Poll: Thoughts on MMA

[Sovvolf]

It's legalized abuse at it's worst.

In terms of an actual Martial Art, I think it's more a disgrace.
It's more an "in"-type of Martial Art. Everyone trains it because it's hipp.

But in all fairness, if you learn MMA, you'll probably be an dangerous opponent towards muggers.

Its no different than boxing, Judo, Thai, wrestling or any other martial art that compete. It's about that abusive. It is a combat sport and if you wish to excel you must be a dedicated athlete. Cross training is in because it works.

I train kick boxing, karate, submission wrestling and BJJ. My back ground is Karate and kickboxing but I love learning new things. Having said that, weapons training never interested me. It takes dedication and discipline to get anywhere, similar to more traditional martial arts. I don't see the difference.

B'ah, get your self a sword and lets fence. . Any particular style of Karate or just basic Karate?.

 

[Czargent Sane]

actually, true krav maga is based around killing your opponent as fast as possible, striking vulnerable areas as much as possible without the chance to return an attack. a master of krav maga will tear out your eyes and bleed you with a pen.

I think you've been watching too much T.V. Also you stated in your last message that they can never be a true master in martial arts. No Krav Maga was designed around using Wrestling and boxing ,along with a few other martial arts, put together in order to take out armed fighters as quick as possible. Disarming and disabling them. There is no major kill move or one hit kill move. They attack the throat, eyes and groin like any MMA would do in the street. They eventually started incorporating other eastern martial arts into the training, such as Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu. They are essentially they same type of martial artist. Sure MMA is trained for the ring. But the style often used in them where created for use in battlefield combat.

Also, this goes down to how good the fighter is. Just because one fighter is Krav Maga and the other is MMA doesn't guarantee any one of them a win.

and did I say always? I dont believe I did. want an absolute? alright, there are NEVER weapons in the octogon.

Then why did you say "There are weapons in true combat"? you said it as if there's always going to be a weapon in true combat. Now if you had said "There may be weapons in true combat" it wouldn't seem like your implying that there will always be weapons in true combat.

I said you cannot be completely trained (ie, you are never "done"), I said nothing about being a master
I also never said anything about the number of moves required (although there are some martial art techniques that can kill you with a single strike)
what movies or shows feature krav maga?
if you only fight in the ring, and you abide by the rules of the ring, you believe one can ignore these rules and be as proficient at it as one who has trained to do, and has consistently done exactly what those rules prohibit?

did I ever say that any fighter using krav maga would beat any using MMA? I did not. your statement about "how good the fighter is" is brutally and painfully obvious. you must think I am an idiot to clarify that point for me

I did not say It "as if" saying something else. if I wanted to say "there are always weapons in true combat" I would have ACTUALLY SAID "there are weapons in true combat" I dont say anything "as if to say" something else.

also, debating my semantics does not answer the problem of MMA and weapons.

 

[darkonnis]

an interesting topic and one which has bred much debate.
I like it, I prefer watching dream or pride to the UFC because the res is a damn sight quicker to get in there and break it up if they're just lying on the ground doing practically nothing.
I also like the lack of rules, because it breaks the whole argument of XYZ is a strict bjj fighter and would destroy FGH who does muay thai, simply because you cant turn around and say oh if i could do "insert combo here" i'd have beaten you... well you can, if you don't thats your own dumb fault and thats why you lost.

Kryzantine:
I... can't like MMA.

I just feel that kicks cheapen fighting a lot. If you want to prove your strength, you should do it straight up with no low blows or active usage of the low limbs (of course, using the legs to derive strength is a given). As you can easily tell by now, I'm a large boxing fan.

your most powerful limbs are your legs, bar non. no contest what so ever, if you want to talk about "strength" watch the worlds strongest man. Martial arts is not about strength, it is about technique, yes strength power dexterity all play into it. But if you just want to see someone hitting something as hard as they can, may i suggest just watching bag work, it would be about as entertaining.

I had a whole paragraph i was going to write here, but i realised this was starting to go off topic, I like MMA, i like much of what it has done and will continue to watch it. aswell as supporting pretty much any fighter who breaks the ever increasing BJJ/MT trend or simply being refered to as just a "mixed martial artist"

 

[Sovvolf]

(although there are some martial art techniques that can kill you with a single strike).

