What do we think?

[scotty1]

I've got the impression from reading some of the threads in this forum (and just from talking to people) that some people are of the opinion that a Kung Fu exponent up against a Muay Thai style kickboxer would get flattened. I think the image in their head is of the Kung Fu guy getting steamrollered by the kickboxer. Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'm not saying this is my opinion, just one i've heard. And no "it depends on the experience of the fighters" blah blah blah.
Do you think Kung Fu can hold its own against muay thai kickboxing? I think the answer is (obviously) yes. But it would seem to me some people don't, so come on, lets be having you.

[toddbringewatt]

Muay Thai is largly brute force. Fighting smart will always win out over pure force. Kung Fu (skill over time) IS fighting smart.

You do the math.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[apoweyn]

Have you ever done muay thai?

Largely brute force? Yes. Coupled with solid technique, training methods, and an intricacy that few people recognize.

Don't kid yourself. Muay thai is a complex and highly effective art. Some of the manipulations I've seen from the plum or frame position are brilliant.

There's no answering this "Who would win" question. It's pointless. But discounting muay thai because it's 'basic' is a bad idea based on a flawed premise.

And lest I be accused of partisanship, yeah I'm a big fan of gung fu.


Stuart B.

[Stumblefist]

Also, kungfu has Dim Mak (the death touch); or can aerial summersault over his head, breaking his neck on the way; the one-finger throw developed by Ueshiba; project Killing Chi from a distance if one is lazy; and if we get ****ed off we'll just rip his throat or his heart out with our bare hand.
Against "Muay Thai Knees and Elbows" we've got sticky elbows and sticky knees.
I don't even think i've started the catalogue of weapons in the kungfu arsenal.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

[toddbringewatt]

"Have you ever done muay thai?"

No. I've also never ballet danced but I know enough from observation to comment on it.

"Largely brute force? Yes."

Great. That IS my premise. You agree. So do you think that "largely brute force" is going to hold up against perfected Internal technique, i.e. Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I?

"Coupled with solid technique, training methods, and an intricacy that few people recognize."

You could say the same of wrestling, boxing, shootfighting, kickboxing, etc. Do you really believe these arts are superior or even equal to an in depth understanding and ability to apply Internal technique?

"Don't kid yourself."

Okay.

"Muay thai is a complex and highly effective art."

Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying it isn't as complex and highly effective as say Small Frame Yang T'ai Chi. And one wouldn't expect it to be given that it also takes a lot less time to master.

"Some of the manipulations I've seen from the plum or frame position are brilliant."

Cool. I'm sure you're right. Notice I didn't equate Muay Thai to the likes of just putting one's head down and charging straight and mindless like a bull.

"There's no answering this "Who would win" question."

Sure there is. The answer is Kung Fu because it is more sophisticated and effective. And I don't think a lot of practitioners who have truly studied both exhaustively would disagree with me.

"It's pointless."

The point is one promises a higher degree of self-defense capability.

"But discounting muay thai because it's 'basic' is a bad idea based on a flawed premise."

I never discounted it. I just said it doesn't stand up to Kung Fu. And not because it's "basic". Because it's MORE "basic". And it's NOT a "bad" idea as you put it. It's simply a correct idea based on the premise you agreed with in your own post: "Largely brute force? Yes." That's my premise. So if it's flawed, why did you agree?

Let the argument continue...

P.S. I agree with Stumblefist.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[apoweyn]

I still hold that it's a flawed premise. You say that, clearly, because gung fu is more intricate it is superior, yeah? That muay thai cannot compete with the internal strength of good gung fu.

Can that premise be proven? You find it self evident. Why? To my mind, no argument that's counted on to prove itself can be considered a strong one.

You didn't say that muay thai was hopeless. In fact, you were quite flattering of it. But you still believe that muay thai, the art, couldn't hold its own against gung fu, the art.

But arts don't fight. People do. So what's the premise? That any muay thai fighter couldn't beat any gung fu fighter? That a good muay thai fighter couldn't beat a good gung fu player? That a muay thai fighter of 20 years couldn't beat a xingyi fighter of 20 years?

Where does the theory end? And what proves it?

I'm not claiming I know the answer. I'm not claiming that muay thai would win. I'm not claiming anything except that it's not as simple as A > B.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

One more thing. Yeah, I do believe in the ability of wrestling, boxing, kickboxing, and shootfighting to beat internal strength.

Just as I believe in the opposite.

I believe that when theory and reality meet, they seldom look alike.


Stuart B.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Well said Stuart.

[apoweyn]

Cheers. :)

[Stumblefist]

I've done Muay Thai!
I've done it in my Chinatown club. (also a little in Thailand).
Point is: basic kungfu can absorb anything, we can take in anything and use it because we provide the basics for all fighting arts.
Do Muay Thai people bring in kungfu techniques?
No. They can't.
They have a limited perspective.

We can eat them, they can't eat us.
We are sponge, they are water.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

[Shaolindynasty]

People are lumping all Kungfu in one style, it's not. There are hundreds of CMA and to tell you the truth I think alot of them COULDN'T stand up to Muay Thai. CMA's tend to forget that the techniques are the simplist ones and they always argue that they are superior cause they have "more complexity". Some styles can beat Muay Thai some are equal and some will lose (if he fighters were clones of each other). People shouldn't just say Kungfu is weak they should say what paticular style they feel is weak cause the styles differ drastically.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[apoweyn]

Stumblefist,

No offense, but you've done muay thai in your Chinatown club? That's a kung fu club, yeah? And "a little" in Thailand? Do you consider yourself a fair representation of the capabilities and limitations of muay thai? I would not, in your place. That's all I'm saying.

Kung fu can absorb muay thai but not vice versa? And that guarantees your success? That's two flawed assumptions, to my mind.

One: why couldn't a practitioner of muay thai learn concepts from kung fu? And integrate them into his kickboxing? Why could a kung fu fighter do so?

I suspect you're working off of the notion that muay thai, as a ring sport, doesn't use kung fu techniques. Independent of whether that's true or not, what's to stop a proponent of muay thai from using techniques outside of muay thai as well? Not in the ring, but in real life.

In the ring, muay thai has proven itself repeatedly, yes?

Two: If kung fu absorbs muay thai, then it can defeat it. I don't buy that. Not wholesale. Even taking into account the sanda/muay thai matches, sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other.

I think that attempts to paint things in black and white are security measures. We don't like the idea that we don't know whether we'd win or no, so we come up with a formula that answers the question.

But formulas don't fight either. Still just people.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Shaolindynasty,

I don't think they should even say that much. Two people fight. One wins. (If that.)

No bigger truths. No sweeping revelations. Just the event and the outcome.


Stuart B.

[EARTH DRAGON]

this is a ridiculous disscussion becuse it doesnt matter what style is better it depends on the fighter!
if 2 equally skilled fighters fought then obviously kung fu would win, it has much more in its arsenal and much more complexed and indepth basis, but again a kung fu practioner can be beat up by a street fighter, wrestler or boy scout if they trained harder, so the question should be what stlye is better for you if you want to fight! the answer is whatever practioner trained harder

http://www.kungfuUSA.net

[apoweyn]

There you have it. Though even between two equally skilled practitioners, no conclusion is foregone.


Stuart B.

[Silumkid]

As far as whether or not Muay Thai uses kungfu techniques or not, my internal teacher says that Muay Thai is a "watered down version of White Crane". I didn't press him on it, but I do plan on asking him for more information about this. Anyhow, his point was "Everyone fears the Thai, but why? It's only technique".

A hammer only works well if I use it correctly.

We are trained in wushu; we must protect the Temple!

[apoweyn]

It's a good question. Why fear the Thai? I think it's as irrational to assume that a thai boxer would win as it is to assume that a gung fu fighter would win.

Why do it at all? Why come up with these hypothetical matches? What do we get out of them?

Entertainment? Okay, game on. Security? It's false security. Two idealized fighters from two idealized styles meeting on an idealized battlefield will tell you nothing about your life, right?

So why dream up these scenarios?


Stuart B.

[Stumblefist]

Ap O. Ok I don't want a big thing of this but, but:
------------
"Do you consider yourself a fair representation of the capabilities and limitations of muay thai?"

No, how much i've done is not important, what's important is that i understand that my KF basics provide everything for MT practice and more. That is what most good kungfu styles do: provide the basics for almost all sports and fighting arts.

"Kung fu can absorb muay thai but not vice versa? And that guarantees your success? That's two flawed assumptions, to my mind."

It obviously can't GUARANTEE sucess. The first statement is not an assumtion but from experience.

"One: why couldn't a practitioner of muay thai learn concepts from kung fu? And integrate them into his kickboxing? Why could a kung fu fighter do so?"
Because kungfu basics are WHOLE BODY basics including external and internal. MT are not. KF basics have a much broader base, you can even consider MT to be part of KF like one of the other posts suggests (crane). But you cannot consider KF to be a part of MT.

"I suspect you're working off of the notion that muay thai, as a ring sport, doesn't use kung fu techniques."

They don't use them , and i trained with them enough to see their basics. and i will say i've had a lot of experience to be able to understand and evaluate martial art basics.

"Independent of whether that's true or not, what's to stop a proponent of muay thai from using techniques outside of muay thai as well? Not in the ring, but in real life."

He will have to start learning KF basics and training methods. KF conversely already has his.

Most MT fighters in Thailand are simply MT fighters.

"In the ring, muay thai has proven itself repeatedly, yes?"

Look at the Baji vs Muay Thai thread in Internal arts at at the picture posted there. And i don't know about "in the ring" who's ring?, who's rules?
and what participants? I don't know if you can get the two different arts (a real representation) to fight.

