Slashdot Mirror


Shaolin Monks May Sue Over Tale of Defeat by Ninja

Socguy writes "A unique story on the CBC website details an even more unusual conflict. A Chinese Shaolin temple has demanded an apology from 'an Internet user who claimed a Japanese ninja beat its kung fu-practicing monks in a showdown.' A letter from the members of the temple, posted on the Internet on Thursday, denied the fight ever took place and called on the person who posted the claim under the name "Five minutes every day" to apologize to the temple's martial arts masters. Monks from the temple, which is located in the Songshan Mountain region of the Henan province, said they will consider legal action if he or she doesn't make a public apology."

284 comments

  1. Someone by evanbd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone just won at Internet trolling.

    Hear that, Slashdot trolls? When you get written up by Reuters, that's when you've arrived.

    1. Re:Someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Naw, when you get your target to make threats of legal action in front of other people you win. This is an example of a troll achieving satori. I just pray that, like the Buddha, the troll in the story is content to return to our level and help the rest of us achieve enlightenment.

    2. Re:Someone by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      When you get written up by Reuters, that's when you've arrived. Hehe. And 2 weeks ago, another wacky Slashprank was all over Belgium's press and TV.

      (Yep, even TV. And yep, they even did showed that glaring goatse on screen. Pixelated, but still clearly recognizable...)

    3. Re:Someone by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Someone just won at Internet trolling.

      I bet he is a pirate.

    4. Re:Someone by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      Damnit dude... this is the funniest comment I've read on the internet all year.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    5. Re:Someone by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      Someone just won at Internet trolling.

      This would have been a perfect victory, except the troller apparently apologized a short while later. In so marring what would have otherwise been a perfect victory, he showed signs of weakness not acceptable from a master troll.

      The monks showed their weakness as well, by whining about legal action against the troll. The posting that started it all is believed to be an attack on the temple's growing commercialism. The leader of the temple drives an expensive chauffeured car and markets the temple in very non-monklike ways. The implication is that they are no longer true warriors, but rather mere showmen now. I guess the truth hurts, in this case enough to break their faux Zen composure.

    6. Re:Someone by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      And for the unenlightened (pun intended) among us, such a returning person is called a Bodhisattva.

    7. Re:Someone by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      And for the unenlightened (pun intended) among us, such a returning person is called a Bodhisattva.

      Another common term is a householder which is common in Zen schools. Many of us who realize that life != you must be miserable must also realize that interaction with the world is still mandatory, should we hope to finish raising our children and looking after our families.

      Both words describe a noble act, one is more "Eh, I'll put off supreme happiness and help these other people achieve it first", the second is "Ok, when my kid is grown and doing well, I can then become enlightened if I wish." Sort of a subtle difference, one is more obligatory than the other, but the oblilgation does not detract from the selflessness of the act.

      A householder who works to ease suffering outside of their own home and family would be called a Bodhisattva, even though both mean basically the same thing and can be used either way.

      The word is frequently misunderstood (a bit) so I thought that I would chirp in :)
    8. Re:Someone by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      I can't honestly believe they're doing this...

      The pure amount of false information on the internet regarding martial arts is ridiculous.

      "Shaolin monks knew the ancient art of flying"
      "Ninja's were from an ancient organisation of *Chinese* assaassins"
      etc etc

      You hear that stuff all the time. People's ignorance on martial arts are not uncommon (too many movies). So why take so much offense to this? Because its claiming one art to be better than another? Or is it more related to the fact one is Japanese and the other is Chinese?

      ~Jarik

  2. In addition... by mdenham · · Score: 5, Funny

    The monks also stated that this alleged ninja must be produced for execution by means of the five-point palm exploding heart technique.

    1. Re:In addition... by thej1nx · · Score: 5, Funny
      This just in :


      Allesged Ninja has started training to master the One-point forearm indestructible defensive shield of Heavenly protection technique to counter the five-point palm exploding heart technique attack!

      Pirates have issued an official statement claiming "they will still manage to get both of the other parties, although they are not sure about the role of monks in the conflict! Arrrrr!"

    2. Re:In addition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mod parent down, (Score: -1, Misremembering Fictional Kung-fu).

      Shaolin monks don't know the five point palm exploding heart technique, which is why Pai Mei was able to use it to massacre a Shaolin temple. Only Pai Mei knows the technique and he teaches it to no one. That is, except...

    3. Re:In addition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard the monks will challenge the ninjas to a rematch, but this time they'll field their wrinkly little bald monk who sweeps the temple.

    4. Re:In addition... by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      I heard the monks will challenge the ninjas to a rematch, but this time they'll field their wrinkly little bald monk who sweeps the temple.
      So, they're really desperate; they wouldn't draw their biggest gun otherwise.
      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:In addition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be a bad idea. You see, ninjas are so awesome that one could take out all those monks together. Encouraging one to come to a gathering of monks might be painful or even deadly to the entire order! They should let this go before they do something they'll regret.

      Besides, it is well known that ninjas are the only mammal with no heart.

    6. Re:In addition... by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Do not forget rule one.

    7. Re:In addition... by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      I heard the monks will challenge the ninjas to a rematch, but this time they'll field their wrinkly little bald monk who sweeps the temple.
      Ah, a martial arts arms race!

      In response, the ninjas will just field that one guy who just stands there in the middle, arms crossed, waiting for the devestation all around him to die down. The monks will then hire a little guy in a white suit from the Yazuka, and so on, and so on...

      Pretty soon we'll be knee-deep in hopping vampires and pirates, and we all know where that leads!

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    8. Re:In addition... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Pirates of the Caribbean vs. Blade?

    9. Re:In addition... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Isn't that where this lunacy leads to?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  3. Better way to get the apology... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    just turn up at his door and demand the apology be typed in... why mess about with lawyers... come on, you're Shaolin Monks... you don't need lawyers..

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Better way to get the apology... by thej1nx · · Score: 3, Funny
      Dude! What are you talking about??? Even the Shaolin monks respect the sheer deadly destructive powers of a *LAWYER*!!!


      Rest assured that if the internet posting was about a *LAWYER* singlehandedly defeating and laying waste to all of the shaolin temple, there would be no refutal at all!

      A lawyer would simply get end up showing prior art and a patent-in-progress filed on all of their techniques and get an injunction against the shaolin monks practicing their kung-fu!

      Fear the deadly powers of a *LAWYER*!!!

    2. Re:Better way to get the apology... by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      the Shao-Lin monks and techniques ARE the prior-art!

      --
      Balderdash!
    3. Re:Better way to get the apology... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      come on, you're Shaolin Monks... you don't need lawyers..

      Even Shaolin Monks have to be scared of something.

    4. Re:Better way to get the apology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are obviously afraid that the ninja would kick their butts. And now everybody can see that. They must clearly be disoriented from their last butt-kicking. Way to go, monks!

    5. Re:Better way to get the apology... by SQL+Error · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lawyers? Hah. My monkeys will eat your legal documents and poop on your expensive shoes.

      Fear the monkeys!

    6. Re:Better way to get the apology... by smallfries · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard there was this one *LAWYER* who just totally flipped out and started sueing people. There was guys that weren't even involved and he sued them before they could even get ready. He even sued pirates...

      Remember:
      FACT - laywers are mammals
      FACT - laywers totally flip out all the time

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    7. Re:Better way to get the apology... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Heh. Monkeys!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    8. Re:Better way to get the apology... by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Funny

      You foolish children, shaolin monks, ninjas, pirates, and monkeys are NOTHING compared to the horrendous and frighteningly destructive power of those godless killing machines without a soul....

      BEARS!

      *runs away*

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Better way to get the apology... by WingedEarth · · Score: 1

      Clearly the only way to settle this dispute is for the ninjas to have a fight against the Shaolin monks, winner take all. What's the point in arguing over who won? Hold a fight now and see who wins. See? As a lawyer I'm able to provide practical solutions to disputes (and when both sides sue each other for personal injuries, the lawyers will win).

    10. Re:Better way to get the apology... by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Heh, the word "he" in the above sentence is misleading, it had to have been a female lawyer.

    11. Re:Better way to get the apology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      FACT - laywers are mammals
      Wait, what? How can that be possible? I thought mammals were warm-blooded?
    12. Re:Better way to get the apology... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Jack thompson or John Grubor.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Better way to get the apology... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Prior Art? I think my sig explains it all! (If you have sigs off, or I've changed it, the sig is: "The Ori don't care about your patents. They have Prior art.")

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    14. Re:Better way to get the apology... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Dude! What are you talking about??? Even the Shaolin monks respect the sheer deadly destructive powers of a *LAWYER*!!! You're confusing Shaolin monks with the Nac Mac Feegle, whose swords glow blue in their presence.
  4. Uhh by alzoron · · Score: 1

    If they're this upset over a potential loss of honor and respect they would get from the ninja story, I'd hate to see what they do in response to what they get for pulling this stunt.

    1. Re:Uhh by pwolk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both the showdown and the demand for an apology appear to be in stark contrast with the usual composure of both ninja and kung-fu practicing monks. Indeed file under "funny", and funny only.

    2. Re:Uhh by sayfawa · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I kind of fear what their reaction is going to be when they see their fighting skills unfavourably compared to those of pirates and monkey robots.

      Monkey robots ftw.

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    3. Re:Uhh by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. But the Shao-Lin monks that live in Shao-Lin nowdays, are actually just tourist attractions placed there by the Chinese government. wikipedia entry. The original monks who lived there were persecuted by the government and eventually fled to New York. Then the Chinese government realized that they could make money off the temple, and got people to live there and act like them, but the original philosophy and heart of the temple is gone.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Uhh by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      they could make money off the temple, and got people to live there and act like them,

      The brochures for the local wax museum and Home of the World's Biggest Ball Of Noodle, available at the lobby, were a giveaway. Yup, tourist trap, yessirreebob.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  5. Crazy monks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A ninja couldn't beat a kung-fu monk? Highly unlikely.

  6. The Year is 2007 by Nymz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea of a Shaolin Monk 'considering' legal action, in order to defend himself against a single bulletin board poster, just doesn't have the same impact, when we live in a day and age where another group of religious fighters abduct real reporters, cut of their heads, and post the video with all gurgling noises included, to the internet.

    1. Re:The Year is 2007 by morari · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the monks should kidnap a ninja and cut his head off for the world to view?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:The Year is 2007 by E++99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if my kung fu education based on bruce lee movies serves, they have all renounced violence and are living in remorse for all the lives they've taken, and it will only be after this legal action fails at restoring their honor that they will be forced to once again use their deadly skills to their intended effect.

    3. Re:The Year is 2007 by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Parent's post is just like the troll "600 people died in a recent earthquake and you're all worrying about a shaolin monk suing somebody" post... nicely done, though. :(

    4. Re:The Year is 2007 by MadnessASAP · · Score: 0

      Well yes, except that if you catch a ninja it clearly was not a ninja.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    5. Re:The Year is 2007 by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      The idea of a Shaolin Monk 'considering' legal action, in order to defend himself against a single bulletin board poster, just doesn't have the same impact, when we live in a day and age where another group of religious fighters abduct real reporters, cut of their heads, and post the video with all gurgling noises included, to the internet. You're right, especially since the muslims have already got that cool headwrap thing going on with only the eyes showing, not that different from a ninja. If they ever manage to master chi focus blasts, we're screwn! Unless we can find a white man who has learned their ways and can defeat them... American Taliban! But shit, he's already in jail. Still screwn.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:The Year is 2007 by try_anything · · Score: 1

      Well, if my kung fu education based on bruce lee movies serves, they have all renounced violence and are living in remorse for all the lives they've taken
      Then we'll know the "War Against Terror" is working when we see a bunch of guys named Muhammed performing kung-fu for tourists.
    7. Re:The Year is 2007 by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Actually if memory serves an American Green Beret by the name of John James Rambo fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1988. With his Green Beret training plus his mad Afghan fighting skills he is unstoppable.

    8. Re:The Year is 2007 by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Actually if memory serves an American Green Beret by the name of John James Rambo fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1988. With his Green Beret training plus his mad Afghan fighting skills he is unstoppable. Yeah, but that proved to be embarrassing in the current political climate so Rambo III had been redacted from the trilogy.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:The Year is 2007 by Arafel65 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh -1 for wrong spelling of screwed!

    10. Re:The Year is 2007 by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Ahhh -1 for wrong spelling of screwed! Screwn is an internet meme. Bush supporters mangle the language, just like their master. Free Republic has a ton of these. Get a brain moran, we're screwn, etc. Too funny.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:The Year is 2007 by Arafel65 · · Score: 1

      Wow i really screwn up!

  7. Of course it's untrue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ninjas couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

    This is just a cover story to draw attention away from the fact that several Shaolin Temples, were in fact, recently plundered by pirates.

    Pirates rule.

    1. Re:Of course it's untrue. by DarkIye · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mod parent up, (Score: +1, ARRR).

    2. Re:Of course it's untrue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wonder why their temples bin plundered? It is because pirates do be the natural enemy of lawyers. It is true, pirates be holy creatures. Arr!

    3. Re:Of course it's untrue. by ByteSlicer · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were plundered by copyright infringers. Sheez, when will you people learn...

    4. Re:Of course it's untrue. by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      dude they are monks they live the simple life. Nothing for the pirates to plunder! Well, except for the Orb of Shao-Lin Knowledge +5! Kung Fu Pirates! Ninjas don't stand a chance for sure now! omg! I cant stop using exclamation marks!

