It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


End this media-promoted, "kung-fu" madness!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by TLomon

It is silly and alarmist.

That's like saying, in 2011 more than 32K people died in car accidents.
Therefore let's ban cars. Obviously they are dangerous.


posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:47 AM
if you have read the ops other stuff ( just google it) posted around the web and on this site..seems to be 'anti-violence even in the face of violence' which is comendable..not practical.

the whole 'kung-fu madness'?!? killing with a touch, the tiger hand technique to rip your opponets heart out....twisting the neck off.....thoughts and talk from a obvious beginner in the martial arts. and to even try to link it to ..'guns' is laughable and fear-mongering at best. buy a gun..pull the trigger. walk into a martial arts class, train for 1 hour or 3 years and now you are considered a 'gun'?!? this was talked about in the 60'and 70'..that 'martial artists' should be registared as a 'lethal weapon'...they have hands and feet and they know how to use them...
we could say that the human body is a " bloody weapon, designed to inflict injuries." the bony protusions of the homo sapien, which can be used to inflict extensive damage to another, even by the most untrained.

i must be missing the news reports of the hordes of fights and deaths and injuries due to all this 'kung-fu madness' of course the ops point is "kung fu" glorifies killing and harming our fellow humans. the title of your thread should be "martial arts madness" is more encompassing than 'kung-fu' and what, no mention of the collosseum fights? 'professional wrestling' and MMA type fights? my point with the last statements was that the use of the term "kung-fu madness" was a poor one.

practicing a 'martial art' is much more than just learning the learn to defend ones self...but to learn the mental and spiritual dicipline of how to not use be aware that your actions, your demeanor and your mind are your best weapons..and if that fails, you have either not studied enough the world shows us..that sometimes things are out of your hands.

in the end..this thread is just a different way of posting 'doom-porn"

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

First, the history of most martial arts comes with it stories of oppression. Monks in China used to store weapons, food, money for triads. The dutch colonized Indonesia which eventually led to a rebellion and independence:

Dutch ambassador to Indonesia Tjeerd de Zwaan apologised for the "excesses committed by Dutch forces" between 1945 and Indonesia's independence in 1949.

A UN report at the time condemned the killings as deliberate and ruthless.

Whether or not the technique is teaching you to kill someone, if the cause originally was used to defend your home and country, it still falls in line with defence. As in "This enemy is going to do ____ to you, so you must do ____.

In contrast, martial arts with weapons, or weaponized fighting, have been taught for ages to military regimens, in the most effective way to kill someone (before the time of guns.) Roman's had wrestling and they had swords, the wrestling was used as sport and the sword for killing in battle. A weapon completely changes a martial art. And if the martial art has weapons, used for military training, teaches the most effective way of killing someone, then by all means call it an offensive fighting style.

Some will still say that there is weaponized defence, and it is a legitimate argument. Any CCW holder will attest to that.

There are many different tjiminde styles alone. The origins of
combat in Indonesia are believed to date back as far as 6th century A.D. on Riouw.
The Riouw combat style is today called Silat Melayu. The silat was a very crude
combat system from 6th century A.D. to the 14th century. However, by the 16th
century came around the Riouw had a very complete, and effective combat system.
The system went out, and was taught to the Menangkabau Kingdom at Priangan.
Then it was then carried to the Srividjaya Empire at Palembang. The sultans and their
court officials were taught this system of silat, but common peasants were not aloud
to learn or practice the systems techniques. By 1520 the empire of Indonesia fell.
Indonesia was controlled by the Portuguese in 1511, and then by the Dutch in 1596
until the last of the, “The Great Wars” World War II. The Germans invade Holland, and
the Japanese took control of Indonesian islands. Indonesian rebels fought for their
country’s independents. In 1945, the Japanese was unsuccessful to maintain control
over Indonesia. The Dutch Military returned to try to re-take Indonesia. The
Indonesians use their art of silat, and other weapons to defend off the larger Dutch
soldiers. In 1949 Indonesia declared it independents.

