Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Boxing Vs MMA


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#26 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 24 April 2010 - 09:58 PM

I don't understand why you people insist on attempting to find out who would be better in a different sport. I wonder if Manny Ramirez would ever be a good golf player. I mean, they both swing things at balls right? They are two different sports and therefore the fighters train to do two different things. There may be some similarities, but it's still not the same. Any point attempting to see who would win in a cross-sport exhibition would be based purely on speculation, and therefore any statements about said point should be rendered moot. It's just no fun arguing about things without having logical backing. I mean if you want to do that go ahead and be an ESPN commentator, but try and have a bit more sense on these forums.

#27 Reddevil

Reddevil
  • 282 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 04:24 AM

I heard you guys get to watch K1 events for free.


yup, we get to watch it for free, live in HD on Eurosport BE/NL :) ^^

#28 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 10:23 AM

I don't understand why you people insist on attempting to find out who would be better in a different sport. I wonder if Manny Ramirez would ever be a good golf player. I mean, they both swing things at balls right? They are two different sports and therefore the fighters train to do two different things. There may be some similarities, but it's still not the same. Any point attempting to see who would win in a cross-sport exhibition would be based purely on speculation, and therefore any statements about said point should be rendered moot. It's just no fun arguing about things without having logical backing. I mean if you want to do that go ahead and be an ESPN commentator, but try and have a bit more sense on these forums.


Boxing, K1, and MMA are all marketed as "fighting."

#29 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 10:46 AM

Boxing, K1, and MMA are all marketed as "fighting."

Golf, Baseball and Cricket are all marketed as 'sports'. I don't get what kind of point you're trying to make? There's no refuting that they're different sports.

#30 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 11:11 AM

Golf, Baseball and Cricket are all marketed as 'sports'. I don't get what kind of point you're trying to make? There's no refuting that they're different sports.


You're comparing apples to oranges.

Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA all advertise themselves as fighting sports and their players as fighters. They all claim that their champions are the best fighters.

Its just like how everyone compares the xbox 360 and ps3 but no one compares any of those to the Wii. Its because the xbox 360 and ps3 vie for the same consumers (people who like decent graphics/hardcore gaming) whereas the Wii goes for a completely different audience (children and casual gamers).

MMA, kickboxing, and boxing all try to appeal to the consumers who like watching fights. so why can't you compare them?

#31 Reddevil

Reddevil
  • 282 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 11:19 AM

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA all advertise themselves as fighting sports and their players as fighters. They all claim that their champions are the best fighters.

Its just like how everyone compares the xbox 360 and ps3 but no one compares any of those to the Wii. Its because the xbox 360 and ps3 vie for the same consumers (people who like decent graphics/hardcore gaming) whereas the Wii goes for a completely different audience (children and casual gamers).

MMA, kickboxing, and boxing all try to appeal to the consumers who like watching fights. so why can't you compare them?


this +1

#32 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 12:18 PM

this +1


Further more, boxers, kickboxers, and mixed martial artists are able to enter each others' sports. This shows that they are all very similar. The only difference is the arena (ring or cage) and a few rules. But when was the last time a professional gulf player entered baseball?

Edited by Prodigy, 25 April 2010 - 12:19 PM.


#33 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 12:56 PM

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Boxing, Kickboxing, and MMA all advertise themselves as fighting sports and their players as fighters. They all claim that their champions are the best fighters.

Its just like how everyone compares the xbox 360 and ps3 but no one compares any of those to the Wii. Its because the xbox 360 and ps3 vie for the same consumers (people who like decent graphics/hardcore gaming) whereas the Wii goes for a completely different audience (children and casual gamers).

MMA, kickboxing, and boxing all try to appeal to the consumers who like watching fights. so why can't you compare them?

I think the point that you're failing to grasp here is that I understand that they're different fighting sports. They all claim that their champions are the best fighters of their respective sports. I'm not arguing that the people don't fight in the sport, obviously they do. The fighters of all the respective sports train to do different things. Why do they train differently? Because they're in different sports. They may all be fighting, but they're in, and let's make sure it's clear this time, DIFFERENT sports.

I could understand your analogy if you included the Wii. To exclude a console merely because it's not up to your own standards is a biased opinion. The XBox and 360 don't try to draw in the same consumers. If they did, there'd only be one console. Sure there are similarities between the two, but there's a reason that you can never get a definitive answer on which console is better. It's all up to the user opinion and the viewpoints that they choose to use. I have a PS3 because it's a cheap Blu-Ray player. It suits my needs better, therefore I think it's a better console. Obviously, many other people would disagree with me, but at the end of the day it's all opinion.