      --
      Balderdash!
    5. Re:Of course it's untrue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copyright infringers rule then

    6. Re:Of course it's untrue. by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      Says Anonymous Coward. Why the secrecy? Afraid a Ninja might show up at your front door?

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
    7. Re:Of course it's untrue. by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the Eye of Dashi and the other Shen Gong Wu!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    8. Re:Of course it's untrue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates don't log in! We sail into port, then we loot, pillage, and plunder, and finally we sail off into the sunset leaving a mountain of dead ninjas behind us. Yarr!

  8. Pirates by Datamonstar · · Score: 3, Funny

    What the hell do the Pirates have to say about all of this?

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    1. Re:Pirates by MacroRex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Depends. Are they zombie pirates or regular ones?

    2. Re:Pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhrrr...

      or words to that effect.

    3. Re:Pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be taken down by a DMCA notice soon enough.

    4. Re:Pirates by HillaryWBush · · Score: 0

      Take a look around. It's either Finland or it's past both of our bedtimes.

    5. Re:Pirates by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1

      "Yarrrrr!"

      --
      "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    6. Re:Pirates by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Nothing at all. It's the vikings that hate the Shaolin monks.

    7. Re:pirates by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an ultimate showdown. My money is on Mister Rogers in a bloodstained sweater.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  9. just a warning to others by choseph · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're just threatening early to discourage people from getting the truth out about the Chuck Norris showdown.

    1. Re:just a warning to others by flewp · · Score: 1

      A showdown of Chuck Norris'? Sounds like the big crunch theory is right.

      Two Chuck Norris' dueling it out, with each performing a roundhouse kick that will no doubt, compact the entirety of the universe into a singularity?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    2. Re:just a warning to others by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, because I have Gandalf the Grey, Gandalf the White, Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight, and Benito Mussolini, and the Blue Meanie, and Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie, Robocop, Terminator, Captain Kirk, and Darth Vader, Lo-Pan, Superman, every single Power Ranger, Bill S. Preston, and Theodore Logan, Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  10. Tag: pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all.

  11. Next time... by tcdk · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Record the event
    2. Post on YouTube
    3. Have Large TV network steal it
    4. Post that on YouTube
    5. Get sued by TV network
    6. Now you are a Pirate and can surely kick Ninja ass...
    7. Profit (if you win the lawsuit).

    --
    TC - My Photos..
    1. Re:Next time... by kaizokuace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      7. Profit (if you win the lawsuit).

      Silly rabbit, this is America, the obligatory 'Profit' is only won by the lawyers themselves.
      --
      Balderdash!
  12. The case by FinchWorld · · Score: 5, Funny
    If that case ever gets any where I know I'd like to precide over it.

    "I'm sorry but theres only one possible answer to all this"

    Ninjas descend from ceiling and take a stance.

    "Round one! FIGHT!"

    [Much later]

    And then, just as it seemed the fighting would come to a conclusion, a ship flying a skull and cross bones moored at the local pier...

    --
    "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    1. Re:The case by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      "For the LAST TIME, we are NOT ninjas!!" - Brain Smasher...A Love Story

  13. There's no way ... by krou · · Score: 1

    ... that this story could be true. Everyone knows that if a ninja kicks your arse, no-one would ever live to see it, let alone write about it on the internet. Of course, the writer could be the ninja himself, in which case, DON'T PISS HIM OFF!

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
  14. I *so* have this one: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ballmer, in the temple, with the chair.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:I *so* have this one: by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ballmer, in the temple, with the chair, at Tenagra.

      The beast at Tenagra.

      Stallman, with the hippy hair and the odor at Tenagra.

      The Beast and Ballmer and Stallman at Tenagra.

      Ballmer in the stomach.

      The Beast and Stallman on the Ocean.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    2. Re:I *so* have this one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh thanks, you just made my day :D

    3. Re:I *so* have this one: by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Temba, his ass laughed off.

    4. Re:I *so* have this one: by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I ran this through Babelfish, but it just shrugged.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:I *so* have this one: by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. It's times like this that I wish /. had a (+1 Geek Cred) moderation. Let's hope you still manage to gain a few karma points for that one, my friend.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    6. Re:I *so* have this one: by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 0

      Coffee, all in my keyboard.

      --
      If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
    7. Re:I *so* have this one: by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      Most injoke-ish joke evar!

      I mean, if you get this, you REALLY need to get out.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    8. Re:I *so* have this one: by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      This went wooosh on me. Please explain reference.

    9. Re:I *so* have this one: by vocaro · · Score: 1

      It's a reference to this episode of Star Trek: TNG.

    10. Re:I *so* have this one: by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Ballmer - when the walls fell.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  15. Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One of the things that frustrates me is that, although the Chinese and Japanese have known how to write for a very long time, the martial arts are very poorly documented. The result is that most of the transmission has been oral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition Any given martial art (the monks are different) is probably passed down from father to son. Some families are willing to teach others. Some aren't. The Japanese tend to keep secerets, even from their senior students. Given the situation, it's no surprise that different martial artists have wildly different versions of the truth. The other complication is that most martial artists never fight real fights. (Point sparring doesn't count.) It is possible to spend years working on a given martial art and then discover that it is absolutely ineffective against the average street punk.

    So, the question of the moment; could a single ninja beat a group of monks. It could happen. It depends on the ninja and the monks. Bear in mind though that the ninja are Japanese and the monks are Chinese so there's not a lot of opportunity for the match to happen.

    1. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Besides the secret-keeping, it's very hard to "document" martial arts. Most of them involve very complex movements that can not be properly represented in 2D drawings, pictures or text. Even though there are books about the western variants of the Asian martial arts, it's impossible to learn them by reading at home.

    2. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Not really. I developed an offshoot of choreographic notation when I ran my stunt group. You don't use drawings. Text works fine.

    3. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      After finishing my first cup of coffee, I'll change my last post to say you're wrong on all counts. I have some fifty books, written by Japanese, Korean, Chinese and others on martial arts. Most have katas in them and use photo/text to describe things quite nicely. Was going to say succinctly, but you need to read the English to appreciate how wrong that would be.

      You cannot learn them at home alone, though. Many things -- like sticky hand practice -- require a partner.

    4. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Mordough · · Score: 1

      True, but it is possible for a mutant rat to teach ninjitsu to four mutant turtles... teenagers no less, with nothing but pizza in their brains

    5. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Cylix · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are doing it wrong if you can't do sticky hand practice without a partner.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    6. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you're telling me that I can give you a book about a fighting style you don't know yet and let you read it, and after you're done with it, you're equivalent to the dan level of the writer?

      Even when shown in full motion and 3D, I haven't met anybody who was able to reproduce the techniques perfectly without some kind of feedback given by a dan master, and I've seen a few hundred of those freshmen in recent years.

    7. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Also add in that many of the books out there about ninjutsu techniques (not counting the fraud crap like Ashida Kim), many of the techniques are explained improperly and/or pictures are put out of order or shown improperly on purpose. I know that in my Genbukan curriculum manual (yes, we have a standardized training manual that shows which techniques are required for each ranking, unlike the Booj :P ) that there are numerous examples of this. This is to keep any random person from just buying the manual, trying to learn the techniques and then passing themselves off as a Genbukan practitioner. A teacher is required for correct instruction, with the manual also leaving out much that is only kuden (oral teachings) that can only come from a qualified teacher. The manual is only really used after the fact as a reference guide to look back on as an outline.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    8. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Hmm..The thing is that it is really hard to know that you do it right even if you know how to do.
      For a technique to be effective in a fighting situation it has to be repeated literally thousands of times, and somebody has to be there to correct you many of those times.
      It has nothing to do with it _looking_ nice, because some techniques will look awful not matter how well you do them, simply because you are either a little bit to tall, muscular, fat, or whatever. As a general rule, they look better the smaller you are.

      Anyway, the only way to really learn to be an effective fighter is to practice fighting with people better than you. You simply need to get your ass handed to you to develop.
      I trained kung-fu(sanshou) for many years and one day i felt that I had come far enough to train in the group where all those elite guys train (you may know the kind, instructors, K1-fighters and the like).
      Needless to say, i got my ass kicked. I think I lost every damn round for the next 5 months.
      Another thing, at that level, they don't hold back much either. I found that completely insane and it almost made me quit training altogether.
      But at the same time, I felt that I improved at an equally insane pace. I also noticed that the biggest reason it hurt so much was because of the way i took the blows. When the odd moment occurred that I actually landed something it was floppy and unclean stuff that only brought a (horrific) smile to the opponents face.
      So I learned that the secret to getting hurt less is to constantly move and thereby becoming a harder target to hit cleanly(i.e. hurtingly). Obviously, the hard part is combining moving well with aggressively attacking an opponent. Even harder it is to to that also well.

      Anyway, because of a strained muscle in the back, I had to go slower for a while, and returned to training with my old group for a couple of weeks. The difference was incredible. I felt like i was fighting children. Well...except for that one guy, an ex wrestler, who actually threw me from one end of the ring to the other just for fun at one time, the bastard. But except for him, I had no opposition at all(he is now also in my group, and yes, sometimes people do fly through the air).

      I am still one of the worst in the "l33t" group, but now, it is actually fun and really interesting(well right now I've had a child and haven't trained for a while, but..).

      But my first point is: Yeah, you can learn really basic stuff from reading a book, but to become any good, you have to do a lot of sparring. It is really a mindset thing and something that is completely impossible to learn by using just written instruction.
      If someone actually thinks that, it is just because that someone has no idea how fucking great some fighters are. A good fighter overpowers you in a way normal people can't imagine. Movies aren't even close in conveying that feeling. You will freeze up, try to protect yourself, and actually not understand what happens.

      My second point is: My techniques are in no way better looking than they were before. They are not even much better in any other way either. Being a good fighter is not about individual heavy or fast techniques, it is about timing(which according to me includes reading the opponent), tactics and automatic behavior. Among those, I'd say timing is the most important. If you have great timing, you don't need to be very fast, powerful, flexible or anything. Your techniques will hurt sufficiently because they were delivered at the exact moment when they are the most effective. Your opponent will feel he/she is fighting with a mind-reading wizard.

      There are more points, and i know that the parent probably did not mean that one can become a great fighter from looking in a book. It is just that some people seem to think that simply using breathing techniques or following some "path" is the way to greatness.
      I'm just am saying: that is just bullshit. It is fun, cool, and I love that stuff, but it is bullshit.

      PS.
      Did i mention I c

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    9. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's just as hard to pickup dancing from a book (esp dancing with partners). Similar sort of thing IMO. All that book stuff is not going to work that well if you have to dance with a stranger ;).

      That said, another thing about training by fighting with people who don't hold back much is you probably got tougher - bones, joints, tendons, skin etc. Well except when things break (like your back muscle) ;).

      --
    10. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      Shaolin monks as everyone thinks of them haven't existed since the Communist Revolution of China back in 1966, when they killed or arrested as many monks as they could find. There are still monks at the Shaolin temple, but the oral tradition has been broken and all "secret techniques" have been lost. From what I've read, the modern monks there are basically showmen for tourists.

      Of course, I am partially Japanese and could just be a ninja spreading ninja propaganda.

    11. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Yep, picking up dancing from a book would seen like an even worse idea.. :-)

      Actually, we have a few who have been working as professional dancers(like ballet and similar) that picked up martial arts to stay fit. And (super-)fit they are, with great flexibility and control.
      As one could expect, they pick up the techniques almost immediately, the only small hurdle i have noticed some of them having is adapting to the notion of kicking with force, which is very different thing balance-wise than just stretching out your leg.
      But the most interesting thing is that they seem to have good timing, which must stem from constantly having to adjust to a partner.

      I don't know about tougher, but I sometimes notice that I unconsciously move to evade when some friend does some joking hitting gesture. It is actually quite weird how fast I picked up those patterns and brought them with me out of the training, and they are almost impossible to suppress. If I sometimes understands what is coming soon enough for me to be able to consciously think: "Don't act weird now!", I actually have to force myself to stand still. It would be horrible if someone thought I'd be doing that to look cool, or something.

      I never had those reflexes before I joined the "badass" group.
      Maybe it is some other kind of more (a bit pavlovian) learning, "if i don't do this it will hurt".
      It's kind of like how they say beaten dogs act. A not very flattering comparison maybe.. Probably true, though :-)

      In fact, i strained my back when I fell down some slippery stairs..So I can't claim something like "That sore loser Tyson, hit me in the back when I left, he did..".. :-)

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    12. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, just like the outlawing of sword-making in Japan, which lead to all the secret techniques of Japanese sword-making being lost.

      Of course, I have committed the occasional copyright infringement, so I could just be a pirate spreading pirate propaganda :)

    13. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by o2sd · · Score: 1

      Shaolin monks as everyone thinks of them haven't existed since the Communist Revolution of China back in 1966

      Ummm ... small nitpick. It was the Cultural Revolution in '66, the Communist Revolution was '49.

      But apart from that, you are mostly correct, except of course that the temple had fallen into decay during Qing.

      But secrets are still passed on, probably not to the shaolin monks, but there are still some living masters in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South East Asia, Canada and Australia.

      --
      - Nothing to see hear.
    14. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by aonifer · · Score: 1

      So, the question of the moment; could a single ninja beat a group of monks.