Now see, you can argue the very first form wasn't defensive. If a commoner is not allowed to know, and only the imperial guard is privy to a fighting style, then it's a method of oppression. Which is mirrored in many histories. The most important part being though, that today, nearly anyone can learn a form of martial arts. Which is ironic, since the OP wants to ban them, which would turn it back into something passed down generation by generation, making it that much easier to abuse.

In one case you are just referring to something else by another name. 拳道 or Kyun dou, or jeet kune do, or tae kwon do, and all the variations out there… Literally meaning, the way of the fist.

拳道(闽南语/白话字:kûn-thâu),是「武術」的閩南語稱呼,常見於东南亚華人社群,尤其是馬來群島的華人。 道在印尼最為普及,然而在馬來西亞、汶萊、新加坡及菲律賓也頗為常見。在這些地區,中國武術常隨著商人、 工與其他移民由中國南方傳來。拳道也與東南亞當地的武術「席拉」融和,因而產生出被稱為「拳道席拉」的混 技法。
過去拳道多為秘密傳授,常形成家族世代相傳的形式。目前一些武術學校的教學,仍保有幾分神密色彩;不僅防範 非華人,甚至也防範華人中的其他族群。雖然歷史上東南亞地區僅有少數非華人研習拳道,它仍在二十世紀後半期 逐漸普及。
傳統風格的拳道被當今的學習者認為是「真正的」中國武術,因為它們早在少林寺被毀前即已存在。在美國的綜合 格鬥中,它已有成為主流的趨勢。即使用此,傳統的拳道學校在美國數量極少,在西方世界仍屬罕見。並不。

Passed down from generation to generation within one's clan… Originally taught to people to protect themselves from whites… etc, etc. Came about after the destruction of the shoalin in China, see the triads again. I am not seeing it as the way you do,

CHinese traders had a very deadly system of martial art known as Kun Tau. Was a mix of macao area southern chinese kung fu mixed with kali/silat It's obvious it's pretty lethal and was designed to kill quickly and with the bare hands.

Yes, and the variations with weapons? I don't see the deadly fist variations.

Certain types of silat are not defensive.

Certain types of anything with weapons is not defensive. But any of the martial arts are defensive in nature. As they were bred out of defence. An art for offence, as an example, would be something like fencing.

CImande is another art very similar in tacktics. Although, it's movement are more based around the knife usage. It too was designed explicitly for killing.

You are making my point for me again, you don't invade a country without weapons…

Gatka originated in what is now northern India and neighbouring Pakistan, with its techniques ultimately rooted in the fighting methods of the medieval Panjab. The people of the area were feared warriors, known for their tall stature and relatively heavier build. Their system of fighting is termed shastar vidiya, originally used in reference to swordsmanship but also a generic word for armed combat.

How many times are you going to point out what I said?

Look at pekiti tersia. It's a filipeno style of kali

Kali weapons…

Pukulan in front of it's name denotes a style or attitude of training where it's better to hit first, pre emptively strike, to crash into and then smother your opponent and destroy anything and everything you can as quickly as you can.

As far as assassinations go, there is have been certain methods of lifestyle which included combat training, although more so in fiction do you hear about a martial art dedicated to an elite order of assassins who eliminate targets in a wash of smoke.

In reality, most assassinations throughout history, when looked at, show that an assassin is more likely to be trained in the art of deception, or the mother tongue of an enemy, or in getting her target into private quarters. In some cases, it's just a mob bludgeoning or stabbing. Poisonings, which made chemists (alchemists) an assassins best friend.

But even with the clandestine killings of old, there are plenty of assassinations that went down just as ugly as a bunch of raiders looting the trade route. Usually a good cache of weapons ensured it ended the way it was intended to.

Perhaps I should be clearer, find me a martial art technique that utilizes no weapons for killing? If you find it, source it, link me to the source. It should be simple if you know it. The stuff I posted was floating in my head, but I referenced it all out of courtesy.

