Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Realistic about martial arts or fighting skills?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,344

    Realistic about martial arts or fighting skills?

    Let's face it: no martial arts or fighting training will turn anyone into a Dragonball Z fighter or Superman (or any superheroes or supervillains.)
    Batman is a good example of a maximized Homo sapien; while his gears enhance his efficiency, his body itself is still Homo sapien.
    The expectation is: even though training won't improve your "hit point", it will improve the reflex and the accuracy of attacks (with or without weapons).
    As of the one against many scenarios, a fighter or warrior will not always expect one-to-one "fair fight", although fighting many usually mean extreme agility and efficiency.
    (Ok, the Battle of Blood River was a famous example where the vastly outnumbered side won without a single casualty.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,839
    I don't think most media displays fighting in a realistic manner. It just wouldn't be entertainment. I guess historical movies or books are more realistic, but even then do have few liberties taken.

    Turning to more realistic examples, anyone I know who is trained to fight doesn't seem to want to use the skill in actual "for real" fights. I have a couple of interesting friends who are soldiers, a couple of black belts and even an MMA fighter. They don't want things to "get real" even though they are trained well. The MMA fighter I know would never use his skill outside of the cage, he is surprisingly mellow.
    Solfe

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Media definitely doesn't display the largely fictional thing called 'Martial Arts' properly.

    I only study the Japanese Arts; and though I have studied Kara-te and Judo; the only Japanese Art I can safely state I understand is Ai-Ki-do; or 'Aikido' in Western parlance. I can state I understand it because I have spent thirty years learning it.

    The Arts are a misnomer - one that has had terrible repercussions in this too-involved, too-opinionated world. Nowadays, people love the Arts as fighting styles; forgetting that the name of most arts - from Aikido to Kungfu to Tai Chi - can be translated as 'way of living'.

    Most Arts were NEVER created as fighting styles; they developed as ways to exert discipline over a particular lifestyle; to teach honesty, courage and caution.

    But modern media has ignored the core teachings, in order to offer a spectacle thousands of people can watch.

    The Arts have been - and always will be - about personal growth, dignity, morality, and honour. These cheap contests called 'MMA' ignore all those teachings; and provide a spectacle of bald guys with tattoos beating the hell out of bald guys with tatoos. Good enough for the Darwinian gene pool I must admit, but I am distressed that the original message of the Arts: that the greatest fight one can fight is the fight against himself - has been lost to cheap spectacle.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    The Arts have been - and always will be - about personal growth, dignity, morality, and honour...
    That would be true for the Budo schools, so Aikido, Karate-do, Kendo and so on. Not so much for the older Bujutsu schools. A good contrast is to look at kenjutsu versus kendo. Kenjutsu is just the core sword techniques, it is literally "the techniques of the sword". Kendo is more as you have described it, it is "the way of the sword".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe
    I don't think most media displays fighting in a realistic manner. It just wouldn't be entertainment. I guess historical movies or books are more realistic, but even then do have few liberties taken.

    Turning to more realistic examples, anyone I know who is trained to fight doesn't seem to want to use the skill in actual "for real" fights. I have a couple of interesting friends who are soldiers, a couple of black belts and even an MMA fighter. They don't want things to "get real" even though they are trained well. The MMA fighter I know would never use his skill outside of the cage, he is surprisingly mellow.
    Applications of physical forces often risk police intervention at the very least (even police officers themselves avoid using physical forces as much as possible), and we don't even know if we match others just by looking.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    That would be true for the Budo schools, so Aikido, Karate-do, Kendo and so on. Not so much for the older Bujutsu schools. A good contrast is to look at kenjutsu versus kendo. Kenjutsu is just the core sword techniques, it is literally "the techniques of the sword". Kendo is more as you have described it, it is "the way of the sword".
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Shaula.

    The thing about the 'Martial Arts' is that it is a blanket description - a single term attempting to describe a wide variety of skill and psychologies. In my first post I described 'Martial Arts' as a fictional term; because no single term can describe the astonishing range and culture of the physical arts across the world. The term 'Martial Arts' is largely commercial; based upon Western ideals and commercialism. In reality; there is little connection between the physical arts of Humanity, other than the most basic one: the understanding of the Human mind and body.