      I'm not drunk enough to answer that question, yet.

    15. Re:Lots of BS in the martial arts world by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Shaolin monks as everyone thinks of them haven't existed since the Communist Revolution of China back in 1966, when they killed or arrested as many monks as they could find. There are still monks at the Shaolin temple, but the oral tradition has been broken and all "secret techniques" have been lost. From what I've read, the modern monks there are basically showmen for tourists. I've been told that this is indeed true of the areas visible to tourists, but that there are much more competent monks with whom you must be a bit more persistent to get training from. I cannot personally vouch for the veracity of this claim, though.
  16. What makes them look like bigger idiots? by forgoil · · Score: 1

    1. Someone claiming that a Ninja defeated one of them
    2. Suing someone for posting on the internet

    Nuff said!

    1. Re:What makes them look like bigger idiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No ... it's /. for posting this article! =P

  17. Some facts about Ninjas by o2sd · · Score: 5, Funny

    These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

    Facts:

    1. Ninjas are mammals.
    2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
    3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

    Especially note 3 above. The Ninjas probably just went to the Shaolin Temple to talk about tea n shit, and then they just totally flipped out and killed all the monks.

    Anyway, here is some more things about Ninjas.

    Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about ninjas?
    A: Ninjas are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, ninjas are very careful and precise.

    Q: I heard that ninjas are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
    A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.

    Q: What do ninjas do when they're not cutting off heads or flipping out?
    A: Most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

    --
    - Nothing to see hear.
    1. Re:Some facts about Ninjas by steevc · · Score: 1

      1. All ninjas are liars
      2. I am a ninja

      Draw your own conclusions

    2. Re:Some facts about Ninjas by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      1. All ninjas are liars
      2. I am a ninja

      Draw your own conclusions

      Luckily, my computer has paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    3. Re:Some facts about Ninjas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. All ninjas are liars
      2. I am a ninja

      Draw your own conclusions


      Uhm, you're a liar and not a ninja. Who cares?

    4. Re:Some facts about Ninjas by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Rofl.

      http://www.realultimatepower.net/ for those who don't know where all that information is from.

      Hilarious, as well as all the spin-off videos based on it.

      ~Jarik

  18. I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by bl8n8r · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he retracts his statement, he'll have a bunch of angry ninjas after him. If he doesn't retract, he's got a whole temple of kung-fu masters on his ass. I can't imagine a more troubling situation.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      The answer is simple, all those angry ninjas are just a bunch of sissies that think ninjas are cool and post on the tubes. Those kung-fu masters actually exist in reality and they could actually kick his ass.

      --
      Balderdash!
    2. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by octal666 · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, he is a zombie pirate.

      --
      DON'T PANIC
    3. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by geobeck · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine a more troubling situation.

      Solution: Announce to both parties that you will be retracting your statement at a specific place and time. When they show up, you will not be there, but your statement will be read by a lawyer, who will bow out of the situation, and pick up the pieces after the ensuing Rumble, Eastern-Style(TM).

      Just be sure to keep the meeting place secret from pirates, zombies, and vampires, or no one will be able to sort out the rumble rules.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    4. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just be sure to keep the meeting place secret from pirates, zombies, and vampires...

      Oh yeah, that means make sure the lawyer doesn't tell any of his colleagues.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    5. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Kurosawa film.

    6. Re:I'd hate to be "Five Minutes a Day" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, he's ALREADY in a horrible situation. He's got *LAWYERS* after him! Either of those other situations would be preferable. ;)

      ~Buckley

  19. In the words of Judge Kozinski... by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The parties are advised to chill."

    On the other hand, Buddhist monks spend a decent amount of their studies on the subject of humor, so maybe this is simply the single greatest cultural practical joke ever perpetrated...a Zen masterpiece.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    1. Re:In the words of Judge Kozinski... by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      Shaolin Monks are suing Aqua? What did they do now, release a song called "Shaolin Girl"?

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    2. Re:In the words of Judge Kozinski... by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      It better be a joke.

      If humor is a part of their studies and they fail to see the irony here, the ninjas won without showing up, or even uttering a statement.

      (And that's real ultimate power. No wonder even pirates fear them!)

      --
      I lost my sig.
  20. The True Sequence of Events by selex · · Score: 1

    1. Human Weapon on the History Channel does a Ninjutsu episode.
    2. Bill or Jason beats a Ninjutsu master
    3. Human Weapon then does the Kung Fu episode.
    4. Jason beats the Kung Fu master.
    5. ?
    6. Profiteering by the Pirates
    7. Full cycle of Ninja/Shaolin Monk/Pirate debate is complete.

    Selex

    1. Re:The True Sequence of Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, I recently read in the China Daily (English version) that the Human Weapon guy *lost* in the tournament to a member of one of the numerous Kung-Fu schools near Song Shan (which is actually two mountains). Makes you wonder to what lengths the truth will be twisted.

    2. Re:The True Sequence of Events by selex · · Score: 1

      They always lose...which is a good thing, since they are supposed to just be learning the martial art. If they win then the "master" really wasn't that good at what they strive their whole life to perfect. Also that episode hasn't officially aired, so I don't know what happens. Selex

  21. Or, at least... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    That the Shaolin monks don't try something more ... physical towards the troll. ;-)

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Or, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a Japanese troll beat up Buddha anyways.

    2. Re:Or, at least... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      -You got any idea what we gonna do to you if you don't [retract that statement]??

      -Let me guess. First you're gonna pound my face, break every bone in my body, then you're gonna drag me across a gravel road, and feed my remains to a warthog. Is that about right?

      -What are you, nuts? This is the nineties. We're gonna sue you. We're gonna get you for [slander], mental anguish, loss of work hours...when we get through with you, you ain't gonna have a dime left to your name! You'll be hearing from our attorney.


      -Obscure??

      p.s. modified slightly :)

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    3. Re:Or, at least... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Respect -- You steal (5) Hazumi points from your Enemy.

      == +1 Shaolin!

      http://www.urbanprophet.com/gekisen.htm

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re:Or, at least... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Yep, I remember it -- Hulk Hogan movie. ;-)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    5. Re:Or, at least... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, brother! The Suburban Commando

      MMMMMMMMMMM Antifreeze!

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
  22. Not invincible by Apreche · · Score: 1

    Shaolin monks are pretty cool, and their kung-fu is very awesome. However, there seems to be this aura of invincibility around their martial arts masters. People are so amazed at their abilities that they think beating them in a fight is such a huge deal. If this is the case, how come shaolin kung-fu masters aren't winning UFC championships and such? The reason is simple. Shaolin kung-fu is easily beaten by powerful grappling just as easily as scissor beats paper. When a huge Zangeif type person grabs all their limbs and holds them to the ground, their fancy kung-fu runs out pretty quickly. There's no reason a clever ninja couldn't have also come up with clever techniques to beat monks as well.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Not invincible by twelveinchbrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Grappling is suitably only for one-on-one, preferably caged and regulated, matches. A ninja would kill a grappler from a distance. An army of Shaolin monks would kill and army of grapplers in minutes.

      --
      Not Found
      The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
    2. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it, you're sued...

    3. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "easily as scissor beats paper. "
      not so fast your monk,
      remember: PAPER beats rocks that beats scissors...

      (puffsss, disappearing in the smoke of my own fart)

    4. Re:Not invincible by elborrachogato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well ninjas use ninja stars and throwing knives so it isn't fair. C'mon, ninjas are assassins primarily, meaning, if you were to be killed by one, you probably wouldn't have seen him coming. It's like putting Fedor Emelianenko against a sniper.

    5. Re:Not invincible by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

      I would suggest its the same reason the very few Aikidokas compete (if any - I can't think of one) in the UFC, it conflicts with the ethos behind being a Shaolin Monk.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    6. Re:Not invincible by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. let's analyze this:

      One grappler versus one monk = grappler wins.

      Equal number of grapplers versus monks = grapplers win.

      Grapplers outnumber monks = grapplers win.

      Monks outnumber grapplers = monks win.

      Weapons versus no weapons = weapons win...

      Best combo: grapplers with bayonet/assault rifle.

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    7. Re:Not invincible by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      The other thing to consider: death blows are illegal in UFC. Many martial arts use these as way to quickly kill or debilitate your opponent. I wouldn't want to see it otherwise, but something to consider nonetheless if you're to compare grapplers to other martial arts. And not to say grapplers don't know or can't figure it out these moves. But I'm sure there are still some moves and techniques that are not known to the public.

    8. Re:Not invincible by Palpitations · · Score: 5, Informative

      As you touched on, one of the largest issues is that of regulated matches versus real life-or-death combat. Even with grappling - in a ring, a responsible fighter may put a lock on you that could easily destroy your joints, but only apply enough force to make you submit. The same goes for strikes.

      As an example - a friend of mine is an assistant Kung Fu trainer. His Sifu has somewhere around 20 generations of Shaolin Kung Fu training behind him (as well as a style of Kung Fu that his great-great-great-great-etc. etc.-grandfather created). He started training basically as soon as he could stand, and studied under Bruce Lee for some time.

      Get in a ring with him, and he'll destroy you - but you'll still walk away. Bruised, battered, and damn near ripped limb from limb, most likely wishing you had never even considered the fight, but you'll walk away in one piece. Someone who didn't know of his training tried mugging him - pulling a knife on him. By the time his attacker hit the ground he had 3 broken ribs, a fractured skull, a broken jaw, a broken leg, and an arm broken in three places (if I'm recalling correctly. I may have mixed up an arm broken in 3 places for a leg broken in 3, but the injuries are in general accurate). That was his measured response to assure that he was no longer in any sort of danger, the man could have been dead before his body dropped.

      It's very hard to judge the effectiveness of one fighting style versus another unless you're looking at two people who are really out for blood.

    9. Re:Not invincible by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Any real martial artist of great skill shouldn't have the desire to show off on something like UFC. The Kung Fu artists that have and sucked aren't a good measure of the art. They probably suck and need to prove themselves in some way. Plus grappling is a decent part of real Kung Fu.

      --
      Balderdash!
    10. Re:Not invincible by Palpitations · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting you bring up this point. I have spoken with several very experienced martial artists (see my other comment, here), and one common recurring theme that came up was that a sniper was the closest thing to a ninja you could find today.

      Use what's available, have the element of surprise on your side, kill without being seen, and get out safely. Sure sounds like a sniper to me. With that sentiment coming largely from someone who is highly trained in Kung Fu, has a few high caliber rifles, and sometimes carries 2 .45ACP handguns on him (to help him become one with his weapons...), I wasn't about to argue.

    11. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Outside of a ring, assuming no weapons are present (though this depends on the training of the particular MMA fighter and whether or not they are versed in weapon fighting/defense - many are) - MMA fighters are quite deadly. In fact, the ring is the only place I'd ever want to encounter an MMA fighter.

      To simply call MMA fighters grapplers is a gross understatement. MMA is called that for a reason, it is a mix of disciplines. The grappling you speak of is actually a mixture of freestyle and greco roman wrestling (mostly take used for take down defense and body positioning when on the ground), muay thai clenches (positioning while standing), judo (throws after one has gained position advantage and some submissions) and jujitsu (throws and ground work/submissions). These are the clinching and ground work aspects of this style of fighting. However, these are not the only disciplines in which MMA fighters are trained.

      They are also trained in the striking aspects of these and other disciplines such as boxing, kickboxing, karate, savate, etc..

      Because of the Unified rules of MMA Combat there are certain rules that must be adhered to in sanctioned events in the U.S. but make no mistake - if outside of a sanctioned match with no weapons - one of these MMA fighters would be quite deadly and incredibly difficult to deal with for any combatant trained in a single discipline and possibly even multiple combatants. (As they would then be free to use biting, headbutting, eye gouging, hair pulling, strikes to and/or grabbing of the trachea, strikes to the groin, the back of the head, the spine, the kidneys, small joint manipulation, leg strikes to the head while an opponent is on the ground, etc etc.)

      Then when we consider that no matter how deadly an MMA fighter, Ninja or Shaolin monk are - and although they are awesome, even they cannot defeat the awesomeness of a slug traveling at between 600fps and 5000fps fired from a distance of up to more than a mile away. In this case, of course, the pirates win.

    12. Re:Not invincible by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know I shouldn't feed a blatant troll here, but I just have to say that this idea of the UFC being the de facto benchmark as to how "good" a martial art(ist) is makes me laugh. Anyone who's trained seriously in martial arts will tell you that true masters would have absolutely no interest in UFC not because they're incapable of winning or afraid to compete, but because it's obvious showmanship and goes against most martial arts principles particularly "leaving fighting as a last resort". Anyone who achieves master level certainly does not do so by "proving" himself in publicized "battles", but by years and years of disciplined study and practice.

      Besides, a true master of any art would never let himself get into a position where a much larger and more experienced grappler (to use your example) would have a superior position, it just wouldn't happen. It might not make great tv, but there's no way one of the "big boys" is going to get a hold of a true master, despite how much he can bench press. People forget that strength and speed are only 2 of many factors in what makes a martial artist great.

    13. Re:Not invincible by svendsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with UFC is it is an event designed to favor grapplers from the start. First my background:

      Uechi-Ryu Karate (hard style, Japanese)
      Kick Boxing
      Hwa Rang Do (koren, has your normal stuff + pressure points, grappling, weapons)
      5 years as a bouncer
      Aikido
      And a few other styles I did has my travels took me everywhere..

