Being a fan of K-1 events, I find it irritating to find such claims made about MT, and will of course defend it against these false claims. Imagine if some Japanese dudes were talking about how Pauline Hanson was the PM of Australia (years ago this was a popular misconception in Japan)...you would of course strive to correct them. Does that make you arrogant? Maybe, but you're also trying to keep the facts straight.

Posts like those that Seqo made, I call that arrogance, in addition to ignorance. As long as facts are being presented correctly, what matters arrogance? Especially when other people lie. I'll show you arrogance:

Quote from Lucifer Dragar:
i agree with jay, MT makes you arragont, anyone trained properly in kung fu will always try to avoid a fight however when forced to fight will finish it fast and aggressively whereas MT is mainly for show, kung fu vs MT, kung fu will almost always win for many reasons.

See, apparently MT is for show, and Kung Fu will almost always beat MT. DESPITE THE FACT THAT MT HAS BEATEN KUNG FU IN ALMOST EVERY CROSS CULTURAL TOURNAMENT HELD!

FFS.

Quote from Seqo:
ook, think about it this way. if muay thai was unbeatable, and if it was the greatest martial art/sport ever created.... then EVERYBODY would be doing it.

See, THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE ALL FRICKIN MORONS.

I've NEVER SAID IT WAS UNBEATABLE. MT is VERY BEATABLE, I've said so already. There's a reason I don't take it. This is what I said earlier in the thread:

Quote from Jaian:
martial art forms that can beat muay thai are grappling martial arts. Judoka who've taken a little cross-training, and definately Brazilian Jiu Jutsu practitioners, can beat a pure kickboxer nine times out of ten.

LEARN TO F*CKING READING. Jesus H Christ.

Quote from Jaian:
LEARN TO F*CKING READING. Jesus H Christ.

yeah, it's us that have the problem with english.
and there is no way on earth anyone is going to go through the 4 pages of ranting to find proof of anything you've said... although they might, but that just means they have rabies.

Quote from Harbinger:
[quote:b6a0dbda3d="Jaian"]LEARN TO F*CKING READING. Jesus H Christ.
and there is no way on earth anyone is going to go through the 4 pages of ranting to find proof of anything you've said... although they might, but that just means they have rabies.[/quote:b6a0dbda3d]

You're right, I didn't really expect any of you to go back 4 pages to read what I actually said, before taking shots at me. You'd rather just snipe at me while putting words in my mouth.

WHICH IS WHY I QUOTED MYSELF.

I disagree with the argument that for all people, regardless of physical, psychological and other characteristics, would be better off learning Muay Thai than Kung Fu.

Even if current Muai Thai practitioners are better than current Kung Fu practitioners, that does not prove the above statement (nor come close in any way to doing so). Doesn't even really prove that Muay Thai is superior - why so? take this analogy.

In sports you have many different teams, at a given time there will be more and less dominant teams. But as each team practices and develops and as older players leave and are replaced, the relative rankings between teams change. One team may be the strongest at any given time, but things change.

Quote from Aravi:
While both you and Trojan appear to be the most knowledgable in Martial Arts on this forum, and I note that you provide many valuable arguments - I know of AMD\Intel\ATi\nVidia fanboys who could provide equally good arguments for there chosen object of worship - and yet the real truth is much less clear, if even existant.

I also note that fanboys can get quite rabid when cornered.

Quote from Jaian:
See, THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE ALL FRICKIN MORONS.

I've NEVER SAID IT WAS UNBEATABLE. MT is VERY BEATABLE, I've said so already. There's a reason I don't take it.

there's this thing called implication; you've used it in almost every single one of your posts in the various threads on kung fu. maybe you didn't realise it, but if you go back and read your material you'll see it. yes very good, you've implied that MT is the alpha and the omega, beatable (only?) by BJJ (Blow Job Junkies?), hence a supplementary combo of these two should be unbeatable if logic follows. never mind that thing called personal preference, or individual talent for that matter. MT is the greatest striking art....
now, this has been accepted by all here, because frankly not many of us give a shit which one is better. what really shits people however, is the fact that you can't let others have their own opinions on the sport. granted Seqo may have misconceptions, but what if (shock horror) he still likes kung fu better anyway? your opinion is not always the correct one, yet despite being told by several people you still can't grasp this fact. your preferences are not the air we breathe, and most of us don't care either way anyway. again you don't see this.

btw i find it very interesting that you don't actually practice muay thai considering you have an almost religious belief in its superiority.