    The Arts developed individually, slowly. With thought, caution and care. They took different forms as they developed. Kara-te - the most famous of the 'fighting arts' - is a system of striking with hands, feet and elbows; but it is a 'fighting style' only in the most shallow interpretation. The point of conflict-based Arts is that they provide a reality-check; so to speak - an opponent that can counter or evade the practicioner's moves. This provides a dose of reality. IOW; a practicioner can do whatever he/she likes; but if it is not effective against uke - the opponent - then it is an incorrect movement.
    Police officer, scholar and Karate master Shoshin Nagamine explains it thus: "Karate may be considered as the conflict within oneself or as a life-long marathon which can be won only through self-discipline, hard training and one's own creative efforts."
    Thus; the overriding principle of this Art - and of the majority of Japanese Arts - is the fight against onesself.

    Sadly this principle has been simplified over the years; since American servicemen occupying Okinawa in 1945 began learning the Art. Americans didn't have the same focus and attention span as Asian students; Okinawan instructors were forced to include what amounts to a point system based on small achievements to keep their interest: the Kohai belt system. Everyone knows it - Students proceed from white belt to yellow, orange, green, brown...the darker the belt, the higher the rank.

    That is an artificial creation. In pure Japanese arts, there are NO belts. A belt is simply a piece of cotton to hold the gi closed. As a student trains; the sweat, blood and dirt of his training will eventually turn the blank cotton belt black. Only then will he be considered Yudansha - an experienced student.

    In modern culture; a Black Belt is considered a mark of mastery. In the true Arts; the Black Belt (Shodan) is the beginning of learning; a statement that you have learned and understand the mere basics; and are ready to proceed with the actual lessons.

    For myself; I hold nidan (Second-degree Black Belt) in three separate styles of Aikido; Shodan (First degree) in American Kenpo Karate; and have trained in more than a dozen different arts. I have studied the Indonesian Arts for their superb weapons-based skills; Chinese Arts (Tai-Chi) for the mind-body co-ordination (supporting my Aikido study) and Indian Yoga (Didn't think that was a 'martial art'? It is...ohhhh, it is. ) I have not yet had the pleasure of learning any African styles; I would love to study the lessons the teachers of this world's oldest culture can offer.


    All I'm saying is the cheap Hollywood version of the Arts is exactly that: cheap. Small, uneducated, weak. Hollywood sells spectacle; that's it. This modern MMA craze does exactly the same thing - it sells TICKETS.

    The real Arts are extremely personal. They are not interested in opponents, glamour or Bad Guys. When we practice, we practice for ourselves; exploring, living and loving new things.

    Yes, FWIW an even moderately competent Yudansha can easily defeat an opponent; but that is not the point. It's a distraction.

    The hardest fight any Human can face is the fight against himself; and THAT is the fight the Arts teach us about.

    (bows)
    Last edited by NorthernDevo; 2013-Dec-26 at 01:17 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Shaula.
    What I mean is that if you look at the evolution of the Japanese martial arts most of them did not start off with a focus on the philosophical and personal. Most of the Budo techniques (which are focused on these topics) evolved from a group of earlier schools which were almost entirely technique based, the Bujutsu styles. While it is correct to say what you have about the Budo styles it is possible to find Bujutsu styles being taught today. And their priority is fighting technique and fitness. So in fact there is a karate-jutsu which has little of the personal development and more of the fighting style.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    I will debate you there, Shaula.

    It is true the Japanese arts are technique-based; but the ramifications are important: the techniques of Japanese styles are often incredibly complicated and detailed. That is deliberate. By building complexity into the style; whatever style it is, the Art forces its students to work hard - to think, study, practice and fail many times over - in order to eventually learn the technique.

    Japanese styles are very complicated; this fact is the core of their strength. In order to learn and understand the complications; a student must devote long hours of study and practice. Since AikiBujutsu - the Art Ueshiba O'Sensei created Aikido from - reaches back to the days of the Samurai; the value can be well understood: Young men of priveledge and power being required to learn discipline and study; rather than going out to create trouble.

    It would be far too simplistic to say the Japanese Arts developed strictly to keep young Japanese noblemen out of trouble; but it certainly was a bonus. The value of the Japanese Arts - and perhaps others, but I have no personal knowledge of them - is that they demand close attention, study and detail.

    The Arts are NOT about fighting. They are about understanding the self.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,619
    I think anything studied deeply enough ends up being about 'self', no?