      Grappling in a 1v1 controlled situation is VERY strong. If I faced the grappler the odds are I would lose, why? Because a lot of my moves are fingers to the eyes, strikes to the throat, kicks to knees, groin, palm strikes to the chins to snap the neck, etc. A normal response is well ya you are trying to have 2 guys fight not kill each other. Which is the point.

      In a UFC type style competition they don't train to really defend themselves in the same as other styles. The rules are designed to favor those training just to compete in UFC.

      As an ex bouncer of 5 years at a college bar (300+ people a night) if you grappled someone in real life you'd be dead. Got on top of someone and their friends WILL club you with bottles, or kick your head, stabbed, etc. I did see one guy grapple someone and see the guys friend pick up a chair and smash.

      Grapple someone and land on the shitty floor on glass, cement, etc. you are very likely to hurt yourself also. Grappling also requires some room to mover and shot in. You don't have that in a crowded bar. You don't need room to take your fingers and jab it into someone's throat.

      This isn't to put down grappling people. They are very strong, fit, skilled, etc. From my experience in the real world grappling is not what you want to use.

    14. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shaolin kung-fu is easily beaten by powerful grappling just as easily as scissor beats paper... There's no reason a clever ninja couldn't have also come up with clever techniques to beat monks as well.

      Or, you know, brought an automatic rifle or something, although that sounds more like gang bangers than ninjas.

      Pretty much any technique is beatable by _something_ else.

    15. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not against the rules to break bones. (fyi, the rules are generally no eye gouging, finger/toe manipulation, crotch hits, strikes to the neck or back, and certain restrictions on strikes to fallen opponents.) If Kung Fu were effective, you'd see it in the UFC today. In the early UFC days, when people had only trained one martial art and there were even fewer rules than today, kung fu was embarrassed along with all the other striking arts.

      The real issue is that the mugger was untrained. There's an enormous difference between someone untrained, and someone trained in any martial art. Just as there's an enormous difference between someone trained in a traditional martial art, and someone who has done modern mixed martial arts.

      Kung Fu (most types that I'm aware of; there's many different schools) does have effective strikes. They can break bones. However they're hardly unique in this regard (muy thai has proven to be the most effective striking art to train). In a real fight, however, with a trained opponent you will not have the opportunity for the clean shots required to break bones. In fact Kung Fu often trains deep stances, which are slow and give the opponent the opportunity for clean shots!

    16. Re:Not invincible by ardor · · Score: 1

      Best combo: grapplers with bayonet/assault rifle.

      Or: Chuck Norris with a M16.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    17. Re:Not invincible by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Ninjas were also on recon duty, they're just pretty much feudal era secret agents, even regarding their fiction: Magic using ninjas turn into bond-style gadgets and neither was ever really used (outside of Soviet "we have to match with that American spy gear" projects).

      I don't know how many modern assassins actually use sniper rifles but there's plenty of methods.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    18. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmph! ni lai shi shi wode gong fu ba

    19. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are so many things wrong with your post.

      If you don't fight, how do you know whether you're effective? Breaking boards? Real people don't stand still like boards. It's easy to make stuff up in the classroom that won't work against a skilled opponent.

      A lot of martial arts have their own sparring competitions. Why don't they also compete in the UFC?

      Those martial arts that have sparring competitions often find their own techniques invalidated by the competition. An easy example is taekwondo sparring, where side kicks (such a common kick in martial arts!) proved to be too slow to be of any use, despite their board-breaking power.

      The UFC is hardly about showmanship. A lot (not all, admittedly) of the fighters are serious martial artists and have very modest, honorable personalities. It's nothing like pro wrestling, even though it sometimes seems to be headed that way.

      Many UFC fighters ARE masters of a traditional martial art. People don't make a big deal out of it though. It has little to do with fighting skill, so you don't hear about it much. (The exception is brazilian juijitsu, which often is mentioned, where you earn your belts only by demonstrating effectiveness in competition)

      You say that a master wouldn't let a grappler get into a superior position. That's simply untrue. That's what grappling is all about!

      If an opponent wants to grapple, it's nearly impossible to prevent it. All they have to do is run up to you & grab you, and now you're grappling. No matter how quick you are, you can't run backwards as fast as someone can shoot. The early UFC's, which showed martial art vs martial art, proved that grappling was unavoidable-- something of a revolution in martial arts.

    20. Re:Not invincible by jma05 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > If this is the case, how come shaolin kung-fu masters aren't winning UFC championships and such?

      Ai yai yai. One of those YouTube arguments again? Shaolin Kung Fu is a "Martial" art. It was designed for the battle field (albeit in a firearm free era). There have been historical instances where the monks used their art to fight entire army (shaolin temple was destroyed when the army was not happy with the outcome of the first match and declared a rematch - without telling the monks first) and yes, pirates (despite an abundance of pirate jokes on this thread). The art itself has little to prove. However, it is not optimized for ring fighting (just like "powerful grappling" is when your opponents have spears, swords and bows) although it certainly had been used for the same. Besides, no single martial art style can win MMA style matches anymore. MMA is kind of a unique style now optimized for that rule sets.

      Historically, most martial arts were meant to be used in conjunction with weapons (anything else was not practical at that time). In modern times, where the said weapons have lost relevance, we mostly use the unarmed aspects of the styles. Shaolin monks were great because these spiritual nerds trained early, trained a lot and trained to save their skin. Anyone who spends that much time in any rich martial art is bound to be awesome. The modern monks are mostly performers that the Chinese govt sanctioned after the success of the movies of the temple.

      > There's no reason a clever ninja couldn't have also come up with clever techniques to beat monks as well.

      Sure, Ninja's were said to kill silently - and that can be done on anyone. But one thing they never did was have challenge matches.

    21. Re:Not invincible by NotInfinitumLabs · · Score: 1

      Who is this Sifu you're talking about, and where does he train?

    22. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had to break all those bones to subdue the poor schmuck, he's not really all that skilled. If on the other hand, he could have just subdued him (or run away safely), he's a violent prick.

    23. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broken limbs are frowned upon. UFC rules are far too strict for anyone but a grappler. Don't confuse TV with reality boy, look at any modern country's military hand to hand training. There's a huge fucking difference between fighting to win a competition and fighting for your life.

      Here's one example off the top of my head: The USMC had to introduce the grappling-heavy MCMAP on top of LINE as LINE alone had no real options for non-lethality.

      Here's another: Israel's Krav Maga. They're almost constantly mixed up in some sort of shit or another, guess how much grappling they bother with? Near 0.

      China doesn't bother with it. The UK doesn't bother with it. Grappling is for entertainment and/or going easy on your opponent, nothing more.

    24. Re:Not invincible by RESPAWN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He may have been after more than just subduing the attacker -- he may have been trying to make sure that the attacker never came after him again. I know a family who got mugged during Mardi Gras this year. Like any normal citizen, they went to the police, filed a report, and gave a description of the attacker. And the attacker was actually caught. 2 weeks later he's out on bail, pissed off, and calling their house threatening them with bodily harm, etc., etc. Unfortunately, shit like this does happen.

      Now, take the GP's post. If you were the mugger who was very soundly beat by this martial artist, would you have much motivation to try to come after the guy later, after you're healed up? Machiavelli said (and I'm paraphrasing here since I no longer have a copy of The Prince) that the only way to truly win a conflict is to beat your enemy so soundly and completely that they won't even entertain the notion of coming back for another attack later. The same can be said for a mugging as can be said for an actual war.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    25. Re:Not invincible by bidule · · Score: 1

      Miyagi-sensei, is that you?

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    26. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with a few of your conclusions.

      You said: "One grappler versus one monk = grappler wins."

      If it is in a cage with limited maneurvering room yes. If it is in an open courtyard, the monk can dodge and avoid the grappler, maybe sneak in a quick blow from the side.

      You said: "Equal number of grapplers versus monks = grapplers win."

      Not all the monks rush in to fight, remaining monks wait until most grapplers are engaged and remaining grapplers are looking for someone to fight. These 'extra' monks kill the nearest grapplers, free the monks, and continue across the battlefield. Soon it is not even a battle, just several dead grapplers and a few baffled grapplers thinking, "Hey, what happened? We had even numbers. We were supposed to win."

      You said: "Grapplers outnumber monks = grapplers win."

      Depends on if the monks can pull the same stunt as above. Remember that movie about "The 300". Yes, the 300 Spartans died, but they killed thousands of Persians, and only lost after being outflanked and were then surrounded by hundreds of thousands. If the monks can avoid the outflanking part, and the outnumbering isn't so impossible, they would stand a fair chance.

      One more point is that the grapplers in cage fighting are going for submission holds. In real fights the Shaolin monks went for death blows or at the least broken arms and legs. Not the same goal, and only one style is appropriate for UFC fight.

    27. Re:Not invincible by kayditty · · Score: 1

      Are you also a fan of the WWF or WWE or whatever the hell they call it now? You are seriously one deluded, retarded motherfucker.

      All of these posts "defending" Kung-Fu and these other ridiculous martial arts smack of religious fundamentalism. You have no evidence for any of your claims, but you keep making up excuses to support this mysticism. Why is that? Bruce Lee was an ACTOR. Shaolin monks kicking ass happens in MOVIES. Grow up, please.

      Real fighters fight in the UFC. That is why it is the benchmark for how effective an art or system of arts is.

    28. Re:Not invincible by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Best combo: grapplers with bayonet/assault rifle.

      Or: Chuck Norris with a M16.


      Pfft. Just give Chuck Norris M16 rounds.
      --
      Fnord.
    29. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the rules are generally no eye gouging, finger/toe manipulation, crotch hits, strikes to the neck or back"

      And you think anyone's surprised that grappling dominates under such artificial conditions? What do you think would happen to the UFC if every fight ended with someone getting their knee stomped on while taking a blow to the neck?

    30. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a start, our wrist locks are not allowed. Neither are finger manipulations. MMA are vary rarely stupid enough to come charging with an overextended swing or such that we can use the momentum of, which reduces us to using atemi (strikes). And at that point, we're at the same disadvantage the rules leave us with that all the other strikers are, even more so considering many Aikido schools completely drop Atemi practice, despite O'Sensei himself having said 80% of all Aikido is atemi. All the flashy throws people laugh are simply misunderstood. We train very hard to fall that way. The other option is to walk away with broken wrists/elbows/shoulders/necks. That wouldn't really fly in the UFC, and in general is why we do not compete.
      And of course, simply that competition itself is heavily frowned upon. Ego is a bad thing to have in Aikido. It gets people hurt.

    31. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trained in aikido for 4 years and karate 6. I've just recently started training mma. Please don't take what I have to say as the opinion of a master, just as a student who decided that mma training was the most effective martial art for my purposes (fitness and self-defense).

      First, fitness. After only about 2 months of training I'm in the best shape of my life. The workouts are brutal and much harder than what I was doing before. I think it's unlikely that you'll ever actually be attacked, so it's nice to get some clear benefit out of martial arts training in day-to-day life.

      Second, self-defense. As you said, yes, there are lots of situations where grappling would not be best. However, let's consider the same scenario that you used. You're fighting a guy and his friends in a bar. Without grappling training any one of them could throw you on the ground. Not to mention the remote possibility that you (or anyone else) would be able to defend yourself against multiple attackers. I consider it a myth that any martial art effectively trains you for this possibility.

      Eye strikes, knee kicks, throat strikes, etc. ... I used to think obviously they were the most deadly moves, and so by learning to do them to the air I was learning the most deadly style. BJJ philosophy is, paradoxically, that by removing these "deadly" strikes the art itself becomes much more effective. Why? - because now you can train full-contact with a resisting opponent. How do you know a knee kick works? Have you ever done it to somebody in class? Have you seen it "blow out the knee" or whatever you were expecting? Because maybe in a real fight the kick would hit in slightly the wrong place ... or the guy would turn ... or the kick just wouldn't be as powerful as you thought.

      I like mma because I think it's the scientific approach to martial arts. It's not perfect, but it has built-in testing of hypotheses (some other martial arts have this as well, e.g. judo randori). I can get shown how to do an arm bar or whatever, practice it against the air and think I have the move. Then I'll try to do it on someone and find that when they're rolling with me maybe their arm isn't in exactly the right place, maybe they're turning their hips a different way than what we practiced, etc. My hypothesis will be falsified and I'll know I need to practice a lot more.

      MMA isn't perfect, and I agree the rule-set does favor grapplers. However, the same training allows a striker to stuff takedowns and stay on their feet. And, although I don't ever plan on getting into a cage in fighting, I may be called upon to one day defend myself in real life. If that ever happens I'd like to have complete confidence that what I've been training in for months or years will actually work.

    32. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Incredible Hulk vs. The Fantastic Four's Dr. Doom: HULK WINS!

    33. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never been mugged nor injured. A few broken ribs and a broken arm won't keep *anyone* from attacking you. Subdue? News flash: Rendering someone unconscious can easily become attempted murder. And if they're not unconscious, they're just going to get right back up and try stabbing again.
      He did what was necessary, ethically and legally. "just subdueing" is for the televised ring, not for dark alleys.

    34. Re:Not invincible by belmolis · · Score: 1

      most martial arts were meant to be used in conjunction with weapons

      Some were, but there are important traditions in the martial arts that developed for use by people without weapons (though often against opponents with weapons). One motivation for this was that in Japan commoners were forbidden to possess most weapons. The very word karate literally means "empty hands", that is, no weapons. (Compare karaoke "empty orchestra".)

