Kung Fu vs Muscle
-
I wouldn't put money on the either. One may be bigger but if the smaller one is skilled and knows how to use his size effectively, and just as important, use his opponents size against him, it would be an even bet.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Knew a guy that was a 2nd degree black belt 130lbs we were best friends and got into a few fights I was a person who never fought but had a few state records in power lifting he never had a chance all I had to do was rush him and basically after he was wrapped up and getting beat on that was the end. I agree that training in any kind of fight "can" help but many times the person just has their black belt because they have been doing marshal arts for 20 years and could do nothing in a street fight. Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun? Humble Programmer
-
When I used to do Muay Thai, a bodybuilder started coming to the club (he doubled as a bouncer), and just about everybody in the club kicked seven barrels out of him. He was too musclebound - he had no flexibility, and his movements were slow. A skilled martial artist uses speed and accuracy to defend or attack as appropriate and will have faster reflexes (plus more flexibility) than the bodybuilder. In my reflexes were honed by a wonderful Filipino martial art called Escrima - when somebody is swinging a stick at high speed towards your head, you learn to defend yourself quickly.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Not all people who are very strong are muscle bound like that although many are. I once worked out in the same place as a guy who weighed only 160 and bench pressed 380 to look at him you would have never known he was that strong because he looked to be average. Humble Programmer
-
The point of martial arts in general is to provide smaller/weaker people with the skills and confidence they need to stand a chance against bigger or more threatening opponents. That said, I have no experience at all with kung fu (outside of seeing the odd kung fu movie), so I can't say anything as to the particular style. In a match of two kung fu fighters (be honest, how many of you just heard that song in your head?), in which two fighters of vastly diverse weight/strength face off using the same foundation of skills, I think the heavier fellow has a good probability of winning just because he probably has better endurance. In other styles, like Judo or Aikido, it's a bit easier to use an opponent's weight against them, so I doubt weight is as much of an advantage there.
Another thing that should be considered is regardless of skill or size usually the meaner person will win. Something I was learned when playing football was that the most athletic people were not always the best football players the best were the people that were reasonably athletic could keep their heads but were very mean to the other players hitting them as hard as they could trying to hurt them not just tackle them. Humble Programmer
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
so the best lesson in all of martial arts is always to avoid a fight at all costs
It's the most important lesson you're taught. The fight portion, outside of the discipline of the school, is truly a last resort.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
The problem is that although almost all martial arts teach that but everyone that I have ever met in martial arts was arrogant about fighting and would usually try to provoke fights to prove their skills. Humble Programmer
-
I have studied martial arts for thirty-five years. Every now and then somebody allways comes up with the statement that they "would just shoot" me. I like to reach over and slap them and then ask why they didn't shoot me to stop me. This isn't the wild west. Most people DO NOT carry guns with them in public. Doing so gets you thrown in jail. Even waving a gun around in public can get you shot by the police, if they think you are threatening someone's life. A gun has a limited amount of ammunition and must be in your hand (not locked safely away in a gun safe where it is supposed to be most of the time) to be of any value. Martial arts training is always with you. It also teaches you how to think your way out of a fight without having to resort to violence. A gun does ONE thing. It kills. Once you pull the trigger you are commited to taking someone's life. What would you do if a buddy (drunk on a few too many of those beers you seem so fond of) decides to take a swing at you. Are you going to shoot him. Martial arts training can subdue, stun or kill. A gun can also be taken away from you and turn against you, especially if you are drinking beer and handling a gun. Something about as smart as drinking and driving. As a last thought, if you have brought a gun to a fight, chances are so has the other guy.
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back... I have 25 years of training in shooting guns I guess you could say and I was always taught unless you intend to kill something never point a gun at it. Also I do carry a gun with me at all times because I have a right to carry permit the only place it does not go is into obvious places like airports and schools. If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope... Humble Programmer
-
It's fine. When there's a crime involving guns here, it still makes the news because it's not common. Knives now - that's our problem.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those??? "If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart... Humble Programmer
-
I saw my dad demolish a guy roughly twice his size once, a good 6'3" to my dad's 5'6" and probably a good 50lbs on him. "What you going to do about it, shorty?" "I'm going to punch you twice in the ribs, breaking 3 of them at least, knee you in the crotch, then when your hollow head dips down I will punch you in your throat, and shut your mouth with an uppercut that breaks your jaw. After that I am going to take the money for the burrito you stole from my store and leave you on the floor as a sign to everyone about what happens to shoplifters." He didn't lie. Martial arts > muscle. Martial arts + muscle = horrifying results.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Sounds like fighting was the last resort.... isn't that the code of honor or something?? Humble Programmer
-
It depends It depends on whether the 80 kg (we work in SI units) is a wimp - has any internal fortitude , has any balls. If hes a sook then hes toast regardless. If he knows how to throw and take a punch and has been in a few real world scraps then hes got a size advantage and experience and then the old adage applies - a good big-un' will usually beat a good little-un'. Occams Razor applies. Bryce
MCAD --- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
That sir is true... mean people will almost always win if he is to honorable to pick up a bat the guy that isn't will win. If a guy tries to block me swinging a bat he will probably have a broken arm at the least. Humble Programmer
-
big skilled human > small skilled human > big unskilled human > small unskilled human. Size helps, but skill does take precedence. I trained ninjutsu at one time in my life, and I must say that even after 3 years of training it was obvious to me that the much lighter and physically weaker instructors assistant (a girl no less) could kick my ass in under 3 seconds... Even if someone is weaker, if they are well trained, they will be faster, avoid and block blows, hit harder, and actually have an idea of what to do to win... Moral of the story: If you see someone adopt a fighting posture, step back :) disclaimer: this post is meant as a comparison in a perfect "all things being equal" setting, and does not take into account any special conditions such as one combatant holding a gun and beer and the other one running toward him for 50 yards :-D
Also does not take into account the guy that has been in karate for 2 weeks and learned a stance... Humble Programmer
-
"which could be considered a martial art." is a martial art, just because something didn't come from the east doesn't mean it's not a martial art - boxing, wrestling (proper not the TV rubbish), La Savate, Krav Marda (sp?) all spring to mind as a quick start, there are many others....