"Two: If kung fu absorbs muay thai, then it can defeat it. I don't buy that. Not wholesale. Even taking into account the sanda/muay thai matches, sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other."

Sanda represents kungfu? Haha or should i say
:mad: :mad:

(Sanda vs Muay thai) with the rules of both of those groups represents kungfu fighting? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
..............
All the same i grant you, these guys are fierce fighters.

"A wish to go to Heaven is the very beginning of falling into Hell."

[ShaolinTiger00]

Why fear the Thai?

Actually a simple reason.

Muay Thai men are warriors of attrition. Hit a thai guy. hit him again. hit him again. He'll still be there. Watch a thai fight. they will stand toe to toe and exchange blows. Very few traditional martial artists train with this extreme conditioning, endurance and full contact experience that a seasoned veteran of muay thai has in his favor. take away the rules of a ring and you have a man very capable of absorbing punishment and continuing to fight and dish out his own until he is the one left standing.

What do I know... I'm just a kickboxer, what could I know about effective fighting? :rolleyes:

[apoweyn]

Stumblefist,

Honestly, I don't know whether sanda represents gung fu. I guess not. I'm not that familiar with sanda. No need to roll your eyes though. I just wanted to acknowledge that matches had taken place between thai and chinese stylists. And that the chinese stylists had met with a certain level of success.

How do you know that gung fu basics provide you with everything for muay thai practice and more if you admit that you only have a limited knowledge of muay thai? Outside of the theoretical statement that "that is what most good kungfu styles do."

Actually, I'm getting argumentative for the sake of it. And I don't want that. So I'm sorry.

"It obviously can't GUARANTEE success. The first statement is not an assumtion but from experience."

Okay, that's exactly my point. My only point. That nothing guarantees success. This thread has featured statements like "obviously, this" and "clearly, that." And in reality, it's not obvious or clear. Two abstract fighters don't reveal anything about reality, no matter how much we'd like them to.

Gung fu features WHOLE BODY basics? Okay. Muay thai doesn't. Personally, I don't really adhere to that definition of internal and external. But that may be due to lack of experience. So let's assume that there is a profound difference between internal and external. And that muay thai doesn't possess internal. Many styles don't. So, logically, gung fu could defeat any and all of those styles because, on paper, there's more to it.

Do you believe that? Personally, I do not. I mean, listen to it. Gung fu could beat muay thai. Who is 'gung fu'? Who is 'muay thai'? They're not people. They're abstractions. And they don't exist outside of the people who train them. So who are we really talking about?


Stuart B.

[Mr. Nemo]

Well, totally discounting muay thai is obviously dumb, there are some kicka$$ thai fighters. That said, I've watched thai fights, know a little about the art, and had the option to go to a thai gym and chose bagua instead.

It depends on the fighter, but I feel like bagua has more tools to work with. I've never done it, but I would assume trying to stand and trade with a thai boxer is pretty dumb. I say, throw'em to the ground and then kick'em and stomp on'em while they're down there.

But of course I think bagua is the best, because it's my art. Everyone thinks their own art is the best, mostly cause it's the one they know most about.

I think the best weapon thai boxing has is its very intuitive, straightforward approach towards training. From the beginning, they're using their art in live situations, under pressure and having to worry about getting hit back. If bagua trains the same way, I give the edge to the bagua guy.

[Dragon Warrior]

my sigung beat a kickboxer in the ring at the age of 40, while the kickboxer was in his prime(22-24). He knocked him out in the second round. Also, in the first round he knocked him down with a solid punch. I have the fight on tape but i dont know how to put it on the computer. This was about 3.5 years ago.

A couple months later he fought a muy thai fighter in an exhibition match. The muy thai fighter started swinging as hard as he could, so my sigung knocked him out. He got up but decided to quit because he hurt his shoulder. That was a wise decision because my sigung was about to beat the **** out of him. I also have this fight on tape.

He has a professional fighting record of 15-0 with 10 ko's. He's retired now.

I wish i knew how to put the fights on the computer so you guys could see them. Anyway, there goes the theory of kickboxing walking right over kung fu.

For years, religion did nothing but divide. (killa priest)

Religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom. (killa priest)

[apoweyn]

Dragon Warrior,

I hope you don't think I was putting forth the theory that kickboxing will walk over kung fu. I went to great lengths to emphasize that that was not my opinion.


Mr. Nemo,

Well said.

[Braden]

I'm a hardcore bagua guy, but I have the utmost respect for muay thai. It is a fabulous art.

If given the choice between one of the external chinese arts (with the possible exceptions of bajiquan and six harmony mantis) and muay thai, I would be training in muay thai.

A good, traditionally trained Muay Thai fighter is extremely technical and does not throw his center around the way you see so many of them here do. Their sensitivity in the clinch is also remarkable.

[Dragon Warrior]

nah, i wasnt thinking that at all. I was just saying that that theory is totally false

For years, religion did nothing but divide. (killa priest)

Religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom. (killa priest)

[apoweyn]

Dragon Warrior,

Cool. I agree with you completely.

Regards,

Stuart B.

[SevenStar]

Please, PLEASE ask him about that.

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[Kung Lek]

Once again, it's about the stylist and not the style.

I've sparred a muay thai guy and his centre was way to high to withstand the strike of southern kung fu.

However, that is not to discount Muay Thai, it's a good ring fighting style.

It really does depend on the practitioners and their levels of understanding and ability to properly apply their arts in a realistic situation.

Kinda like Kramer from Seinfeld in the Kiddy Karate class. Kramer knows nothing but he's going in and beating on these kids no matter what level.

:D

peace

Kung Lek

[ShaolinTiger00]

I've sparred a muay thai guy and his centre was way to high to withstand the strike of southern kung fu.

However, that is not to discount Muay Thai, it's a good ring fighting style.

My BullSh1t meter just went off. BEEP BEEP BEEP


:rolleyes:

muay thai is a good style Anywhere. Kung Lek has shown his ignorance of fighting in previous posts.
BTW, how are those teeth holding out? :D

[Jaguar Wong]

After some discussions with a Muay Thai instructor here in Vegas (Master Toddy, I'm not sure of how well known he is, but he trains Marvin "the Beast" Eastman of 'King of the Cage' fame), I've learned that the actual fighting strategies are much more complex than I ever would have imagined.

First of all, the man respects all styles, and he feels that it's not the style that makes a champion, it's their heart (he'll train anyone, but the only people that he'll let compete are the ones that show that they have the desire). that's all just flavor text in IMO, so I'll just move on to my point :)

We discussed the use of "simple" techniques like punches, front kicks, and of course the roundhouse kick. First, he told me that the direction that he will take a fighter is based on how they "move" in everyday life. He'll actually watch things like how balanced they are when the walk, or how nimble they are at little things like turning the pages of a book, or picking up coins. If they show really good hand-eye coordination, he'll focus on their punching ability, and if they have strong balance he'll focus on front kicks, and clinching, etc... I didn't get deep enough to find out how he determines other attributes for things like the roundhouse, elbows, knees, etc.

But he did show me many different applications and targets for "simple" techniques like roundhouse kicks, and the front kick. Little things like watching how your opponent positions his arm while using his legs to block your kicks, that way you can switch your target and take out his weapons (repeated kicks to the elbows) when he's expecting the leg or head kicks.

One of his Female fighters (who took home a gold in her weight division of an amateur Muay Thai tournament in Thailand last spring) is known for her front kick (she KO's most of her opponents with front kicks to the face).

I always had respect for the style, but for some reason, I have that much more. :)

On a side note. He brought in some tapes of a bare-knuckle Muay Thai event they hold once a year in Thailand that also had some other "regular" bouts on there. Anyway, there was a small/medium Thai fighter (he was the current light or middle weight champion, I'm not sure which) fighting against a larger opponent from Denmark. Around the middle of the fight, the Thai blocked a kick and his shoulder popped out of joint. Rather than stopping, he was using his front kicks to keep the guy back while he attempted to pop his shoulder back in!

This lasted to the end of the round when the guy's corner man popped it back in for him. Then around the middle of the next round, the same thing happened, but when he was cornered, he got frustrated, and just started unloading roundhouse kicks on the Danish fighter, who just blocked as many as he could before verbally quitting. The repeated roundhouse kicks actually ended up breaking the other guy's forearm, so he had to quit.

.....that was humbling for me to watch :)

Jaguar Wong

[Shaolindynasty]

Muay Thai is good and some Kungfu styles are good so who cares? I am sure every one has there reasons for choseing what they did. Muay Thai is to much of a power thing for me it just doesn't suit me well, but I have a friend who would do better in Muay Thai than my style of Kungfu cause he is alot stronger than me. The conditioning is a major factor of Muay Thai so they usually beat the part time weekend warriors of Kungfu(even some of the Hong Kong fighters were only weekend warriors. I think it is reasonable to say that a pro of ANY style can beat a part time guy. After all it's what they do.

Sorry re read my post and I kind of jumped around abit but it sums up my view.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[jimmy23]

" you can even consider MT to be part of KF like one of the other posts suggests (crane)"

THis is bool sheet, as Wallid would say.

Jaguar, master Toddy is a brilliant MT coach, Id love to have the chance to train under him.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[taba]

given that believe a conditioned man with 100 perfected kf techniques could defeat a conditioned man with 10 perfected mt techniques...

and conditioned man with 10 perfected mt techniques could defeat a (unconditioned) man with 1000 (imperfect) kf techniques...

should not best spend initial training on limited mt techniques to perfection and conditioning rather than many kf techniques?

likewise, there not point of diminishing returns to those limited techniques and conditioning at which point should begin to add kf techniques?

or, hard/external style first, then soft/internal?

does not answer mt v kf debate? mt dominates in initially, kf after time?