MMA, Kickboxing and Boxing don't all try to appeal to the same consumers. And even if they did, to say that's reason enough to compare fighter skill is ludicrous. They're different sports because different people like different things. They may all be classified in a similar group, but they're not the same sport for a reason.

Furthermore, as you said, rules are different. Therefore, you must train to do different things. Let's go back to your Video Game example. If I play at a competitive level where the only weapons allowed are pistols, and another league allows you to use all weapons there's going to be disadvantages. One has extreme proficiency with one weapon, and is ignorant of all others (because it's not allowed in game play). The other has moderate proficiency with all weapons, and is only ignorant of advanced techniques with the pistol. Obviously if the roles were reversed, they'd be at an extreme disadvantage because of what they train to do.

I'm not saying that there aren't Boxers who can go into MMA and be successful, or vice versa. That's because of the particular individual and how he changes his training. I can guarantee you that 99% of the time, an elite fighter in one group fighting an elite fighter in another group, the loser is going to be whoever isn't used to and hasn't trained the rule set. To say that the only difference is the arena and the rules is trying to make the differences sound miniscule. If they allowed spine, back of head and groin hits, as well as eye gouging, I can guarantee you it'd be a completely different sport and you wouldn't see the same fighters on top. There may be a couple that are still successful because they're proficient athletes, but that's because of the individual switching training methods.

Also, there are many multi-sport athletes. Goldberg and Brock Lesnar both played Profession Football. Jim Thorpe played Football, Baseball, Basketball and ran Track & Field. Hell even Michael Jordan played Baseball and Basketball. They may have done better than some in both, but they were only ever 'elite' at one thing at a time. Different sports require different training, and to compare any fighter that trains one thing to a fighter that trains another is both ignorant and facetious.

#34 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 02:19 PM

I think the point that you're failing to grasp here is that I understand that they're different fighting sports. They all claim that their champions are the best fighters of their respective sports. I'm not arguing that the people don't fight in the sport, obviously they do. The fighters of all the respective sports train to do different things. Why do they train differently? Because they're in different sports. They may all be fighting, but they're in, and let's make sure it's clear this time, DIFFERENT sports.

I could understand your analogy if you included the Wii. To exclude a console merely because it's not up to your own standards is a biased opinion. The XBox and 360 don't try to draw in the same consumers. If they did, there'd only be one console. Sure there are similarities between the two, but there's a reason that you can never get a definitive answer on which console is better. It's all up to the user opinion and the viewpoints that they choose to use. I have a PS3 because it's a cheap Blu-Ray player. It suits my needs better, therefore I think it's a better console. Obviously, many other people would disagree with me, but at the end of the day it's all opinion.

MMA, Kickboxing and Boxing don't all try to appeal to the same consumers. And even if they did, to say that's reason enough to compare fighter skill is ludicrous. They're different sports because different people like different things. They may all be classified in a similar group, but they're not the same sport for a reason.

Furthermore, as you said, rules are different. Therefore, you must train to do different things. Let's go back to your Video Game example. If I play at a competitive level where the only weapons allowed are pistols, and another league allows you to use all weapons there's going to be disadvantages. One has extreme proficiency with one weapon, and is ignorant of all others (because it's not allowed in game play). The other has moderate proficiency with all weapons, and is only ignorant of advanced techniques with the pistol. Obviously if the roles were reversed, they'd be at an extreme disadvantage because of what they train to do.

I'm not saying that there aren't Boxers who can go into MMA and be successful, or vice versa. That's because of the particular individual and how he changes his training. I can guarantee you that 99% of the time, an elite fighter in one group fighting an elite fighter in another group, the loser is going to be whoever isn't used to and hasn't trained the rule set. To say that the only difference is the arena and the rules is trying to make the differences sound miniscule. If they allowed spine, back of head and groin hits, as well as eye gouging, I can guarantee you it'd be a completely different sport and you wouldn't see the same fighters on top. There may be a couple that are still successful because they're proficient athletes, but that's because of the individual switching training methods.

Also, there are many multi-sport athletes. Goldberg and Brock Lesnar both played Profession Football. Jim Thorpe played Football, Baseball, Basketball and ran Track & Field. Hell even Michael Jordan played Baseball and Basketball. They may have done better than some in both, but they were only ever 'elite' at one thing at a time. Different sports require different training, and to compare any fighter that trains one thing to a fighter that trains another is both ignorant and facetious.