Does anyone know why the best boxers are usually Mexican because they usually grow up in a rough area and can fight mean. Humble Programmer
-
Also does not take into account the guy that has been in karate for 2 weeks and learned a stance... Humble Programmer
The guy that was on karate for 2 weeks probably won't adapt a stance in real danger, it takes much longer that that to make any fighting techique/style a natural thing in real situations. Even if he does, he'll be doing it on purpose, to show that "I have skills", and that has only one effect - make everyone present laugh their asses off. I'm talking about subtle stances for a fight, positioning the body for movement, not Chinese Kung-Fu movies claw style thingies that the 2 week karate guy would display :)
-
Does anyone know why the best boxers are usually Mexican because they usually grow up in a rough area and can fight mean. Humble Programmer
-
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back... I have 25 years of training in shooting guns I guess you could say and I was always taught unless you intend to kill something never point a gun at it. Also I do carry a gun with me at all times because I have a right to carry permit the only place it does not go is into obvious places like airports and schools. If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope... Humble Programmer
Slap maybe too harsh a word. I don't hit them to hurt, just a light touch to bring home the point that they are saying something imcredibly stupid. In thirty-five years of training I have never had to hurt anyone with my training. The confidence that I have gained has always allowed me to talk my way out of a fight or just walk away. And don't get me wrong, if I were put in a situation where I was fighting for a loved one's life or my own, I would willing use the advantage of a gun to win, if I had one (and I do own one). Even if caring a concealed weapon, there are many situations I could think of where you would not have time to pull it out in time to defend yourself. My point was that no one always has their gun in hand in every situation. Where as martial arts training is with you at ALL times. No one was ever arrested for presenting a calm, confident demeanor in a bad situation. And often times, that display is all that it takes to AVOID a fight.
-
5 for the laugh, but in all fairness physical training (including reflex training) does indeed help the odds. Say for instance, since most people don't start a gun fight 100 yards away at high noon anymore, a properly trained person in close proximity can in fact get that gun away from you - breaking your trigger finger in the process - before you even have time to pull the trigger.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
5 for the laugh, but in all fairness physical training (including reflex training) does indeed help the odds. Say for instance, since most people don't start a gun fight 100 yards away at high noon anymore, a properly trained person in close proximity can in fact get that gun away from you - breaking your trigger finger in the process - before you even have time to pull the trigger.
Also - especially in countries like this one where, sensibly, people are prevented by law from carrying guns while shopping, driving, drinking in bars etc - most altercations don't involve guns (or even the worry that someone might have a gun). So obviously physical training will be of merit here. Not to mention that it has many many benefits outside of drunken barfights! An extended lifespan, and, surprisingly, increased intelligence. Strangely, mental exercise apparently leads to an extended lifespan as well :)
-
Knew a guy that was a 2nd degree black belt 130lbs we were best friends and got into a few fights I was a person who never fought but had a few state records in power lifting he never had a chance all I had to do was rush him and basically after he was wrapped up and getting beat on that was the end. I agree that training in any kind of fight "can" help but many times the person just has their black belt because they have been doing marshal arts for 20 years and could do nothing in a street fight. Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun? Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun?
In general, I would rather be a trained MA person. In the specific instance that my opponent has a gun and intends to use it on me, I would rather have a gun, but I would even rather simply not be in that situation. In any case, the situation where I need a gun is extremely unlikely to occur, especially if people just don't carry the stupid things with them - for the same reason, I think the world would be much better off if nobody had nuclear weapons, rather than everyone having them - it just takes one lunatic, and no amount of skill (or guns, other than zero guns anywhere) can stop someone being shot in the back of the head by a lunatic factory worker. I think this attraction to guns and attitude that you should always carry a gun "just in case" is very short-sighted and dangerous. I would not want my children near a gun (and to pre-empt the question: no, I'm not scared of random armed burglars breaking into my house and shooting my children, because it's extremely unlikely. In fact it seems far more likely for my children to accidentally get shot with my gun, if I had one). Why do people constantly escalate debates about martial arts etc into "yeah but what if he has a gun? You should have a gun too"? What if there's a nuclear bomb? Do you have iodine pills and an NBC suit? Why not carry one in your car? There are plenty of unlikely eventualities that we could prepare for which don't involve raising the level of risk for ourselves and everyone else (i.e. if everyone carries a gun, everyone is in a lot more danger than if nobody carried a gun). Yet we don't prepare for them, because they're so unlikely. Yet we still carry guns to the local convenience store and have one near the bed "just in case". It boggles the mind. :wtf:
-
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back... I have 25 years of training in shooting guns I guess you could say and I was always taught unless you intend to kill something never point a gun at it. Also I do carry a gun with me at all times because I have a right to carry permit the only place it does not go is into obvious places like airports and schools. If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back...