    I also think Japanese culture sets this target no matter what the individual's chosen field of study might be(?)
    (Which I might say, I also find to be a pretty cool way to spend a lifetime ... )

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    I think you're exactly right, Selfsim - the discipline of study becomes an end in itself.
    Nevertheless; could you explain your point a bit clearer? I'm a bit old and a bit dim - I'm not sure I'm understanding you fully.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    I think you're exactly right, Selfsim - the discipline of study becomes an end in itself.
    Nevertheless; could you explain your point a bit clearer? I'm a bit old and a bit dim - I'm not sure I'm understanding you fully.
    Well, I'm presently involved in a very deep discussion in a Science Forum thread where a case is being made that everything our minds perceive, (even the chair I'm sitting on), constitues our entire reality .. ie: there no basis we can come up with, for arguing that anything is external to how our minds perceive things. Its called "Mind Dependent Reality" (or MDR for short). Ie: there is no such thing as "Mind Independent Reality" .. it simply cannot even be said to exist ... even from logical thinking.

    So, the very deepest humans have ever come to in the study of 'thought', is what we label "Philosophy" ... and its all still in the mind!
    Therefore, the deeper we think, the more those thoughts end up being about ourselves, and how we perceive 'us' in a universe of our own perceptions (minds). This is important when discussing physical science, because our minds are the observers of everything we know of .. and somewhat counterintuitively, until we come to grips with the role our minds play in perceiving these things, we'll never be able to see something which might exist beyond that mind.

    Its pretty tricky stuff .. but I'm pretty sure this view is also nothing new ... it actually originated from the same Ancient Eastern Cultures, which were also the creators of the 'Martial Arts' .. the thinking may have all come about from the practice of the physical disciplines (training of the body).
    Last edited by Selfsim; 2013-Dec-26 at 02:20 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,051
    Ah, solipsism. The logical rebuttal is to kick them, and then ask why they just hurt themselves.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    Ah, solipsism. The logical rebuttal is to kick them, and then ask why they just hurt themselves.
    Not solipism ... there are differences (as explained here).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    I will debate you there, Shaula.
    I am not saying that a side effect of applying oneself to any form of study is not a development of the self. What I am saying is that the concious focus on self improvement in a philosophical and spiritual way was not a formalised core part of the older techniques. For whatever reason (it could have been social - disciplined people less likely to cause trouble, it could have been that discipline proved to be the greatest force multiplier they found) it became a more formal and explicit goal for the arts when they became -do (a way) instead of a -jutsu (technique)

    Edit: I am also not trying to deny that teachers often point their students towards ways of self improvement as an adjunct to their studies
    Last edited by Shaula; 2013-Dec-26 at 09:41 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    9,038
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    Sadly this principle has been simplified over the years; since American servicemen occupying Okinawa in 1945 began learning the Art. Americans didn't have the same focus and attention span as Asian students; Okinawan instructors were forced to include what amounts to a point system based on small achievements to keep their interest: the Kohai belt system. Everyone knows it - Students proceed from white belt to yellow, orange, green, brown...the darker the belt, the higher the rank.
    Belt ranking in martial arts is relatively recent, starting with Judo in the early 20th Century, but it predates WWII and it's highly doubtful that it had anything to do with Americans.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Ie: there is no such thing as "Mind Independent Reality" .. it simply cannot even be said to exist ... even from logical thinking.
    If there's no mind independent reality, where did all these minds come from?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If there's no mind independent reality, where did all these minds come from?
    Your question is only answerable from models created by the mind (which would mean the answer would be coming from mind dependent reality).

    (This sub-conversation is a little OT .. may I suggest further conversations be directed to the other thread?)
    Last edited by Selfsim; 2013-Dec-28 at 03:37 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    Belt ranking in martial arts is relatively recent, starting with Judo in the early 20th Century, but it predates WWII and it's highly doubtful that it had anything to do with Americans.
    You might be right...I think I might be guilty of doing exactly what I rail against: accepting popular explanation as fact. That's the explanation I've always known but it does seem a bit simplistic, doesn't it? It's not a specific area I've studied. I'll do so, thanks.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I am not saying that a side effect of applying oneself to any form of study is not a development of the self. What I am saying is that the concious focus on self improvement in a philosophical and spiritual way was not a formalised core part of the older techniques. For whatever reason (it could have been social - disciplined people less likely to cause trouble, it could have been that discipline proved to be the greatest force multiplier they found) it became a more formal and explicit goal for the arts when they became -do (a way) instead of a -jutsu (technique)

    Edit: I am also not trying to deny that teachers often point their students towards ways of self improvement as an adjunct to their studies
    Thanks for explaining, Shaula; and for the record I'm not trying to hold myself up as any kind of so-called 'expert'; while I am very good in certain areas; those areas are tactical in nature; I often feel I have let my own study into the history and psychology of the Arts slide.