Simply put, for an offensive strike weapons were the choice throughout history. Whether it be assassins or armies. When a warrior loses his weapon, it turns into "how the ____ am I gonna defend myself."
edit on 4-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:53 AM


Kung Fu is essentially slapping and hair pulling. Yes, highly romanticized in the movies but watch some really old footage from the 50s of kung fu competitions in China and it looks like a bunch of teenage girls trying to rip each others hair out.

Now maybe you could argue Wushu? But then again that is all done with weapons intended to maim or kill the opponent.

In fact, nearly all martial arts done with hand to hand combat are to disable the opponent, not kill them, as killing them is inefficient with the hands.

If you believe otherwise you've watched too much Kill Bill and truly believe the five finger exploding heart technique is real…

You do realize that competitive martial arts is highly neutered in the lethality department for the combatants' safety right? Why don't you look up some underground kickboxing tournaments or heck how about this martial art:

Muay Thai

Muay boran, and therefore muay Thai, was originally called by more generic names such as pahuyuth (from the Sanskrit bahu-yuddha meaning unarmed combat), Toi muay or simply muay. As well as being a practical fighting technique for use in actual warfare, muay became a sport in which the opponents fought in front of spectators who went to watch for entertainment. These muay contests gradually became an integral part of local festivals and celebrations, especially those held at temples. Eventually, the previously bare-fisted fighters started wearing lengths of hemp rope around their hands and forearms. This type of match was called muay khat chueak (มวยคาดเชือก). Kickboxing was also a component of military training and gained prominence during the reign of King Naresuan in 1560 CE.

Emphasis added. I'm sure a fighting style that was developed for warfare can't be compared to "slapping and hair pulling."

In 1975 there was a group of 7 fighters from all over the world came to Thailand to fight 7 Thai fighters. 2 of the fighters were Chinese Kung-Fu super duper ?? degreed (in their own country B.A.s). One of the Thai fighters had been injured (motorcycle accident?) so he could not fight during the televised bout... Not to worry a retired X champion said he would come out of retirement (been retired for several years and already had a rice belly) and fight the biggest baddest Kung-Fu dude... The song "Kunf Fu Fighting " was still very popular in 1975.

There was not "one" guest fighter who lasted a complete round with the Muay Thai fighters. Broken jaws and collar bones stopped the fight.

Muay Thai, in a stand up fight is hard to beat, therefore many in todays MMA have studied the fighting art because it is so effective. Yet even MMA only allows a watered down version of Muay Thai.

Where Muay Thai fails is on the ground. The King of Siam did not maintain or keep his kingdom by slapping and hair pulling.

During my warrior days I thought more than once if I had 1000 Thai Warriors and the world still fought with horse, sword, and spear I could take over the world and form my own 727Sky Dynasty; concubines and all !!

Actually The 5 tribes of Thai (only 35,000 warriors) killed 400,000 Chinese in a valley in Laos.... Long story but Thai means free.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by 727Sky

Yea, I've studied this art (not physically but its history) as well. It is truly a nasty martial art. Muay Thai and its predecessor Muay Boran get their deadliness from the fact that they incorporate knee and elbow blows into their repertoire. Grabbing someone's head and slamming it into your incoming knee is very damaging.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

Not try that same postition but with your head rotated 90% to the side (like your looking hard to the right or left) Imagine how easy it would be to tilt someones head back and then in a scuffle throw your forearm across their faceto turn it to the side, while it's cranked back, and then you decide to buckle your kneed out from underyourself to add 200+ pound of your weight into some hapless cervicle vertibrae. Pretty easy situation to get your self or someone else into. The consequences of which could really suck.

The move is banned since ancient times in wrestling. because it's easy and it BREAKS NECKS.


You are talking about a spine crank, cervical lock, and yeah, it can break the neck, if you are able to perform it. What it takes to put someone in that position does not make it a practical form of "mystical assassination" , well, depending on your target… Kind of playing the buzz words and talking points on me here. I will not list my accomplishments, background or anything like that, but I can attest that I have my neck cranked in all sorts of positions, some accidental… Point being that I am familiar and I maintain my position.

