Why Ralek Is Good for the Forum

WOw, bet that got your attention! But ,let me make a point . Ralek is good because, even though you ignore half of what he writes, the other half at least makes you think.

As you all know , I m a MMA stylist(as general as saying a kung fu stylist), but I come to this forum to get opinions that are different than mine. Ralek at least exposes you to other points of view. Yes, he rude, hes full of crap most of the time, but your enemies will tell you truths that your friends wont.


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

Ralek makes you think?? You believe that?? Hell, yeah, he makes me think he's a total *****, but that's about it...
On a side note, if your friends tell you what you want to hear instead of what you have to hear, change friends...

Good job on catching my attention anyway, tricky you :-)

Crimson Phoneix. Your friends will tell you kung fu works and is good for fighting. I show people that kung fu sucks and those stances will get you KO'd (i actually KO'd a tai chi instructor thus becoming the Grand Ultimate Fist).

I am the Grand Ultimate Fist

Woof!
Aroooooo! Woof woof woof.
Arf-arf!
Bow-bow.....GRRRRR.
bow wow woof woof
pant pant....
Yiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!

"Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah...
This is the end, My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me"

Last week the story was that he hit the Taiji instructor and the guy fell down....now it is a KO.

Will it be maimed next week and...in 2 weeks, Ralek will be on the run from the police with a warrant out for killing a man....

All this from a Tekken warrior....

He's like the **** in school, all he's good for is an easy laugh and to beat up every once in a while just so you can feel tough. :mad:

Pain is weakness leaving the body.

lol. good call ralek. yeah kung fu does suck. but hey, i get to wear this really cool sash. its green!!!

oh, and theres this really friendly dog that comes to training some nights. thanks to my training, i have no doubt that i could KO this dog with as little as a baseball bat. so as you can see, kung fu isnt a total waste.

Ralek, here's the deal: I have trained 4 years in savate, fought free style in the antique savate rules that are simlple: anything allowed...I have been training gong fu now for 4 years and feel it's much deeper than savate...I still train with some savate free-stylers and I apply what gong fu taught me in an efficient way...I wouldn't have trained 4 years in gong fu if I didn't see benefits over savate...are you going to doubt savate's effectiveness as well?? My friends/sparring partners do not tell me gong fu works or not, we go at it and I make my own opinion...so far I know firsthand that it does work, and they learnt to respect it too...Here's the diff between you and me: I know first hand, you know from videos...
I don't even know why I should justify, but here it is for you once again: stances are trained for their principles, you use the principle behind the stance, not the stance itself.

I have nothing against you per se, but you worry me: you think you are showing the gong fu players their art is ineffective (yet, you have only met ONE in a SPARRING match)...all you are doing is building up illusions that could get you severely injured or killed in the streets...
I fought in the streets, won some, lost some
(and it HURTS)...Have you??

One last thing, sorry for calling you a P R I C K...I had no reason to be insulting, I beg your pardon...you are just a lost kid whose mistake could be expensive...

now people you surely cannot be that naieve? Everyone ought to know by now that Ralek has never laid a finger on anyone, except maybe someone half his age or on a docile animal of some sorts. However there are still some who are amazingly taken in by him. Ralek does seem to have a single purpose on this forum pure and simple, to make the rest of us look good!!

Repulsive Monkey,

On that count, you're wrong, I'm afraid. He fought Shaolin Tiger. Had I only heard the story from Josh's (Ralek) point of view, I'd be inclined to dismiss it. But I know Shaolin Tiger now, and he's discussed it with me at length.

It would be nice to play Josh off as an unskilled goof ball. But he isn't. He has skills.

That said, I still think it's a shame that we burn so much time on this forum going over the same patch of lawn again and again.


Stuart B.

I think if we keep beating this dead horse he really WILL get up eventually.

K. Mark Hoover

Crimson Phoneix. Stances are trained for their principles? Why train stances if your not going to use them to fight? You should train like you fight. The priciple for stances are useless if they have no fight value. So that's just wasted training time.

I would have to say that a kung fu person i met would disagree with you on stances. He said that stances ARE used in fights and are used to increase your balance and striking power. But I KO'd him.

But i agree with you that stances suck and are not used in fighting. But i don't think that they even have principles that would help you fight. Squatting in a crane stance will give you principles that help you fight???????

GLW. Yes. He did fall down. He was still concious. In a boxing match it would have been declared a win by KO. His legs went shaky limp and he collapsed while still concious. If i was a really mean person i could have continued attacking him and knocked him totally unconcious. But that was un-neccesary. I use the least amount of force necessary. I stop when they are beaten.

I am the Grand Ultimate Fist

[sarcasm]

Yeah! And why would you perform preacher curls in the gym if you're never going to pick something up that way in real life?! It's a waste of training time!

What? Preacher curls isolate the muscle and emphasize it so that the relevant body parts are trained more efficiently? And then, when you lift something in real life, all of the component parts are that much stronger?

Oh.

[/sarcasm]

The principle of a front stance is to sink into a strike for stability and turn your hips into it. Yeah? Boxers use the same principle. Watch boxing in slow motion. For the jab, the stance is high and noncommital. For the cross, the lead foot steps outward a bit and forward a bit, creating a more stable base. The legs sink a bit. And the hip rotates. Then they're straight back up into their footwork again.

Is that what you mean by the principle? If so, then I can find little argument with the principle of stance training. Transitional training designed to strengthen the necessary body parts and exaggerate a bodily movement so that the principle is communicated.

Make sense?


Stuart B.

Folks, don't get yourselves worked up. Here is a perfect example of Darwinism in action. Kid thinks he is invincible. World eventually proves him wrong, removes him from the gene pool, and we have to find a new court jester.

:D

modern world doesn't really work that way, to my knowledge.

we protect our jesters nowadays.