I can't be bothered to read that entire post.

but if you're trying to convince me that boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts can't be compared, you'll have to try harder.

#35 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 06:04 PM

I can't be bothered to read that entire post.

but if you're trying to convince me that boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts can't be compared, you'll have to try harder.

And we lose another soul to ignorance. I thought I could bring back intelligent debate to this forum, looks like I'm wrong.

#36 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 06:08 PM

And we lose another soul to ignorance. I thought I could bring back intelligent debate to this forum, looks like I'm wrong.


Lol. Sorry, I don't feel like reading your mindless bickering.

You don't declare yourself the victor because your argument was so pointless, boring and retarded that the opposition couldn't be bothered to read it.

Edited by Prodigy, 25 April 2010 - 06:09 PM.


#37 Warriors

Warriors
  • 985 posts


Users Awards

Posted 25 April 2010 - 06:08 PM

right now MMA is better..since boxing has gone downhill since all the heavyweights suck..yea Pacman is good but hes not what makes boxing watchable..People want to watch the greats. I guess maybe Mayweather and Hopkins and Sugar Ray can do something.

#38 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 06:11 PM

right now MMA is better..since boxing has gone downhill since all the heavyweights suck..yea Pacman is good but hes not what makes boxing watchable..People want to watch the greats. I guess maybe Mayweather and Hopkins and Sugar Ray can do something.


How many boxers are named 'Sugar Ray'?

#39 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 06:56 PM

Lol. Sorry, I don't feel like reading your mindless bickering.

You don't declare yourself the victor because your argument was so pointless, boring and retarded that the opposition couldn't be bothered to read it.

I hardly declared myself the victor. It wasn't an argument at all since you presented no facts and chose to ignore my statements. I'm glad to know that you can make assumptions that something is pointless and retarded when you "can't be assed to read it".

Keep going through life with that thinking, it'll get you far.

#40 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 07:01 PM

I hardly declared myself the victor. It wasn't an argument at all since you presented no facts and chose to ignore my statements. I'm glad to know that you can make assumptions that something is pointless and retarded when you "can't be assed to read it".

Keep going through life with that thinking, it'll get you far.


Everyone in this thread besides you happily compared the sports. Most fans of each sports are willing to compare the sport. You know nothing about these sports and you're trying to tell us that we can't compare them? Who the hell are you to tell us what to do in the first place?

This is a battle of opinions. You think that people shouldn't compare fighting sports and I think that its perfectly okay for people to compare them. Your opinion is no more valuable than the opinion of thousands of others.. Sorry.

#41 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 07:12 PM

Everyone in this thread besides you happily compared the sports. Most fans of each sports are willing to compare the sport. You know nothing about these sports and you're trying to tell us that we can't compare them? Who the hell are you to tell us what to do in the first place?

This is a battle of opinions. You think that people shouldn't compare fighting sports and I think that its perfectly okay for people to compare them. Your opinion is no more valuable than the opinion of thousands of others.. Sorry.

Let's follow the masses, because they must be right. Most fans of the sports are willing to compare the sport. Keyword here is most, not all. The few that don't are the intelligent ones. You're making assumptions that I don't know anything about these sports, and that's ignorant again. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm presenting you facts, you're calling me stupid and saying my posts aren't worth reading.

It's not a battle of opinions. Arguing who is the fighter that will win in a different sport is an opinion. An opinion that is based on no fact whatsoever, which is my complete argument. I know that people shouldn't compare sports that aren't identical because logically, you can't. You've failed to show me any proof that it can be done rationally and instead say that everyone else does it, so that must be the right way.

Honestly if you had any inkling of logic you'd learn that most of the time people on the internet are posting completely unreliable information that has no factual basing whatsoever. I'm not one of those people, and that's why you're having difficulty with me.

I apologize if I'm not some mindless little twit that goes with the flow, I use empirical data and logic to support my beliefs. I now remember why I left this site. Narrow-minded, illogical individuals like yourself choose to use mindless arguments and insist that they're right. We really don't need anymore iargues in the world, but it's painfully apparent that any form of logical and rational discussion has dissipated from the Codex community.

Have fun being ignorant and narrow minded. Maybe one day when you realize that just because everyone else does it, doesn't make it right, nor does it make it fact.

Edit: I'm done with this topic now, you kids have fun battling it out about which fighter will win in a one handed, no breathing fighting match. I mean, it's fighting, but the rules are altered, so we should totally be able to compare them logically.