Quote from Aravi:
In sports you have many different teams, at a given time there will be more and less dominant teams. But as each team practices and develops and as older players leave and are replaced, the relative rankings between teams change. One team may be the strongest at any given time, but things change.

There's a reason the Chinese government now sends San Shou practitioners to compete against MT fighters in Thailand; their KF practitioners aren't up to scratch.

If other martial arts have consistently demonstrated their superiority, over a period of at least thirty or forty years, through different events with different teams and fighters, and there are no other factors to explain this discrepency in performace, then you have to assume one is superior to the other.

WC will evolve (or die out), but until then it's an inferior striking art.

Quote:
I also note that fanboys can get quite rabid when cornered.

I believe it was Seqo who berated me for not being familiar with MT, I watch K-1 and MMA events, not MT. I'm a BJJ/MMA fanboy.

I dislike Microsoft, and refuse to use many of their products, especially their browsers. That does not mean I won't step in to defend them if anti-MS zealots start spewing crap about it.

I've said already, MT has its flaws, which is why I don't train in it.

Aravi, in regards to the claim by Seqo that set off this MT vs KF arguement (IMO), I'd like you to address this:

"gets to kick his sparring partners in the groin, and kick them hull on to break knee caps."

Do you get to kick each other in the groins, or kick each other hard in the knees to break kneecaps, when you spar at your WCKF class?

Quote from Jaian:
Do you get to kick each other in the groins, or kick each other hard in the knees to break kneecaps, when you spar at your WCKF class?

Sparring isn't introduced early in Kung Fu, you learn the techniques first before you have to apply them in sparring.

As most of the practitioners where I train are either yet to pass their first grading (like me) or have only first grading - the sparring practice is not full on. I'm under the impression that it's introduced at higher gradings.

Crap, I didn't want to get dragged into this so soon :(

Quote from Illusions:
there's this thing called implication; you've used it in almost every single one of your posts in the various threads on kung fu. maybe you didn't realise it, but if you go back and read your material you'll see it.

You've misread it. Regardless of what you think I'm implying, when I flat out STATE that I don't think MT is unbeatable, and that it has weaknesses that need to be complemented by other martial arts, then it's pretty clear you're misinterpreting my words if you think anything else of them.

Quote:
yes very good, you've implied that MT is the alpha and the omega, beatable (only?) by BJJ (Blow Job Junkies?), hence a supplementary combo of these two should be unbeatable if logic follows.

I've mentioned that there are dozens of hybridized martial arts which are superior to MT. If you want the closest thing to a 'complete' system, you have to cross train. That's what I meant when I said no single art is complete or perfect, although everyone seems to think that means that every art is equal. Thy are not, some arts are better than others.

Quote:
never mind that thing called personal preference, or individual talent for that matter.

I'm not arguing about personal preferences. I am arguing about what has been shown to work best. If you choose to dig a hole with a spoon instead of a shovel, that's fine, your preference. That's not what I'm disputing.

As for individual talent, that's not within the scope of anyone here to discuss, until it's mentioned, is it?

Quote:
MT is the greatest striking art....now, this has been accepted by all here, because frankly not many of us give a shit which one is better.

Then they need to respond to this...

Quote:
what really shits people however, is the fact that you can't let others have their own opinions on the sport. granted Seqo may have misconceptions, but what if (shock horror) he still likes kung fu better anyway?

Why would I care? If he likes it, he can take it.

Quote:
your opinion is not always the correct one, yet despite being told by several people you still can't grasp this fact. your preferences are not the air we breathe, and most of us don't care either way anyway. again you don't see this.