[Silumkid]

SevenStar,

When I get the chance to get to him, rest assured I will inquire about this. He has mentioned it in the past and I am curious about it.

I think the problem here is a basic one. Generalization. Sure, Mauy Thai pros train hard, **** hard...but not every Muay Thai fighter trains this way, just as not every kungfu fighter trains internally, combatively, etc. In some cases, no matter how hard one trains, one still can't take a punch...the "glass jaw" syndrome.

If one can make their style work effectively and have the will to do so, you will likely win out no matter what styles are "represented".

We are trained in wushu; we must protect the Temple!

[Silumkid]

By the way, I don't know if it was directed at me or not, but my teacher does not discount ANY style. But it made me think of something...if a person tells you he is a "(blank) fighter" and you really fear him because of that, aren't you already defeated?

Just a thought...

We are trained in wushu; we must protect the Temple!

[toddbringewatt]

"I still hold that it's a flawed premise."

That Muay Thai relies upon "largely brute force"? Impossible. It simply does. Fact. AND you already agreed with it. Are you taking that back now?

"You say that, clearly, because gung fu is more intricate it is superior, yeah?"

No. Never said it. Read my post again. I DID say that Muay Thai is MORE BASIC than Kung Fu. Kung Fu is far more SOPHISTICATED. The more sophisticated (in the direction of efficiency and effectiveness of technique) any art finds itself the better able it is to win, period. This is true of any discipline, physical, academic, industrial, military, etc.

"That muay thai cannot compete with the internal strength of good gung fu."

Yes.

"Can that premise be proven?"

Yes. Look at history. Superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict. AND in most large scale conflicts for that matter. Look at Vietnam's military history. Examples throughout history and across the globe are innumerable.

Another way to prove it would be to take the best Muay Thai fighter one could find and have him fight to the death, no rules against a high-level master of: pick any Internal art.

I know who I'm betting on.

"You find it self evident. Why?"

I DON'T find it self-evident. I find it HISTORICALLY and EMPIRICALLY evident.

"To my mind, no argument that's counted on to prove itself can be considered a strong one."

Well said. I agree. In philosophy we call this an informal fallacy. Its particular name is "begging the question". For instance, "Fonzie is cool because he is cool."

"You didn't say that muay thai was hopeless. In fact, you were quite flattering of it."

Yep.

"But you still believe that muay thai, the art, couldn't hold its own against gung fu, the art."

Yep.

"But arts don't fight. People do."

No kidding. I was assuming we were all aware of this and so when speaking of one art vs. the other I also assumed naturally we are speaking in terms of equally ability on the part of the exponents.

"So what's the premise?"

Muay Thai relies upon "largely brute force." That's it. That's the premise.

The second premise is that brute force loses against superior technique.

The third premise is that Kung Fu has superior technique in the way of its Internal aspects (at least).

The conclusion then would be that Muay Thai as a whole is an inferior fighting art relative to Kung Fu as a whole.

"That any muay thai fighter couldn't beat any gung fu fighter?"

Don't be silly. No. This is not the premise. And it is a ridiculous and false statement and everybody knows it.

"That a good muay thai fighter couldn't beat a good gung fu player?"

No. This is not the premise either. And as a workable statement it is far too vague to be of any use.

"That a muay thai fighter of 20 years couldn't beat a xingyi fighter of 20 years?"

No. Not the premise either. But as a statement it's probably true if both men are of comperable ability, intelligence, etc. and had trained and fought for equal lengths of time.

"Where does the theory end?"

It ends in direct observation of phenomena within the physical universe.

"And what proves it?"

Phenomena within the physical universe consistently indicating that technique is senior to brute force.

"I'm not claiming I know the answer."

That's fine. I understand that.

"I'm not claiming that muay thai would win."

It wouldn't.

"I'm not claiming anything except that it's not as simple as A > B."

But it IS as simple as A > B. It's as simple as sound deductive logic. Plug in my above three premises and conclusion to the following:

B is: relies upon "largely brute force." A is: "superior technique."

The first premise states that Muay Thai has the quality of B.

The second premise states that B is inferior to A.

The third premise states that Kung Fu has the quality of A.

Logic dictates then that therefore:

Kung Fu being representative of A is superior to Muay Thai being representative of B. In other words: A > B.

Now within the premises above there is inductive reasoning. That is to say that because nature can be observed to demonstrate that superior technique usually wins out over brute force then it is probably also true that this will translate to the arena of the specific: Kung Fu vs. Muay Thai.

Now maybe you think that Muay Thai has superior technique to Kung Fu. That it is more refined than Kung Fu in this manner. If that is your position then we have an argument. And I still think you're wrong. But at least we have an argument.

But you can't agree that Muay Thai is largely a brute force activity; agree that technique is senior to brute force; agree that Kung Fu has superior technique AND conclude that neither art is senior to the other in terms of effective fighting. That's just not logically sound. Plainly it's an absurd conclusion.

Perhaps you don't agree that superior technique is senior to brute force. If so then again we would have an arguement. And again I would disagree but at least we would have an argument.

So what say you?

"One more thing. Yeah, I do believe in the ability of wrestling, boxing, kickboxing, and shootfighting to beat internal strength."

I'm not talking about Internal strength. I'm talking about Internal technique, that is, pitting skill, leverage, superior concepts of physics, etc. against brute force. I'm not talking about chi, etc.

"Just as I believe in the opposite."

You think brute force wins out over superior technique?

"I believe that when theory and reality meet, they seldom look alike."

I believe that when sound theory well studied meets reality they should look identical. Otherwise the theory was ill-crafted by its originator or misunderstood by its exponent. Workable theory equals results. No results equals crap theory or incompetent practitioner.

I believe Internal Kung Fu IS workable theory that equals results in the hands of a skilled practictioner.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[straight blast]

As an ex Muay Thai exponent (2 1/2 years hard core) I would have to say that it is an awesome art for learning quickly and becoming proficient quickly. I even had the Muay Thai ego thing happening 'cos I could easily defeat my friends (Hapkido, Aikido, Kempo & TKD) in sparring.
UNTIL
One day I was chatting with one of my two MT instructors about the other arts when one of them said "Have you heard of Wing Chun?" and offered to spar me. As a kickboxer I've taken a fair few good leg kicks in my time, but when my Kru walloped me out of a roundkick with a stop-hit jam kick to my thigh I could barely walk for three days. Turns out he's done a lot of Wing Chun over the past decade.
I am now learning Wing Chun. And not just from that isolated incident either. I was not the world's greatest MT stylist, but I knew how to fight. I'm happy that I've found a way that suits me personally better. ;)

"Through strength, learn gentleness. Through gentleness, strength will prevail"

[Mr. Nemo]

Bruce Leroy = patronizing

[Watchman]

I just read through this thread and noticed you mentioning some video clips you'd like to digitize.

If you are interested I wouldn't mind volunteering my time and equipment to do this for you. All you would need to do is mail me a video tape of the footage you'd like digitized and I can convert it and either email it out, or put it on a zip disk and mail it out to you, whichever you would prefer.

Email me if it's something you'd like to do and I'll give you my mailing address.

Jaguar Wong,

I didn't know Master Toddy was in Vegas! :eek:

I'd like to check out some of that bareknuckle footage.

[toddbringewatt]

Mr. Nemo,

I'm sorry. I don't intend to patronize anyone. I'm sorry I came off that way in my post.

What you may be picking up on is my frustration with having to defend against good arguments that attack things I never really said in the first place and having to keep putting attention back on what I really did say and rephrase it in such a way that it will actually land as intended this time.

I'll try to take more responsibility for that.

I also get frustrated with being accused of doing and thinking things I would never do or think.

And maybe the A > B thing was a bit snotty but I'm sick of dealing with the popular modern attitude that everything is really all so relative that nothing can ever really be understood or categorized or known in any real way -- that nothing can be better than anything else and that there is no right or wrong and everyone's opinion is really equal to everyone elses opinion in terms of its value and worth and judgement really isn't impossible, blah, blah, blah.

Some things ARE simple. Some thing CAN be understood for what they are.

But you know what? I'll try to take more responsiblity for that too.

Anyway, take it easy. Have a good one and may the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[rogue]

"Superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict. AND in most large scale conflicts for that matter."

Didn't in the Civil War, umm I mean the War between the states. ;)

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushing the hijackers.

Never forget

[Grappling-Insanity]

Bruce man you got some funny logic. I dont think you really understand fighting that much. Just because they have better technique does NOT mean they will do better. I think some one with good technique PLUS good conditioning is better dont you???. And I hate to break it to you but Muay Thai DOES have good technique. I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches...

[toddbringewatt]

Grappling Insanity,

"Bruce man you got some funny logic. I dont think you really understand fighting that much. Just because they have better technique does NOT mean they will do better."

I'll ignore the insult and simply take up your point. I think you misunderstood something and I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. No, it doesn't "mean they'll do better" as you put it. My point was much more qualified than that. What I'm saying is all other things being equal, superior technique is senior to brute force. In fact the more force the more force there is to take advantage of in terms of redirection (one simple example of Internal principle, i.e. the princliple of redirection).

"I think some one with good technique PLUS good conditioning is better dont you???."

Yes. I do think so. That is why I gave my premises in an "all things being equal" context. Conditioning is one of the factors which would need to be equal for the logic to hold up.

"And I hate to break it to you but Muay Thai DOES have good technique."

I don't recall saying it didn't. In fact I have very high priase for Muay Thai as a fighting art. If you read my posts again you'll find I attempted to make that clear in several places.

"I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches..."

I assume you are drawing some kind of conclusion based on this. Do you think that's fair given you are only talking about one experience with one exponent of only one art (of which there are literally hundreds in Kung Fu)?

