Most Under-rated Martial Art

[Tant01]

Shall we try this again? I like the topic. Can we put our crayons down now and use all three of our brain cells at the same time?


Thanks kindly gentlemen.

[jubaji]

Check my profile.

Too much trouble to just fucking tell him?

[TTEscrima]

whats your martial arts background?

Check my profile.

[kingoftheforest]

Also I found the knife work in judo really helpful.

TKD was the second art I took, but our teacher taught us the defensive tactics used in Judo for work against a knife.

He also incorporated Judo throws into our class at least once a week as well as some Judo ground work.

[Hardball]

Getting us back on topic...........as a martial artist I always had a narrow minded look at Judo as an art with nothing but throws. When I started studying Japanese Jujitsu my Hanshi recommended two text books, 1) Best Judo and 2) Kodokan judo. The newaza, joint manipulations, and Jimes really opened my eyes that Judo is indeed underrated. Also I found the knife work in judo really helpful. Thus I picked judo as the most underrated martial art.

I by passed boxing because I felt it was only good against someone your size.

[kingoftheforest]

aside from the debates in this thread... You sound like such a square. Did they not want to train with you guys or did you just decide that they werent worthy enough to learn the mysterious ways of the force?

Who the f**k says square anymore?
Since you got such a case of the red ass about this I sent you a PM if anybody else wants to know what happen just ask J.R. to forward it to them.

And if anyone wants to see what happens when your roomie hooks up with a meth addict street whore I got plenty of pics if that's what you get off on.

Now I am done with this retardedness.

KOTF

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

I had a vacancy in my house due to some former roommates who didn't train with us trashing their room like they were fing rock stars, and then bringing drugs into my house to boot. So I don't mind having another older experienced training partner living with me

aside from the debates in this thread... You sound like such a square. Did they not want to train with you guys or did you just decide that they werent worthy enough to learn the mysterious ways of the force?

[ShawnJKD]

application of techinique is jkd.

im fairly sure savate doesnt include these moves, this is a jkd guy adding jkd moves into savate. i can tell that from the way he moves.

Dominique Fontanarosa is a good friend of mine and is savate world champ, never seen him teach anything like that before or even mention it.

Dominique looks to be teaching Boxe Francaise which is the sporting aspect of Savate.

Salem Assli is a JKD man, no doubt about it, but he is also considered an authority on Savate. He has spent a lot of time researching the roots of the art, has published books on Savate (and JKD), as well as a very detailed 10 volume video series. He has a new set of DVD's out that insclude some of the street Savate material (as opposed to the Boxe Francaise street material that was on his older set). He is a 2nd degree Silver Glove and received the highest possible technical score when he tested for his Silver Glove in France. To dismiss his opinions on what is Savate because he also trains in other systems is a mistake.

[kingoftheforest]

Where's that newcastle beer pic, I miss it lol

Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be addressed toward Dick? He was the one that brought it up, and I was tellling him not to worry about it. My whole point was that no one needed to explain any farther.

I should have worded it better your right Mike. The second part was separate because I intended the you to cover anybody who was questioning the fact that you had already covered it. I wanted to give a small explanation so nobody could throw the "Because I said so" clause around.

I apologize for allowing myself to be draw into another off topic debate.

[kingoftheforest]

I don't owe you a turd on xmas

Mods should run an IP check.

I guess this isn't Mod enough for you

No. They just live in the same house. Take it easy, detective. This one's already been covered.

I had a vacancy in my house due to some former roommates who didn't train with us trashing their room like they were fing rock stars, and then bringing drugs into my house to boot. So I don't mind having another older experienced training partner living with me

Not that anyone owes you an explanation.

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

ttescrima is boarspear right??

Mods should run an IP check.

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

In the language of debate, that's what prima faciae means. If you make an argument, then you must also make sure that your argument addresses the idea or statement that's in dispute. You can't just go off and make claims and then not support them. It's called "burden of proof." When you make a point and meet your burden of proof, we can either accept it or refute it, at which point we have to meet what's called the "burden of rejoinder."

