I have seen many forums on here of people attacking other peoples’ arts.I have seen kung fu guys attacking mma guys, i have seen kung fu guys attacking mma guys. I really feel that it is ther person rather than than the art. What do you guys think?
Well, in fact it’s not as if all styles are created equally, and it’s an Internet forum about a largely male-dominated activity, so the arguing isn’t surprising. But it often comes down to the tired old sport vs street arguments we’ve all heard a million times.
[QUOTE=Deewreck;2620832]I have seen kung fu guys attacking mma guys, i have seen kung fu guys attacking mma guys.[/QUOTE]
Those kung fu guys have easily bruised egos, clearly. And you should be in newbie town where it’s safe for you.
Because people want to confirm that they’ve made the right choice. Why train in the second best art if the best is available?
It’s much easier to bash other arts than to go out there and actually test it.
[QUOTE=Deewreck;2620832]I really feel that it is ther person rather than than the art. What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
I think that’s a false dichotomy.
Thank you Petter. Someone has needed to point that out for years.
Meh, you only had to ask, and its instructor>person>art
[QUOTE=Yoj;2620852]Meh, you only had to ask, and its instructor>person>art[/QUOTE]
tl;dr: No, that just takes it from false dichotomy to false trichotomy.
Long answer: No, it’s a complicated weighted function of all three. A good instructor of a good student in a good art may be better than a brilliant instructor of a good student in a terrible art (however you’re supposed to measure these things!) because, ultimately, he has nothing very useful to teach. Ranking them oversimplifies the situation past the point of usefulness. All three factors matter. And the interplay of the factors (e.g. one person having more of a knack for one art than another, an instructor connecting and communicating better with some students than others, and so on and so forth).
You could also throw in things like “training method”, and for that matter “nutrition”, “sheer dumb luck in terms of medical history”, and what have you, but the point remains: It’s more complicated than that.
“instructor>person>art” makes it sound as though the art were irrelevant if only you have a good instructor and a bit of talent, denying the reality that the talent could be developed more highly in arts with more practical techniques, in schools utilising better training methods, &c. Ridiculous, of course; but no more ridiculous than thinking that “art>person>instructor” (for analogous reasons).
[QUOTE=Petter;2620854]12th level logic wielder[/QUOTE]
I was joking dude, its one of the things people say, you know, it’s the person not the art, or, if the instructor is good its more important than the art, which gives my humorous priority list.
i know, its not funny now I explained it.
Delivery>Joke.
[QUOTE=Yoj;2620857]Delivery>Joke.[/QUOTE]
+1 points
PS, but thanks for making a big effort to post a critique of my sillyness.
What problems do you have with these martial arts?
What problems do you have with these martial arts? jujitsu, akido, wing chun, tae kwon doe, muy thai, judo?
Judo and muay Thai?
Should I ban you as a troll now or wait until you bust your nut?
Now, GTFO of the CMA forum.
what i do :(?
I don’t know what I did to get my post taken away?
I have no idea admins can you enlighten me?
You have posted two similar threads in the CMA forum that have zero to do with Chinese Martial Arts. They are basically repeats and you are not engaging in discussion.
[QUOTE=Deewreck;2621416]what i do :(?[/QUOTE]
You posted a fucking retarded comment in a section you shouldnt be in.
Shit posting in the CMA forum and not engaging in discussion.
but i mentioned them does it have to be primarily?
Go read the rules they are very informational. The fact you have to ask and think naming 6-7 arts one being CMA is fine means you are shit posting.
Since there were two parts to the statement and you only answered one, I’ll take that as a concession.