The State of the Martial Arts

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:33 am

fivedragons wrote:As the resident martial arts clown, I would like to propose that we define the word "efficient". [snip]

Very nice rant. Enjoyed it. Good luck with the "definition" thing. That angle didn't work out so well for me.

To their credit, most of the MMA guys *I* have talked to don't make claims about MMA being for realistic self-defense. On the other hand, they don't think karate should be making such claims, either. But on the other hand (er...back to the first hand?), their view of karate seemed to be dominated by some combination of McDojos, kickboxing, and tournaments like the one in Karate Kid.

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:40 am

Karate isn't for self defense, it's a way to study the tao as it is expressed in the mind, body and spirit.

It's a mirror.

It's a way to pass the time, and boy oh boy, does the time pass.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

2Green · Post by **2Green** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:02 am

"Case in point: the friggin' crane eye strike.
This is not only a low percentage technique within MMA training circles, it is literally non existant.
It doesn't exist. Here is my studied evaluation of MMA opinions on what is High or low percentage: BULLSHIT" (5Dragons)
----------------------------------------------
5dragons: Can you clarify what you mean here? Eye strikes of any type are of course illegal in MMA.

Are you saying it's an effective, (therefore banned) technique, or an ineffective, (therefore unused), technique?

Thanks!

~N~

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:43 am

2Green, think about it. A crane eye strike is only as effective as the person who uses it. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the "crane eye strike", there is no such thing as a technique, or a kata or a principle for that matter, if it is not applied.

A kata is nothing more than the residue of a person's life, who lived a long time ago, and felt like they might have something to share with you.

Sanchin doesn't even really exist, except in the mind of the person who envisions it.

Sorry, what I mean is that if someone was going for your eye, like it was the key to heaven, you would probably adjust your strategy accordingly.

I don't really understand the fascination that people have with watching other people be brutalized, except that maybe they secretly want to be brutalized, or be the one who is brutalizing the other person.

I guess people don't have enough pain in their lives, and they have to create just a little more.

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:03 am

No more confucious for you 5dragons!

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:12 am

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:47 pm

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:56 pm

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:06 pm

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:29 am

fivedragons wrote:

How big is that?

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:54 am

BTW

Good thread this is!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:09 pm

There's a very nice eye removal technique right in your Sanchin. It would only take a few seconds to show people how it is used. Read Grossman's On Killing and you'll see how to perform the operant conditioning needed to use it.

Notice I didn't say "strike." I said eye removal technique.

One of my firearm instructors used this once on a prisoner he was transporting who decided to break bad in transit.

We don't use these techniques in the sport arena because they are somewhat "final" in their nature. And nobody needs that kind of disability who doesn't deserve it.

- Bill