the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

oragami_itto wrote:All in all, a fighter lost a fight. Everybody loses eventually unless they just stop fighting first. Part of why it's so pointless.

Why compete in boxing, judo, wrestling, basketball, football, soccer, tennis, etc., since "everybody loses eventually?"

What do you mean by "it's so pointless?"

marvin8 wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:All in all, a fighter lost a fight. Everybody loses eventually unless they just stop fighting first. Part of why it's so pointless.

Why compete in boxing, judo, wrestling, basketball, football, soccer, tennis, etc., since "everybody loses eventually?"

What do you mean by "it's so pointless?"

You play the sport for the love of the game. The only spectator sport I occasionally indulge in is fighting.

What I mean by pointless is trying to fight to establish who is the best is pointless. At best you get who's best under certain conditions at a certain time. Pointless aside from the prize money and endorsements and Fame and all the other million little reasons to destroy your body to make somebody else richer.

A fighter lost a fight, that's all it means

oragami_itto wrote:You play the sport for the love of the game. The only spectator sport I occasionally indulge in is fighting.

What I mean by pointless is trying to fight to establish who is the best is pointless. At best you get who's best under certain conditions at a certain time. Pointless aside from the prize money and endorsements and Fame and all the other million little reasons to destroy your body to make somebody else richer.

A fighter lost a fight, that's all it means

If you are attacked, is winning important?

marvin8 wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:You play the sport for the love of the game. The only spectator sport I occasionally indulge in is fighting.

What I mean by pointless is trying to fight to establish who is the best is pointless. At best you get who's best under certain conditions at a certain time. Pointless aside from the prize money and endorsements and Fame and all the other million little reasons to destroy your body to make somebody else richer.

A fighter lost a fight, that's all it means

If you are attacked, is winning important?

"winning" is irrelevant in that context. The important thing is get away alive, unharmed, and with as few charges against me as possible.

oragami_itto wrote:

marvin8 wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:You play the sport for the love of the game. The only spectator sport I occasionally indulge in is fighting.

What I mean by pointless is trying to fight to establish who is the best is pointless. At best you get who's best under certain conditions at a certain time. Pointless aside from the prize money and endorsements and Fame and all the other million little reasons to destroy your body to make somebody else richer.

A fighter lost a fight, that's all it means

If you are attacked, is winning important?

"winning" is irrelevant in that context. The important thing is get away alive, unharmed, and with as few charges against me as possible.

Depends on one's definition. I would consider "get away alive, unharmed, and with as few charges" as winning.

Forget MA politics … focus on your practice,
https://www.pragmaticmartialarts.com/fo ... -practice/:

Sifu Adam Chan wrote:. . . winning is done through careful study follow by lots of practice. ” Winning is not everything ” is a great policy for sport and honor. But for self defense when you have to save a life, especially if its family, winning is important. You cannot restore peace or show mercy if you are the one losing….

Sure if you call that winning, that's winning. I'm not hung on semantics, but to win, somebody has to lose. If I win, then I've beat someone. That's not necessarily the case in self defense.

If I have to fight, I've already lost and I'm working to mitigate those losses. I don't have to beat the other person, I just have to keep them from hurting me or anyone else I care about. If I'm attacked, I don't even have to strike back if I can get everyone to safety without it.

So, semantics aside, in a fight, I do believe I need to be in control of myself and my valuables first, and may or may not need to control the opponent. I do not need to prolong the encounter until they are beaten, I just need to get away safe. I'm I'm in control of myself and my valuables then I, according to Adam Chan, am "winning", but that's like being the best multiplier in your remedial math class. Sure, it's a victory, but not something to crow too loud about.

oragami_itto wrote:Sure if you call that winning, that's winning. I'm not hung on semantics, but to win, somebody has to lose. If I win, then I've beat someone. That's not necessarily the case in self defense.

If I have to fight, I've already lost and I'm working to mitigate those losses. I don't have to beat the other person, I just have to keep them from hurting me or anyone else I care about. If I'm attacked, I don't even have to strike back if I can get everyone to safety without it.

So, semantics aside, in a fight, I do believe I need to be in control of myself and my valuables first, and may or may not need to control the opponent. I do not need to prolong the encounter until they are beaten, I just need to get away safe. I'm I'm in control of myself and my valuables then I, according to Adam Chan, am "winning", but that's like being the best multiplier in your remedial math class. Sure, it's a victory, but not something to crow too loud about.

I believe you are misinterpreting Adam. Adam never said to "beat someone" or "crow too loud about" it. Rather, he said winning is "restoring peace and having mercy." Something you can not do if you are losing the fight:

Sifu Adam Chan wrote:. . . winning is done through careful study follow by lots of practice. ” Winning is not everything ” is a great policy for sport and honor. But for self defense when you have to save a life, especially if its family, winning is important. You cannot restore peace or show mercy if you are the one losing….

I wasn't attributing that particular sentiment to him.

I thought I was clear, but let me try again.

'In a fight, I do believe I need to be in control of myself and my valuables first, and may or may not need to control the opponent. I do not need to prolong the encounter until they are beaten, I just need to get away safe. I'm I'm in control of myself and my valuables then I, according to Adam Chan, am "winning"'

END ADAM CHAN SECTION

START SARDONIC HUMOR
that's like being the best multiplier in your remedial math class. Sure, it's a victory, but not something to crow too loud about.

START EXPLANATION

Winning implies beating someone else. Winning implies victory which implies something you're proud of.

Neither beating someone else or victory is necessarily a part of a self defense situation. Staying in control of yourself and whatever you want to protect is.

I'm not hung up on semantics, if you want to call that winning, fine, I just think winning implies a different mindset than escaping safely so I choose to use different words.

I've been in more street fights than I care to recall, and I don't feel like I won any of them. I got my ass kicked to greater and lesser degrees, as did the other person, but every single time we were losers who would have been better off not getting physical.

oragami_itto wrote:Winning implies beating someone else. Winning implies victory which implies something you're proud of. . . .

I'm not hung up on semantics, if you want to call that winning, fine, I just think winning implies a different mindset than escaping safely so I choose to use different words.

Yes, that is your definition of winning. Adam gave a different definition; saving people's lives, restoring peace and showing mercy. In sports, opponents hug each other after a victory. So, their definition is different also. Winning can be positive. It doesn't have to be negative. One can choose the way they want to frame it.

One can look at money as being evil, which may make them lazy, unproductive and selfish. While, others may view it as an opportunity to help people and make the world a better place. Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates only interested in money for themselves or helping others too? They would not be able to help people, if they were losing money, rather than making (winning) money.

marvin8 wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:Winning implies beating someone else. Winning implies victory which implies something you're proud of. . . .

I'm not hung up on semantics, if you want to call that winning, fine, I just think winning implies a different mindset than escaping safely so I choose to use different words.

Yes, that is your definition of winning. Adam gave a different definition; saving people's lives, restoring peace and showing mercy. In sports, opponents hug each other after a victory. So, their definition is different also. Winning can be positive. It doesn't have to be negative. One can choose the way they want to frame it.

One can look at money as being evil, which may make them lazy, unproductive and selfish. While, others may view it as an opportunity to help people and make the world a better place. Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates only interested in money for themselves or helping others too? They would not be able to help people, if they were losing money, rather than making (winning) money.

I don't think money is evil, per se. I think that professional fighters are exploited. The risk and long term damage isn't worth it to me. The adaptation of training for rulesets isn't worth it to me.

I can accept Adam's definition, but I don't use it myself, and that's fine. I agree with his statement and use of winning in that context even if I wouldn't call it that.

What are we arguing about?

oragami_itto wrote:

marvin8 wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:Winning implies beating someone else. Winning implies victory which implies something you're proud of. . . .

I'm not hung up on semantics, if you want to call that winning, fine, I just think winning implies a different mindset than escaping safely so I choose to use different words.

Yes, that is your definition of winning. Adam gave a different definition; saving people's lives, restoring peace and showing mercy. In sports, opponents hug each other after a victory. So, their definition is different also. Winning can be positive. It doesn't have to be negative. One can choose the way they want to frame it.

One can look at money as being evil, which may make them lazy, unproductive and selfish. While, others may view it as an opportunity to help people and make the world a better place. Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates only interested in money for themselves or helping others too? They would not be able to help people, if they were losing money, rather than making (winning) money.

I don't think money is evil, per se. I think that professional fighters are exploited. The risk and long term damage isn't worth it to me. The adaptation of training for rulesets isn't worth it to me.

I can accept Adam's definition, but I don't use it myself, and that's fine. I agree with his statement and use of winning in that context even if I wouldn't call it that.

What are we arguing about?

I'm not.

Just wondering what your definitions of pointless and winning were given your statements. I believe the goals in ending a fight are the same. But, your definition of winning is more narrow (e.g., "beating," being "proud," "prolong the encounter until they are beaten," etc.). While, Adam's definition of winning is more black and white. You either win or lose a fight.

Dictionary
winning:
1 : the act of one that wins : victory

victory:
1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist
2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties

Shades of Mirko Crocop!

My only question is: Does Yi Long get renamed to Bu Long now?

Pretty meh, but par for the course for cma guys getting in the ring with professional fighters.

As has been pointed out many times before, if you don’t train to the standard and format of a given sport you get handed your rear end. I’m not sure this fight proved anything else.