    35. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, brought an automatic rifle or something, although that sounds more like gang bangers than ninjas.

      Methinks those gang bangers have a hell of a good idea...

    36. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree with you more. A lot of people don't realize that the fighters in MMA never train in just a single discipline anymore. All the one dimensional fighters in the UFC and PRIDE have been severely beaten and left behind.

    37. Re:Not invincible by Staale+Nordlie · · Score: 1

      Someone who didn't know of his training tried mugging him - pulling a knife on him. By the time his attacker hit the ground he had 3 broken ribs, a fractured skull, a broken jaw, a broken leg, and an arm broken in three places (if I'm recalling correctly. I may have mixed up an arm broken in 3 places for a leg broken in 3, but the injuries are in general accurate). That was his measured response to assure that he was no longer in any sort of danger, the man could have been dead before his body dropped. Never happened. You shouldn't be so trusting.

      It's very hard to judge the effectiveness of one fighting style versus another unless you're looking at two people who are really out for blood. Why? Your friend's sifu can supposedly break multiple bones all over the body of a resisting adult male in a matter of seconds. Why wouldn't that help him win a UFC fight? If the objection is that he doesn't want to hurt "innocents", then surely he could pull his punches and settle for a clean knockout?
    38. Re:Not invincible by Staale+Nordlie · · Score: 1

      Grappling in a 1v1 controlled situation is VERY strong. If I faced the grappler the odds are I would lose, why? Because a lot of my moves are fingers to the eyes, strikes to the throat, kicks to knees, groin, palm strikes to the chins to snap the neck, etc. A normal response is well ya you are trying to have 2 guys fight not kill each other. Which is the point. Aside from eyegouging (a fineable offense, not disqualifying one IIRC), those moves were all allowed in the first UFCs. Nobody died. Nobody got seriously injured. Some moves are still allowed today, despite a list of new safety rules. Why? Because they don't work as well as you think they do. Palm strike to the chin to snap the neck? Get real.

      As an ex bouncer of 5 years at a college bar (300+ people a night) if you grappled someone in real life you'd be dead. Got on top of someone and their friends WILL club you with bottles, or kick your head, stabbed, etc. I did see one guy grapple someone and see the guys friend pick up a chair and smash. Ah yes. Real life fights are always one noble hero against hordes of dishonorable scum.

      You may have seen some guys grappling on the floor (it's common in real-world fights), but did you see the guy who got beaten initiate the grapple? Do you think he could have prevented it if all those guys he was really fighting had tried to take him down? Grapplers train to stay on their feet, train to control the fall when they're taken down, train to achieve a superior position on the ground and train to get back up if needed (with different emphasis depending on style). All of which help them even if they don't actually want to GnP or apply submission because of other opponents. If someone's going to kick you while you're grappling, would you rather be in control and ready to stand up or dodge or block, or pinned to the floor unable to move your head?

      Grapple someone and land on the shitty floor on glass, cement, etc. you are very likely to hurt yourself also. Who's more likely to get hurt by the glass, lava, cement, etc inevitably found where people get into fights? The grappler, controlling the takedown and the fight on the ground, or the non-grappler?

      Grappling also requires some room to mover and shot in. You don't have that in a crowded bar. You don't need room to take your fingers and jab it into someone's throat. Important lesson learned from BJJ and MMA: Effective striking requires room to strike. Effective grappling doesn't. That's why you see "grapplers" desperately snuggling up to and taking down "strikers" in MMA fights. The strikers will move around and try to avoid the takedown by staying far enough away that they have time to react when the shoot comes.
    39. Re:Not invincible by nebosuke · · Score: 1

      If you are going to strike at all, you have to strike with deadly force for the same reason police always have to shoot to kill. Aiming specifically to subdue/shoot to maim is about as good as a legally binding statement that you were never in mortal danger. This causes you lose the affirmative defense of self-defense, as self-defense can only be invoked if your life is in mortal danger.

      This is a topic that is covered by pretty much every modern dojo I've ever been to.

    40. Re:Not invincible by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No, real fighters fight in the real world. "Martial arts" as it's called today is nothing more than a cultural practice. If you even break down the term "martial arts", considering "arts" as meaning "skills or tactics" and "martial" as the term in itself, then today's martial arts are what you learn when you join the military and go through boot camp. Want to learn the martial arts of today? Then learn how to shoot a rifle, make or plant a bomb, and how to apply fire and maneuver. The UFC is a sport that combines kickboxing and wrestling. It is the benchmark for how effective a system is at kickboxing or wrestling--not how effective a system is at war. And war is precisely what martial arts were created for.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    41. Re:Not invincible by svendsen · · Score: 1

      Sorry disagree with you, Those moves do work and very well. I've brought down more then enough people by some sort of kick to the knee (either to the side buckling the knee causing them to fall) or kicking at downward angle on the muscle to the immediate top and the outside. This isn't in a ring but a real life crap this guy as a knife. Groin kicks drop people fast (unless they are on PCP then forget it...those folks are scary). Palm strikes to the kneck will cause the head to snap back (aka uppercut). Very disorienting. Every move I have used in real life. They work. You just need practice.

      "Who's more likely to get hurt by the glass, lava, cement, etc inevitably found where people get into fights? The grappler, controlling the takedown and the fight on the ground, or the non-grappler?"

      Either or. The grappler who tries a move and fails and falls. The non grappler thinking floor is soft. Etc. Or better yet the person who grapples and shifts their weight except the floor is slippery and goes down.

      "Important lesson learned from BJJ and MMA: Effective striking requires room to strike. Effective grappling doesn't. That's why you see "grapplers" desperately snuggling up to and taking down "strikers" in MMA fights. The strikers will move around and try to avoid the takedown by staying far enough away that they have time to react when the shoot comes."

      Except you are comparing the ring to the real world. In the ring you are 100% right, in the real world grappling is dangerous. You may have someone pinned except your back, head, body are all exposed. Easy way to get someone off of another person like that, hit them in the back on the head. Good night. Or do you think the person who is about the kick you will do it from the front?

      Again 5 years as a bouncer I've seen the in bar fights, the fights that go to the streets, been in more then I care to admit, etc. Those that grapple end up losing because they forget a real fight is never 1 on 1. There is no honor in a fight, there is only defend and be the one who walks away. If you are grappling my friend (whether still of feet or not) If you leave yourself exposed to me in more ways then you can think of.

      Best place to be in a bar fight is back against wall (So no one can get you that way) with the ability to move to either side quickly along the wall. Oh another piece of advice ina street fight a handful of dirt is magic!

    42. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Judo, seeing is believing: Judo wins again!

    43. Re:Not invincible by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Are you also a fan of the WWF or WWE or whatever the hell they call it now? You are seriously one deluded, retarded motherfucker.

      I watch neither of the above, and don't especially appreciate your tone there, tough guy.

      You have no evidence for any of your claims, but you keep making up excuses to support this mysticism.

      I made no claims/excuses supporting any "mysticism". However, I have experience that your painfully, obviously, inexperienced self could benefit from.

      Real fighters fight in the UFC

      *yawn* You sound like a frustrated, little, adolescent boy. If you want to continue in your homo-erotic lust for UFC, be my guest. I never suggested that any of these guys is completely without any talent. However, your assessment that UFC is the standard by which all martial arts should be judged is laughable, and eventually you will see that. Don't believe me? Are you still reading this and scoffing at me? Fine. Do yourself a favor, do a little research and find the nearest serious dojo in your area. By "serious" I mean a dojo that is affiliated with a mainline of a particular style (not just some place in a strip mall that says martial arts/karate/tae kwon do/etc). Pick a dojo, go in, and find their top guy. Attack this guy, and when you come out of your coma in 15 years (maybe) I'll be waiting for your apology. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I have had the honor of training with an actual master (which by the way means the HEAD of a particular style), and have felt the true power of a refined, classical martial art and I assure you, UFC doesn't stand a chance.
    44. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see that you yourself are a mixed martial artist - who has mainly focused your training mainly in strike heavy martial arts - and that you question the real world effectiveness of throws and grappling. As such, I have the following question:

      Why then, are Judo and Jujitsu so highly regarded?

      BTW, how many MMA fighters, other decently trained martial artists or even boxers did you come across in your 5 years of bouncing in a college bar?

      Slashdot hates MMA as a sport, I get it (as most sports are despised here). It is jealousy and/or simple ignorance (or a grudge towards people heavily involved in sports held over from their youth). It's like when really skinny or overweight guys see someone with muscle mass and always have to say "but his legs look like toothpicks".

      They're good, they're just as dangerous as anyone else who has trained in martial arts for many years. Just because they do it in a ring (or octagon) for their day job doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge/tools/ability to maim/kill just as effectively as any other martial artist. Get over it, people.

    45. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend's sifu can supposedly break multiple bones all over the body of a resisting adult male in a matter of seconds.

      You assume that the mugger resisted. The mugger with a knife probably thought that the knife would prevent any offensive on the part of his victim. Someone in a UFC fight is probably an experienced, trained fighter. He's also expecting a fight (duh). It's hard to execute an effective attack against a trained fighter since he can read your movements, absorb the impact of attacks, block, and counter-attack. Going for a clean knockout every time would mean that a trained fighter would protect his head and use moves suitable to counter your knockout move. A grappler would probably move in before you can execute any sort of ranged attacks. Although broken bones in a UFC fight isn't uncommon, they're usually not caused intentionally. Bone and joint breaking holds are usually used for submission. You also assume that his particular form of Kung Fu (Wushu) was designed for sport. With his heritage, it's possible that the form he has studied was designed for actual combat. Real-world forms of martial arts like Krav Maga probably wouldn't work well in a rules based environment like a UFC tournament either, but you can't deny its real world application. Otherwise, Navy Seals and elite Israeli soldiers would dominate the UFC. I'm not saying that I believe the story, but your reasoning for why it didn't is flawed. Here's what could've happened.

      The sifu grabbed the mugger's knife wielding arm, puts him into a wrist lock, and then destroys his elbow with a palm hit. Still holding the (now broken) arm, he uses it for leverage and stability while he kicks him the ribs. The mugger can't fall back because the sifu still has his arm so the ribs take the full impact and thee of them break. Well placed punches against a non-trained fighter who was now in lots of pain (and essentially defenseless) could fairly easily result in the fractured skull and jaw. (Hell, my brother fractured someone's jaw with a single punch when he was a kid without any training.) The mugger staggers against a wall, propping him up. He now gets a perfectly placed kick to his shin, which breaks it, and he falls to the ground.

      It's not entirely inconceivable, given that the sifu wasn't bound by any rules and the mugger probably wasn't a trained fighter. Also, of course it's going to happen within a matter of seconds. The whole fight required a relatively few number of moves.

    46. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palm strike to the chin to snap the neck? Get real.

      No, palm strike to the nasal bridge or to the throat.

      Not to mention the remote possibility that you (or anyone else) would be able to defend yourself against multiple attackers. I consider it a myth that any martial art effectively trains you for this possibility.

      People seem to forget that martial arts don't only include mystical Asian combat. Special forces learn some form of martial art, obviously real-world based. Krav Maga, which is taught to Israeli soldiers (basically every able bodied citizen of Israel), also deals with defense against multiple attackers. The real-world aspect of defense against multiple attackers isn't so that you can single-handedly defeat 10 attackers. Chances are that one of them will stab you or injure you to the point of defenselessness, no matter how good you are.

      The real-world aspect is that given 5 attackers and 5 defenders, 3 of the 5 defenders have a good chance of survival even though two or more attackers might turn against a single defender. It also means that 2-to-1 doesn't mean that the 1 almost certainly dies. Someone who's untrained to deal with multiple attackers is more likely to disarm one knife wielding attacker while getting stabbed in the back by the other than someone who is properly trained.

    47. Re:Not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's the thing, just because the tv network let the ufc show a little blood to boost ratings doesn't mean it's any more real than wwf, kungfu movies or the likes.
      Many forms of martial arts existed in times of war when guns weren't available. We're talking about generations of people studying methods to kill and not be killed in the worst hand to hand situations.
      I'm not here to justify anything to you; if you want proof, go look it up yourself.

      The closest you can find today would be the hand to hand combat training and krav maga that's taught to special operation agents by professionals; it's nowhere as pretty and elegant as movies attempt to make it look but trust me, it's dead effective for what's it's intended for.

      Then again, is the purpose to pacify someone or look cool in front of a camera?
      If I want to excite a teenager audience with some questionable entertainment, I'll hire the ufc dudes.
      If I want someone to protect my life in hand to hand situations, I'll take a navy seal, gign member or chinese army officer.

    48. Re:Not invincible by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Oh, noes. I was called an adolescent boy and a tough guy buy a martial arts guru on the internet...... Right.

      Um, I don't have any lust for the UFC. I despise it. I don't claim it's the standards for which martial arts should be judged, either. I claim it's a good standard for judging the effectiveness of fighting, and, particularly, the effectiveness of fighters. And it is.

      I don't see what that ridiculously contrived argument about "GO PICK ON A MARTIAL ARTS EXPERT AND SEE IF U CUM OUT ALIVE.. LOL!" has to do with anything. Maybe I would, and maybe I wouldn't. But guess what? I'm not in the UFC, dipshit.