Commonly, spinal locks might strain the spinal musculature or result in a ... to the vertebrae, and possibly result in serious spinal cord injury, strokes, or death

Big emphasis on the may cause…

There was something really nice about MMA when it first came out, it kind of schooled everyone on fighting, as in, the biggest guy doesn't always win. And, wrestling clubs used to be for the semi nerdy (but athletic), never really getting the prestige it did. Then UFC came out and suddenly everyone knows every style there is, and all of us who had been following the Abu Dabis, the original UFC, the NCAAs, well, no one knew what we were talking about if we brought them up…

Everyone saw the karate kid though…

I recommend trying to take out the mystery out of it. Essentially, MMA has done that. The people who say their art is blah blah blah, and then also say, "well it's not about competition…" ok. So don't mention it then.

And if your art is about arms combat, go train military, they love it. Simple as that. There is no mystical stuff left anymore because it was never mystic in the first place, it was no different than a scientist speaking to an illiterate village kid in laos, showing them something they think is magic….

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

You do realize that competitive martial arts is highly neutered in the lethality department for the combatants' safety right? Why don't you look up some underground kickboxing tournaments or heck how about this martial art:

Muay Thai


You realize that there are Muay Thai fights literally every night in Thailand? The produced shows are on Fridays but you can find one anytime at an underground fight. Heck, I even seen two bums with pretty good technique launching legs to the head there.

Emphasis added. I'm sure a fighting style that was developed for warfare can't be compared to "slapping and hair pulling.

Well, you can actually go to Thailand, saaa waaaa ddiiiiiiii, just make sure you don't get ripped off by the fake monks. With a few bhat and some balls, you can fight a Muay Thai fighter yourself. Good times.

By the way, every military is trained in some form of hand to hand combat.

The legend says that Naresuan shot a Burmese general with a gun from across the Sittoung River – This is called the Royal Shot Across the Sittoung River (Thai: พระแสงปืนข้ามแม่น้ำสะโตง). After the death of his general, Minchit Sra retreated.

Yet for some reason the King used a gun?

It helps if you guys brush up on your history before debating me. Naresuan had an elephant army, and unless you are going to argue he was throwing muai thai kicks off the backs of elephants you really have no point.

King Naresuan was a badass warlord who, while he was the reigning King of Thailand, won freedom for his people and fought off a foreign invasion by battling a tyrannical enemy king in a goddamned swordfight fought on the back of two rampaging elephants.

The tale begins in the mid-1560s, when the power-hungry King of the neighboring realm of Burma invaded Thailand, murdered the ass out of the Thai army, conquered their capital, took out the Thai King, sold half the population of the kingdom into slavery, and then rode back to Burma with Prince Naresuan as a prisoner. The grandson of the Thai King, Prince Naresuan grew up far from home, in the royal court of Burma, spending his formative years studying alongside the Burmese nobility. When this guy wasn't seething about the treatment of his family and his beloved Thai people, he was hardcore feuding with the Burmese Crown Prince – an almost-equally tough young man who was about the same age as Prince Naresuan yet almost constantly acted like a giant dickbag to him whenever possible. Basically he was like the Malfoy to Naresuan 's Harry Potter.

For an entertaining account.

So much ego in this thread. "My mystical kung fu is stronger than your mystical kung fu", "my bleeding double dragon fist will eat your tiger claw fist"

Okay whatever. Bottom line, is Machida proved a very talented fighter can defeat an opponent with just about any style. No one ever saw a win coming from karate background.

And second, is that in war, soldiers are outfitted with weapons, not fists. As weapons are the most effective at killing people. Hand to hand combat training is used for when you lose your weapon or are disarmed, which makes it defensive in nature. You can even go further into it, as the whole reason various forms were developed, but you shouldn't have to.