*sigh*

My preference is BJJ. Have I been pushing that down your throats? No. What I'm doing is defending false statements and poor and uninformed opinions being made against MT.

I do believe I know more about MT than the majority of you, call that arrogance if you will, and when someone who's unfamiliar with MT starts making negative opinions about it based on his ignorance, then I will contradict their opinion. That seems only logical, doesn't it?

Quote:
btw i find it very interesting that you don't actually practice muay thai considering you have an almost religious belief in its superiority.

Why is that interesting? I think Mike Tyson is a better boxer than Laila Ali (Muhammed Ali's daughter)...I don't need to be a boxer myself to be certain of this. Track records, statistics and rational opinions support my contention.

Besides which, I would be pretty biased if I were to be a MT practitioner and start extolling it's virtues.

Quote from Jaian:
Then they need to respond to this...

Errr...they need NOT respond to this.

Quote from Jaian:
You've misread it. Regardless of what you think I'm implying, when I flat out STATE that I don't think MT is unbeatable, and that it has weaknesses that need to be complemented by other martial arts, then it's pretty clear you're misinterpreting my words if you think anything else of them.

yes the fault is entirely mine, never mind the fact that it was picked up on by Jay and Harbinger. and yes i always misread texts, never mind that english is one of my strongest subjects :roll:

Quote from Jaian:
I've mentioned that there are dozens of hybridized martial arts which are superior to MT. If you want the closest thing to a 'complete' system, you have to cross train. That's what I meant when I said no single art is complete or perfect, although everyone seems to think that means that every art is equal. Thy are not, some arts are better than others.

all arts are equal in their subjective appeal. my point refers to your denial of this fact, evident in your zealous mocking of any competing opinions. if seqo believes that kung fu is better than muay thai then so be it. what gives you the authority to define people's opinions for them? there are thousands of factors determining which art is "better", and his choice may in fact reflect which style suits him best. and btw, read more closely. i'm not arguing about the martial arts aspect of this debate, only your behaviour, which i feel is unjustified.

Quote from Jaian:
I'm not arguing about personal preferences. I am arguing about what has been shown to work best. If you choose to dig a hole with a spoon instead of a shovel, that's fine, your preference. That's not what I'm disputing.

but you are, and i highlighted this fact earlier. look back about 6 posts, i underlined it all for your benefit.

Quote from Jaian:
As for individual talent, that's not within the scope of anyone here to discuss, until it's mentioned, is it?

sure it is. the success of muay thai may in fact be a reflection of the skill of the members rather than the perfection of the technique. i'm not saying this is the case, only that it is a possibility. this was also touched upon by Aravi.

Quote:
Then they need not respond to this...

we respond to contribute to the discussion by
1) stating our preference and
2) bringing you into line :P

Quote from Jaian:
Why would I care? If he likes it, he can take it.

the point Jay, Harbinger and myself are making is that you do care.

Quote from Jaian:
*sigh*

My preference is BJJ. Have I been pushing that down your throats? No. What I'm doing is defending false statements and poor and uninformed opinions being made against MT.

I do believe I know more about MT than the majority of you, call that arrogance if you will, and when someone who's unfamiliar with MT starts making negative opinions about it based on his ignorance, then I will contradict their opinion. That seems only logical, doesn't it?

you've been shoving MT down our throats despite what misconceptions you may have about your own arguments. read them, and then read what others have said. are you not ignorant?

Quote from Jaian:
Why would you find that interesting? I think Mike Tyson is a better boxer than Laila Ali (Muhammed Ali's daughter)...I don't need to be a boxer myself to be certain of this. Track records, statistics and rational opinions support my contention.

Besides which, I would be pretty biased if I were to be a MT practitioner and start extolling it's virtues.

yes statistics everywhere, giving the masses what they want :). at least Laila doesn't bite ears :roll:. and just so you know, you're biased anyway ;).