    49. Re:Not invincible by kayditty · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to just "trust you," which is what you want me to do, that some random martial arts experts are world class fighters. They aren't, and, until you provide evidence to the contrary, no one who isn't an idiot will think that they are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      Maybe martial arts originated as a means to more effective war-time combat. I'm not even discussing the history of the arts. I'm discussing their effectiveness in general, and, more specifically, the skill of top class UFC fighters versus random "martial arts masters" (or experts, if you will; it's all the same thing to me).

      If teenagers want "questionable entertainment," they have garbage like TNA, ECW, and WWE to turn to. That is what those organizations are for. The UFC may double as an entertaining medium, as well, but it's primarily about who's good at something.

      We watch the NBA (well, I don't, but you get the idea) because we want to see what humans are capable of at their very best. These are top athletes, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I don't think anyone is going to say that The Detroit Pistons are going to be defeated by some retarded Chinese team, or whatever image you manage to conjure up. That's because these guys are seasoned professionals, and that's why they are PAID.

      The UFC has origins in Vale Tudo, which is basically no-rules fighting (mostly BJJ). These guys are not incapable of fighting in 'street settings,' or whatever the last Bruce Lee movie you watched has told you. They are the real deal, and that's why they're making millions of dollars -- because people want to see actual, world class fighters at their peak.

    50. Re:Not invincible by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      I decided to wait a few days before responding... I didn't want Sifu Lee to get slashdotted ;)

      Anyway, this is the man I was talking about. Looking at the video, I would say that it was taken at a yearly camping trip he takes with some of his more serious students. I don't see the friend/trainer of mine in the video, but I'm sure he was around somewhere. I'll have to ask him about it next time I run into him.

  23. Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shaolin Lawyer... coming to a cinema near you.

  24. ninja's "calling out" shaolin monks? by kae_verens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ninja's do not do competitions. This is something that Maasaki Hatsumi has said - there will never be an official Bujinkan representative at any competition.

    As for the past - why would a ninja be so stupid as to fight in a tournament? The way a ninja fights is not in the open - they sneak and kill in secret, and only fight hand-to-hand when there is no alternative.

    Would a ninja beat an entire group of shaolin monks? You bet. Wait for them to go to sleep, then pick them off one by one. Easy as pie.

    1. Re:ninja's "calling out" shaolin monks? by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      ...but Shaolin monks never sleep unless they hear the dulcet tones of a pirate sea shanty, which means an unholy alliance between ninjas and pirates would be required to do the job!

    2. Re:ninja's "calling out" shaolin monks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was thinking of the Indiana Jones style of addressing Asian martial arts.

    3. Re:ninja's "calling out" shaolin monks? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Wrong. While they sleep you kill every second one, leaving the rest terrified. Better strategy. I seem to remember that being a Ghurka thing.

  25. Wouldn't happen that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ninjas were assassins used in feudal Japan and as such, if they were seen, they'd already failed.

    What happened with a Ninja, you would simply be found dead the next morning. Or perhaps never found. That was a successful Ninja. I train in a Japanese system based on fighting styles used in the 15th and 16th century and just for fun, we'll try a few simple techniques that are/were attributed to Ninjas. Now I suspect there really were never Ninjas, but I'll play along for 2 hours to have some fun.

    Typical is that as you walk by somebody (opposite way), if you grab their arm and yank straight down, they will fall. It seems like it shouldn't work, but it does. And it only works if the person doesn't expect it. If you fall backwards quickly like that, you'll be stunned for a second or two. If the attacker has a knife, you could be dead within seconds. That's (to me) the essence of Ninja stuff. Quiet, and striking when your guard is down, and then they're gone.

    Again, I think it's a lot of B.S. but I think the Ninja myth is to Japan what the Cowboy myth is to the U.S. or what the King Arthur myth is to England.

    1. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that's the essence of ninja, then someone's pulling your leg (ha ha) or you are pulling ours. If the ninja has a knife, why not just stab the victim in the first place? Why not throw the knife? Why go thru the extra steps of, first, walking past the victime, and second, yanking his arm?

      Seems more like a mall ninja tactic, what you describe.

    2. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by jahudabudy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Again, I think it's a lot of B.S. but I think the Ninja myth is to Japan what the Cowboy myth is to the U.S. or what the King Arthur myth is to England.

      And just like the cowboy myth, and probably Arthurian legend, there is some historical basis for the ninja legend as well. I have studied (in an informal manner) feudal Japanese samurai culture, and run across some material related to ninja. Ninja basically began as traditional samurai that operated outside the code of Bushido in order to defeat their enemy. One almost certainly apocryphal story I ran across related the origin of "ninja" as follows:
      It was considered a great honor for a samurai in an army attacking a city to be the first one across the city walls. In order to be able to claim the honor of being the first across the walls when battle began, a couple of bright lads got the idea to sneak into the city the night before! It became a short step from there to sneaking inside a city before battle to plant units that would spring up behind a city's defenses, assassinate enemy leaders before battle began, etc. Eventually, a few groups or even clans became willing to hire themselves out to perform such "dishonorable" actions, which naturally became more sophisticated as the "ninjas" gained experience in this type of warfare. But just like any other criminal organization, they didn't exactly advertise; this secrecy is probably what began the myth of the ninja, which was then exaggerated by the clans themselves as a form of PR. But I don't think there is any real consensus on the origin, or even exact role, of the ninja in Japanese society. The very nature of the myth itself makes it difficult to disprove. "The fact that you know nothing about this secret society of invisible assassins merely proves how good they really were!"

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    3. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by maamold · · Score: 1

      Ultimate Ninja!!! Ninja's RULE !!! http://www.realultimatepower.net/

    4. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Because the fall is the event that gathers passers-by attention and then the stab is done invisibly while pretending to help the guy up. Just walking up and sticking someone attracts too many eyes.

      I remember learning about ninjas some 30 years ago when I heard the story of one who hid in an outhouse covered in shit for hours. It didn't inspire me to become an evil ninja or kill people, but I do strive to be a piping design ninja.

    5. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the ninja would use the pretense of helping the guy up as a chance to stab him, and then hope that nobody would notice the dead body and rapidly expanding pool of blood while he made good his escape? Interesting technique. I have to agree, I think somebody was pulling your leg.

      The idea of a ninja posing as a good Samaritan with his face exposed in public, not to mention in broad daylight is a good one, though.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    6. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ninjas were assassinating public figures: guys who were on guard against assassination, surrounded by tough people, and often trained fighters themselves. Typical routes to power have included being born into power (martial training was a standard part of a nobleman's education,) being a gangster or warlord, or gaining prestige through military success in someone else's service. I'm sure there are other ways to power, but the typical target for assassination would have been a tough nut -- and probably hip to the fact that somebody wanted him dead.

      Hence, stealth, surprise, and disguise would be the best options for assassins, especially those who worked alone or in small groups. Defeating a nobleman's retinue in a straight-up fight would require a small military unit, not three or four dudes in black pajamas. (Though I'm sure that ninjas always considered all the options, including hiring a bunch of mercenaries for an ambush.)

      Anyway, even if you thought your target was hopelessly overmatched, you'd want to have the best possible odds on your side, since a mistake might mean death or worse. Can you imagine killing important people in feudal Japan and consistently getting away with it? If I thought there was a 1% chance that I was going to die at work tomorrow, I know I'd be obsessing over how to shave that percent down.

    7. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I are not an expert on such things, but wearing a mask (or not) and attacking someone in public would probably lead to "he went that way" and a running suspect, would it not?

      My theoretical situation would create enough confusion for the bad guy to walk away, possibly feigning shock or pretending to be looking for a police man or medic. Then again, maybe I've seen too many action movies.

      Again, just theory: this is why cops at a "hot" scene want everyone to stop and take even the innocent into custody; they don't know who did what.

    8. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>why not just stab the victim in the first place?

      Because when you pull your knife he might retreat while pulling his knife/sword. It is kind of like how in Mike Tysons Punch Out you throw a bunch of jabs to stun the person and then throw an uppercut to take them out.

      >>Why not throw the knife?

      That really only works in the movies.

    9. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a great deal of value in initiating an attack through an apparently harmless gesture that turns into a disorienting "accident." If you can put your target at a disadvantage without provoking an aggressive or defensive response, then you have a much better chance of succeeding and escaping. Remember, the ruling class (hence the targets of political assassinations) were samurai, who were excellent warriors and trained to defend themselves at an instant's notice. I'm sure ninjas were routinely hired to kill people who would have defeated them in a fair fight.

    10. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 1

      I agree that someone was messing with you. In Eskrima (Filipino stick/knife fighting), we learned about some assassination techniques (it's a brutal system). We were told that assassins would hold the knife in a reverse grip, so that the blade would lie flat against their arm. In a busy crowd, they would then just walk by the target (going opposite directions) and stab the person as they walked by, never even slowing down. By the time the victim has made enough commotion and the crowd is aware of the misdeed, the killer is away from the scene of the crime in calmer areas.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    11. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by packeteer · · Score: 1

      And just like the cowboy myth, and probably Arthurian legend, there is some historical basis for the ninja legend as well

      The cowboy myth's are easy to discuss because there are people alive today who remember meeting cowboys. This is completely different than so called ninjas and Arthurian knights who supposedly existed hundreds of years ago and often had mythic powers.

      I have studied (in an informal manner) feudal Japanese samurai culture,

      And that is why you don't really know what you are talking about. Ninjas were not really very often assassins or killers. They were most often a spy. As a spy they would be skilled in the oh so sneaky arts of mastering local dialects and dressing like peasents in the local garb. This is what they were good at. Blending in is what they did, and they were not literally blending into the background. They would impersonate peasants in the field or servants in the castle. Sometimes they would attack but most often they would gather information and leave.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    12. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      So you are saying they were the Japanese equivalent of the Signal Corps during the Boxer Rebellion?

    13. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Any movie with Ninjas in it is called a "documentary" you insensitive clod!

      --
      I hate printers.
    14. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Again, I think it's a lot of B.S. but I think the Ninja myth is to Japan what the Cowboy myth is to the U.S. or what the King Arthur myth is to England.

      One of these doesn't belong: Ninja, Cowboy, Knight.

      Hint: It's the one that isn't TOTALLY FUCKING AWESOME.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    15. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Anybody wanting a clue about modern day ninjutsu should be visiting Stephen Hayes' site or the Genbukan Dojo site of Master Shoto Tanemura or the Bujinkan Dojo site of Grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi.

      A video of Grandmaster Hatsumi demonstrating technigues at an American martial arts gathering is here. Note that the WMV format video does not play well in Kaffeine or VLC on Linux, but MPlayer handles it okay.

      Bujinkan Wikipedia Entry

      Togakure-Ryu Wikipedia Entry

      Genbukan Wikipedia Entry.

      This stuff is the ONLY legitimate ninjutsu presently in existence. There ARE other teachers who have their own schools who were originally trained by one of the above masters, however, and therefore could be considered legitimate within the limits of their accomplishment.

      All the "Frank Dux" and "Ashida Kim" crap and much of the rest is bullshit put out by people who have no legitimate training or authorization by original Japanese ryus. Of course, some of what is in that material may actually be usable, but it is not presented in a coherent manner based on the original principles of the ninjutsu ryu.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    16. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that this guy is not a legitimate ninja?

    17. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Ninjas may have been turned into a myth, that's probably true. Facts like "Ninjas main weapon involved a kunai" (was popularized by manga/anime), "The ninja-to - ninja-sword - is a straight, shorter katana with a square tsuba (guard) worn on the back" (popularised by Hollywood and Japanese films) are usually quite fake and follow the myth. This goes all the way to the extremes of "Ninjas could go invisible" and "Ninjas could fly."

      This was probably created both due to modern popular fiction as well as the mystery surrounding them. Just like the Australian SAS got the nickname of 'Ghosts' in Iraq, ninjas were probably said to be 'invisible', be able to fly, etc etc at the time. Whether or not it was meant literally, or metaphorically, it became apart of the legend. In fact, ninjas may have had their own hand in creating the legend.

      In actual fact, you'll find Ninjas were little like you see in fiction. I bet most ninjas on missions did not dress up in black costumes - no, one of the main 'jutsu' of ninja was the art of disguise. They'd infiltrate and disguise, walking around in normal clothes.

      I have practiced bujinkan ninjutsu for a short period of time (and plan to restart), and what our dojo focuses on is mainly taijutsu (body movement - unarmed and against weapons). One thing you realize is that ninjutsu incorporates juijutsu, kenjutsu, aikido and other Japanese martial arts forms in its style.

      Even bo-shuriken (needle-like shuriken) was first used by samurai, not ninja. They were well versed in *other techniques*.

      What made them unique was their ability to go above and beyond that, not restricted by the beliefs of bushido (and honor), or by any one martial art. Where the bo-shuriken had to be accurate, or useless, they created the star-shaped shuriken - the hira-shuriken/shakan - which could be thrown in groups and injure an enemy no matter how it hit.

      Other unique things were focused on stealth (shinobi-aruki - stealth walking, disguise, etc etc). They learnt meteorology, how to adapt, how to use the enviroment to your advantage and explosives. Essentially, ninjutsu evolved into a method of adaptation, where no matter what the situation, you could carry out your mission effectively and ruthlessly, and get out.