Moreover, the points I have been making on this issue have been with regard to the Internal arts such as Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I, etc. Though Wing Chun does operate on quite a bit of Internal philosophy, e.g. "don't fight force with force," etc.

Anyway, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. But this should clear it up. Let me know if you have any further comments or questions. I'd be happy to discuss them.

Rogue,

You're opening an awful big can of worms with the Civil War comment. Are you sure you want to get into the nitty gritty of it?

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[taba]

bruce,

you not recognize fighting ability as function of technique X attributes?

does not suggest an opportunity cost for every kf technique learned beyond basics? at least initially?

[toddbringewatt]

taba,

Yes, fighting ability would be included in the equation of "all other things being equal."

Think about two clones with identical spirits if you will who have trained in both Muay Thai and the Internal arts their whole lives by the same teacher who held nothing back from either of them. Let's say they had fully mastered each style as much as is humanly possible.

Now they face each other. One can only use his Muay Thai techniques. The other is free to use any and every Internal technique at his disposal. They must fight to the death, no rules and they both try there utmost to win under the above limitations.

Who is going to win?

I'm putting forth that it will be the Internal fellow based on his superior techniques. That's basically what I am saying here with all this. Make sense?

Perhaps a better senario would be the same as the above with the exception that one clone trained only in Muay Thai and the other clone trained only in Internal Arts.

But you get what I'm driving at here.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[scotty1]

Alright, that's enough now.
Good debate everyone, now lets talk about something else.

[Wongsifu]

**** im off for 2 days and i miss whole threads already , well heres my 2 cents...

The way i see it muay thai is a brilliant martial art however it is becoming very *******ized very quickly , just like what happened to kung fu,
the essence of muay thai is to have shins like iron, nowadays most people dotn train this so the martial art loses out, just lke kung fu, people practise tai ji without energy , practise things like hung gar without iron forearms,practise many northern shaolin styles without their respective training methods like iron broom(iron shin) or arts of leaping and jump9ing.

I have heard from more than 1 teacher of previous generation china , i,e not the modern wushu era say 50 years ago, that
muay thai is one of the most formidable arts you could ever fight against , and furthermore many many people who went on to become great kung fu fighters began learning muay thai or "siamese boxing"

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[apoweyn]

Bruce Leroy,

I don't know whether we have an argument or not. I don't particularly like arguments. But I did disagree with the initial post, so I suppose this was inevitable.

I agreed (or meant to agree) that muay thai features a large amount of brute force. I did not mean to imply that muay thai relies on brute force. I believe that it relies on far, far more than that. Solid conditioning, training in infinite variations on well trained basics, strategies and tactics constantly tested versus a resisting opponent, and so on. I believe that your characterization is not an accurate depiction of muay thai. That's all. I believe that it's far more technically intricate than you give credit. And I believe that a person should spend a significant amount of time in a style (read: years) before presuming to understand the full scope of that style's potential.

That muay thai <u>relies</u> on anything isn't fact. It's opinion. Your opinion. Based on your experience of muay thai. Mine is different. That's all I can offer.

Some muay thai fighters will rely on brute strength, others on speed, others on good solid combinations, others on evasive skills, and so on. That's what I mean by people fighting, not skills. There are no archetypal practitioners. I'm sorry if my relativism offends you, but I believe in it.

Whether muay thai is more basic than gung fu is a judgment call based on how you define sophistication. Personally, I regard a synthesis of conditioning, experience versus a resisting opponent, and the ability to consistently apply techniques in slightly different ways (from different angles, to different targets, from different footwork positions, etc.) as sophistication.

I'm sorry if I've misquoted you. It was not my intention to accuse you of saying or implying something you did not. It was a misunderstanding on my part, and for that, I apologize.

"The more sophisticated (in the direction of efficiency and effectiveness of technique) any art finds itself the better able it is to win, period. This is true of any discipline, physical, academic, industrial, military, etc."

Agreed. And muay thai techniques can readily be applied in a way that is efficient and effective. As you said, that makes it able to win, period. But you never contested muay thai's effectiveness, so we have no argument here, I don't think.

You asked me to look at history for evidence that "superior technique almost ALWAYS wins out over brute force in one on one human conflict." I don't know whether this is true. But assuming that it is, the validity of this argument still rests on your assertion that muay thai is reliant on brute force and that gung fu's technique is therefore superior. I know that this is your position, but yes I disagree.

If you are using this logic to support a very specific argument (that gung fu will beat muay thai), then the history you're citing will need to be equally specific, because I cannot agree with the conditions you set. I do not agree that muay thai is based predominantly on strength. Therefore the argument that technique beats strength is irrelevant, to my mind. So any historical examples would need to show gung fu fighters defeating muay thai fighters. And what's more, since my premise was never that gung fu cannot beat muay thai, but only that it's impossible to say until after the fact, you would need to show me that, historically, no muay thai exponent had ever beaten a gung fu fighter.

I know that there are competitions showing one thing and another. And I know that no competition can show the true value of either style (perhaps gung fu in particular). So let's discount competition examples and look for historical examples of actual mortal combat. No rules. Just two individuals fighting.

Personally, I don't have any. And I'm assuming that you don't either, otherwise we wouldn't be fussing about with these theoretical match ups.

"Another way to prove it would be to take the best Muay Thai fighter one could find and have him fight to the death, no rules against a high-level master of: pick any Internal art."

Yes. That would be a strong argument. But it isn't going to happen. I know who you're going to bet on too. But that's an opinion based on a conviction. I do not, however, know who I would bet on. I'm not representing muay thai. Just the uncertainty of the outcome.

"I DON'T find it self-evident. I find it HISTORICALLY and EMPIRICALLY evident."

Based on what? As I mentioned above, without specific examples of gung fu constantly defeating muay thai, I don't see how this is historically or empirically evident. I'm not trying to be a *******. I just don't see it.

So, again, our first premise is that muay thai relies on brute force. I don't agree. I agree that it's capable of brute force, as gung fu is. I'd even agree that it is characterized by the brute strength of its techniques. But not that it relies upon them. The second premise is that brute force loses against superior technique. Sometimes, yes. Always? No.

Ten of the greatest guerilla fighters ever versus 100,000 basic trainees with standard issue equipment. Who would win? Frankly, I don't know. Anything's possible, I suppose. But the example does give me reason to doubt that superior technique can, without exception, defeat brute strength.

But that's an empty argument on my part, come to think of it, because my whole point is that muay thai is not just brute strength anyway.

"The third premise is that Kung Fu has superior technique in the way of its Internal aspects (at least)."

Okay. But now we have qualifiers. "In the way of its internal aspects, at least." That begs the question, do internal aspects win fights? Are said internal aspects completely absent in muay thai? (If we're talking about full body coordination, I'd say not.) And are there historical and empirical examples to back that statement?

"The conclusion then would be that Muay Thai as a whole is an inferior fighting art relative to Kung Fu as a whole."

It would be if I accepted the premises, yes.

So the assertion is that the epitome of gung fu could defeat the epitome of muay thai? If muay thai is, on the whole, an inferior style, and two individuals could epitomize said styles, then presumably the muay thai exponent would be, on the whole, inferior to the gung fu exponent. Yes?

Problems: No two people exist. Not to my knowledge anyway. And if they did, would they fight? And if they fought, would one match decide the issue? If not, how many? Best out of three? Five? Or would one be dead the first time?

I don't know who would win. You feel that you do know. That is the crux of our disagreement.

So the theory ends in the "direct observation of phenomena within the physical universe." That is exactly my point. But since such events have not taken place, or if they have we have not observed them, then the theory persists. Your premises are based on theories. The fact that we're arguing them proves that. If they were observable fact, we couldn't be having a debate. You'd say, "Sifu Chou has beaten the crap out of Ajarn Chai every time they've fought." And I'd say, "Yeah, you're right. Guess that seals it."

"Phenomena within the physical universe consistently indicate that technique is senior to brute force."

Again, that rests on the assumption that one style represents one attribute and the other style the other attribute. That is not the case, to my mind. But for the sake of argument, phenomena actually indicate that sometimes brute force wins and sometimes technique wins. Sometimes you're the tornado and sometimes you're the well-designed coastal town.

[long quote]

"But it IS as simple as A > B. It's as simple as sound deductive logic. Plug in my above three premises and conclusion to the following:

B is: relies upon "largely brute force." A is: "superior technique."

The first premise states that Muay Thai has the quality of B.

The second premise states that B is inferior to A.

The third premise states that Kung Fu has the quality of A.

Logic dictates then that therefore:

Kung Fu being representative of A is superior to Muay Thai being representative of B. In other words: A > B.

But if I disagree with the premises, then plugging my premises into your equation results in a different outcome. And the fact that I'm even capable of having different premises insinuates that it's not as self evident as it seems to you. (Either that or I'm a dolt, which you have every right to believe.)

"Now within the premises above there is inductive reasoning. That is to say that because nature can be observed to demonstrate that superior technique usually wins out over brute force then it is probably also true that this will translate to the arena of the specific: Kung Fu vs. Muay Thai."

Within those premises, yes. But the premises are false, in my opinion.

"Now maybe you think that Muay Thai has superior technique to Kung Fu. That it is more refined than Kung Fu in this manner. If that is your position then we have an argument. And I still think you're wrong. But at least we have an argument."

Yep. That's about where we stand.

"But you can't agree that Muay Thai is largely a brute force activity; agree that technique is senior to brute force; agree that Kung Fu has superior technique AND conclude that neither art is senior to the other in terms of effective fighting. That's just not logically sound. Plainly it's an absurd conclusion."

True. But that's not what I did.

"Perhaps you don't agree that superior technique is senior to brute force. If so then again we would have an arguement. And again I would disagree but at least we would have an argument."