#42 BuckFutter

BuckFutter
  • 310 posts

Posted 25 April 2010 - 09:57 PM

Any point attempting to see who would win in a cross-sport exhibition would be based purely on speculation, and therefore any statements about said point should be rendered moot. It's just no fun arguing about things without having logical backing. I mean if you want to do that go ahead and be an ESPN commentator, but try and have a bit more sense on these forums.


It's really humorous how you treat this whole thing as some kind of argument, while as you pointed out it's merely speculating. Speculating is somethings fans do. 



You say we argue without having logical backing, yet your analogy of our discussion using Manny Ramirez was just silly because it is an extreme example. A better analogy would be to ask how a 200m sprinter would do in a 4x400m relay. Similar sport? Yes. Different rules? Yes. Same means of training? NO. But I suppose if you want to say golf and baseball are similar sports, then go ahead and good for you (see the last statement I bolded).



Edit: I'm done with this topic now, you kids have fun battling it out about which fighter will win in a one handed, no breathing fighting match. I mean, it's fighting, but the rules are altered, so we should totally be able to compare them logically.

Well now that this dude is gone, let's discuss our next topic.


One handed, no breathing fighting match. Fedor vs Lesnar. Who do you guys pick?












#43 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 09:39 AM

It's really humorous how you treat this whole thing as some kind of argument, while as you pointed out it's merely speculating. Speculating is somethings fans do. 



You say we argue without having logical backing, yet your analogy of our discussion using Manny Ramirez was just silly because it is an extreme example. A better analogy would be to ask how a 200m sprinter would do in a 4x400m relay. Similar sport? Yes. Different rules? Yes. Same means of training? NO. But I suppose if you want to say golf and baseball are similar sports, then go ahead and good for you (see the last statement I bolded).




Well now that this dude is gone, let's discuss our next topic.


One handed, no breathing fighting match. Fedor vs Lesnar. Who do you guys pick?

I'm glad to know that sarcasm to you is considered fact. Please do try to form your arguments better. It's not silly because it's an extreme example, it's silly because it was meant to be. A better analogy would be what you said, that's correct. It would also be the pistol/all weapons example that I used as well. Quit being pedantic and attempting to use my sarcasm as fact for your rebuttal. Now show me how you can make a logical argument out of who would be better in a 200m sprint and a 4x400 relay. Let's also assume that the people don't train for the other events specifically. There is not one single shred of evidence that you can use. As you said, it's merely speculation, which is defined as
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
The whole attempt of my argument is to show you people that there will be no definitive answer, but you're all so quick to argue that I'm retarded and that my sarcasm is fact that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Just thought I'd throw that in there because I was done with the topic, and my argument with Prodigy, but another imbecile decided to step up and take his place.

#44 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 12:56 PM

I'm glad to know that sarcasm to you is considered fact. Please do try to form your arguments better. It's not silly because it's an extreme example, it's silly because it was meant to be. A better analogy would be what you said, that's correct. It would also be the pistol/all weapons example that I used as well. Quit being pedantic and attempting to use my sarcasm as fact for your rebuttal. Now show me how you can make a logical argument out of who would be better in a 200m sprint and a 4x400 relay. Let's also assume that the people don't train for the other events specifically. There is not one single shred of evidence that you can use. As you said, it's merely speculation, which is defined as

guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
The whole attempt of my argument is to show you people that there will be no definitive answer, but you're all so quick to argue that I'm retarded and that my sarcasm is fact that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Just thought I'd throw that in there because I was done with the topic, and my argument with Prodigy, but another imbecile decided to step up and take his place.


Thought you left this thread? Make up your mind.

and Buck, I'd say Fedor. Russian military cyborgs don't need to breathe.

Edited by Prodigy, 26 April 2010 - 12:56 PM.


#45 BuckFutter

BuckFutter
  • 310 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:25 PM

I'm glad to know that sarcasm to you is considered fact. Please do try to form your arguments better. It's not silly because it's an extreme example, it's silly because it was meant to be. A better analogy would be what you said, that's correct. It would also be the pistol/all weapons example that I used as well. Quit being pedantic and attempting to use my sarcasm as fact for your rebuttal. Now show me how you can make a logical argument out of who would be better in a 200m sprint and a 4x400 relay. Let's also assume that the people don't train for the other events specifically. There is not one single shred of evidence that you can use. As you said, it's merely speculation, which is defined as

guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
The whole attempt of my argument is to show you people that there will be no definitive answer, but you're all so quick to argue that I'm retarded and that my sarcasm is fact that you fail to see the bigger picture.