Just stop…

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:30 AM

reply to post by 727Sky

Yea, I've studied this art (not physically but its history) as well. It is truly a nasty martial art. Muay Thai and its predecessor Muay Boran get their deadliness from the fact that they incorporate knee and elbow blows into their repertoire. Grabbing someone's head and slamming it into your incoming knee is very damaging.

So is eye gouging. Which is what wing chun kung fu incorporates, and small joint manipulation. Mainly because bastard imperials were picking on the little guys who couldn't defend themselves…

In the case of muai thai, perhaps because the evil prince was shagging the rightful prince's sister? All that pent of rage, made him wanna bash knees into his face and give him the ol' 12-6 elbow?

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:39 AM
What you guys fail to get, is that no matter what mystical, mysterious dark sacred martial art you learn, whether it's 10,000 years old, 5,000 years old, developed by a voodoo black ninja, a fairy prince, or by Ron Jeremy, it doesn't matter if someone is more skilled than you.

You could be the black dragon assassin from shao mun zu, but if I know karate/judo/tae kwan do really well, and I'm athletically gifted, I'm gonna beat you. Heck, if I'm 500 lbs ill just sit on you, and then fart, and taunt you, followed by me asphyxiating you with my butt cheeks.

This has all been proven over time. That some martial arts have various strengths but skill level is key. There are some martial arts more apt for certain things, yes. Some with more offensive moves than defence, but they all boil down to the same thing. And they are all taught for the same reason.

They are all centred around self defence (I concede weapons based is slightly different) and they all instil regimen, discipline and control. That is one of the reasons they are a mainstay for standing armies.

You can only tell a grunt to do so many pushups and so many obstacle courses, and yep it has a real world application in self defence too. And normal, emotionally balanced, properly apprenticed teacher will instil all the same things into you, and you might be a better person after it all.

However, if you truly believe you are a ninja assassin, whoever schooled you should lose their teaching qualifications and you really need a new hobby. I can kill you with jello (and cyanide) and I can get it from an almond.

Shove that voodoo magic in your pipe and smoke it. You just got whacked by a fruit.
edit on 4-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by boncho

Hate to break this to you but most of the styles of south East Asian martial arts you refered to have plenty of empty hand kills. Go back to sera and look up jurus #1. Bet when you look at it you'll think hey that looks rather simple and lame. But that simple drill was used to train soldier for hundreds of years. It works both with a knife and empty hand the movements are nearly the same. If you know what you're looking at you'll see that there are several destructive and killing moves.

Lots if arts that utilize the knife or weapons. All the ones you referenced in fact are designed from he get go to have the weapons be natural extensions if their hands. All knife techniques in silat or Kali are also extremely effective empty hand techniques. So you train one movement and regardless of whether you have no weapon a knife or a stick the movement will be exactly the same. The weapon is just a force multiplayer. And it gives you extended range. That's all . Many martial arts chines and Japanese ones for instance train techniques explicitly for a certain weapon. Train your whole life in that one weapon drop it in battle and now your screwed. Not so with martial arts designed to kill.

No kidding a knife is more effective than ones bare hands. I argue in most circumstances a knife is more effective than a gun.

Your logic that all martial arts are based on defense is like saying that when marines use maneuver warfare when assaulting a Taliban outpost they are using defensive techniques. A pre entice stime pukulan may be defense in its ends but its still assault.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

Oh year and Shastar vidia. Platha is the unarmed version of it. Youtube Shastar vidia platha. It's leathal. And yes the guy is always trying to get to his knife. Cause hey why fight fair if you don't have to.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

Damn iPhone auto correct damn you damn you damn you. I swear I'm not as incompetent a Tyler as this damned phone makes me look.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

Ughhhhh!!!! Typer!!!! See what I mean.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by boncho

No I get everything you said in this post. Can't argue with you. I can be a badass. But if I try that on sasquatch he's just going to grab me by my ankle and swing my body around like a pair if nunchuks and then have his family take turns seeing who can throw my head the farthest.

Remember when I said you never want to have to rely in being faster, more agile, or stronger than your opponent. Just smarter.