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope...
Slaps are obviously not for killing. In the vast majority of fistfights no participant intends to kill the other. You concede that guns are for killing. How are those things the about the same? Slapping someone is obviously not the same as shooting someone. Both the intent and outcome are vastly different. And the points I think you're missing in the slapping exercise are that: a) the slappee isn't holding a gun in their hand all the time, so they can't immediately react by firing it, b) they do have arms and other body parts which can be immediately used to protect themselves adequately, and c) the slappee may not want to shoot someone dead for slapping them - in fact I've never met anyone in my life who I would have been willing to shoot dead (beat violently, perhaps, but not shoot). Therefore physical and martial arts training is important and worth discussing! :-D
-
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those??? "If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those???"If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart...
Cars are not designed for killing. Guns are designed solely for killing. And I actually disagree that you could kill someone easier with your car. Otherwise soldiers would be driving around Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7, beeping at each other and mowing down their enemies, rather than carrying guns :laugh:
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun?
In general, I would rather be a trained MA person. In the specific instance that my opponent has a gun and intends to use it on me, I would rather have a gun, but I would even rather simply not be in that situation. In any case, the situation where I need a gun is extremely unlikely to occur, especially if people just don't carry the stupid things with them - for the same reason, I think the world would be much better off if nobody had nuclear weapons, rather than everyone having them - it just takes one lunatic, and no amount of skill (or guns, other than zero guns anywhere) can stop someone being shot in the back of the head by a lunatic factory worker. I think this attraction to guns and attitude that you should always carry a gun "just in case" is very short-sighted and dangerous. I would not want my children near a gun (and to pre-empt the question: no, I'm not scared of random armed burglars breaking into my house and shooting my children, because it's extremely unlikely. In fact it seems far more likely for my children to accidentally get shot with my gun, if I had one). Why do people constantly escalate debates about martial arts etc into "yeah but what if he has a gun? You should have a gun too"? What if there's a nuclear bomb? Do you have iodine pills and an NBC suit? Why not carry one in your car? There are plenty of unlikely eventualities that we could prepare for which don't involve raising the level of risk for ourselves and everyone else (i.e. if everyone carries a gun, everyone is in a lot more danger than if nobody carried a gun). Yet we don't prepare for them, because they're so unlikely. Yet we still carry guns to the local convenience store and have one near the bed "just in case". It boggles the mind. :wtf:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me... Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt. As far as no one having guns as I have said before if guns are outlawed who do you think is going to have them? The responsible trained gun owner or the gangster that wants to kill some random person to get into some gang. People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything. Also no I am not prepared for nuclear war but I do have car insurance while not likely I might have a wreck. All people do dumb things and there are many dumb gun owners and many dumb martial artist... If you are the kind of person that walk around with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight you don't need a gun or MA. The thing about your children I partially agree with...Guns in the home CAN be unsafe however I teach my children how to shoot with help as young as 5 years old because I want them to know how to handle a gun how dangerous it is and so they don't think of it as such a novelty...you know something they have just got to look at when I am not around. Also when/if the governments of the world fall and there is a food shortest my children will be able to provide for their self and their family by hunting. I also teach them how to garden and to can foods. There is no way that NO ONE will have guns it will not happen.... Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back...
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope...
Slaps are obviously not for killing. In the vast majority of fistfights no participant intends to kill the other. You concede that guns are for killing. How are those things the about the same? Slapping someone is obviously not the same as shooting someone. Both the intent and outcome are vastly different. And the points I think you're missing in the slapping exercise are that: a) the slappee isn't holding a gun in their hand all the time, so they can't immediately react by firing it, b) they do have arms and other body parts which can be immediately used to protect themselves adequately, and c) the slappee may not want to shoot someone dead for slapping them - in fact I've never met anyone in my life who I would have been willing to shoot dead (beat violently, perhaps, but not shoot). Therefore physical and martial arts training is important and worth discussing! :-D
It is worth discussing and I see your points however I still believe that mine made sense... I am not sure why you are quoting where I said guns are for killing.... Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger. If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason. The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family. Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something... Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those???"If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart...
Cars are not designed for killing. Guns are designed solely for killing. And I actually disagree that you could kill someone easier with your car. Otherwise soldiers would be driving around Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7, beeping at each other and mowing down their enemies, rather than carrying guns :laugh:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely... http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police. While this is a little off topic. Soldiers don't always get to use the most effective ways of killing bad guys... When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies. Humble Programmer