Just thought I'd throw that in there because I was done with the topic, and my argument with Prodigy, but another imbecile decided to step up and take his place.


When did I mention that there's a definitive answer? Questions that we raise are just to bring up discussion of the sports that we are fans of, this is not like taking a test and having there be right and wrong answers. If there were a definitive answer to these hypothetical situations then there wouldn't be much discussion at all, which is not the point.

You make it sound as if we're trying to fight each other to determine a concrete answer to these hypothetical questions, but that's not the case. We're simply using our knowledge of the sports and the athletes, as well as our interest, to create and encourage discussion. Even with other sports, you find these situations. If Lebron and Kobe play 1v1, who would win? Questions like these that fans of sports ask out of interest, for discussion, and perhaps just as importantly for fun. As you mentioned, this is something ESPN analysts do. It's not my dream job, no, but it is interesting to hear what they have to say about the subject. The equivalent of this on this particular forum would be people speculating on how Neopets attempt to track autobuyers and how we can avoid getting frozen. If there were a surefire formula, it would be advertised as such and there would be no warning about use of the autobuyer. Yet the fact that the autobuyer exists and people use it and have not yet been frozen is sign that speculation is not merely nonsense - there is logic and reasoning backing it. There is some degree of logic involved in speculation, just not to the extent that concrete evidence is present and would present a definitive answer. If this particular thread does not interest you, then simply ignore it - no need to come in here with the intent to troll the fans.

Now addressing the 200m and 4x400m situation, I think my original question was how well a 200m sprinter would perform in a 4x400m relay. The main factors involved would be that 1) the 200m sprinter is only good at short distances and will probably have an advantage up until at least the 200m mark and 2) the 400m is twice as long and an unfamiliar procedure of baton passing/receiving is required. Since I do not know much of these two sports, I will just stop here. But if you do not see that there is some bit of logic involved in speculation, then I really don't know what to say.

and Buck, I'd say Fedor. Russian military cyborgs don't need to breathe.


Agree.

#46 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:58 PM

When did I mention that there's a definitive answer? Questions that we raise are just to bring up discussion of the sports that we are fans of, this is not like taking a test and having there be right and wrong answers. If there were a definitive answer to these hypothetical situations then there wouldn't be much discussion at all, which is not the point.

You make it sound as if we're trying to fight each other to determine a concrete answer to these hypothetical questions, but that's not the case. We're simply using our knowledge of the sports and the athletes, as well as our interest, to create and encourage discussion. Even with other sports, you find these situations. If Lebron and Kobe play 1v1, who would win? Questions like these that fans of sports ask out of interest, for discussion, and perhaps just as importantly for fun. As you mentioned, this is something ESPN analysts do. It's not my dream job, no, but it is interesting to hear what they have to say about the subject. The equivalent of this on this particular forum would be people speculating on how Neopets attempt to track autobuyers and how we can avoid getting frozen. If there were a surefire formula, it would be advertised as such and there would be no warning about use of the autobuyer. Yet the fact that the autobuyer exists and people use it and have not yet been frozen is sign that speculation is not merely nonsense - there is logic and reasoning backing it. There is some degree of logic involved in speculation, just not to the extent that concrete evidence is present and would present a definitive answer. If this particular thread does not interest you, then simply ignore it - no need to come in here with the intent to troll the fans.

Now addressing the 200m and 4x400m situation, I think my original question was how well a 200m sprinter would perform in a 4x400m relay. The main factors involved would be that 1) the 200m sprinter is only good at short distances and will probably have an advantage up until at least the 200m mark and 2) the 400m is twice as long and an unfamiliar procedure of baton passing/receiving is required. Since I do not know much of these two sports, I will just stop here. But if you do not see that there is some bit of logic involved in speculation, then I really don't know what to say.



Agree.


Bryan sounds like those ignorant people who try to argue that no martial art is better than any other and that it all depends on the practitioner of the martial art. RIGHT..... in that case, all practitioners of Aikido must suck.

#47 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 04:17 PM

When did I mention that there's a definitive answer? Questions that we raise are just to bring up discussion of the sports that we are fans of, this is not like taking a test and having there be right and wrong answers. If there were a definitive answer to these hypothetical situations then there wouldn't be much discussion at all, which is not the point.

