>> |
Anonymous
>>294975 >I'm debating the effectiveness of martial arts. So was I. Most styles are/were greatly predisposed to breeding these abominations. No matter how good a style is at its best, if all I see it produce is closed-minded, ineffective combatants, I'm going to go ahead and develop a negative opinion. So I feel its fair to place mixed blame between certain styles and the schools/instructors that teach them. You also don't seem to gather that I make a distinction between the styles I've gathered a negative opinion of, others a positive opinion of, and styles I can't comment on because I don't know enough about them. Stop looking at what I say in black and white FFS.
>I've said throughout this thread that I've cross trained fairly extensively. Never said you didn't. I made an aside that overspecialization is a bad idea, not directed towards you, you defensive fuck. What I was getting at, is despite your cross-training, you haven't noticed the fairly obvious things I have, and I also get an extremely strong impression that you have pretty much zero real-world experience or application of anything you've learned. Just say it already, you've never been in a real fight, or even seen a fight involving any level of martial artist, but you're *pretty* sure you'd do fine. Given the diversity and length of your training and the styles you've picked, you probably will, but don't go on about how effective traditional martial arts are when you've dedicated a disproportionately high chunk of your life to training, and yet never seem to have actually used it.
This discussion is about _applied_ martial arts, and until you have some level of first - hell, even second hand experience that you can speak of, your input boils down to conjecture.
As for my gun analogy, I'm sorry you didn't like it, but that's probably because it hits home.
|