Right again. Technique can be superior to brute strength. But personally, I'd like to get the opinion of some gladiators and lions on the inevitability of that one. Perhaps some bullfighters and bulls, just for good measure. Unless, of course, we chalk up the occassional goring of a bullfighter up to superior technique on the part of the bull.

"I'm not talking about Internal strength. I'm talking about Internal technique, that is, pitting skill, leverage, superior concepts of physics, etc. against brute force. I'm not talking about chi, etc."

Then I'm afraid you might have a woefully inaccurate picture of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, etc. Rest assured that they are every bit as faithful to the concepts of skill, leverage, physics, etc. as gung fu if done properly.

"I believe that when sound theory well studied meets reality they should look identical. Otherwise the theory was ill-crafted by its originator or misunderstood by its exponent. Workable theory equals results."

I agree. And how do scientists determine whether a theory is workable? They test it. So how do we test your theory? Pit the two ultimate representatives of their respective styles against one another (assuming they exist in the first place) and wait til one of them is dead. Not going to happen.

"I believe Internal Kung Fu IS workable theory that equals results in the hands of a skilled practictioner."

I agree. Always have. But I still don't accept it as a foregone conclusion. Gung fu is workable. I believe that wholeheartedly.

[long quote]

Think about two clones with identical spirits if you will who have trained in both Muay Thai and the Internal arts their whole lives by the same teacher who held nothing back from either of them. Let's say they had fully mastered each style as much as is humanly possible.

Now they face each other. One can only use his Muay Thai techniques. The other is free to use any and every Internal technique at his disposal. They must fight to the death, no rules and they both try there utmost to win under the above limitations.

Who is going to win?

They don't exist. They never will. So I'm unclear on what this line of reasoning does for us in the real world. Observation and empirical evidence presumably has to be based on conditions in reality. Otherwise, the results do not translate. Since this scenario cannot be tested in reality, what use is it?

Please don't take this personally. I will try to do likewise.

Regards,


Stuart B.

[jimmy23]

From Bruce Leroys posts he doesnt seem to understand muay thai at all, at all.

"The way i see it muay thai is a brilliant martial art however it is becoming very *******ized very quickly"

WongSifu makes an excellent point


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[Shaolindynasty]

Actually the "hard" techs of Muay Thai would be classified in Kungfu as Iron body training, that IS an internal technique. On a seperate note, cma's are starting to give "internal" styles the unquestioned fear that they once gave Muay Thai. To tell the truth while I respect Tai Chi, Ba gua and hsing yi I don't fear them I have only heard about fights involving practitioners of these arts not seen them first hand. Are the internal arts good martial ats? Yes. Are they superior to Muay Thai and Shaolin? No. As far as effectivness Muay Thai does have alot more capable fighters than Tai Chi(I think the other 2 internal styles are still geared towards fighting aren't they?). As far as basterdized arts, we were taught by the people of the arts origin is it's basterdized it's their fault(I don't think they are though)

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[rogue]

Anybody remember the name of the great internal master that put the slap down on Tank Abbott? ;)

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushi

[Merryprankster]

Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.

Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements.

These are ring sports. Competitors have to be in excellent shape BECAUSE of that. Olympic caliber wrestlers, Good/Great pro boxers and Good/Great MT fighters are stronger and faster than the vast majority of the people out there because they train to win against other people that are also going to come in prepared to win, and who have a similar level of technical ability. Consequently these athletes work to be a little stronger, a little faster, a little tougher than the opponent, because, if all other things are equal, that might provide the edge they need for victory.

What that therefore LOOKS like to somebody who doesn't train in these arts is that they look like brute force. They aren't. I assure you that a 135 lb olympic caliber wrestler would make mincemeat out of me under wrestling rules, and I weigh 190 and wrestled for 5 years. How is that brute force?

My buddy is 170 and a bit weaker than me, and not as fast, but I'd say he catches me at least 66% of the time with a takedown. He's just slicker than I am. His finishes are better. He reads my balance through the most minute of my body movements and knows exactly where to go. Brute force?

Rhadi Ferguson throws me like a rag doll (US National Judo Champ), but it's not because of his explosive power. That alone I could handle. His timing is impeccable, his gripfighting superb, his sensitivity exquisite. He has all that muscle and conditioning because the PEOPLE HE COMPETES AGAINST ARE JUST AS SKILLED. So, to the untrained eye, it looks like two big guys grunting around, trying to push and pull.

IF Wing Chun ever became a ring sport, you'd see the same evolution towards incredible physical condition at decent levels of competition. Why? Because the people competing have great technique, and being in shape might be the difference between victory and defeat.

And you know what? To anybody who didn't do wing chun, it'd just look like "the stronger, faster guy wins."

[apoweyn]

Well said.


Stuart B.

[Shaolindynasty]

That's what I have been trying to tell you :D

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[Braden]

Iron body is NOT an internal practice if you get it through external conditioning.

[Shaolindynasty]

I have taken chinese medicine classes and one thing I learned in that the Chinese have a different veiw of the body than we do. A common veiw of qigong in the west is slow moving "soft" movements but did you know that they also consider weight lifting, bag training, pushups, situps etc. are all qigong. The principle that links them is that where the blood goes the qi goes. Therefore any exercise that brings blood to a paticular area is qigong(working with the qi). Internal and external are halves of one whole you can't have one without the other. Any movement you do whether cirle walking or kicking a bag is BOTH internal and external. That is the point I was trying to make

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[Braden]

I didn't say it wasn't qigong. I said it wasn't internal.

Actually, those kinds of body conditionings are contrary to the principles of the internal arts.

The same goes for so-called "hard qigongs."

[Shaolindynasty]

They contridicte the Taoist styles NOT Buddhist ones which are just as internal.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[Braden]

Sorry, I was going by the actual convention for the definition for the word internal.

I guess if you define internal as any practice where your blood moves, you're quite right, pretty much everything IS internal. I guess I just don't see the value of that kind of definition.

[Jaguar Wong]

Watchman,
Yes Master Toddy teaches here in Vegas (I think he just opened his second location here). I don't have the bareknuckle footage :( I was designing his new website where I used to work, but I would rather not discuss further events about that former employer. I haven't seen Toddy since March of last year, but I'm sure he still remembers me and my bro (we're twins).

He's a very nice guy, and so are his fighters (nice gals in the case of his female fighters).

As far as Bruce Leroy's comment:
Superior technique is senior to brute strength.

I can't agree more, but I think you have a different idea of what Muay Thai's techniques are like. Their technique is superior to most martial artists, because they practice perfecting and using them against other resisting opponents, as well as how to issue power properly. The average Thai fighter is much smaller than the average American Kung Fu guy (I'm also larger than I should be ;)), but they can cause just as much damage if not more than a larger opponent, because they refine their techniques. Thus in most cases, their technique is superior, because of their training methods.

Something tells me that people think that the more that's involved in a technique (like how many locks you have to flow through to open them up for a strike), the more superior it must be. I have seen some Hsing I guys with superior technique, but they look much more basic than the stuff I'm doing (Northern Shaolin). Superior technique in my eyes is the precise execution of a technique, and that is what Boxers, Muay Thai fighters, and many other "sport fighters" are trying to achive.

I also hear stories of great masters that learned very basic techniques, but then they started mastering the more advanced stuff that they were using to win thier fights, but then they would reach a level where all they needed was a handful of solid techniques to "defeat any challenger". That to me says that the superior execution of simple techniques is senior to sloppy execution of any complicated technique.

Another thing, what looks like brute strength to some, looks like using strength to enhance superior technique to others. I hardly see the high level Thai fighters as thugs with thick necks, just running over their opponents. It's through their training that they can rely on one or two solid techniques and stand up with the big boys.

Jaguar Wong

[toddbringewatt]

ap Oweyn,

Well, let's see.

Let's cut through all the crap here for a moment and look at what we're left with.

I get from your posts that it is your position that it is impossible to apply inductive reasoning to the knowlege of the entire past 7 million years of human existence and experience on this Earth and draw a simple conclusion as to whether Muay Thai (an approach to fighting which can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) is inferior, superior or equal to Kung Fu (another approach to fighting which also can be known about and observed in detail and quantity) as an approach to fighting. Is this about it? There's just no way to know?

I need to know if this is your position before I carry this any further.

Merryprankster,

"Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.
Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements."

Fully agreed. ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement.

If you disagree with this? Fine. I don't care to argue it with you. My conclusions take off from there.

As for the rest of your post, I would respond with, "obviously." Nothing new to me here. But it really has nothing to do with what I've actually put forth. I'm talking about an "all other things being equal" senario. As far as what are the unequal factors? One person has mastered Muay Thai, the other Kung Fu. That is all. Of course Muay Thai HAS technique. I never proposed it relies ENTIRELY on brute force.

But once again, here is the crux of the matter:

"Once again, MT, Boxing, and wrestling are lumped together into the "brute force" category.
Sheesh.

All of these are arts/sciences, whatever you want to call them, that use leverage, positioning and appropriate biomechanics (ie, theory), to maximize the efficiency of the movements."

Fully agreed. ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement.

If you disagree with this? Fine. I don't care to argue it with you. My conclusions take off from there.

Braden,

I agree with you.

Jaguar Wong,

I agree with EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAID! AND WELL SAID BY THE WAY!

I only take exception to: "I think you have a different idea of what Muay Thai's techniques are like." No. I don't think I do. Again. I agreed with EVERYTHING you said.

The things that DO make Muay Thai fighters superior when they clean house against Kung Fu guys is exactly what you mentioned: to paraphrase, CONDITIONING and EXPERIENCE FIGHTING. These things are most powerful tools.