Yeah, they require the receiver to remain completely still for it to work though. In a real fight... Wouldn't work because the receiver would be fighting back. Out side of them techniques, a simple punch can kill a full grown man if it lands right.

What movies or shows feature krav maga?

Actually it was your assumptions on MA that made me think you'd been watching too much T.V. The whole "My Kung fu is better than yours" type of arguement. The whole "Krav Maga would kill MMA just because" type of arguement.

if you only fight in the ring, and you abide by the rules of the ring, you believe one can ignore these rules and be as proficient at it as one who has trained to do, and has consistently done exactly what those rules prohibit?

But, most the martial arts you train aren't trained for the ring. You just use them in the ring. When I go to Thaiboxing on Tuesdays and Thursdays... The training isn't just for the ring. We train for fights out of the rings as part of self defence. Same goes for Judo, BJJ and Wrestling. We put it together in an use it in the ring... But the styles them selves teach you how to handle street fights.

Did I ever say that any fighter using krav maga would beat any using MMA?
I did not. your statement about "how good the fighter is" is brutally and painfully obvious. you must think I am an idiot to clarify that point for me.

actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

I did not say It "as if" saying something else. if I wanted to say "there are always weapons in true combat" I would have ACTUALLY SAID "there are weapons in true combat" I dont say anything "as if to say" something else.

also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

Debating my semantics does not answer the problem of MMA and weapons.

I didn't know we was discussing the problem of MMA versus weapons but okay. Most MMA's will train Jiu Jitsu or Judo separately which teaches you disarm techniques against weapons, just like Krav Maga does. Problem solved.

 

[Czargent Sane]

(although there are some martial art techniques that can kill you with a single strike).

Yeah, they require the receiver to remain completely still for it to work though. In a real fight... Wouldn't work because the receiver would be fighting back. Out side of them techniques, a simple punch can kill a full grown man if it lands right.

What movies or shows feature krav maga?

Actually it was your assumptions on MA that made me think you'd been watching too much T.V. The whole "My Kung fu is better than yours" type of arguement. The whole "Krav Maga would kill MMA just because" type of arguement.

if you only fight in the ring, and you abide by the rules of the ring, you believe one can ignore these rules and be as proficient at it as one who has trained to do, and has consistently done exactly what those rules prohibit?

But, most the martial arts you train aren't trained for the ring. You just use them in the ring. When I go to Thaiboxing on Tuesdays and Thursdays... The training isn't just for the ring. We train for fights out of the rings as part of self defence. Same goes for Judo, BJJ and Wrestling. We put it together in an use it in the ring... But the styles them selves teach you how to handle street fights.

Did I ever say that any fighter using krav maga would beat any using MMA?
I did not. your statement about "how good the fighter is" is brutally and painfully obvious. you must think I am an idiot to clarify that point for me.

actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

I did not say It "as if" saying something else. if I wanted to say "there are always weapons in true combat" I would have ACTUALLY SAID "there are weapons in true combat" I dont say anything "as if to say" something else.

also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

Debating my semantics does not answer the problem of MMA and weapons.

I didn't know we was discussing the problem of MMA versus weapons but okay. Most MMA's will train Jiu Jitsu or Judo separately which teaches you disarm techniques against weapons, just like Krav Maga does. Problem solved.

(this means side comment)

and I gave reasonable reasons that I believe high level practitioners of krav maga would have a statistically better chance of victory.

I know they are not trained for the ring but lets take a comparison: commando CQC expert who has only used his martial art to kill and disable VS. any fighter who has only used their abilities fighting in a ring; who has the statistically better chance of victory if they are both at the same level of skill

soo, you gonna respond to those four middle quotes? if your trying to say two of them contradict, you are mistaken. there is a difference between "any" and "master". also, I said just about. believe me, Ive chosen my words carefully.

also, how much training do you receive pertaining to skilled weapon users, very little from what I have seen. a armed martial artist fighting an unarmed one who's style does not revolve around such combat (weapon vs non weapon) has a greater (to what degree is based on the weapon) chance of victory if both fighters are roughly equal in skill.

 

[Dags90]

Not particularly a fan. The premise of two buff dudes half naked and touching each other is somehow not as entertaining in practice.