There's a Shaolin Kung Fu club near my school and a few friends are thinking of taking it up. I won't ask if it's any good :P but I was just interested in what it entails...

EDIT: Also, where can I see these international tournaments and stuff.

Guys, please read this and don't flame me because i'm not taking sides. However I dont think you understand how wing chun works. Wing chun is an evolutionary art, it is always changing. When wing chun was developed in the 1600's and 1700's in southern china, it was composed of all the elements of other styles that were effective - the elements of other styles that didn't work were scrapped. Since then wing chun has continued to change. You can't say that muay thai would just beat wing chun - wing chun has incorporated elements of muay thai into it. The elements that were more effective. I train in hung suen wing chun kung-fu, and the curriculum incorporates not only wing chun, but boxing, muay thai and BJJ. Because there are elements of all these that are effective - and elements that are not. Please don't go around saying style A is better than style B because of technical point X. Just study what you want and respect other people opinions. kthx.

EDIT: Still not takin sides :D - However, i spoke to my si-fu (sensai/instructer :) ) the other day and he said that its a pretty well know fact in the martial arts world that when Bruce Lee got into real life situations he reverted back to his Wing Chun techniques. (Which yes i know JKD is based on and so on :))

kk this is from muay thai superiority2 (but it got locked :evil: ) so i gotta do this here.

Quote:

I'll quote from that page:

"One of the foremost authorities on modern Wing Chun, DeMile has adapted Bruce's modification of the ancient art of Wing Chun and created WING CHUN DO"

Despite the fact that Lee eschewed Wing Chun saying it was too flashy and not realistic enough, and created his own style called JKD, DeMile is somehow a 'foremost authority' on Wing Chun by studying JKD? Is comprehension not your forte?

Quote:
demile was champion heavy weight boxer of the US air force 128 fights no losses why the f*ck then would he change to wing chun if it wasnt better

1. He didn't change to Wing Chun. He doesn't study Wing Chun either. Nor does he teach it. He learnt Jeet Kune Do from Bruce Lee.
2. Bruce Lee admitted to incorporating Western Boxing into JKD because of it's superior striking abilities.
2. 128 boxing victories in two years? That's an average of one match every five days. Amateur boxers fight once every few weeks, or every few months. Pro boxers fight a handful of times per year. It generally takes a few weeks at least to recover from a boxing match (they are extremely physically punishing).
3. DeMile never claimed to have studied boxing.
4. Marketing: Open a boxin gym and you won't get much in the way of clientelle. Open a 'Kung Fu' school and you will. For this same reason you don't see Korean Judo schools, instead they call their style TKD to pull in students.
5. He claims to have taught hand to hand combat at Fort Lewis. I can't confirm this, but I checked Fort Lewis out, and they're after BJJers, not Kung Fu instructors.

okay when i was saying wing chun i meant wing chun do. he does teach wing chun do and im almost 100% sure he learnt it off bruce before bruce had even created jeet kune do.

you do also realise that a lot of muay thai is incorperated into modern wing chun? so now you're basically dissin your own style...

i dont see anything on that site that says he fought 128 matches in 2 years

demile didnt have to study boxing..he was an undefeated heavy weight boxer..im pretty sure he knew what he was doing...

now you're saying hes a liar as well? the official wing chun do site says he taught at fort lewis..why would they lie? it also says he taught there in 85 -86...perhaps they have since changed what theyre after?

im not saying every single grandmaster could beat a 20-30 yo boxer but i am saying some could. some grandmasters are grandmasters in a martial art that couldnt beat a 30yo boxer when they themselves were 30 years old. i was simply pointing out that you cant make a generalisation like that. i used james demile as an example because (despite what you might say) he certainly could whoop a 30yo boxers ass.

bleh just use a gun.

a 30 year old boxer is not superior then all grand masters in wing chun do,
considering alot of the fighting styles in boxing have been woven into wing chun do and changed to benifit them. Also boxers can only reach a certain level due to it being a sport, this is when wing chun do would win ! Due to its ability to venture past boundaries enlisted into a sports rules.

