Czargent Sane said:
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.
Czargent Sane said:
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.
Czargent Sane said:
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.
Czargent Sane said:
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.
Czargent Sane said:
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.