    You explain the difference perfectly; though I am prepared to offer the opinion that the difference between a '-Do' and a '-Jutsu' is sometimes vanishingly small. I do maintain my belief that the Japanese arts may well have started life as mere fighting techniques, but learning to fight is easy. Learning not to fight is far harder - Hard enough for us; but for a hot-blooded warrior people like the Japanese of that time? It must have been very hard. I offer the possibility that you are entirely right concerning the beginning of the formalized styles; but maintain those styles swiftly evolved into the greater study of discipline, introspection and understanding. Thus I offer the possibility that a very convenient side effect of disciplinized training became the major focus in a relatively short time.

    Both Aikido and Ed Parker (my two primary styles) reflect the larger training aspect - the focus on the self, the fight against one's own nature.

    Part of the reason I rail so hard against MMA is that it seems - and I stress seems ; I haven't had the interest to study it - to abandon the larger questions in favour of the cheap little ones - how to fight.
    Fighting is easy. NOT fighting is hard. Trust me on this.

    Just my own opinion.


    EDIT: We're speaking strictly about Japanese Arts here. As I said earlier; 'Martial Arts' is a blanket description; there are as many histories and reasons for their development and employed psychologies as there are Arts themselves.
    Last edited by NorthernDevo; 2013-Dec-27 at 01:57 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Well, I'm presently involved in a very deep discussion in a Science Forum thread where a case is being made that everything our minds perceive, (even the chair I'm sitting on), constitues our entire reality .. ie: there no basis we can come up with, for arguing that anything is external to how our minds perceive things. Its called "Mind Dependent Reality" (or MDR for short). Ie: there is no such thing as "Mind Independent Reality" .. it simply cannot even be said to exist ... even from logical thinking.

    So, the very deepest humans have ever come to in the study of 'thought', is what we label "Philosophy" ... and its all still in the mind!
    Therefore, the deeper we think, the more those thoughts end up being about ourselves, and how we perceive 'us' in a universe of our own perceptions (minds). This is important when discussing physical science, because our minds are the observers of everything we know of .. and somewhat counterintuitively, until we come to grips with the role our minds play in perceiving these things, we'll never be able to see something which might exist beyond that mind.

    Its pretty tricky stuff .. but I'm pretty sure this view is also nothing new ... it actually originated from the same Ancient Eastern Cultures, which were also the creators of the 'Martial Arts' .. the thinking may have all come about from the practice of the physical disciplines (training of the body).
    Sorry - I'll prepare a response just as soon as my head stops spinning...

    Kidding aside; I'll look at your post closely and offer a response just as soon as I have one.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo
    Thanks for explaining, Shaula; and for the record I'm not trying to hold myself up as any kind of so-called 'expert'; while I am very good in certain areas; those areas are tactical in nature; I often feel I have let my own study into the history and psychology of the Arts slide.

    You explain the difference perfectly; though I am prepared to offer the opinion that the difference between a '-Do' and a '-Jutsu' is sometimes vanishingly small. I do maintain my belief that the Japanese arts may well have started life as mere fighting techniques, but learning to fight is easy. Learning not to fight is far harder - Hard enough for us; but for a hot-blooded warrior people like the Japanese of that time? It must have been very hard. I offer the possibility that you are entirely right concerning the beginning of the formalized styles; but maintain those styles swiftly evolved into the greater study of discipline, introspection and understanding. Thus I offer the possibility that a very convenient side effect of disciplinized training became the major focus in a relatively short time.

    Both Aikido and Ed Parker (my two primary styles) reflect the larger training aspect - the focus on the self, the fight against one's own nature.