 

[Sovvolf]

(this means side comment)

and I gave reasonable reasons that I believe high level practitioners of krav maga would have a statistically better chance of victory.

No you didn't. You simply stated that Krav Maga uses pressure point strikes to disable and kill there attackers. That's no a reasonable reason.

I know they are not trained for the ring but lets take a comparison: commando CQC expert who has only used his martial art to kill and disable VS. any fighter who has only used their abilities fighting in a ring; who has the statistically better chance of victory if they are both at the same level of skill

But not everyone who trains Krav Maga... Trains for the military. We have a few users on this forum who train it and have no military experience. You didn't say that this was exclusive to trained military fighters. You simple said Krav Maga which includes all practitioners of that one martial art. Yes I agree... in the street a military trained MA would probably have the upper hand. However Krav Maga isn't the only style used in the armed forces. There's Defendu, Marine Martial Arts, Line and Systema.

soo, you gonna respond to those four middle quotes? if your trying to say two of them contradict, you are mistaken. there is a difference between "any" and "master". also, I said just about. believe me, Ive chosen my words carefully.

No, your really didn't chose your words carefully. But lets go over it.

You: "Did I ever say that any fighter using krav maga would beat any using MMA? "
You earlier: actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

I'd say there's a good contradiction right there.


You: if I wanted to say "there are always weapons in true combat" I would have ACTUALLY SAID "there are weapons in true combat" I dont say anything "as if to say" something else.

You earlier: also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

So if you wanted to say "There are always weapons in combat" Then you would have ACTUALLY SAID
"there are weapons in true combat"?. Well as you can see with the quote... You did.

also, how much training do you receive pertaining to skilled weapon users, very little from what I have seen. a armed martial artist fighting an unarmed one who's style does not revolve around such combat (weapon vs non weapon) has a greater (to what degree is based on the weapon) chance of victory if both fighters are roughly equal in skill.

Yes but the average fellow in the middle of the street isn't going to have much experience with weaponry is he?. He'll attack wildly and make mistake. You not going to take on a skilled fencer in the middle of the street very often now are you?. Also Judo and Jujitsu were pretty much designed for disarming armed martial artist. And again you don't see many Kendoka's walking around with their swords out now do you?.

 

[Jamash]

I... can't like MMA.

I just feel that kicks cheapen fighting a lot. If you want to prove your strength, you should do it straight up with no low blows or active usage of the low limbs (of course, using the legs to derive strength is a given). As you can easily tell by now, I'm a large boxing fan.

What? You don't think using feet is fair in a fight? No offense, but to me that's strange. Your feet are as much a part of you as your arms are.

I never said anything about using the feet. Moving around, weaving, of course it's a big deal in any fight. My problem is with kicks, they limit what the opponent can and cannot do. If you want to prove that you are a better combatant, you should be able to do it without having to reduce the strength of your opponent. The whole glory is that your opponent will strike at his maximum, and you still beat him.

So by your logic, do body punches and jabs also cheapen the fight?

Punches to the body reduce the strength of your opponent, and jabs to the head limit what your opponent can do because they keep him at range, preventing him from getting close to you, and as you deliver more and more jabs to the face and eye they affect his vision and/or breathing, which hinders his ability to fight to his full potential.

Take a look at this short fight (via Ref-Cam):


Are you going to tell me that's a cheap kick because Mirko Crocop knocked his opponent out with one kick, rather than let Igor Vovchanchyn "strike at him with his maximum"... that knocking out one of the most dangerous & hardest punchers in the world of MMA with a head kick before he destroys you holds no glory?

In opinion, Boxing is a lot cheaper, since basically you're repeatedly punching your opponent in the head with over padded gloves (which exist to protect your hands and allow you to punch his hard skull at full power with no inhibitions) until you've rattled his brain against the inside of his cranium so much that he no can no longer remain conscious, or until he loses enough cognitive functions for the referee or doctor to declare the fight over.

Winning via brain damage isn't an honourable way to win, and there's no glory in being permanently 'punch drunk' or dying from brain injuries shortly after the fight.

 

[martin's a madman]

Well, I wish you had more option, I just have no interest in it either way.

