I Challenge YOU!

[geezer]

Not bad enough to be a bully, not smart enough to be a nerd, not brave enough to come out from behind my computer...I am Geezer, hear me grumble! OK now that that's done, here's the deal: I was just over on FMA Talk (a great forum--check it out if you haven't already) and I was reading some romanticised reflections about so-called "death matches" in the Philippines back in the 50's. These were full contact challenge bouts between famous fighters and masters, which often resulted in a serious injury or fatality. Practitioners and fans of the FMAs still debate the outcome of these fights, but nobody seems to condemn them. Instead, as seen through the rosy lense of history, they are viewed as part of the martial culture of those times, and as proof of the combat worthiness of these arts. Similar stories are told and retold in the Chinese, Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean Arts, as well as in the Western martial traditions. Remember when Jack Man Wong fought Bruce Lee? However, when these challenges happen in our own times, we cringe with embarrasment. Remember the whole Boztepe-Cheung debacle. In that case, even Boztepe now admits regret. Still, without re-visiting that incident, please isn't it a bit hypocritical to idolize the brawlers of our past and condemn those of the present. Aren't these fights the real laboratory that test's our arts?

 

[morph4me]

Aren't these fights the real laboratory that test's our arts?

No, no more than a team who wins a world series game has the better coaching, the next game can yield different results. It's just a contest of won a particular fight on a particular day. Another day a different practioner, different conditions etc. the person using the other art would win.

 

[grydth]

Applying present day American values, to the extent it may be said we have any, to what occurred in the past and in other countries is a fruitless, if not hypocritical exercise.

 

[arnisador]

isn't it a bit hypocritical to idolize the brawlers of our past and condemn those of the present.

I suppose it is, and I've had similar thoughts before. Yet, ours is a different day and age. If we look at the Founding Fathers of the U.S. we can find many sins from a modern vantage--e.g., that they were all founding fathers--but they were products of their time.

In a previous era a founder of a martial art would be expected to show he could walk the walk. It's different nowadays. I agree that it feels a bit hypocritical to laud Remy Presas for having participated in no-rules matches while simultaneously padding our students up for sparring with their soft sticks, but there's no other option that's legal (and moral). We practice the arts for different reasons and with different attitudes.

I'd wager that, as with so many things, this attitude will cycle!

 

[Guardian]

The post of anything can happen on different days. When I was sparring, sometimes I would lose to a TKD stylist and then 2 weeks later I would beat the same guy, it just varied on who was on top of their game that particular day.

So, no would be my answer as to does this show us these are the labatories of our arts. Not at all in my view.

 

[newGuy12]

Any kind of match to the death is a waste of a good Martial Artist, and should not be done. No death should happen on purpose. This is wasteful.

 

[Tez3]

I have no idea what the threads about as the only name I recognise is Bruce Lees! :lol:

Geezer? Are you English by any chance?

 

[tellner]

In a previous era a founder of a martial art would be expected to show he could walk the walk. It's different nowadays.

Well, yes and no. A lot of Ancient and Venerable martial arts came out of the two and a half centuries of brutally enforced totalitarian peace known as the Edo Period. Nobody was fighting. Nobody was in wars. You didn't have to be a badass or a brawler to open a school.

 

[searcher]

isn't it a bit hypocritical to idolize the brawlers of our past and condemn those of the present.

Amen to that bro.

 

[Doc_Jude]

No, no more than a team who wins a world series game has the better coaching, the next game can yield different results. It's just a contest of won a particular fight on a particular day. Another day a different practioner, different conditions etc. the person using the other art would win.

Well, it's not really as arbitrary as all that, now is it?

 

[Mark Lynn]

Not bad enough to be a bully, not smart enough to be a nerd, not brave enough to come out from behind my computer...I am Geezer, hear me grumble! OK now that that's done, here's the deal: I was just over on FMA Talk (a great forum--check it out if you haven't already) and I was reading some romanticised reflections about so-called "death matches" in the Philippines back in the 50's. These were full contact challenge bouts between famous fighters and masters, which often resulted in a serious injury or fatality. Practitioners and fans of the FMAs still debate the outcome of these fights, but nobody seems to condemn them. Instead, as seen through the rosy lense of history, they are viewed as part of the martial culture of those times, and as proof of the combat worthiness of these arts. Similar stories are told and retold in the Chinese, Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean Arts, as well as in the Western martial traditions. Remember when Jack Man Wong fought Bruce Lee? However, when these challenges happen in our own times, we cringe with embarrasment. Remember the whole Boztepe-Cheung debacle. In that case, even Boztepe now admits regret. Still, without re-visiting that incident, please isn't it a bit hypocritical to idolize the brawlers of our past and condemn those of the present. Aren't these fights the real laboratory that test's our arts?

Maybe it has to do more with the intent or the way the match was handled. For instance if someone challenged a master of a sword school in fuedal Japan he would first have to go through his students. He wouldn't just attack him at a seminar. GM Remy told me how he would leave the master he challenged an out so to speak so as not to kill the person. And yet I've heard stories where people had challenged him on a beach and there wasn't an out. Mushashi and his famous duel with the one swordsman on the beach, was published out there with both men knowing full well that one would likely die and both agreed to it.

So IMHO if both agree to it (such as the example of Mushashi), you follow proper ediquette (challenging the master in fuedal Japan), you leave the prospect of not killing the person in place. Then I think it is acceptable practice for that time frame and place. Back then it was a way to maintain honor and gain respect. Or a way to police what is being taught.