      Indeed, that was one of the main things of a ninja. Survival. Where bushido essentially said "once your draw your sword, you must kill, or be killed", with little emphasis on surviving, ninjas were taught that once they completed their mission, regardless of other enemy in the area, they were to escape. The "nin" in "ninjutsu" means endurance (not stealth like people think). It is the 'art/technique of endurance'.

      Ninjas could be individuals working for bigger clans or organizations, or they could be a group or a whole organisation, in which other clans/organisations outsourced their missions to them.

      But yes, there's lots of mystery surrounding it all - and that shows that they were successful.

      I do believe that they did exist, and I do believe that a lot of it is myth. If you really stand back, ninja to samurai is the same as special forces are to normal soldiers - they learn adaptability, stealth, and think 'outside of the box' to get their work done. But really, they just utilize normal strategies and methods to a more advanced degree.

      ~Jarik

    18. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This stuff is the ONLY legitimate ninjutsu presently in existence. Of course... and by what authority are these the "only legitimate" ?
      Since there are nowadays arguably no more ninjas, who owns the right to say what is and isn't legit ?

      A.C. xcept
    19. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Japanese historians and the Japanese government, that's who. Apparently both recognize Togakure's lineage, although there may be historians who dispute it. Hatsumi has scrolls depicting the lineage. The rest of the bozos claiming to be ninjas have nothing but vague stories.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    20. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      The black ninja outfits were really the outfits of Japanese tech crew who were ignored in Japanese theatre and thus were used as a placeholder for "invisible"/sneaky characters.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    21. Re:Wouldn't happen that way by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      That's actually a very interesting observation. Makes sense.

      So the question could be, was the 'typical', full ninja outfit even used at all on missions (apart from the black training Gi used in well, training), or was it just another 'mystery' stolen from Japanese theater tech crews?

      ~Jarik

  26. Fact Check by likerice · · Score: 1

    There's only one Shaolin temple, even though the Songshan region is home to numerous martial arts training schools which use the name of "Shaolin." The Shaolin temple has recently taken legal action against such schools in order to preserve the integrity of its name and heritage. See: http://www.usatoday.com/money/2002-09-25-kung-fu-t rademark_x.htm

    1. Re:Fact Check by g33k5p34k · · Score: 1

      You've pretty much addressed the crux of the matter. The Chinese are EXTREMELY anally retentive about reputation, especially when it comes to reputation relative to Japan. To say that a Chinese martial arts style is inferior to a Japanese martial arts style is akin to a declaration of war. Not to mention that each individual martial arts form has their own sense of pride....

    2. Re:Fact Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting article. One of the final paragraphs shows what a bullshit press release medium USA Today is:

      "The incidence of the Shaolin Temple is very small in comparison with software and DVDs," Zielinski said. "But it will be instructive for the Chinese, I think, to understand that in order for them to get protection for something they view to be valuable, they'll have to start playing by the rules."

      The preservation of an important religious and cultural system is very small in comparison to a copy of the latest comic book movie or pop diva drivel? Right. Here's the world's smallest violin; play for me you fucking PR monkey.

    3. Re:Fact Check by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is very small. Actually, if it weren't for Hollywood nobody would care about the Shaolin anymore.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  27. Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking more about the history. It's hard to trace any given art back more than about a hundred and fifty years. For instance, there is reason to believe that Tai Chi is ancient. Good luck proving it though.

    I agree that you can't really learn martial arts from a book. (I also have lots of them) WRT the guy who thinks you can learn martial arts from a book ... Dancers (who are experts in movement) can learn Tai Chi overnight. They, at least to the untrained eye, look like they are doing the form perfectly. They also have no clue about what they are doing. It's like a singer singing a song in a language they don't speak. They sound great but don't try talking to them in that language. Martial arts are about an interaction with someone else. The ability to do a plausible looking kata does not imply an understanding of how the movements are applied. If you want to treat martial arts like a dance, why not short circuit the process and just take up ballet.

  28. Compelled to reply by Nickname by shallow+monkey · · Score: 1

    Okay, this is a totally contentless reply. However, the monks referenced in the article title is more or less what inspired my nickname network-time eons ago. Thus, in many ways, this is the most personal Slashdot article I have ever seen. Thanks Zonk. -- The one true Shallow Monkey

  29. In Related News by infonography · · Score: 1

    Ninjas beat The Tick in a fight. Arthur unavailable for comment. Wikipedia Entry alleged tainted by Ninja employees. 'SPOOOOON' catch phrase reportedly up for sale on Ebay.

    This is Barry (the Tick) reporting.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  30. Well at least its Shaolin Monks... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    "Five Minutes a Day" can at least be assured that the Shaolin Temple won't be sending Ninjas after them...

    You might not be able to beat a Shaolin Master, but at least you will be likely to see them first :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  31. Bullshit by Mystery00 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I call this story most probably mostly or completely bullshit .

    Even if there is some truth to this, there's something else going on in the background, I seriously doubt any self-respecting monk would bother suing over some online comment. It doesn't make sense to me.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  32. Shaolin Lawyer by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

    I hope Stephen Chow reads Slashdot.

    1. Re:Shaolin Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, Slashdot. He's taken.

      -4chan

  33. pirates by rgaginol · · Score: 1

    And after all the attention Shaolin monks are now receiving, the host of world wide pirates and ninjas have now ended their long time animosity and joined forces to defeat all Shaolin monks. It was a great fight, quite funny actually. I guess you had to be there.

  34. Ah, Grasshopper ... by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... until you can snatch the pebble from my palm, you will be pursued by lawyers and other creatures of the night.

    I wonder what kind of process server Shaolin monks would use to serve notice to a ninja? I seems this might be the basis for a TV sitcom, with each episode having the hapless process server falling back to devise a new approach to sneak up on the ninja and serve the papers.

  35. You have disgraced me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have disgraced me, my family, and the Shaolin Temple.
    Prepare to die!

    1. Re:You have disgraced me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your style?

  36. Ninja in Disguise by dezurtrat · · Score: 1

    Well, it wasn't a Ninja at all. It was one of their own Shaolin Monks DISGUISED as a ninja who had returned to avenge the death of his sister which he blamed on the temples King Fu Master from years ago.....

  37. Re: Transmission of Heritage by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I would go further and suggest that the techniques are *shown* and not even verbally transmitted. This would fall into harmony with the common eastern theme that certain levels of awareness must be transmitted outside the intellect and the word.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  38. Horse pucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're full of it.

    No "martial artist" master will stand up against someone bigger, stronger and faster than him. I'd take a Navy Seal against your "Sifu" anyday.

    As for the mugging story, I'm calling bullshit unles you give the city, police offense report number and rough date of incident. Oh, no police report? A man was nearly beaten to death, had to go to a hospital and no police report? Why do I doubt this happened?

    People post such crap on the internet!-(

    1. Re:Horse pucky by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      I'd take a Navy Seal against your "Sifu" anyday. Eh... What makes you think the techniques used by the navy seal are any different from the ones used by a martial arts master?
      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Horse pucky by kayditty · · Score: 1
      Anecdotes from old, grey haired, self proclaimed "martial arts masters" are always accurate.

      No "martial artist" master will stand up against someone bigger, stronger and faster than him. I'd take a Navy Seal against your "Sifu" anyday.
      Probably, yeah. "Navy seals" and their ilk have the same aura of mysticism surrounding them, as do "monks." I think, on the whole, though, they are better trained, and more prepared for hand to hand combat.

      I would certainly rather face a "Shaolin Monk" than Tito Ortiz.
    3. Re:Horse pucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      martial arts masters generally don't take you out with a sniper from the rooftop?

    4. Re:Horse pucky by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Simple: Navy Seals have less training in hand to hand stuff. Also, note that it's very rare for someone to overpower a Navy Seal, so sacrificing some finer points of the style may be justified to reduce the training time. Of course, nothing prevents them from getting trained independently.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Horse pucky by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      MMm. The old martial arts masters typically knew fewer forms/kata, fewer techniques than those of today but spent more time on them. Plus, both attacker and defender are humans with human bodies. They only move in so many different ways. A punch is a punch, a throw is a throw, a kick is a kick. etc.

      In reality most martial arts are almost identical when it comes down to using them on the street. The perceived differences between styles are largely ego or misunderstanding about what's actually happening. The bigger difference is between reality based training and sport based training.

      --
      Deleted
    6. Re:Horse pucky by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      You know, the great thing is... This story comes from while he was on shore leave in the Navy ;) I don't think he was a SEAL, but still found it funny.

  39. What makes you think kung fu has no grappling? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    WTF do you think all the fancy bullshit "blocks" really are?

    Real kung fu isn't what you see on TV or on the movies. That is ballet or gymnastics. Real kung fu is up close, personal and brutal.

    The reason they aren't on UFC, it's American, and most of the American kung-fu practitioners have no clue what the movements they're practising really mean.

    --
    Deleted
  40. Humour by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    The world needs more humour, especially certain parts of the world. The presence of humour in a society should be used to gauge its civility, tolerance and sophistication.

    England used to be pretty good (Monty Python) but I think America has taken the lead unintentionally via Bushisms.

    Now please slap me with a fish.

    1. Re:Humour by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      So it's true, that Randall Munroe is god?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  41. so what if we dont give a hoot by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to say, being one myself, I don't think any ninja would have the time or energy to waste on little things such as pride. I would more so believe that some bystander saw something relating to a duel where there was a need for defense on some level and it is quite possible that a ninja could beat a monk or a monk could beat a ninja...depends on the level they are at.

    A Koga region ninja could very easily beat a shaolin monk , but might have problems with a white crane kung-fu master....why, diff. styles, and diff. combinations, certain regions are closer, therefor have seen the other styles or have had influence on them.

    I could even let you know that the present day GrandMaster Ninja Hatsumi sensei, not only is a ninja, but comes from a long line of samurai masters...his family were samurai, and he learned the ways of the ninja. SO anything is possible in this world, I have heard stories of how demeaning a monk could be to fellow peasants, and I have seen myself how family oriented and
    how much value for life certain ninjutsu masters have,
    I would hate to generalize as so many people do in their ignorance (and as in this article).

    If it were a real shaolin monk , there would be no lawyers, as the duel would take place immediately afterwards, with the monk seeking out the indivdual (as it would be his duty)
    and "finishing" the duel.

    Both sides take no sh*t and I think it sad that someone could start this whole thing as a media frenzy, where if asked I bet neither side would really care about such clames.

    1. Re:so what if we dont give a hoot by 808140 · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe this was moderated insightful.

    2. Re:so what if we dont give a hoot by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I know...I would have put informative myself....

          : )

      "The only one that can kill a ninja is a ninja!"

  42. Competition destroys martial arts. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The martial arts... Karate, Kung-fu, ju-jitsu and the rest were never designed as competitive sports. They were self defence systems. And they were and are brutally effective if trained and practised that way. The very idea that one is better than another is complete bullshit, they were never meant to be used against other martial artists, they were meant to be used against aggressive but largely untrained attackers.

    However, the last hundred years many of them have turned into sports. You are no longer allowed to gouge out your opponent's eyes, fishhook their mouths or attack other dangerous points like the neck, throat, groin, back or stamp on them on the ground. Instead you score points, playing tag in the ring. This pretty much leaves you with punches and kicks. The original techniques that are encoded into the forms or kata are either hidden, forgotten or simply not trained.

    Now, the concept that karate and Kung-fu are purely striking systems is utter, utter bollocks. The forms and kata of both systems have joint locks, chokes, strangles, throws, gouges built in for all to see, if you know what you're looking at. Yes, much of which can be used on the ground. You just have to recognise them and practise. Ju-jitsu originally had a fair level of striking in it as well.

    If you're practising karate, kung-fu purely as a striking system then what you are practising is kickboxing, not karate, not kung-fu. Practising ju-jitsu without kicks and punches it's not ju-jitsu.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by try_anything · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The martial arts... Karate, Kung-fu, ju-jitsu and the rest were never designed as competitive sports. They were self defence systems. And they were and are brutally effective if trained and practised that way.

      These days, discounting war zones and Brazilian slums where even the Gracies wouldn't go, the only people who get to train at all are the ones who do so under rules designed to prevent death and serious injury. A technique that isn't practiced and polished in actual use is worthless, so the professional MMA fighters are doubtless the most brutally effective fighters in the world. Who's going to do better against a mugger who has been in his share of scuffles: a martial arts "practitioner" trying to execute a deadly technique that he has only simulated and never actually performed, or an MMA fighter executing mundane non-deadly punches and kicks that he has polished through hundreds of hours of practice against trained, uncooperative opponents?

      Sport styles are not the antithesis of practical self-defense styles; they are the practical self-defense styles. Everything else is just exercise, spiritual discipline, and/or cultural tourism. Techniques that can't be practiced in balls-out unrestrained competition against friend and foe alike are dead techniques like Latin is a dead language.
    2. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Techniques that can't be practiced in balls-out unrestrained competition For a start... There is no such thing. How exactly do I practise breaking someone's neck in "unrestrained competition"? All training has to be restrained, by definition. It's training, not real life. All competition has to be restrained, by definition. It's competition, not real life.

      Now we have that out of the way, I agree, the more realistic the training the better the practitioner will perform. Hence things like "Animal Day". And other forms of non compliant training.

      Sport styles are not the antithesis of practical self-defense styles; they are the practical self-defense styles. Sorry to burst your bubble, but, no they are not. If it has rules, the training is inappropriate for the street. You have to get rid of the rules, which makes the training inappropriate for competition. UFC for example specifically prohibits the following... So the fighters simply won't practice the techniques.