 

[Caradinist]

Yes, i am an MMA fan. I became interested in it when i stared watching the first Ultimate Fighter season.

And no, whenever you see any ground game, you don't have to turn off the TV because "EWWW, I DONT WANT TO CATCH THE GAY". If you honestly do this, you may be even more insecure about your sexuality than ever before.

There is a lot more going on in ground game than you might know. Yes, it's boring if the ENTIRE match is just two people on the floor, but when it isn't, consider this: attempted submissions, constant punching, kneeing, kicking, all wear out the fighters, how much it wears them out varies on each person and training.

The more they are tired out, the more susceptible they are to anything being thrown at them. Which means those oh so lovely knockouts of the night you are expecting. It's not always this way, because this isn't exactly a computer game, nor is it just fake entertainment wrestling, where it's wrestlers trying to make everything LOOK good, yet they have already decided beforehand how it will end.

 

[Czargent Sane]

(this means side comment)

and I gave reasonable reasons that I believe high level practitioners of krav maga would have a statistically better chance of victory.

No you didn't. You simply stated that Krav Maga uses pressure point strikes to disable and kill there attackers. That's no a reasonable reason.

I know they are not trained for the ring but lets take a comparison: commando CQC expert who has only used his martial art to kill and disable VS. any fighter who has only used their abilities fighting in a ring; who has the statistically better chance of victory if they are both at the same level of skill

But not everyone who trains Krav Maga... Trains for the military. We have a few users on this forum who train it and have no military experience. You didn't say that this was exclusive to trained military fighters. You simple said Krav Maga which includes all practitioners of that one martial art. Yes I agree... in the street a military trained MA would probably have the upper hand. However Krav Maga isn't the only style used in the armed forces. There's Defendu, Marine Martial Arts, Line and Systema.

soo, you gonna respond to those four middle quotes? if your trying to say two of them contradict, you are mistaken. there is a difference between "any" and "master". also, I said just about. believe me, Ive chosen my words carefully.

No, your really didn't chose your words carefully. But lets go over it.

You: "Did I ever say that any fighter using krav maga would beat any using MMA? "
You earlier: actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

I'd say there's a good contradiction right there.


You: if I wanted to say "there are always weapons in true combat" I would have ACTUALLY SAID "there are weapons in true combat" I dont say anything "as if to say" something else.

You earlier: also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

So if you wanted to say "There are always weapons in combat" Then you would have ACTUALLY SAID
"there are weapons in true combat"?. Well as you can see with the quote... You did.

also, how much training do you receive pertaining to skilled weapon users, very little from what I have seen. a armed martial artist fighting an unarmed one who's style does not revolve around such combat (weapon vs non weapon) has a greater (to what degree is based on the weapon) chance of victory if both fighters are roughly equal in skill.

Yes but the average fellow in the middle of the street isn't going to have much experience with weaponry is he?. He'll attack wildly and make mistake. You not going to take on a skilled fencer in the middle of the street very often now are you?. Also Judo and Jujitsu were pretty much designed for disarming armed martial artist. And again you don't see many Kendoka's walking around with their swords out now do you?.

I gave the reason that it is used to kill and disable moreso than MMA

your second statement is made up of arguments against points I did not make, missing my point entirely. I have nothing to argue there, because you did not respond to my statement

if english is a second language for you, than I'm sorry, but you seem to not understand the difference between an absolute statement, a statistic probability, and a non all-encompassing generality. obvious typos do not make a point any more or less valid. you know full well what I meant.
in terms of a weapon user, we were never talking about the unskilled. they do not factor into the conversation in any way. that specific statement had nothing to do with statistical likelihood of occurrence, as it was a hypothetical situation.
again, if english is not your primary language, then I apologize, but in any case I'm not posting in a martial arts thread to try to teach someone how to understand syntax.
do not expect a response to any further comments you have.

 

[NOT WILL]

I love the sport but I hate the people who wear "tap-out" shirts and act as though they are UFC grade fighters

 

[Lunar Shadow]

I just have a problem with the fan dumb. These guys are athletes, not fighters.