    Part of the reason I rail so hard against MMA is that it seems - and I stress seems ; I haven't had the interest to study it - to abandon the larger questions in favour of the cheap little ones - how to fight.
    Fighting is easy. NOT fighting is hard. Trust me on this.

    Just my own opinion.


    EDIT: We're speaking strictly about Japanese Arts here. As I said earlier; 'Martial Arts' is a blanket description; there are as many histories and reasons for their development and employed psychologies as there are Arts themselves.
    Last edited by NorthernDevo; Today at 06:57 PM.
    Since most of us live in mostly peaceful environments, very few of us consider violence a viable solution to many issues; even "victories" in a fight isn't worth it. It may be very different in conflict-ridden areas.
    I mean the realistic expectation of fighting skills and the difference between a somewhat trained, a totally untrained, or an expert in fighting skills.
    TV series and movies often treat foot soldiers, guards, or common members of security forces with total disregard; this would be quite offensive to veteran soldiers.
    Shooting with guns aren't as easy as TV shows represent; a person who never has touched a gun is unlikely to know how to use one, and accuracy is still an issue (OK, short distance shooting doesn't take much accuracy at all, but knowledge to operate firearms is still required.)
    Last edited by Inclusa; 2013-Dec-28 at 10:17 PM. Reason: Offensive to some

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    Thanks for explaining, Shaula; and for the record I'm not trying to hold myself up as any kind of so-called 'expert'; while I am very good in certain areas; those areas are tactical in nature; I often feel I have let my own study into the history and psychology of the Arts slide.
    Funnily enough that is sort of why I try to be so scrupulous about the difference between the two. One of the strengths of the older Bujutsu schools was their multiplicity. You were not expected to just do one discipline. It gave the scope for a broad range of skills, an eclectic mix and some of the best an area had to offer (and by this I mean not just in the fighting techniques but everything else - from cooking to poetry, philosophy to calligraphy). Its major weakness though, just like asking a child to choose their food, was that it was too easy for people to pick what was actually not a very balanced 'curriculum' at all. An integrated Budo system brought far more balance to its graduates, gave more people a far broader and better education in the area but at the cost of some of the diversity you got from the earlier free for all. It was also far safer and more sustainable to export because it took a lot of the cultural context with it, which the simpler technique focused schools could not.

    As for MMA - there is a purity of purpose there which I would admire if it were part of something broader, just one part of a wider cultural gestalt. But I think that given the general dearth of other educational and developmental paths being taken alongside it and lack of context much of it is taught with I'd have to agree that a lot of the practitioners are learning to fight but not learning why you fight, or how not to. Obviously I'd never say that to their faces

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,051
    MMA is a sport, you do it for exercise, not as a philosophy to live your life by.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,839
    We have a MMA "hot spot" in the plaza just two blocks from my house, three MMA gyms and a karate studio. Just around the corner from those places is a business owned by a locally famous boxer. The boxer is now into local politics and real estate, but it is still funny to see his name on the sign near all these other places.
    Solfe

  25. 2013-Dec-28, 10:16 AM
    Reason
    I think it was valid, but its not appropriate.

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Just curious Solfe; why is it funny?

    Boxing as a sport and exercise demands extreme discipline and dedication. A good boxer must, by definition, be dedicated to a cause, disciplined and intense. I can think of far worse values for a local politician. I suspect a well-trained boxer might do very well in that role. And I can imagine that intensity would greatly help him in his real-estate business - a point of credibility in his favour.
    Last edited by NorthernDevo; 2013-Dec-28 at 03:20 PM.

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Inclusa View Post
    Since most of us live in mostly peaceful environments, very few of us consider violence a viable solution to many issues; even "victories" in a fight isn't worth it. It may be very different in conflict-ridden areas.
    I mean the realistic expectation of fighting skills and the difference between a somewhat trained, a totally untrained, or an expert in fighting skills.
    In many movies and TV series, the common foot soldiers are often treated as "cannon fodder"; except for veterans or special duty forces, I would most likely treat them as "somewhat trained".
    Shooting with guns aren't as easy as TV shows represent; a person who never has touched a gun is unlikely to know how to use one, and accuracy is still an issue (OK, short distance shooting doesn't take much accuracy at all, but knowledge to operate firearms is still required.)
    Beside small blades and clubs, which weapons do mostly untrained people use with relatively ease?
    Inclusa, I'm not at all sure what you mean. Give me time - I'll read your post over and develop a response. In the meantime; I would personally request you remove the term 'Cannon Fodder' from your post. As a veteran Infantryman, I find it extremely objectionable. The days of Infantry being poor dumb suckers charging the wire have been gone for several decades. The Infantry of today is a highly educated, trained, diciplined and capable force. The term 'cannon fodder' - especially delivered by one outside the Military establishment - is considered a serious insult. I would take it as a kindness if you would rewrite those words. And I would also point out this thread is centered on the Martial Arts - neither combat nor crime fits into that category. Let's keep the thread on track, OK?
    Last edited by NorthernDevo; 2013-Dec-28 at 03:40 PM.