Also experience is the main factor and how you drill and train. Being badass at demonstrating techniques means squat if you haven't been through the crucible of actually fighting repeatedly until your nervous system learn to remain slightly calmer than normal in those circumstances. Experience with having someone come at you is the only thing that accomplishes that.

edit on 4-11-2013 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by boncho

I never mentioned any voodoo or Hollywood magic in regards to martial arts. Also I already addressed competitive martial arts in my first post. They severely restrict the moves that you can do so as not to seriously injure your opponent. You don't need mystical ki, chi, or whatever you want to call it to cripple or straight up kill someone with Muay Thai. It was straight up designed to be one of the most damaging martial arts and is considered one of the deadliest in the world.

The fact of the matter is, Muay Thai was invented to be used in warfare. It was invented to give a soldier something to use to continue killing people even if they are disarmed. This isn't self-defense, this is straight up offense.

8 Deadly Weapons of Muay Thai

How come Muay Thai doesn't use grappling?

The reason is simple - this martial art was developed with multiple attackers in mind. Think about it - how effective could you grappling skills be if there are 5, 8, or 10 attackers closing in on you? It's better to take them down one by one and speedily with your fists, elbows, and legs.

Why else would you need to be able to take down 5 - 10 attackers in quick succession if you weren't meaning to use it in combat?

Now I know you already conceded about martial arts with weapons, but Muay Thai also incorporates weapons, so even before the soldier is disarmed, he is still using Muay Thai to attack his opponents.

Like most martial arts, Muay Thai also uses different weapons like swords, spears, sticks, and many others. If you come to battle with these weapons, you definitely don't want to waste them by taking the battle to the grappling range or down to the ground.

If you want to use these weapons effectively, your movements should be lighting fast, hard, and very accurate...hitting the precise point in the opponent's body.

By the way, I was in the U.S. Army, please don't patronize me about being taught martial arts. I am well aware of what they teach. Also, you don't have any intellectual high ground here so comments like "so just stop" are unnecessary. Muay Thai (as well as the other 9 martial arts listed in the first article I linked) was developed to attack and kill people. Muay Thai specifically was invented to kill or incapacitate multiple people quickly and efficiently. Also please don't give me stories about people besting the martial art. I never said or even suggested that having knowledge or ability in the martial art immediately makes you unbeatable. That's ridiculous.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by boncho

You're the one going on and in about mysticism. I've been saying fighting is based of if physics and practicality. The references in the beginning of the thread were sarcasm in relation to mysticism or at least mine were.

Also about neck breaking. I don't know about watered down mma where they are never trained nor drilled to break necks in combative situations and no mma is not a combative situation.

The technique is very simple to perform and easy to apply especially in a clinch. If the neck was so damned strong and resilient then why does a simple turn of the head with your firearm and a elbow to the vase if the scull reliably break necks and is a technique taught to most armies a d soldiers for thousands if years. Because it didn't work?

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:53 PM
soooo...back on there really a media promoted 'kung-fu' madness? the media always glorifies death, destruction,, mayhem..sells stuff......i just dont see the media gloryfing martial arts.....

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Krazysh0t

I feel ya buddy. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink .

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by boncho

Finally if you don't think empty hands are leathal when used right then are you aware that people can and do due all the time from unt force trauma to the head? What do you think happens when you smash a guy in the head three or four times?

You do a purer kepala and then drop into the guys head with a elbow spike you have a good chance that that guy will be dead from cerebral adeama before the paramedics can get them to the hospital happens every year. All the time. You can punch a guy once and kill them. You're trying to argue that when trained with that intent in mind you can t smack do done to death with your bare hands. Ok. You win I guess.

And no duh a knife is more dangerous then empty hands.

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by clearmind

Um... Are you high? Watch any combat Anime lately? Japanese media not count? Well how about the Hollywood manufactured ninja stereotype? Heck this whole discussion is generated from myths about how martial arts works thanks to the media muddying the waters.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in