Edit: T the guy above about weapons. A pen can be a weapon, hell I have had my ass handed to me with a colander and dish towel. Anything can be a weapon in the right hands, and the more innocuous it is the less likely you will to see it coming. I was taught this at a young age, to improvise, adapt, overcome. (Why does this sound familiar? >_>)

 

[TheTim]

its amazing,

and a hell of a lot better than that fake ass wrestling shit.

 

[zen5887]

Yes, i am an MMA fan. I became interested in it when i stared watching the first Ultimate Fighter season.

And no, whenever you see any ground game, you don't have to turn off the TV because "EWWW, I DONT WANT TO CATCH THE GAY". If you honestly do this, you may be even more insecure about your sexuality than ever before.

There is a lot more going on in ground game than you might know. Yes, it's boring if the ENTIRE match is just two people on the floor, but when it isn't, consider this: attempted submissions, constant punching, kneeing, kicking, all wear out the fighters, how much it wears them out varies on each person and training.

The more they are tired out, the more susceptible they are to anything being thrown at them. Which means those oh so lovely knockouts of the night you are expecting. It's not always this way, because this isn't exactly a computer game, nor is it just fake entertainment wrestling, where it's wrestlers trying to make everything LOOK good, yet they have already decided beforehand how it will end.

I think the ground game can b e just as exciting. Sweeps and sub attemps and counters and each fighter looking for the smallest mistake.. Human chess. Yes, it can be boring when poeople are just laying there, but thats why the ref stands them up. I really dislike the "meathead factor" where people just wanna see some motherfuckers get knocked out. Go watch kickboxing. Sure, everyone loves to see a knockout, but submissions are just as entertaining.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I like it.

Something few will ever realize, the only difference between it and "barbaric" gladiator battles of Rome is the fact that the contestants don't die as often (most gladiator fights did NOT end with death as Hollywood would make you believe). 2 people fighting while spectators scream for blood.

 

[VanityGirl]

It's fun to watch muscular or fat men beat the stupid into each other.

I also enjoyed the Lesnar-Carwin fight, I was surprised Brock used a submission.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I only dislike the people who ascertain that MMA's are the greatest martial artists in the world. other than that, its alright, essentially every fight is pankration vs jujitsu or muy tai.

I agree whole heatedly on this. I do not know how many people in my school are completely that MMA is the best martial arts form there is, but if you say "What about Krav Maga". They have no damn clue what you just said.

 

[Keepitclean]

MMA is a sport, not real fighting. There is a lot you can get away with in a street fight that would get your ass kicked in an MMA fight and visa versa, most people do not have anywhere near the pain tolerance as a UFC level MMA fighter and just because you don't see much Taekwondo in the UFC doesn't mean that I can't kick your bogan ass should you try anything.

An MMA fighter isn't going to fight on the street like he fights in the cage.
That'd be silly. He'll just unload, with no ref to get in his way, and whup your ass.

And while I agree that certain martial arts might be underused in MMA, it's because they've whittled it down to what really works. Taekwondo might be great if taught correctly (For actual fighting) for fighting punks on the street who are looking to start something. But against a guy fully trained in 3 or 4 martial arts who conditions himself to fight everyday? Yeah, I'm going to say 'no'.

Again: I'm not saying Taekwondo is a bad martial art, and I'm not saying it can't be effective. But when you're in the octagon against trained and condition fighter, things are a bit different then if you're at a pub where some drunk guy is looking to impress some dumb broad.

Snip

See... This guy gets it.

I see where you guys are coming from. I don't have really any problem with MMA or it's practitioners. I understand that it's called mixed martial arts for a reason (I'm not one of those dumbass elitists that reckon one style is the best in every single area). I also understand why Taekwondo is rarely seen in octagon fighting. Many of the stances of the kicks that are effective leave you too open to take downs and the pain barrier of the MMA fighters is amazing so when you do throw the kick you may get your ass kicked even if they take the hit.

When I said MMA is a sport, not real fighting I meant that in the ring it is a sport. Though, it is arguably the closest to real fighting of any sport. It surely is the most violent I have ever seen. That doesn't mean that those techniques won't work on the street. I mentioned this because there are too many people out there that don't understand that what they see in the ring is violence in a sporting sense.