Quote from Jaian:
[quote:d2225f8e56="Lucifer Dragar"]i agree with jay, MT makes you arragont, anyone trained properly in kung fu will always try to avoid a fight however when forced to fight will finish it fast and aggressively whereas MT is mainly for show, kung fu vs MT, kung fu will almost always win for many reasons.

See, apparently MT is for show, and Kung Fu will almost always beat MT. DESPITE THE FACT THAT MT HAS BEATEN KUNG FU IN ALMOST EVERY CROSS CULTURAL TOURNAMENT HELD!

FFS.

[/quote:d2225f8e56]

see here is where i trip you up cockhead

with muay thai it is all about entering tournaments to show how mighty you are however very few kung fu legends enter tournaments as it proves nothing so you end up with a situation where the very best in muay thai end up facing the lame of kung fu in tournaments, who gives a shit about tournaments anyway. kung fu teaches so much more besides fighting, like discipline!!! idiot!!!

go back to your tekken!

yeah respek goes out to lucifer
:twisted: peace...

Quote from Lucifer Dragar:

see here is where i trip you up cockhead

with muay thai it is all about entering tournaments to show how mighty you are however very few kung fu legends enter tournaments as it proves nothing so you end up with a situation where the very best in muay thai end up facing the lame of kung fu in tournaments, who gives a shit about tournaments anyway. kung fu teaches so much more besides fighting, like discipline!!! idiot!!!

go back to your tekken!

hahahahahaha owned :)

Quote from Illusions:
yes the fault is entirely mine, never mind the fact that it was picked up on by Jay and Harbinger.

Isn't Harbinger the one who failed to notice (page 4) I provided quotations of what I'd previously said, and instead lambasted me saying nobody would ge looking thorugh the past 4 pages for what I'd said? He/she doesn't strike me as being particularly observant.

As for Jay, it's simple:

Quote from Jay:
Saying MT is superior to all others is plain arrogance. Everything is different and just saying it in all MT nazi mode doesn't prove anything. MT does have it's weaknesses too. Yes there is no argument MT is superior in striking attacking ability.

Notice three parts to that:

1. "Saying MT is superior to all others is plain arrogance"
2. "MT does have it's weaknesses too."
3. "Yes there is no argument MT is superior in striking attacking ability."

1. The post he was replying had me saying this about MT: "Muay thai is not only the most efficicent of the traditional standup martial arts, but the most powerful.".

Note the difference between what he thinks I'm saying, and what I actaully say. In fact, he also says this (look at the third quote).

So:

Joy: "Muay thai is not only the most efficicent of the traditional standup martial arts, but the most powerful."
Jay: "Yes there is no argument MT is superior in striking attacking ability."

As such, I think he wrongly misinterpreted my words. Just to be safe, this time I've highlighted the key words in bold.

2. He says MT has it's weaknesses. That's implying that I am claiming otherwise (in addition to what he implied I said before that). So what did I actaully say about MT's infallibility?

Joy: "The only martial art forms that can beat muay thai are grappling martial arts" and
"There are tens, if not hundreds of hybridised martial arts which are superior to any single traditional martial art."

I've been fairly open about the fact that MT has it's weaknesses. Implying I don't is either ignoring my statements, or deliberately trying to change my position.

3. If there's not arguement MT is superior in striking ability, then I'm not arguing that with him.

Let me explain this to you Illusion. If I STATE that MT is not the superior martial art, and specify the area at which it is superior, if I STATE that there are weaknesses in MT, and I STATE that I'd rather do other martial arts, then there is no freakin way you can come to the conclusion I'm claiming Muay Thai is superior to all other martial arts.

Quote:
and yes i always misread texts, never mind that english is one of my strongest subjects :roll:

If it were one of your strongest subjects, you should not have made the following error in your previous post:

1. "you've implied that MT is the alpha and the omega" <-- You shoud have specified that this only applied to standup striking martial arts, otherwise anyone reading your posts would think that I were promoting MT as 'the' ultimate martial art, when in fact I've specified martial arts that could beat the shit out of a pure MY stylist.