Now challenging someone on a seminar floor and attacking them in an effort to embrass them I think is in poor taste. But getting back to the idea of policing what is being taught, I met a guy last week who started in karate back in the 60's and during our discussion he was telling me stories about how his instructor would call him and tell him they were going to check out a school and the instructor (his) would show up and have his students spar with the new schools owners/students to see if they were any good or not. If they were teaching crap or if they were a scammer then they would tell the school owner to pack it up cause they were going to close him down. This is really the same thing.

 

[newGuy12]

I met a guy last week who started in karate back in the 60's and during our discussion he was telling me stories about how his instructor would call him and tell him they were going to check out a school and the instructor (his) would show up and have his students spar with the new schools owners/students to see if they were any good or not. If they were teaching crap or if they were a scammer then they would tell the school owner to pack it up cause they were going to close him down. This is really the same thing.

This actually happened in our city in the 70's. There was a very good Tracy's school in our city. They came to visit our school and they sparred. This was before my time. I later took lessons for a little bit from this teacher, American Kenpo.

The two schools would agree to meet and spar. Sometimes they would win more, sometimes our school would win more. It was done in a good spirit, though, it was not contentious, at least not any more than can be expected from this kind of competition. They did eventually quit it though, when it got too spirited. That's how the story goes. I did not witness this myself, but have no reason to not believe it.

Interestingly, the Tracy's school fell on bad times eventually. The story goes that they started to train very hard, and that "thinned the herd". Not many people wished to train so hard.

 

[arnisador]

Well, yes and no. A lot of Ancient and Venerable martial arts came out of the two and a half centuries of brutally enforced totalitarian peace known as the Edo Period. Nobody was fighting.

Well, if it was brutally enforced, then someone was fighting, even if it wasn't a wholesale war. But I'll grant that it was a bit of a generalization.

 

[morph4me]

Well, it's not really as arbitrary as all that, now is it?

I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't believe it, so I guess that my answer would be yes.

 

[newGuy12]

I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't believe it, so I guess that my answer would be yes.

Of course this is true. It would be MUCH more accurate to have an aggregate of several data points and look at the distribution.

Have the two competitors do a SERIES of matches (submission matches, some kind of criterion for winning, whatever), and then look at who wins the most time, under many different circumstances. Wet terrain, hilly terrain, sandy surface.

In the woods, at night in the dark. In the rain. And so forth. This would give a much better idea of who the best fighter was than a one time death match would do. Would it not? Who could disagree?

Who does an experiment, and then has ONE data point?

 

[searcher]

Of course this is true. It would be MUCH more accurate to have an aggregate of several data points and look at the distribution.

Have the two competitors do a SERIES of matches (submission matches, some kind of criterion for winning, whatever), and then look at who wins the most time, under many different circumstances. Wet terrain, hilly terrain, sandy surface.

In the woods, at night in the dark. In the rain. And so forth. This would give a much better idea of who the best fighter was than a one time death match would do. Would it not? Who could disagree?

Who does an experiment, and then has ONE data point?

Actually not a bad idea. I think that terrain and environment have been some areas heavily overlooked in the matches of the UFC, Pride, etc.


I think this tiem we need to stop short of throwing wild animals in the mix.:shrug:

 

[Doc_Jude]

I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't believe it, so I guess that my answer would be yes.

That wasn't a question, that was me disagreeing with you. Arts aren't equal. Both the fighter and the art play a part.

 

[Mark Lynn]

This actually happened in our city in the 70's. There was a very good Tracy's school in our city. They came to visit our school and they sparred. This was before my time. I later took lessons for a little bit from this teacher, American Kenpo.

The two schools would agree to meet and spar. Sometimes they would win more, sometimes our school would win more. It was done in a good spirit, though, it was not contentious, at least not any more than can be expected from this kind of competition. They did eventually quit it though, when it got too spirited. That's how the story goes. I did not witness this myself, but have no reason to not believe it.

Interestingly, the Tracy's school fell on bad times eventually. The story goes that they started to train very hard, and that "thinned the herd". Not many people wished to train so hard.

This isn't quite what was described to me. The way it was described by the person I was referring to was more like an instructor calling several of his hgiher ranked students to arrive unannounced to a new local dojo and check them out. With the full confidence that if they didn't measure up then they would shut them down and run them out of town. My instructor would arrange for us to spar with some other local schools/classes but they were known by us personally and they wasn't any real challange of put up or shut up and and I'll close you down.

Today a scam school would probably love for someone to do this because they would slap a law suit on the challangers so fast it would make their head spin. Then they would get money back on their investment and not even have to work for it.

Mark

 

[kaizasosei]

those kind of matches are best when at least one person has high level of skill. if both people are not really at a high level, it is not that great to watch unless you like unsophisticated brutality that is unnecessarily brutal yet often unable to do any damage at all.
if both contestants are really good, of course they might still get hurt bad, maybe worse if desired, but it may be more controlled.
what a waste of a fighter to get them all bashed up before they achieve a decent level of skill.
the reason that cockfights are illegal in some places is because people see them as inhumane. the animals are pushed to fight and armed to the teeth. - i think it is the similar for cagefights with people. if both really know what they are doing and accept the challenge, then it's better i think.

i'd rather see good martial arts than simple brutality and blood.

 

[kaizasosei]

Today a scam school would probably love for someone to do this because they would slap a law suit on the challangers so fast it would make their head spin. Then they would get money back on their investment and not even have to work for it.

good to know...