Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by Ivan, Feb 22, 2020.
You are equating sex with gender here and you are wrong. In fact you are wrong on many levels.
How on Earth can someone with no MA experience create a functional MA?
LOL...it's all conjecture and doesn't mean a thing of any real importance. As such is but a waste of time.
But,theroeritical martial arts is what i thrive in though!
Pending how pedantic and literal you want to be, the response varies. I wont be at all here.
If you use martial arts to mean system, you dont need to study under another system to make one. If you use it to mean fighting skills, then a lot of things can be put under the banner. For both, backyard brawls and just experience tied into instinct should be suffcient. (and had to be as thats where everything started from)
Basically you dont need formal training to learn how to fight, or to "teach" somone what you have learnt. Now how good it is, is anothe rmatter. But since this is entirely hypothetical and no system is being cited its pointless to argue or discuss. (as one of these hasnt been around for a while, at least as far as i know)
That is a less rambly and pedantic version of what i wrote after that orginally.
You have to consider the source. @Rat thinks he's a martial arts expert, based on his getting halfway through white belt in ITF TKD, and all the articles he's read.
Let's look at female MMA vs male MMA. One is designed for males to fight at an elite level one designed for females.
I haven't noticed much difference in the systems.
One small change is for females is you have to know how to braid hair really well.
It is a thought exercise. It is like asking if the world was square. You find out why it is round.
Optimisation should be diffrent, what a female can do easier should be vary to what a male can do easier just down to merits of the physical diffrences.
As stated, not discussing amount, was just relying they are diffrent and the emrits of that lead to each finding certain things easier than the other. I am fully in the block it only effects a few things. But it still effects them and should be acknowledged.
Edit: Now, if we look at the social side of female fighting like i ranted about earlier, its hair clinching for untrained ones. (and even trained ones)
It is a very hypothetical topic though. I don't think we will wind up with a functional art at the end of this.
I am of the school of thought that fighting basically optimizes in one general direction. So optimal for women or optimal for prison, self defence, westerners, Asians whatever is mostly marketing.
There might be subtle changes but if you did a style that generically optimises fighting you would probably beat a style that specializes.
The many stages of the martial art we are creating right now.
Im more getting out if you want the best possible result, it needs to be tailored to you and you alone. But as the topic was about females, and females are diffrent to males then there is a diffrent average to account for there. It might be the equal of only a second or under a second diffrence for the most part though.
edit: Without hosting a study on said matter, i am somewhat at a loss.
As do many men.
Care to explain what that paragraph actually says?
Social side? Are you trying to be dense or does it comes naturally?
It be specific it wasn't actually 'about females', it was asking if a martial art created by a woman would be better than that created by a man, it didn't ask if it would be better for women, just if it would be better.
You don't need to host a study. You need experience.
Yes, you are.
This statement reminds me of the highschooler that just finished his physics class, and visits a site like physicsworld a bunch, arguing with experiential physicists about time travel and passing the speed of light.
I cannot comment specifically on Wing Chun, because it is not my thing, so I will leave that to others who have some knowledge of Wing Chun.
But I take issue with the premise of the highlighted portion of your question. While it is true that as a rule, men possess greater upper body strength than women, that has no bearing on an individual. And take this to actual martial arts. Many martial arts ideally favor a body type that is a mix of speed, quickness, agility and strength, and not just brute strength. To put a finer point on this, while I don't know exactly how big Ip Man was, from photos taken with Bruce Lee, he looks at least a few inches shorter and a bit smaller than Lee, and Bruce Lee was maybe 5'8" and 140 lbs. So looking at the real world, it is not just possible, but probably that most women are capable of packing on at least as much muscle as Ip Man or Bruce Lee, assuming they had the same dedication and training as those MA legends.
Similarly, Funakoshi, the Karate legend who pioneered the development of Shotokan Karate was only 5' tall. By some accounts, he was powerfully built, but how much muscle can you put on a 5' frame? Same for General Choi Hong Hi. By all acounts a small and sickly child, in pictures he never was a large or imposing figure. I don't know how big he was, bbut he certainly wasn't built like an NFL Linebacker. He was more likely smaller than most women.
To keep it breif. Havent reletively experiened people come up with wrong conclusions and been corrected by more junior memebers? It happens and people are fallible. Not to get too into it, as not the thread and it would be a argument off the back of a joke.
There are very few martial arts dedicated to defending against smaller weaker oponants.123
Separate names with a comma.