 

[Sovvolf]

I gave the reason that it is used to kill and disable moreso than MMA

No you didn't. Your point was that it used never strikes to quickly kill opponents.

your second statement is made up of arguments against points I did not make, missing my point entirely. I have nothing to argue there, because you did not respond to my statement

Well then please tell me your point. The way I read it you were stating that a Martial Artist with military training would be far better in a street fight than one who'd only trained in for sport.

if english is a second language for you, than I'm sorry, but you seem to not understand the difference between an absolute statement, a statistic probability, and a non all-encompassing generality. obvious typos do not make a point any more or less valid. you know full well what I meant.

Ho I understand grammar quite well... You wasn't making a static probability, you made a absolute statement that you contradicted and now your trying to wiggle you way out on by insulting my intelligence. Also, with your grammar skills, I wouldn't try to lecture anyone. I could have brought up your terrible grammar earlier but it wasn't part of the conversation or debate but if your bringing mine up I shall bring yours. I didn't see the typo, so don't blame me if I misinterpreted what you said because of your error. Now if this was an error, you should have checked me on it much earlier and made it clear. Then I would have apologised for my own mistake and carried on. Instead you ignored it, I made misinterpretation and then you call me out on it.

in terms of a weapon user, we were never talking about the unskilled. they do not factor into the conversation in any way. that specific statement had nothing to do with statistical likelihood of occurrence, as it was a hypothetical situation.
again, if english is not your primary language, then I apologize, but in any case I'm not posting in a martial arts thread to try to teach someone how to understand syntax.
do not expect a response to any further comments you have.

I don't know what you was talking about or how a skilled weapon user came into the conversation. We were talking about basic street self defence, or at least I was. Your talking about improbable situations where an average fighter is going to be put into combat against an armed opponent. Maybe we've misunderstood each other entirely.

also, how much training do you receive pertaining to skilled weapon users, very little from what I have seen. a armed martial artist fighting an unarmed one who's style does not revolve around such combat (weapon vs non weapon) has a greater (to what degree is based on the weapon) chance of victory if both fighters are roughly equal in skill.

Maybe I missed the point here because I have no idea who you are referring to. Are you asking how much training I've received pertaining to skilled weapon users or how much training the average Judokan pertains?. I wonder this because you state after words "very little from what I have seen" you can't be referring to me, unless you've been following me around, so are you again, talking about the average Judokan?. I don't know, you don't make it very clear. Then you go on about how "a armed martial artist fighting an unarmed one who's style does not revolve around such combat" this also confuses me. Are you talking about a style that teaches no defence against weapons? or are you talking about a style that doesn't use weapons. Yes you put (Weapons vs non weapons) but that could easily be associated with the combat it self and not the style. Now if you are talking about the average Judokan vs the average Kendoka, then we they are pretty much at a stalemate, both Judo and Jui Jitsu are trained to counter such fighter.

Also, you never mentioned that you were being hypothetical. You seemed to assume that I could read your mind. When asking an hypothetical question it's best to state in the beginning that you are being hypothetical in order to avoid confusion. Don't blame the reader for the misrepresentation's of statements when you fail to clarify the context of said statement.

I also don't understand what all this weapon business has to do with an MMA fighting a Krav Maga practitioner. Neither would be armed in the conflict and it's completely irrelevant to the fight. I also don't understand how this arguement is still going on. We've already established that in situations where a fighting style is extremely similar, that it's not the style that's up to measure, but the fighter himself.

But hey, if your not going to reply to me in some holier then thou attack on my grammar rather than the subject at hand then fine. I don't see what grammar as to do with this. I don't see what this arguement is even about any more. Just you questioning the strengths of the style based on irrelevant and improbable situations situations. Such as weapon versus no weapon... I don't know how, who ever has the best disarm skill factors into an hand to hand fight. Nor do I understand how either one can have the upper hand in that situation when they are both using the moves and techniques from the same martial arts.

EDIT PLEASE READ: Actually, if you do read this... I'd rather you not reply. Let us both end this debate. This debate is getting a little too personal and I'm afraid we are going to end up greatly insulting one another. This is not worth it over such a trivial thing. Let us both apologise for any insult and walk away from the arguement before it escalates any further. Otherwise they'll just be pages of this arguement and we'll end up saying or doing something we both may regret before the end of it. Best leaving it how it is before that happens.