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,839
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    Just curious Solfe; why is it funny?

    Boxing as a sport and exercise demands extreme discipline and dedication. A good boxer must, by definition, be dedicated to a cause, disciplined and intense. I can think of far worse values for a local politician. I suspect a well-trained boxer might do very well in that role. And I can imagine that intensity would greatly help him in his real-estate business - a point of credibility in his favour.
    MMA fighting is illegal in New York, so why do you need a gym, let alone 3 in one plaza?

    Besides, this is actually a pretty big plaza. You can get milk at the grocery store, wrapping paper at the Family Dollar, pick up some yarn for grandma at Hobby Lobby, buy a dress at Rainbow, register your car at the DMV, get a haircut at Supercuts, order a pretty good General Tso chicken at the restaurant, have your tires rotated at Firestone and then have your choice of 4 places to learn to beat someone up. That sounds strange to me.
    Solfe

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,235
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernDevo View Post
    Inclusa, I'm not at all sure what you mean. Give me time - I'll read your post over and develop a response. In the meantime; I would personally request you remove the term 'Cannon Fodder' from your post. As a veteran Infantryman, I find it extremely objectionable. The days of Infantry being poor dumb suckers charging the wire have been gone for several decades. The Infantry of today is a highly educated, trained, diciplined and capable force. The term 'cannon fodder' - especially delivered by one outside the Military establishment - is considered a serious insult. I would take it as a kindness if you would rewrite those words. And I would also point out this thread is centered on the Martial Arts - neither combat nor crime fits into that category. Let's keep the thread on track, OK?
    Hey Devo, this is Inclusa's thread, not yours. Relax.

    And while Inclusa may be an outsider militarily, I'm not. "Infantry" isn't defined as "British Infantry" or "American infantry". Though I'm sure you would like to think that.

    Even the Ugandan Army counts as infantry and they've been known to...well, never mind. I wasn't happy finding out their excesses and I'm sure nobody here would appreciate the information. (I just had a big, "what was I thinking!" self edit.)

    Cannon fodder IS passť as a phrase, though. Nowadays infantry are CBU and JDAM fodder. That and arbo viruses still love the infantry. (Arthropod borne viruses)

    Inclusa, Infantry always "respects" hostile air assets. The reverse is seldom true.

    (I was in naval aviation. Fire control and avionics on F-14 Tomcats.)

  30. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    OK; I'll chill out and thanks for the warning. I might be coming at it from a direction that others do not; I simply feel that whenever anyone uses the term 'cannon fodder' to describe the Infantry; they may be uninformed as to the highly competent, skilled nature of modern-day Infantry forces. You can launch all the million-dollar missiles you want; there will still be Infantry on the ground doing their job with courage, determination and skill.

    Furthermore I'd forgotten that Inclusa was the OP; I apologize for forgetting that.

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pretty much in the middle, and a little way up.
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    MMA fighting is illegal in New York, so why do you need a gym, let alone 3 in one plaza?

    Besides, this is actually a pretty big plaza. You can get milk at the grocery store, wrapping paper at the Family Dollar, pick up some yarn for grandma at Hobby Lobby, buy a dress at Rainbow, register your car at the DMV, get a haircut at Supercuts, order a pretty good General Tso chicken at the restaurant, have your tires rotated at Firestone and then have your choice of 4 places to learn to beat someone up. That sounds strange to me.
    I still don't understand why you find it strange. MA clubs are like any other business: they find a good location, develop a solid business model, earn clients then succeed or fail based upon how many clients they attract. It's a topic young people in particular are interested in. While I personally have serious issues with Dana White's "MMA"; it is a viable, saleable product.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •