Okay, here is my 2 cents worth and feel free to give me change if you want. Don't really care. I heard a lot of discussion of how Hendricks beat GSP, or GSP wasn't himself... he's cowardess for not giving a title rematch... whatever.
Here is the simple truth. It is called a title "DEFENSE". It is not a title "prove I still can knock you out". I personally disagree with any fight, EVER, being left to judges. But in the realm of sport fighting, where KO's are possible... it is up to the challenger to take the belt. My personal thought is that if you did not get a stoppage, tap, TKO, or KO... you do not get the belt. IMO, Hendricks could have left GSP bloody and broken, but if he did not get the win by one of the prior conditions, he doesn't become champ. But, gripe all you want about who did or did not do the best, they still left it up to 3 people that were not in the ring, and that is Hendricks (and every other challengers) fault.
So, GSP goes out, does not do as well as everyone wanted, and still walks away with the title. Then he quits. Maybe he knows he barely escaped that fight. Maybe he knows he is not where he once was. So he takes some time away to put himself back in line. At least he wasn't a punk and held the title while he did that, which was well within his right to do so. He earned that belt and no one can say different. But he actually manned up and said, someone else can step in for a while. If I want the belt, I will come back and take it.
So, did GSP win? He did enough to retain his title. That is all he needed to do.
Did he punk out by not giving a rematch? If Hendricks wants a rematch so bad, then he needs to win the vacated title, then hold on to it long enough so that if/when GSP comes back Hendricks still has it when GSP comes to take it, and then he will have his rematch.
The title is all I can say. I saw the initial question and the first few responses were legitimate and fairly correct. Then jump ahead a few pages and all of a sudden its a pissing contest. I am not here to measure man-meat. I will hopefully add to the initial questions with relative knowledge of the martial arts, of fighting, and a brief history lesson.
1. Take heed to the early replies. The best art for self defense is the one that you are able to learn the most from and that you feel comfortable in. Krav Maga is not exactly a martial art in the common sense. It teaches techniques based on self defense scenario and helps you change your mindset on how fighting is dealt with. There are 2 parts to a fight. The physical, and the mental. It is the latter that 90% of people have a problem with. Boxing gave us a great philosopher of fighting in Mike Tyson. A man who said "everyone has a plan, until they get hit in the mouth." I have seen and fought boxers who were talented until they took a good hard kick to the ding-ding. I have seen black belts get smacked around by street thugs too. Art does not matter, only how the practitioner uses it.
2. Fighting is different from self defense. Fighting is people who understand that there is a conflict and aggression is understood. Self defense is when one person fights and the other did not want to, but must. Much like a wild animal in a corner, when it must fight out of fear, instinct, and threat, it is far more dangerous than say a Sea tuna that wants to go out and duke it out with someone because he likes to box and measure wangs. The traditional martial arts, karate, tkd, kung fu, jkd, blah blah blah, are not good for self defense. They are arts. Much like any art, they take time to develop. But when you do develop them, they can be priceless works of art. Now for the problem with martial arts, of ALL FORMS. They are commercialized. If you go to an old school dojo, there are not a lot of students. Because people do not like the abuse and torture and conditioning you suffer through. The other thing is, old school dojos are not necessary. Hence, let the history lesson begin.
3. MARTIAL ARTS WERE DEVELOPED FOR MURDER. Not self defense. A man attacks you. You defend yourself. You break his arm and knock him out. Good job. 3 months later he comes back with 8 of his friends, beats you up, take advantage of your sister, and steals your dog. Good job. The martial arts were originally designed to murder people. You and your gang attack our village. We "Defended" it by using martial arts, severing your heads, putting them on pikes around our huts, and made sure people got the point that attacking us is not a good idea. Kung fu was some of the most violent martial arts I ever had the privilege of seeing. The moves when fully explained were violent and most often fatal. But that type of training is no longer needed, nor wanted for the most part in todays society.
So to say that a "grandmaster" would have their hands full with a boxer, is just ignorance and stupidity of children. All the masters are dead. They died a long time ago. Someone who spends all day doing kata or forms and gets a 10th dgr black belt should have the snot slapped out of them by some punk. But maybe he wanted to study martial arts for the kata and health benefits of it and not to fight. Does that mean he was a bad karateka? No. It means he was a bad fighter. But there are people who study karate, are not black belts, and who should never have been taught techniques of how to kick or strike people because they are simply tough people, who like to fight, and put martial arts back to being a vicious way to deal with conflict.
So, that being said... if you want to learn martial arts for self defense, take a self defense class. Krav Maga is best for learning the most quickly. If you feel you have time to invest, and are not having your lunch money stolen everyday, look around, check schools out, see if they offer free introductory lessons. If you want to get in to a martial arts school, the number one thing to look at is the students. Do not look at the instructor. S/he should be good. If you look at the students, and they look good, and are all doing the same thing, the same way, then you have a good instructor who cares enough to make sure everyone is on the same page with how something should be done. And yes, make sure a school has some degree of physical contact or you will never break out of flight mode when conflict arises.
Foxblade, I have no problems admitting my wrongs. But, this I feel is a matter of opinion. I do not think that it was a prime Tyson in that ring. I take nothing away from Douglas. He came in with a definitive mindset and an emotional drive like no other. Not to mention a jab that was near unbeatable. imho I just do not think the Tyson in Japan was the 37-0 Tyson that became.... 37-0. I do agree Tyson was never the same after that loss though. But to each their own.
Not many fights in Hollywood have realism to them. I guess a better way to compare would've been props to no props. Even choreographed mma is unrealistic.
Just to get this started, Mark Dacascos v. Jet Li - cradle to the grave. I just love these guys athletic ability.
Don't pay attention to the ending. Simply the athletic competition is entertaining and pretty sweet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p7ac41ayH4
Reading some of the posts and genuinely curious what some people would consider, the out right greatest choreographed fight scene in movie history. Before a bunch of ranting aobut how vague this is, let me say this... It has to be 1v1. Reference the movie, the actors and/or characters, the TYPE of fight. Either sci-fi or non-fiction. non-fiction being things like the Bourne series fight scenes. While in general fights are not like that, there are no superpowers, or wires, or what have you. Sci-fi, well that can be anything. But it still needs to be 1v1. Also, not a if they made this fight scene... this is only fight scenes that have been put on film. Not cartoon either.
Before I say how I voted there are many other things to consider besides just being in their prime. What glove weight is being used? How many rounds is it set for? What kind of ring is in use? In general though... I vote Tyson. Following both careers as I have, I give the advantage to Tyson so long as he gets it done in the first 2 rounds. If Ali survived the first 2 then Ali gets the advantage. Prime Tyson could take a solid shot but deliver a more devastating one. He was also exceedingly talented at getting past reach and destroying a guy from in tight. Ali and the Rope a dope would not have worked against Tyson because he would have taken too many shots to the body in the mean time. The pure power that Tyson could generate was beyond anything that Ali would have ever dealt with.
Addressing some prior comments: Mrfrancis, during Tysons prime, ie... first couple years, he did not care who he fought. His goal was to fight. Did not matter opponent.
Foxblade, I respect your opinion but not your statement on the Douglas fight. Based purely on the content of this post, Douglas did not face a "prime" Tyson.
Rivaltuna, I have read some of your posts, and as always am dumbfounded by your constant ignorance of the subjects you decide to post on. I completely applaud zem on qualifying your comparison as dumb. So, for you specifically I will say that I believe a Samurai warrior would have easily killed Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin in a back alley fight in the middle of the Sahara desert. That is an equal comparison to saying that chuck or shane hit harder than Mike Tyson so that makes all the difference in this comparison.
While there are earlier versions of the same concepts, I do feel that Voltron was the forerunner for this genre, or concept, stolen or not. But that is just my opinion. As to the other statements earlier... yes these cartoons sucked badly looking back at them. But so did movies, music, and every other form of media entertainment. But, at the time, as a kid, they were the bomb. I was a huge fan of Howard the Duck until I saw it 10 years later.
I have learned to compare certain people on here to Dwight from the office. Unable to entertain simple thoughts and fun comparisons without throwing a monkey wrench of logic, fact, or reality, in what should be a simple, fun, and entertaining game of what if.
This was not meant to be some serious why or how to discussion. It was just a casual conversation starter. We all know that original series usually surpass remakes, but for God's sake people... just have fun, stop over analyzing.
Voltron FTW. While the PR had more martial skill individually, the individual lions would overcome martial weaponry. When it comes the combined units, Voltron and the PR bots all had the same Rocky activity to them. They fought, got beat down, then made the come back win. BUT, Voltron always did it with style, and finesse. The class of enemies Voltron fought seemed to be a higher caliber than any seen in PR. With the sword of Voltron, it only took one swing to end the enemy.
This thread will be about the original of something vs. The offshoots or remakes.
To get started or as an example... Voltron(original) vs. Power Rangers(offshoot)
We can look at the components and then the whole. When the robots form, size would be equal. If you are going to ask which version of power rangers you are taking this way too serious. Enjoy
So 4 beers and 2 whiskey later I was able to suffer through highroller, rivaltuna, and a handful of others comparing ***** size and demonstrating how much they are in love with Bruces. Highroller, you are ALL TALK. You have shown no proof, link, video, or testimony from any source backing up anything. Where is the citations or links or documentation you speak of that proves how fast he is, how strong he is, how he once killed a man by blinking at him... or whatever other happy horse**** you claim. Tuna... seriously? Maybe its the alcohol but you are all over the board on what you think, don't think, how badass you are, how you yourself are this MMA awesomeness. In one post you actually make sense. Then a minute later I am lost that I thought you were a legitimate martial artist but couldn't be because no real person who trains would ever have said that. Whatever. There is no better art, only better practitioners. Karate would kill BJJ if it never got to the ground. TKD would destroy Aikido if they never got a leg caught... So on and so forth. There are no better arts, only better fighters. Here is how it is for every single person that actually reads through this crap... Put up or shut up. Link the proof. Link the document, cite your sources, show the video. I have looked and I can not find one legitimate reference of Bruce Lee ever fighting. Li and Chan are martial actors. Norris was a legitimate fighter in karate tournaments. But he never fought full contact. So... bring proof before you open your mouths or start your key strokes.
PS, anyone who thinks I am talkin out of where the chair is holding me up, let me know. If you're local, we can talk. If you're not, come on down.
The forum software automatically censors certain words. Please don't circumvent this feature by inserting your own special characters. In addition, please try to keep the tone civil. Thanks! -Viricide
Ok... I seriously had to stop reading some of the BS threads supporting bruce lee. So allow my rant to start with the first post.
1. You have a time machine that brings back 4 martial artists in their prime. So which one do you not consider a martial artist? Because your article lists 5 people?
2. Breaking down each person, by fact... a. Jet Li, a martial artist who competed, and won many tournaments, but never fought in real combat or hard core tournaments. b. Jackie Chan, was trained by a martial artist who adapted his art to film, as Jackie Chan has. But, he never fought. c. Chuck Norris, trained in traditional hard style martial arts. He trained hard, and worked hard, but never fought... Ever. d. Steven Segal, excelled at an applicable combative art, was trained overseas as a white guy so he got the short end of the stick while training, and still came out ahead. But... Never fought. e. Bruce Lee... amazing skill, speed, and talent. Demonstrated his skill and style at multiple tournaments, brought martial arts to the forefront of western civilization with his talents. BUT... Never fought. He is also known to have said "If I fight, and lose, that gives someone the right to walk around for life and say I beat Bruce Lee, and they would be right. I would never get a chance to redeem myself, and I can not have that." (Seattle Open) multiple witness.
3. A list of martial artists that would have whipped any of the 5 guys mentioned. Bill Wallace, Jim Harrison, Fred Wren, Joe Lewis, Demetrius Havanas, Allen Steen, Mike Anderson, Ray McCallum, and any of the other "Real" competitors from the blood and guts era.
4. That leads me to the post about "Non-contact" tournaments of the 60s and 70s. Simply, there were many tournaments through the early 60s and 70s that resemble much of todays full contact kickboxing. Yes it was based on points, but to get a point you needed to show that you could have done significant contact or damage to an opponent. So... any questions as to why Bruce and the other 4 you named are not the gods of martial legend you want them to be?
I too have never seen them on ebay. I have confirmed that this is one deck of only 100 made, I just have no idea how to get a value on them. If anyone has any idea or knows a shop that might have more information, please let me know. I have contacted a couple of websites, but they are not familiar with them because of the rarity. Thanks for any assistance.
Here is the simple truth. It is called a title "DEFENSE". It is not a title "prove I still can knock you out". I personally disagree with any fight, EVER, being left to judges. But in the realm of sport fighting, where KO's are possible... it is up to the challenger to take the belt. My personal thought is that if you did not get a stoppage, tap, TKO, or KO... you do not get the belt. IMO, Hendricks could have left GSP bloody and broken, but if he did not get the win by one of the prior conditions, he doesn't become champ. But, gripe all you want about who did or did not do the best, they still left it up to 3 people that were not in the ring, and that is Hendricks (and every other challengers) fault.
So, GSP goes out, does not do as well as everyone wanted, and still walks away with the title. Then he quits. Maybe he knows he barely escaped that fight. Maybe he knows he is not where he once was. So he takes some time away to put himself back in line. At least he wasn't a punk and held the title while he did that, which was well within his right to do so. He earned that belt and no one can say different. But he actually manned up and said, someone else can step in for a while. If I want the belt, I will come back and take it.
So, did GSP win? He did enough to retain his title. That is all he needed to do.
Did he punk out by not giving a rematch? If Hendricks wants a rematch so bad, then he needs to win the vacated title, then hold on to it long enough so that if/when GSP comes back Hendricks still has it when GSP comes to take it, and then he will have his rematch.
1. Take heed to the early replies. The best art for self defense is the one that you are able to learn the most from and that you feel comfortable in. Krav Maga is not exactly a martial art in the common sense. It teaches techniques based on self defense scenario and helps you change your mindset on how fighting is dealt with. There are 2 parts to a fight. The physical, and the mental. It is the latter that 90% of people have a problem with. Boxing gave us a great philosopher of fighting in Mike Tyson. A man who said "everyone has a plan, until they get hit in the mouth." I have seen and fought boxers who were talented until they took a good hard kick to the ding-ding. I have seen black belts get smacked around by street thugs too. Art does not matter, only how the practitioner uses it.
2. Fighting is different from self defense. Fighting is people who understand that there is a conflict and aggression is understood. Self defense is when one person fights and the other did not want to, but must. Much like a wild animal in a corner, when it must fight out of fear, instinct, and threat, it is far more dangerous than say a Sea tuna that wants to go out and duke it out with someone because he likes to box and measure wangs. The traditional martial arts, karate, tkd, kung fu, jkd, blah blah blah, are not good for self defense. They are arts. Much like any art, they take time to develop. But when you do develop them, they can be priceless works of art. Now for the problem with martial arts, of ALL FORMS. They are commercialized. If you go to an old school dojo, there are not a lot of students. Because people do not like the abuse and torture and conditioning you suffer through. The other thing is, old school dojos are not necessary. Hence, let the history lesson begin.
3. MARTIAL ARTS WERE DEVELOPED FOR MURDER. Not self defense. A man attacks you. You defend yourself. You break his arm and knock him out. Good job. 3 months later he comes back with 8 of his friends, beats you up, take advantage of your sister, and steals your dog. Good job. The martial arts were originally designed to murder people. You and your gang attack our village. We "Defended" it by using martial arts, severing your heads, putting them on pikes around our huts, and made sure people got the point that attacking us is not a good idea. Kung fu was some of the most violent martial arts I ever had the privilege of seeing. The moves when fully explained were violent and most often fatal. But that type of training is no longer needed, nor wanted for the most part in todays society.
So to say that a "grandmaster" would have their hands full with a boxer, is just ignorance and stupidity of children. All the masters are dead. They died a long time ago. Someone who spends all day doing kata or forms and gets a 10th dgr black belt should have the snot slapped out of them by some punk. But maybe he wanted to study martial arts for the kata and health benefits of it and not to fight. Does that mean he was a bad karateka? No. It means he was a bad fighter. But there are people who study karate, are not black belts, and who should never have been taught techniques of how to kick or strike people because they are simply tough people, who like to fight, and put martial arts back to being a vicious way to deal with conflict.
So, that being said... if you want to learn martial arts for self defense, take a self defense class. Krav Maga is best for learning the most quickly. If you feel you have time to invest, and are not having your lunch money stolen everyday, look around, check schools out, see if they offer free introductory lessons. If you want to get in to a martial arts school, the number one thing to look at is the students. Do not look at the instructor. S/he should be good. If you look at the students, and they look good, and are all doing the same thing, the same way, then you have a good instructor who cares enough to make sure everyone is on the same page with how something should be done. And yes, make sure a school has some degree of physical contact or you will never break out of flight mode when conflict arises.
Don't pay attention to the ending. Simply the athletic competition is entertaining and pretty sweet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p7ac41ayH4
Addressing some prior comments: Mrfrancis, during Tysons prime, ie... first couple years, he did not care who he fought. His goal was to fight. Did not matter opponent.
Foxblade, I respect your opinion but not your statement on the Douglas fight. Based purely on the content of this post, Douglas did not face a "prime" Tyson.
Rivaltuna, I have read some of your posts, and as always am dumbfounded by your constant ignorance of the subjects you decide to post on. I completely applaud zem on qualifying your comparison as dumb. So, for you specifically I will say that I believe a Samurai warrior would have easily killed Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin in a back alley fight in the middle of the Sahara desert. That is an equal comparison to saying that chuck or shane hit harder than Mike Tyson so that makes all the difference in this comparison.
I have learned to compare certain people on here to Dwight from the office. Unable to entertain simple thoughts and fun comparisons without throwing a monkey wrench of logic, fact, or reality, in what should be a simple, fun, and entertaining game of what if.
Voltron FTW. While the PR had more martial skill individually, the individual lions would overcome martial weaponry. When it comes the combined units, Voltron and the PR bots all had the same Rocky activity to them. They fought, got beat down, then made the come back win. BUT, Voltron always did it with style, and finesse. The class of enemies Voltron fought seemed to be a higher caliber than any seen in PR. With the sword of Voltron, it only took one swing to end the enemy.
To get started or as an example... Voltron(original) vs. Power Rangers(offshoot)
We can look at the components and then the whole. When the robots form, size would be equal. If you are going to ask which version of power rangers you are taking this way too serious. Enjoy
PS, anyone who thinks I am talkin out of where the chair is holding me up, let me know. If you're local, we can talk. If you're not, come on down.
The forum software automatically censors certain words. Please don't circumvent this feature by inserting your own special characters. In addition, please try to keep the tone civil. Thanks! -Viricide
1. You have a time machine that brings back 4 martial artists in their prime. So which one do you not consider a martial artist? Because your article lists 5 people?
2. Breaking down each person, by fact... a. Jet Li, a martial artist who competed, and won many tournaments, but never fought in real combat or hard core tournaments. b. Jackie Chan, was trained by a martial artist who adapted his art to film, as Jackie Chan has. But, he never fought. c. Chuck Norris, trained in traditional hard style martial arts. He trained hard, and worked hard, but never fought... Ever. d. Steven Segal, excelled at an applicable combative art, was trained overseas as a white guy so he got the short end of the stick while training, and still came out ahead. But... Never fought. e. Bruce Lee... amazing skill, speed, and talent. Demonstrated his skill and style at multiple tournaments, brought martial arts to the forefront of western civilization with his talents. BUT... Never fought. He is also known to have said "If I fight, and lose, that gives someone the right to walk around for life and say I beat Bruce Lee, and they would be right. I would never get a chance to redeem myself, and I can not have that." (Seattle Open) multiple witness.
3. A list of martial artists that would have whipped any of the 5 guys mentioned. Bill Wallace, Jim Harrison, Fred Wren, Joe Lewis, Demetrius Havanas, Allen Steen, Mike Anderson, Ray McCallum, and any of the other "Real" competitors from the blood and guts era.
4. That leads me to the post about "Non-contact" tournaments of the 60s and 70s. Simply, there were many tournaments through the early 60s and 70s that resemble much of todays full contact kickboxing. Yes it was based on points, but to get a point you needed to show that you could have done significant contact or damage to an opponent. So... any questions as to why Bruce and the other 4 you named are not the gods of martial legend you want them to be?