I point this out not to pick a fight or inject anything scholarly into a good old fashioned playground fight, but because it is irritating in the extreme to try and have a discussion when one side or the other is unwilling to engage in discussion or debate over direct questions. When one side makes statements and provides no evidence to back up claims, then there's no discussion - it's just lecturing.

I think being thin skinned and defensive when questioned is a sign of very weak foundations. It's a sign that beliefs have not been tested, and a fear on the part of the believer that if they are tested, they won't hold. Frankly, it's one of the reasons I like to welcome debate, and why I'm often more than willing to put my personal opinions and beliefs in the public view. If they're rigorously criticized and they pass the litmus test, then I can have that much more faith in my conclusions. If they don't pass muster, then I've learned something. Either way, it's a win for me. When you lack that confidence, or when you lack the will to put your arguments into the fire, you're practicing faith, not reason. You're accepting superstition instead of experimentation. Worst of all, you're denying yourself the opportunity to explore your own views.

For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information.

Likewise, for KOTF to make a statement such as "Shi is the top fighting monk of the Shaolin Temple and is proven in armed and unarmed combat" requires some level of qualification. Many of us didn't know that the Shaolin monks competed, for example. Most of us realize that they are not out on modern-day battlefields using their skills to fight in wars, so it leaves a very legitimate place to ask - how is he "proven?" Has he had to kill people in battle? Or are the Shaolin arts something that have become sporterized, allowing him to prove himself in other ways? If that's the case, then we have to go all the way back to how sportified combat isn't a valid method of assessment for the real deal.

As for statements about being too lazy to research? That's just a patently absurd statement. In a discussion like this, sources are important. There are criteria that need to be met in order for both sides to reach any kind of agreement. By asking questions, someone like me is able to determine what sources YOU see as credible. That allows me to gear my research to a common mindset and context, and it helps make sure we're talking about the same things. It actually takes a lot of effort to do this, by the way, as any schmuck can Google something and come up with 87 million wrong or irrelevant answers to just about anything. Narrowing the focus and trying to make sure we're speaking the smae language is the opposite of lazy - it is me going to extra effort to insure my points are relevant from your point of view.

My thought on this is very, very simple. If it's worth discussing it, then let's all drop the bullshit defensiveness and discuss it. Let's be confident and humble enough to accept that people can question what we believe without it being a personal attack on us as people. Let's accept that people can listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we believe it, and still disagree. Most of all, Jesus Christ, can we just have a fucking discussion without it turning into a fight over who's dumber? I'd donate a kidney if we could figure out a way to all just grow up a little and risk being wrong from time to time in the interests of furthering the collective knowledge pool here.

You said it all there

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

Shi is THE acknowledged top fighting monk of the Shoalin temple.

He is their top and foremost fighting monk and is recognized by the Shoalin community as the foremost authority on the Shoalin fighting system. He is proven in armed and unarmed combat.

So yeah I mean really he isn't anybody special. You can look him up if you want. I know some people who act like researching things on their own is a waste of their time and would rather have the answer given to them on a platter than to find it their self.

Those people are usually the most ignorant. I also know I am allowed my opinion and till I find something to change it it will be thus so. But isn't that what this thread is about opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. Some people just don't want to think that they could be wrong and that's fine. I was young once too so I know how it is to feel like you have all the answers and you are certain your right.

I also know what it's like to train n MMA's and in non-sport arts. This is where I draw my opinions from. Experience. Other people on this forum have had different experiences and have formed different opinions. I can respect that. But mine will remain the same till I seem something that proves to me otherwise.

KOTF out.

I actually did research him before my post.

[jubaji]

...................................

Safe bet.

[jubaji]

For example, for jubaji to quip about something without offering up any substantive argument might point out a flaw in logic, a failure to meet the burden of proof, or some such thing - but it doesn't further the discussion. it doesn't teach anyone anything, and it povides no new information..

Oh boy, where did I do that this time?