If you deliberately refrained from specifying that I was only referring to standup striking martial arts, then you're being deceptive. If you didn't, then perhaps you need to work on your English?

Quote from Jaian:
I've mentioned that there are dozens of hybridized martial arts which are superior to MT. If you want the closest thing to a 'complete' system, you have to cross train. That's what I meant when I said no single art is complete or perfect, although everyone seems to think that means that every art is equal. Thy are not, some arts are better than others.

Quote:
all arts are equal in their subjective appeal. my point refers to your denial of this fact, evident in your zealous mocking of any competing opinions.

There goes the lack of reading comprehension. Let me quote myself again

"Most people take martial arts because of the first word, martial. They want to learn to fight."

" If you';re looking to have fun and a good workout (although why you added Tai Chi here I don't understand), that's cool."

I'm fully cognizant that everyone has different reasons for wanting to take up a martial art. If you're looking for recreational or fitness objectives in taking Kung Fu or TKD, that.s fairly appropriate.

However, if the appeal of a martial art lies in it's martial sense ie. fighting ability, then no, not all martial arts are equal in that regard. That is what I've been saying. Unless you want to argue that Tai Chi will teach you to fight as well as MT, then your point is moot.

Quote:
if seqo believes that kung fu is better than muay thai then so be it. what gives you the authority to define people's opinions for them? there are thousands of factors determining which art is "better", and his choice may in fact reflect which style suits him best.

Now there you're just speaking BS.

He specified reasons why KF is better than MT:

1) Groin kicks
2) Stepping on peoples feet.

These are points that can be directly contradicted by the evidence. Not onyl has he failed to produce any to support himself, but failed to contradict the evidence I've provided.

So under his conditions for KF being better than MT, he is wrong.

Quote:
and btw, read more closely. i'm not arguing about the martial arts aspect of this debate, only your behaviour, which i feel is unjustified.

As I said, I didn't start debate about which martial arts were superior, and I didn't go about posting blatant falsehoods about other martial arts. If you think that's acceptable behaviour, cool, but I don't.

Quote:
but you are, and i highlighted this fact earlier. look back about 6 posts, i underlined it all for your benefit.

I'll reply to that after this post.

Quote:
sure it is. the success of muay thai may in fact be a reflection of the skill of the members rather than the perfection of the technique. i'm not saying this is the case, only that it is a possibility. this was also touched upon by Aravi.

Perhaps I worded that poorly.

Nobody here has mentioned any particular skills they may possess. As such, until such information has been released, you'll have to assume that they are your average person.

Quote:
we respond to contribute to the discussion by
1) stating our preference and
2) bringing you into line :P

1. I did the same.
2. I wasn't the person who started talking about the superiority of MT over KF, or KF over MT. I simply joined the discussion that had already started.

Quote:
the point Jay, Harbinger and myself are making is that you do care.

I didn't care until he made the claim that MT is inferior to KF in that it doesn't allowed knees to the groin and stepping on the feet.

Don't believe me? Simple, go back and check it out for yourself. Oh, you won't do that? According to Harbinger, you'd have to have rabies...

Quote:
you've been shoving MT down our throats despite what misconceptions you may have about your own arguments. read them, and then read what others have said. are you not ignorant?

I've been *defending* MT against false or exxagerated claims made against it. I did not bring up MT, it was brought up by others.

Just to further expound on the fact that I am not claiming MT is the best martial art period, not by a long shot, I'm going to add these extra quotes taken from earlier posts of mine from this thread:

"In fact, i'd say boxing is the best art to learn if you're after a quick introduction to fighting."

"As for the martial art I'd most love to possess a black belt in, it would have to be Brazilian Jiu Jutsu...it has proven itself against all other single styles repeatedly over the years. Judo would be second on my list, and muay thai (even though there aren't any belts in that)."

Ok everyone, I am fully convinced of nothing but the fact that janina here is right, and as a result, there is no need to reply any more because it would just be empty rambling ok..