BUT they are not the only tools. UNDERSTANDING and the ABILITY to APPLY INTERNAL TECHNIQUE through DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL are also powerful tools. And it is my belief that this alone can overcome ANY amount of CONDITIONING and yes even EXPERIENCE on the part of an opponent who is not familiar with Internal technique or has LESS Internal technique than the Internal practioner, given the Internal practitioner's techniques are drilled to perfection.

Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

That is about the long and short of what I think on the subject.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Kung Lek]

ShaolinTiger00-

Let me reiterate, I have sparred a muay Thai practitioner and his centre was too high and he could not withstand the strikes of southern kung fu.

so if you want to be all persnickety about what you know, feel free, but you don't know me, or what I have or have not done.

so in other words, you just feel free to keep those comments to yourself.

Muay Thai is a good ring sport and the athletes in thailand condition themselves continually. an admirable trait in a fighter.

I have been a practitioner for most of my life since boyhood. How long have you trained and fought?

Nothing personal, but you guys calling BS all the time are usually the ones who have their mouths filled with it.

regards

Kung Lek

[rogue]

"ALL I'm saying is that Kung Fu has MORE theory and MORE practicals on this subject and its understanding and demonstration of the subject is of a higher level of refinement."

Which may or may not matter in an actual fight.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

From now on, enemies who are associated with terrorist activity will not cohabit the globe with the United States of America. William F. Buckley

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushi

[Wongsifu]

can i just stick my nose in for a minute ...

iron body can be external / internal / soft or hard ...
example you can massage yourself on the belly all day and you iwll get a level 1 of iron body and its not internal or chi kung its just soft external...
on the other hand you cn beat yourself whilst breathing into the body part you are beating , which would be internal and yet hard ...

its just that usually people bundle hard with external and soft with internal

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[Braden]

Wongsifu - I agree completely that there are internal and external methods of iron body skills.

Any method derived from beating yourself however, no matter how much it is coupled with imagery, breathing, whatever, is an external method.

The internal iron body methods do not involve the practitioner beating himself, just as the internal iron palm methods do not involve the practitioner hitting things with his palm.

[LEGEND]

Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

Well if that's the case then how come many KF practioner ALMOST ALWAYs get decapitated in the CMA san shou tourneys( BALTIMORE ) I go to??? Your not making a lot of sense...u're pulling a mind vs. matter and lol...if that was the case ALWAYs...then u can have guys like SUGAR SHANE MOSELY ko MIKE TYSON. But unfortunately reality kicks in. Cause maybe SUGAR can win 1 our of the 10 times they fought but sayin ALWAYs...NOPE. This type of thinking should not be BOUGHT...it is the same type of thinking that the BOXER REBELLION instill in many CHINESE fighters who ended up getting SHOT UP thinking that they could deflect bullets!

A

[toddbringewatt]

Rogue,

If all other factors remain equal, it will be the DECIDING thing that matters in a real fight.

P.S. I LOVE that flag. Where did you find it?

Legend,

I'm not talking about ring fighting. I'm talking about fighting for one's life. And I'm talking about a MASTER (classical definition found in any decent dictionary) of Internal Arts.

I guarantee you won't find any true masters in the ring.

Also, I never said anything about mind vs. matter.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Wongsifu]

doughboy are you loaded ??? or do you **** it out ??
boy that must be fun i just read your profile ... I dont have enough money to buy jow !!! sometimes
:D

Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

is soo god**** rite !!!! wwho said this i cant find it in the posts only references to it !!!
give the man a pat on the back ...
who is the man
give ihm a medal...
!!!!

braden ... what im trying to say is there is also soft and hard arts ... gang rou .. not only internal and external ...

example i do soft internal iron body its only postures with breathing

but i also do hard internal , which is hitting yourself with breathing excersises...

on the other hand when i hit the bag , its all external i just hit the bag and apply jow ..

do you get what i mean by the difference between external and internal and hard and soft ...

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[Tigerstyle]

I'm gonna agree with Bruce Leroy (c'mon guys, he posseses the power of The Glow! ;) ), because if all other factors are equal it would seem that having a couple more techniques to rely on would be the deciding factor.

BUT

The thread said "a Kung Fu exponent up against a Muay Thai style kickboxer". It doesn't necessarily say "The Grandest(real word?) Master of each style, equal in every way except for style of choice, against each other in an area void of random factors". The question could be "average" practitioners of each style.

One of the major strengths of Muay Thai is the heavy emphasis on physical conditioning. Taking it out of the equation is like saying that the amount of physical conditioning in kung fu schools in general is the same as that of Muay Thai schools in general.

If I say to the KFO members "Raise your hand if you practice kung fu," lots of hands would go up (and Ralek would pipe in with a "witty" remark). If I then added, "Keep your hand up if you train at the the same level as a competitive professional (or even amateur) athlete." Many hands would come down. Of course some hands would stay up (props to those hands, too), but if I were to say the same thing to the Muay Thay people here, a higher percentage of hands would still be up after statement two.

Heavy conditioning and constantly drilled "basic" techniques shouldn't just be dismissed as random factors, because they are likely to be stressed more in a Muay Thai boxer's training than that of a Kung Fu fighter.

[toddbringewatt]

Wongsifu,

That was me. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Tigerstyle,

Thanks for the props. You're wise to respect the GLOW!

By the way, nice point about average vs. average. I think Muay Thai wipes the floor with Kung Fu in that regard. I think the average Kung Fu fighter couldn't hope to hold his weight against the average Muay Thai guy. But in 20 years that could change drastically, as Muay Thai becomes more popular and McDojoed the way Kung Fu has over the years.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Jaguar Wong]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BUT they are not the only tools. UNDERSTANDING and the ABILITY to APPLY INTERNAL TECHNIQUE through DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL are also powerful tools. And it is my belief that this alone can overcome ANY amount of CONDITIONING and yes even EXPERIENCE on the part of an opponent who is not familiar with Internal technique or has LESS Internal technique than the Internal practioner, given the Internal practitioner's techniques are drilled to perfection.
[/quote]

I do agree with you there. But you're saying that just because someone DRILLS the use of an internal technique, they can defeat someone that DRILLS the use of an external technique, just becuase the internal technique is more sophisticated in regards to body mechanics. He's still got to land the technique for it to work :).

I know how devastating some of Kung Fu's strikes are, I used to train with a Sifu who knocked the wind out of me through a kicking shield with an elbow strike (the same kicking shields that I absorb repeated roundhouse kicks, and spinning back kicks with from larger/stronger students). I know he developed this power by drilling it over and over again, because he was totally relaxed when he did it (he said it wasn't full power either, but that's just what he said, I make no judgements about that), in fact, he was talking to me as he did it.

But, that doesn't mean someone with precise technical ability with weapons like roundhouse kicks, and the overhand right will always be defeated by it, because they don't have much exposure to it. after all, if they're controlling range they can avoid it without even realizing it. Of course, that battle could go either way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique. [/quote]

Again, great point, but after talking to Master Toddy, he trains his guys the same way. They are taught HOW to kick, and HOW to punch. He has them perform the same basic technqiues over and over again until they do it right. His big thing is accuracy, and precision with penetrating execution of all strikes. He doesn't worry about weight training, his guys usually do that on their own. He is teaching them the same way he was taught, which is the same way most camps teach it in Thailand, but I'm no expert, I am just babbling from what he told me. *grain of salt and all :)*

Jaguar Wong

[Jaguar Wong]

and Tigerstyle,
I know what you're trying to say with the whole "all things being equal" remark, but sometimes (I stress sometimes), that would be like having an old wild west gunfight, and betting on the guy with two guns. The guy with one gun (less techniques, but equally honed reflexes), can still survive.

All I'm saying is that you can't always be sure of an outcome, because of the theories presented on paper. Life is weird that way.

Jaguar Wong

[Wongsifu]

no bruce leeroy , i wasnt being sarcastic ....
you see hardly any real amrtial artists are left around here .. but i have noticed that when i train with a real master..
yeah like the one in the last dragon .. who glows and all...
I have noticed that he transmitts his power to you just through teaching ....
this is why a short time with a real master is amazing , he makes you fight and react like he does just because the auras of the two people interact ...

so like you said when oyu fight , its not you its like a universal power of all of the teachers and their teachers who have taught you .....

i have heard that power is more complete when the teacher passes away ... but i dont knmow

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[toddbringewatt]

Jaguar Wong,

You have excellent points. Well said. I tend to agree with you on all accounts but one. I just happen to be of the opinion that the techniques being taught in Muay Thai, though deadly effective, are not as refined, sublime, sophisticated, etc. or resultantly as effective as those of the Internal Arts.

Thanks for your viewpoints. Sharp guy.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[toddbringewatt]

Thanks, Wongsifu. Yeah, that's cool. I think you're right. And well put.

That's an interesting datum about the teacher dying. Where did you hear that?

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[chokeyouout2]

We will never find out because noone who does kong phooey will ever fight.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

[chokeyouout2]

So,I am a good fighter if someone tells me so?Thats hilarious.What ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight?


Why? Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. And that is far more valuable. And that will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS beat the man in front of you relying only on his own strength, speed, size, conditioning, experience (no matter how personally vast), and lesser understanding of Internal technique.

Aint nobody talkin when i'm talkin so shut the fu9k up!

[Braden]

WongSifu - I agree with you, it is just that what you call 'hard internal' I would simply call 'external', because those practices conflict with the principles of 'internal' (by the standard definition) arts. So your nomenclature could be misleading.

Vasco - For people who don't fight, the chinese sanda team sure fared pretty well against the thais.

[Grappling-Insanity]

Bruce I didnt mean to insult you earlier but I still think what I said is true. Doing drills is NOT fighting. I can do drills all day and maybe it will highten my reflex's, maybe I'll learn a technique and get to be a little bit better as a fighter. But if I go out and spar for a hour I learn SO MUCH more!!. Sparing is the best way to learn how to fight. To see how your take a punch and just keep on going. To have the air knocked out of your lungs so hard you can barely stand, but you gotta keep jabbing your way out. THIS IS HOW YOU LEARN HOW TO FIGHT EFFECTIVLEY!!

Most internal styles dont really spar all that much, no offense guys I know some do. But it all boils down to the fact that Muay Thai guys usually train harder (usually!). I mean you want to train harder so you dont get your a$$ kicked next time you spar!.

[jimmy23]

"Because when an Internal practitioner relies on his technique (as taught to him by his teacher) as opposed to his own strength, speed, conditioning or even "personal experience," he is relying on the experience of hundreds of years of fighting men before him. "

so, all the experience of boxing coaches passerd down through the years and generations does not count? What attitude you have! Do you think a muay thai coach (or boxing or wrestling or bjj coach) just made the style up? Muay thai is a battlefield art, one reason it has survived in its current form.

I cant believe some of the asserttions being made here.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[rogue]

Bruce,
There are just too many variables to account for such as technique, experience, fatigue, mental state, speed, environmental factors, and so on, and that's the point, things will never be equal. Does brute strength always beat technique? Of course not, but sometimes it's enough and does. Heck sometimes blind stupid luck is enough to win a fight.


PS You have good taste in flags!

Do a search on "Gadsden flags", you'll get a whole bunch of sites with various sized gif & jpegs and different versions.

Gadsden (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-gads.gif)

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” [I]Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his open mobile line right before rushing hijackers.

[iron thread]

"I sparred with a wing chun guy the other day. I did NOT see him doing any fancy moves just chain punches, punches and more punches..."

What idiot was this that kept doing chain punches?

[toddbringewatt]

Okay. Here we go...

vasco de gama,

"So,I am a good fighter if someone tells me so?Thats hilarious.What ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight?"

No you're not a good fighter because someone tells you so. That IS hilarious. As for what ever happened to actually physically testing yourself in a real fight? Nothing. I'm not necessarily against it. But ring fighting is not real fighting. Real fighting is when you attack or are attacked for real.

Grappling Insanity,

"Bruce I didnt mean to insult you earlier but I still think what I said is true."

Thanks. None taken.

"Doing drills is NOT fighting."

You're right. It's training to fight.

"I can do drills all day and maybe it will highten my reflex's, maybe I'll learn a technique and get to be a little bit better as a fighter."

You're underestimating the power of drill here.

"But if I go out and spar for a hour I learn SO MUCH more!!."

That's your opinion. Maybe you haven't drilled much. Maybe the drills you've done haven't been that good. I don't know. Though I will say you learn quite a bit by sparring, yes.

"Sparing is the best way to learn how to fight."

If you're going to limit your technique to that which doesn't maim or kill, yes, I agree.

"To see how your take a punch and just keep on going. To have the air knocked out of your lungs so hard you can barely stand, but you gotta keep jabbing your way out. THIS IS HOW YOU LEARN HOW TO FIGHT EFFECTIVLEY!!"

This does teach you how to fight more effectively if you can learn from it and alter your technique appropriately, yes. But getting hit is not necessary to learning how to fight anymore than getting in a car wreck teaches you how to race.

The whole point of martial arts is to avoid being hit.

"Most internal styles dont really spar all that much, no offense guys I know some do. But it all boils down to the fact that Muay Thai guys usually train harder (usually!)."

Yes, Internal styles don't spar that much. No offense taken. And yes, Muay Thai guys do usually train harder. I would say that this is true.

"I mean you want to train harder so you dont get your a$$ kicked next time you spar!."

Unless you don't plan on sparring.

jimmy23,

"so, all the experience of boxing coaches passerd down through the years and generations does not count? What attitude you have! Do you think a muay thai coach (or boxing or wrestling or bjj coach) just made the style up? Muay thai is a battlefield art, one reason it has survived in its current form."

What you've done here is taken my comment completely out of context. I suggest you read it again. This time in context with the evolution of posts leading up to and after it.

Of course the experience of boxing coaches count. It just doesn't add up to the experience of 2000 years of warfare. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude but perhaps you should examine your own. I don't think Muay Thai coaches or boxing or wrestling or BJJ coaches "made the style up." I just don't think it comes from as deep an understanding as what is present in the foundation of styles such as Tai Chi, Bagua, Hsing I, etc. And I have a great deal of respect for Muay Thai as a battlefield art.

By the way, a famous Muay Thai coach who teaches out here in Monterey Park, California is also a Wing Chun master. He believes that a good Wing Chun fighter can take a good Muay Thai fighter.

So, I'm not just pulling wild crap out of my ass here. There is an awful lot of agreement on the point I am making here by a lot of people within the larger MA community.

For what it's worth.

P.S. If you can't believe some of the assertions being made here, jimmy, then perhaps it is not simply that we're all morons and that you're a genius. Take a moment and try to understand some of these assertions with a little more perspective and a little more respect for the context in which they are delivered.

rogue,

I agree with everything you just said. If you look carefully, however, it does not refute any of the assertions I've been making on the subject.

And thanks for the compliment of my taste in flags. Where did you find that thing. It rocks!

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[jimmy23]

I cant believe some of the assetions made here because they all seem to come from a "kwoon warrior" point of view.

Drills are ok to develop certain aspects of skills, but are no substitute for hard, dynamic sparring . Why is this? Becuase in a drill you agree upon the distance, the rules, and the level of what you can do. MUCH more restrictive than ring or cage fighting, or the training to do either.

"But getting hit is not necessary to learning how to fight "

Wrong, sorry. Get into a fight and get nailed, see how you react physiologically, and mentally. If you havent experienced this, likely youll freeze.

"I just don't think it comes from as deep an understanding as what is present in the foundation of styles"

Understanding of combat occurs at many levels. The chaos and unpredictability of a fight is why "war arts" tend to keep the number of technicques to a minimum. Just because an art is more "complex" doesnt mean its more effective. In my expereince, the opposite is often true.

"By the way, a famous Muay Thai coach who teaches out here in Monterey Park, California is also a Wing Chun master. He believes that a good Wing Chun fighter can take a good Muay Thai fighter"

Well, i would have to disagree with him, in general. Although, in my experience , wing chun fighters tend to be competant if they are trained properly, more so than most of the internal stylists ive met.

Of course, Im a mixed martial artist with a good deal of street experince, so i guess my opinion doesnt count as much as handed down traditions.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[rogue]

Bruce, click on the Gadsden link in my prior post.

http://www.interesting.com/stories/gadsden/images/museumshop.jpg

"Americans don't have the courage to come here," Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban soon to be getting jiggy with his first of 70 virgins.

“Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.” Last words of Todd Beamer heard over his mobile line right before rushing a hijacker.

[Shaolindynasty]

I agree with Jimmy23 especially about the complex techniques. For all you hard core traditionalists remember all those sories and legends about people learning a SINGLE technique to the point of mastery then becomeing a hugly powerful fighter. I think on some levels the "limited" techniques of Muay Thai give them an advantage on average. For instance if you have a Muay Thai guy and a Kungfu guy who both train only twice a week or somthing like that I would deffinately put my money on the Muay Thai fighter. Most styles of Kungfu are too vast in technique to be studied part time, it was designed for people who needed it not people who want a hobby. Muay Thai is equally as serious but has less technique to worry about so the student would actually get more out of a smaller time since that time is focused on a smaller range of movements. Which is why it takes so long to gain proficency in Kungfu but fighting skills come in the first months of Muay Thai. I highly respect Muay Thai(not fear it)but at the same time I also respect Kungfu, Karate, TKD, JKD, boxing, capeoria, fencing, wrestleing, BJJ, JJJ, Judo, Kali, Savate etc. Because good fighters have come from ALL these different methods, I am truley open. I have chosen my paticular style to train in but I still respect every one else(not falsely like alot of people on this board) I enjoy watching other styles, not to point out their flaws or to stroke my ego by saying my style is better but because I enjoy all "fighting type" activities. Even if the techiques and methods are different the mindset of the fighter is the same.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[Archangel]

I really don't know if your trolling or not. Can you answer a few questions.

1) how do you test your theories

2) If you don't test them how do you know they work

[jimmy23]

let me add that I have seen people from allstyles that could fight very well. I met an internal stylist once who was frighteningly good (Su Dong-Chen). But, these were the exceptions to the rule.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[toddbringewatt]

jimmy,

Much of what you say is true, but not necessarily contrary to what I've put forth here.

As for the rest of it, it sounds to me like a lot of propaganda I've heard on the subject before. Not a lot of convincing argument. This for instance smacks of it:

"Drills are ok to develop certain aspects of skills, but are no substitute for hard, dynamic sparring . Why is this? Becuase in a drill you agree upon the distance, the rules, and the level of what you can do. MUCH more restrictive than ring or cage fighting, or the training to do either."

Sounds to me like you've had little experience with two-man drills aimed at maiming and killing, where your partner is sufficiently skilled in acrobatics to allow you the freedom to throw and yank him around the room like a rag doll -- very close to full contact.

Perhaps you've had the wrong experience with the wrong drills. But you're severely underestimating the value of drills here. That's for sure.

As for the comment about getting hit and freezing? I've been hit plenty of times (HARD) and have never had a problem with freezing at all. I've even had experience with this in actual combat and I came out on top.

And what I'm saying (with regard to not needing to be hit) is that if you have the discipline to train in an effective form of combat, you may not ever get hit to begin with. So, no problem. If you disagree, fine. Let's leave it at that. I've said my piece on the matter.

"Understanding of combat occurs at many levels. The chaos and unpredictability of a fight is why "war arts" tend to keep the number of technicques to a minimum. Just because an art is more "complex" doesnt mean its more effective. In my expereince, the opposite is often true."

I agree. I'm not talking about complexity.

"Of course, Im a mixed martial artist with a good deal of street experince, so i guess my opinion doesnt count as much as handed down traditions."

And you're either awfully naive or awfully arrogant to think your opinion does count as much. You're only one fighter in a sea fighters throughout history. And I'm sure many of them had much more to offer on the subject than you do now, currently and personally.

rogue,

Thanks for the link.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Shaolindynasty]

I view sparring as a test for the stuff I drilled and learned. Oh and by the way people wouldn't be so hard on internal stylists if they didn't always come off so arrogant(the younger generations) an experienced internal stylist knows that there are alot of styles and fighters equal to them.

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[jimmy23]

you know though, its funny. Master Su , an interanl stylist, told me that due to all the interpetations of the different arts, to how much has been kept secret then lost, to technicques not being understood fully when they are passed down,or from a paticular practitioners interpetation, that we really dont know exactly what was done in the past. We have a gross idea from pictures and text, but this does not capture the essence of a style and is in no way a substitute for the actual presence of those long dead.

In other words, Su ( an internal stylist, tai chi, bagua, and hsing i) straight out said that one must develop ones own style, that every style is re invented with each generation. Boy, he must be arrogant too eh? Despite his reputation as an internal stylist who is very effective at combat.

"And you're either awfully naive or awfully arrogant to think your opinion does count as much. You're only one fighter in a sea fighters throughout history"

Actually, there is a long line of boxing, muay thai, ju jutsu and wrestling practicioners who agree with me and my general approach. Oh wait, they dont have title like gandmaster so their opinion isnt as valid.
Again, to simplify, you dont know how the old timers really looked, and just like a rumor that is passed from person to another, changing at each stop, styles also lose and gain attributes over time. If you think you train the way a 5th century monk did, well, Id be willing to bet thats wishful thinking on your part.

"Sounds to me like you've had little experience with two-man drills aimed at maiming and killing"

What are these drills? How do you know they will really maim or kill, or even work consistently against a fighter who doesnt move like someone from your school? Im a skeptic when it comes to claims like this, and using an appeal to authority (" masters did this in the past" ) is as fallacious when discussing combat as it is in a philosophical discussion.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[This message was edited by jimmy23 on 10-02-01 at 08:29 PM.]

[Shaolindynasty]

A true traditionalist is really bound by tradition. Learn the methods then basically you have to see them through your own eyes. If the practitioner on any art feels like they can't match the previous generation at his best than what is the point of even training. Personally through the things I have read about the Chinese and Japanese historical social order, the teacher often held back "secrets" and made the students feel they could never measure up not because they were unworthy but to ensure their status.

But back to the original topic.....

New classes New online Catalog
www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net (http://www.shaolindynasty.cjb.net)

[jimmy23]

Shaolin, although I dont move like an internal stylist, I learned more from Su in a week (an intense week lol) about how the body moves than in years of previous study. As a mixed martial artist, I learn a LOT faster now, because Su understood the principles of human motion, and shared them freely.

Its funny, but he brought a student here with him , and was very angry at the kid. When i asked why, he told me it was becuase the kid mimicked perfectly every motion and combination Su taught him. Su saw this as an insult to his teaching, that the kid (I say kid , he was 21) should have taken the teachings and adapted them, made them different, made them his own. He said that if we respected him(Su), we would do the same.

I have never forgotten that lesson.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[Nutt'nhunny]

who did your master su ever fight? Mike Patterson faught full contact matches in Taiwan and his students do well too.


check out this xing I site, I think it's

www.xingster.com (http://www.xingster.com)

[jimmy23]

in the early 70s Su won the Taiwan Open twice, the first time after only two years of training. He isnt "my" master, I call him that out of respect only, and its a title he laughs at.

Who did Mike Patterson fight, what organization, what was his record? And most importantly, what does he have to do with the last few posts ive made? If you want to quote fighters, I have a whole buttload i can qoute :)


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[Nutt'nhunny]

so he didn't just do forms?

[jimmy23]

lol that was an adult hosting site you linked.

No, Su didnt just do forms.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[Braden]

Jimmy - the perspective you're describing from Mr. Su is one that is "hard-coded" into the traditional mindset of the internal arts (taiji, xingyi, bagua, liuhopafa, yiquan).

[jimmy23]

I felt it was worth mentioning since it was said earlier that to have ones own perspective is arrogant, since the "wisdom of thousands of years" of warriors have gone into the forms. I just wanted to make clear that even among the more "traditional" arts there are those who encourage you to think for yourself and not blindly follow what is put in front of you.


"You guys have obviously never done any real fighting if you are mocking spitting"
Spinning Backfist

[Braden]

Yeah. I agree it's kind of silly. I consider myself a traditionalist, and there's alot to say for trusting the wisdom of your elders. I could never have designed the wonderful training tools I have been given, and I've yet to even begin to probe their depths. But thinking that this takes a back seat to thinking for yourself and making the art your own is, I believe, missing the point. I would go so far as to say that if you are unwilling to 'play' with what you are given in the chinese internal arts and let it find it's own way into your body, you will never get very far. The 'classics' of the internal arts of filled with stories to make sure we remember this. The 'do things exactly as your teacher did them' seems to be a philosophy of the chinese external arts (as well as arts from other cultures). It's one of the things that turns me off of them, although I'm sure that every good teacher, regardless of style, sees the value of what we're discussing.

On a somewhat related note... I haven't really been following this thread word for word. But did someone say that internal chinese art techniques are complicated? I think Mr. Leroy asserted somewhere that they contained intricate principles, and someone else misinterpreted him to mean the techniques were complicated (though I could be wrong; again, I haven't read all the posts). Just, as an internal arts practitioner, I think it's worth clarifying that all of our techniques are ridiculously simple (and few in number, insofar as that way of thinking can be attributed to internal methods). The internal arts are definitely about the making of the stuff, rather than the stuff itself (when to punch, rather than a million ways how to punch, to paraphrase someone else).

[toddbringewatt]

jimmy,

Please refer to my previous posts for reference to your most recent questions. The answers are there.

Braden,

You wrote,

"I haven't really been following this thread word for word. But did someone say that internal chinese art techniques are complicated? I think Mr. Leroy asserted somewhere that they contained intricate principles, and someone else misinterpreted him to mean the techniques were complicated (though I could be wrong; again, I haven't read all the posts)."

You're not wrong Braden. This particular thread is rife with this sort of misrepresentation. I appreciate your awareness and careful attention to academic detail. Well done!

I've also enjoyed all of your posts on this thread. A great thinker.

Archangel,

You wrote,

"Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't know if your trolling or not. Can you answer a few questions.

1) how do you test your theories

2) If you don't test them how do you know they work"

These are EXCELLENT questions!

As to 1): bluntly, there is no way to truly test maiming and killing without maiming and killing.

As to 2): plainly, one must rely on his or her knowledge of physics, physiology, athletics, biology and a keen awareness of how much force is required by experience applying the techniques to a live human body who communicates back when pressure begins to exceed safety limits, pain tolorances, etc. This and experiencing the recieving end of the techniques with a trusted and trained partner as well.

Also the effects of these sorts of actions are well documented in military field manuals, journals, and various martial treatises. Also one must use his ability to judge human character to decide whether or not an instructor, teacher, author, etc. is lying to me or not about his direct empirical experiences. And let us not also forget the value of plain common sense in these matters. You don't have to actually break someone's nose to know you are capable of rendering the result for example.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions. And as to trolling, I think if you follow the thread from the beginning you'll be able to easily make up you own mind on the matter.

All the best,

P.S. Archangel, to answer your above questions more thoroughly I give a detailed account of my inductive reasoning on the matter in my original and successive posts. Have at it. Let me know what you think.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[toddbringewatt]

Another thought on the subject...

You know, one might argue that Muay Thai is really more of an approach to training than anything else. An approach to training techniques that were there long before its inception as a style.

One might argue Kung Fu has everything Muay Thai has and more.

One might argue Muay Thai is a streamlined version of a limited range of techniques already found in Kung Fu.

Perhaps the success of Muay Thai has more to do with the quote: "I do not fear the 1000 techniques you know. I fear the one technique you have practiced 1000 times."

Food for thought.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Wongsifu]

you know i find this post rather amusing as 90% of the people who are posting in the thread either dont know the story of real muay thai or dont know about real traditional kung fu .
they make assumptions about the other style that are tottaly off !!!

I cant keep up with the conversation as most of it involves dissecting the words that each other are saying !!!


most people assume that in muay thai it involves lots of sparring al the time, this couldnt be further from the truth, this is the americanised version how you lear watered down MT /kickboxing, in thailand up to quite a few years ago when the fighters go to competition the fighting is so rigorous , the winner needs at least 3 weeeks to a month off training just to repair his body , not mentioning the loser... And believe it or not most of their time is spent on conditioning and practising drills...
Ironic isnt it its just like traditional kung fu.....

The minute thailand starts to do their modern methods of fighting and dont train your shins unless you are youngre than 13 years old because of calcium defcieny and **** like that what happens , the lose to sanda guys....

If you really think muay thai sparred so much can you imagine eating those elbowws to the temple every day ? you would make tyson look like bloody einstein!!

Drills are important they can be a substitute for sparring to an extent .... and they are needed more than sparring is...

I wongsifu shall strike fear into the hearts of trolls and mma guys who **** me off on these forums oh and in real life.

[apoweyn]

Bruce Leroy,

I spent about an hour addressing the points you made in what I'd hoped was a respectful, thoughtful, and thorough manner.

And if all you got from that was the following:

I get from your posts that it is your