You make it sound as if we're trying to fight each other to determine a concrete answer to these hypothetical questions, but that's not the case. We're simply using our knowledge of the sports and the athletes, as well as our interest, to create and encourage discussion. Even with other sports, you find these situations. If Lebron and Kobe play 1v1, who would win? Questions like these that fans of sports ask out of interest, for discussion, and perhaps just as importantly for fun. As you mentioned, this is something ESPN analysts do. It's not my dream job, no, but it is interesting to hear what they have to say about the subject. The equivalent of this on this particular forum would be people speculating on how Neopets attempt to track autobuyers and how we can avoid getting frozen. If there were a surefire formula, it would be advertised as such and there would be no warning about use of the autobuyer. Yet the fact that the autobuyer exists and people use it and have not yet been frozen is sign that speculation is not merely nonsense - there is logic and reasoning backing it. There is some degree of logic involved in speculation, just not to the extent that concrete evidence is present and would present a definitive answer. If this particular thread does not interest you, then simply ignore it - no need to come in here with the intent to troll the fans.

Now addressing the 200m and 4x400m situation, I think my original question was how well a 200m sprinter would perform in a 4x400m relay. The main factors involved would be that 1) the 200m sprinter is only good at short distances and will probably have an advantage up until at least the 200m mark and 2) the 400m is twice as long and an unfamiliar procedure of baton passing/receiving is required. Since I do not know much of these two sports, I will just stop here. But if you do not see that there is some bit of logic involved in speculation, then I really don't know what to say.



Agree.

And finally we get to something productive. I agree with almost everything you've stated. Bravo. I wasn't attempting to troll, merely provoke intelligent conversation and alas I've found a bit of hope. Actually, I remember the main point that started this whole argument was my question that stated was something on the lines of 'I don't understand why you people insist on arguing something that cannot be proven true/false'. Someone responded with 'they're all the same sport' I said that didn't make sense, they said I'm stupid and my posts were too long to be read so therefore I'm retarded. Your post is what I hope to see more of in the future. Thought out rebuttals using sense and logic. I wish that more conversations could go on like that. You have answered my question in a logical way.

Bryan sounds like those ignorant people who try to argue that no martial art is better than any other and that it all depends on the practitioner of the martial art. RIGHT..... in that case, all practitioners of Aikido must suck.

Bryan sounds like nothing, you've said my posts are too long to be read and called me retarded for using sound logic. If anyone is ignorant, by definition that's you.

Also, to fuel the fire, no martial art is better. It does depend on the individual training and the situation in which it is used. I would never use Aikido in a life-threatening situation, just like I'd never use Kali Eskrima or Krav Maga in a sparring match. I know a lot more about martial arts than you think, don't make assumptions about people, it just makes yourself look even more like an ass.

#48 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 05:23 PM

And finally we get to something productive. I agree with almost everything you've stated. Bravo. I wasn't attempting to troll, merely provoke intelligent conversation and alas I've found a bit of hope. Actually, I remember the main point that started this whole argument was my question that stated was something on the lines of 'I don't understand why you people insist on arguing something that cannot be proven true/false'. Someone responded with 'they're all the same sport' I said that didn't make sense, they said I'm stupid and my posts were too long to be read so therefore I'm retarded. Your post is what I hope to see more of in the future. Thought out rebuttals using sense and logic. I wish that more conversations could go on like that. You have answered my question in a logical way.


Bryan sounds like nothing, you've said my posts are too long to be read and called me retarded for using sound logic. If anyone is ignorant, by definition that's you.

Also, to fuel the fire, no martial art is better. It does depend on the individual training and the situation in which it is used. I would never use Aikido in a life-threatening situation, just like I'd never use Kali Eskrima or Krav Maga in a sparring match. I know a lot more about martial arts than you think, don't make assumptions about people, it just makes yourself look even more like an ass.


Do you like speaking in third person?

#49 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 April 2010 - 05:27 PM

Do you like speaking in third person?


He was taking what you literally said and changing it literally into something that made sense.

A more viable retort would have been a point-by-point breakdown of why you believe he is wrong instead of pointing out an obvious "mistake" that you thought you found. It was worded that way to prove a point, and your reply did nothing to refute anything he has ever said, including the statement that was worded in the third person.

#50 Ambition

Ambition
  • 558 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 06:27 PM

He was taking what you literally said and changing it literally into something that made sense.

A more viable retort would have been a point-by-point breakdown of why you believe he is wrong instead of pointing out an obvious "mistake" that you thought you found. It was worded that way to prove a point, and your reply did nothing to refute anything he has ever said, including the statement that was worded in the third person.


Thats too much work. I don't feel the need to convince him to change his opinion. Its interesting how much anger my one liners can invoke from him.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users