Key point here, he is right, we were all wrong and now we can rejoice in the correct knowledge.

Isn't that a releif :D

P.S noone talk anymore please god be quiet :|

[quote=Illusions]what on gods earth gives you the right and the arrogance to tell a person, whom you don't know, what art form would suit them better?[/quote]

I have met the person in question, and seen his body frame, and even witnessed him demonstrate some technique I can't recall from his WC training. He would have witnessed me showing El Presidente the weakness in one particular stance he was talking about, by simulating a takedown.

Regardless of which, even if I hadn't met him, I could have said that same thing. Do you need to know me to tell me that shampoo would more effectively cleanse my hair than regular soap? Of course, I might have some condition which makes me allergic to shampoo, but barring that you could give me that advice and it would be sound advice.

[quote]perhaps if you stopped masturbating your ego long enough to read what others have written you'd realise that your replies are contradictory and that you are - contrary to your own beliefs - not the fountain of knowledge.[/quote]

Oh my. I look forward to seeing these alleged contradictions of mine.

[quote]the original thread was started in order to gain an insight into other people's martial arts preferences, yet you took it upon yourself to spread the propaganda of your own preferred style.

False.

1) My own stated preffered style was Brazilian Jiu Jutsu. As second/third choices, I added Judo and MT.

2) I didn't specify anything of MT [url=http://www.gamers-underground.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13319&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20]in my first post[/url]. My second and third posts were about Dokonjonosuke Mishima, nothign at all about MT. Four pages have gone by, and I've haven't 'spread propoganda' of MT, or even BJJ (my preferred style).

My fourth post was a response which criticised a comments someone made, and I onyl portrayed boxing in a positive manner. My fifth post was a query about Kendo.

It's my sixth post, on the fifth page that finally extolled the virtues of MT, but that was in response to other people mentioning it. I was actually agreeing with someone over some point on MT.

So tell me, how am I using this thread to 'spread propoganda'? I'm only responding to comments other people are making about that style.

[quote]to reiterate what has been said, and what you yourself agreed to, there is no singular perfect style, hence your overzealous response to competing opinions is unjustified.[/quote]

There is no single perfect style. True.
However, that DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL STYLES ARE EQUALLY PROFICIENT AT TEACHING FIGHTING ABILITY.

Boxing is superior to tai chi for self defence. Boxing is not perfect. There are martial arts which are superior to boxing.

Do you understand now?

Self-contradictory...right.

cant handle your own forum eh harbinger ;)
besides, while jaian may be correct in some aspects of his argument, he has failed to address others. the rest of us dont have time to type out such mammoth replies as jaian and hence are unable to contribute our full knowledge and opinions ^_^

Quote from Lucifer Dragar:

with muay thai it is all about entering tournaments to show how mighty you are however very few kung fu legends enter tournaments as it proves nothing so you end up with a situation where the very best in muay thai end up facing the lame of kung fu in tournaments, who gives a shit about tournaments anyway. kung fu teaches so much more besides fighting, like discipline!!! idiot!!!

You're full of sh*t.

The Hong Kong government sent their best representatives to challenge the best Thai Boxers. Each and everyone of them lost. By knockout. All five lasted a total of under seven minutes.

Let me repeat, you're full of shit.

Oh yeah, muay thai practitioners who are sent from their parents home to live in muay thai camps from age nine until their mid twenties, training every day from sun up to sun down...they don't learn disclipline. Is that so?

F*ckwit.

Quote from Illusions:
hahahahahaha owned :)

So you agree with his claims? You believe Muay Thai is 'for show', and that KF 'will amost always beat MT'?

Quote from Harbinger:
Key point here, he is right, we were all wrong and now we can rejoice in the correct knowledge.

My, how your comprehension impresses me.

It's been agreed by the majority of people in this thread that MT is the superior striking art.

The disagreement seems to stem in my attitude towards the other participants in this thread.

Not that you noticed before posting. Do you get cookies for your post count?