      1. Butting with the head.
      2. Eye gouging of any kind.
      3. Biting.
      4. Hair pulling.
      5. Fish hooking.
      6. Groin attacks of any kind.
      7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
      8. Small joint manipulation.
      9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
      10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
      11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
      12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
      13. Grabbing the clavicle.
      14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.

      I'll stop quoting the UFC rules here, because it reads like a list of the "vital points" that a martial artist who's training for self defence will attack given the slightest opportunity. Eyes, throat, groin, my first three targets. And it isn't just me. Have a look at the Bubishi, hundreds of years old and they were aiming at the same targets then. Yes, I bite, gouge, fish hook, I strike down using my elbow with my full body weight and power on ribs, backs, necks, just anything I can reach.

      As you should too if you want to defend yourself.
      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Staale+Nordlie · · Score: 1

      Most of those were allowed in the earliest UFCs. It didn't make much of a difference.

    4. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      The other problem I seen in my training (Bak Fu Pai and Je Ying Kuen) is that so many of the teachers are out to make easy money based on the continued belief by so many people that eastern martial arts are about magical powers and chi rather than proper fighting techniques and physical training. This has resulted in a ton of limp wristed, slow moving, out of shape "martial artists" relying on their chi super powers.

      Partially the fault of those taking advantage and teaching in such a way and of course partially the fault of the students for A) believing such crap in the first place and B) not realizing that after years of training they still punch like their little sister and that their training is obviously shit.

    5. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, people not dying or getting crippled makes UFC seem a little less 'Ultimate' to me, regardless of the generation.

      (captcha: 'bleeds'... ironic)

    6. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by try_anything · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a start... There is no such thing. How exactly do I practise breaking someone's neck in "unrestrained competition"?

      That's exactly my point. You've never broken a neck. You can't break a neck. You only know of some techniques that, if you had the chance to practice them, would probably result in applicable skill at breaking people's necks. By imposing rules about techniques, sport martial arts allow people to be unrestrained in the amount of speed and power they employ. You're right, it's still a constraint. Practicing with rules can result in people developing blind spots to banned techniques. But at least they learn a few techniques well enough to actually use them.

      Yes, I bite, gouge, fish hook, I strike down using my elbow with my full body weight and power on ribs, backs, necks, just anything I can reach.

      I assume you mean, "I would bite, gouge, fish hook, ...." or "I bite, gouge, fish hook, etc. on something other than a training partner resisting me with 100% effort." If not, well, you're fortunate in what your training partners will put up with.

      The timing and dexterity required to do all of those things at full power and speed can only be developed by repeated practice at full power and speed. Not by taking advantage of one or two lucky chances to try things in real life -- not by practicing at lower power or speed to protect your partner. It takes hundreds of tries to learn to hit a real, moving person with a decent punch; why in the world would you think small joint manipulation or grabbing the clavicle is any different?

      Granted, if I were ever in a real fight (which is a damn small possibility, but anyway) I'd try whatever seemed to give me an advantage, but I'd rely mostly on things I learned when I studied judo. I know judo is an insanely restrained "martial art", if you can even call it that (since nobody gives a damn about anything except the competition-legal techniques), and I know that the techniques as a studied them were optimized for competition, not street fighting, but hey, I know those techniques.

      I know what it took to learn those skills: First practicing throws with a stationary passive partner, then practicing with a moving passive partner in movement drills, then low-speed, low-effort randori, and then playing to win. I know that you learn a technique better and better at each stage, and I know that a technique actually feels different at each stage. I know that it takes waaay more practice to go from the half-speed semi-cooperative randori to full-speed, full-effort competition. I know that twenty pounds or a few inches of height makes a HUGE difference in how hard an opponent is to throw -- you can feel damn good about your technique practicing against a 6' 170 lb guy, and then you go against a 5'10" 190 lb guy and suddenly you're like, "Umm, sensei, I think I'm doing something wrong here." And I know that going up against a guy who's a lot faster than me makes pretty much everything I do look like complete shit.

      So I know that I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever successfully executing a technique in a real fight unless I've done it a hundred times at full power and full speed in practice first. (Hell, it's been a few years, so even my best throw (uchi mata) would be pretty sloppy, but that's another issue.)

      Actually, that's the most important point of my post, so I'll say it again: Through lots and lots of experience, I know that I have very little chance of successfully executing a technique in a real fight unless I've done it in practice a hundred times at full power and full speed, against a real opponent. If I can hit the guy with slop, then he never posed much of a threat to begin with.

      Now we have that out of the way, I agree, the more realistic the training the better the practitioner will perform. Hence things like "Animal Day". And other forms of non compliant training.

    7. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sounds exactly like a guy whose judgment I would trust.

      Sounds like a guy tired of living in england.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Practicing with rules can result in people developing blind spots to banned techniques. But at least they learn a few techniques well enough to actually use them. In the ring. Look at sport karate... Compare it to the original self defense system. They look completely different, the strategies and primary techniques taught are completely different. Sport karate attempts to launch punches, kicks to the head from 10 feet. Street karate you're 18 inches away from the opponent trying to kick his knee joint out. They're really different martial arts despite the common name.

      Look at BJJ and in fact Judo. The first thing they try to do is go to the ground! That's an insane strategy in real life, you'll get your head pounded to a pulp by the other guy's pals. The original Ju-Jitsu strategies don't go to ground nearly as readily for exactly that reason, and they usually smack you about first too. The primary techniques used and trained are different, despite the common history.

      The difference? Competition. Rules.

      Now, yes, I absolutely do agree that you have to practise as realistically as you can. Yes, hit as hard as you can, practise grappling techniques against non compliant partners. It's an ongoing problem with any martial art; How do you practise realistically and regularly without ending up in hospital? I also agree that the MMA guys are pretty bloody good at what they do, they really are strong, in their environment. But you have to get rid of the rules when it comes to real life.

      I assume you mean, "I would bite, gouge, fish hook, ...." or "I bite, gouge, fish hook, etc. on something other than a training partner resisting me with 100% effort." If not, well, you're fortunate in what your training partners will put up with. They're doing it for the same reason I am, and understand the reasoning. Obviously we stop short of actually hurting one another, as mentioned above, with the associated problems of stopping short.

      It takes hundreds of tries to learn to hit a real, moving person with a decent punch; why in the world would you think small joint manipulation or grabbing the clavicle is any different? I don't... I agree with you...

      Through lots and lots of experience, I know that I have very little chance of successfully executing a technique in a real fight unless I've done it in practice a hundred times at full power and full speed, against a real opponent. It's actually worse than that. You have little chance of executing a technique successfully at all, in a real fight, even with lots of practise. That even includes simple things like smacking someone on the nose. All you get is maybe a bit of probability in your favour.

      Ummm, no comment on this guy except that I recognize that level of paranoia and fantastic thinking, and in my experience, it isn't consistent with the amount of common sense needed to buy a good used car, much less evaluate the worth of a fighting technique. Sorry, it was the only reference I could find for "Animal Day". Geoff Thompson's a 5th dan black belt in karate (last time I looked), has a bunch of other martial training and spent 10 years working as a bouncer where he ended up fighting for his life on a regular basis. You'll have to read his book to understand why he did. The idea around an "Animal day" is a completely no holds barred day, it attempts to be as realistic as is possible without permanent harm to anyone involved.

      I've never met anyone who kept talking like that after a month of judo, because that's how long it takes to demystify toughness, pain, fatigue, and winning and losing. He also holds a 1st dan in Judo, training under the UK, Olympic and World champion (Neil Adams).

      Sorry... That's the reality of violence, as opposed to what we do in the gym, octagon or dojo. It's brutal. It's ugly. It's very, very unpleasant and it's completely unfair. If you don't recognise it, you're just hiding your head in the sand.

      --
      Deleted
    9. Re:Competition destroys martial arts. by try_anything · · Score: 1

      Geoff Thompson's a 5th dan black belt in karate (last time I looked), has a bunch of other martial training and spent 10 years working as a bouncer where he ended up fighting for his life on a regular basis.
      If he's that good, then I think I was just reading marketing for his book. He probably didn't even write it. Actually, if his experience is as a bouncer, then he definitely didn't write this:

      "The enemy we are dealing with today is a cruel one who, like the terminator, has no feelings, no emotion and will not stop until you are down. To deal with a gratuitous enemy we need to employ gratuitous tactics, we need to be attacking first, forget this antiquated block-counter lark, it's not going to happen and if that's what you are being taught now then I feel sorry for you. Be first and ferocious, anything less and youâll be laughed off the planet and then battered."
      As a bouncer, that approach would quickly get him sued, fired, and/or prosecuted, not to mention that violent drunks are often way too emotional and you have a decent shot of dealing with them on that level and avoiding violence. (Nobody in his right mind puts himself at gratuitous risk of injury -- or a lawsuit.) So I guess that's just his publisher making a fool of him.

      But that's a huge pet peeve of mine. Selling a sense of superiority over people who are in denial and "just don't get it" is something I've never seen a real person do who had both experience and integrity. Everyone (some more than others) has a natural tendency to believe two things: that they have the potential to be spiritually or psychologically superior to everyone else, and that (contrary to all statistics and common sense) in the end life boils down to a violent physical struggle for survival(*). Whenever I see martial arts marketing that exploits those tendencies, I tune it out.

      Any martial art that is built on a foundation of distorted thinking (paranoia about crime, etc.) will breed fantasy and belief in unverified techniques. Animal Day (however it works) sounds like a good antidote for that. So, I guess Geoff Thompson is in a constant fight to undo the work of his publisher's marketing department :-)

      (*) In a sense this is true, but the struggle is primarily fought indirectly through political and economic levers. Another thing my judo sensei used to say: "It's a very sensible thing to think about how to apply these skills to self-defense, but it's much more likely that judo training will save your life by enabling you to stay calm in a burning building or survive a serious illness [because of better overall health.] If you actually face a reasonable possibility of fighting for your life(**), then for God's sake don't waste your nights here. Go to [the local community college], get a good vocational degree, and move to a better neighborhood. Or even more likely, see a divorce lawyer."

      (**) Yeah, he knows about bouncers and police officers. Police officers didn't get this speech (they were typically there to round out an already extensive education); I don't think he ever trained any bouncers.

  43. I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shaolin or monks in general are wise and not easy to provoke because they stand above those issues.

    So why do these sound like a bunch of whiners?

  44. Oh well by Real_Reddox · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new suing Chinese Shaolin overlords.

    Sorry

    --
    I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
  45. Yup. Most Karate is junk by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The result is that most of the transmission has been oral Kata are physical. However yes. Many of the techniques are now "hidden" in the kata, with very few people knowing what's really going on.

    The other complication is that most martial artists never fight real fights. (Point sparring doesn't count.) It is possible to spend years working on a given martial art and then discover that it is absolutely ineffective against the average street punk. Indeed. Over the last few decades, the training has been largely sports based. Playing tag in the ring. The original self defence training which was practised has largely been forgotten... Hell, most black belts don't even know what hikite is for and many have never performed a throw.

    However. There's a definite realisation of the problem and move back to reality training, which the traditional methods were based on.

    See books by Lawrence Kane, Peter Consterdine, Ian Abernethy, Geoff Thompson. Particularly Abernethy's "Bunkai Jutsu".

    --
    Deleted
  46. Mixed Martial Arts by newgalactic · · Score: 1

    If UFC has shown us anything, it's that dependence on one single fight style is a death sentence. Kung Fu is a good workout, but is reduced to a fancy "dance" when your opponent actually steps in close enough to "grapple" with you. Israels Mossad has a pretty neat Mixed Martial Arts technique. But I'm not here to endorse a particular style. Mixed Martial Arts is exactly that, mixed. I'm sorry if the Shaolin Monks are worried that their style is losing it's generally accepted status as "most superior".

    1. Re:Mixed Martial Arts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing the UFC has shown us is that rules make for an entertaining fight. How long do you think the UFC would last if every fight ended with one of the opponents getting stomped on the knee while being punched in the throat? Don't confuse TV with reality.

    2. Re:Mixed Martial Arts by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      If UFC has shown us anything, it's that dependence on one single fight style is a death sentence. Kung Fu is a good workout, but is reduced to a fancy "dance" when your opponent actually steps in close enough to "grapple" with you. Nonsense. Kung fu styles generally include chin na techniques for neutralizing opponents at close quarters, including joint locks and nerve, airway, and circulatory attacks.
  47. I'd sue too by mkraft · · Score: 1

    I'd sue too if I was beat by these guys.

  48. More unusual that unique? by CarbonRing · · Score: 1

    "A unique story on the CBC website details an even more unusual conflict."

    How can something happen and be more unusual than unique? There aren't that many integers between 0 and 1.

  49. This is the guy who made that post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c161/RoBByBoyRox /superbad-superkick.jpg

    I could tell you how I know, but then I'd have to kill you.

  50. Robert? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1
    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  51. Shaolin Lawyers made my eyes explode by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Just handing me legal documents have caused my eyes to erupt into fountains of blood. The power of these Shaolin Lawyers have no peer, and there is no known counter attack to their secret techniques.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  52. Re: Transmission of Heritage by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

    certain levels of awareness must be transmitted outside the intellect and the word.
    That's why I never do documentation. Well, do you have a better excuse?
    --
    1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  53. Re: Transmission of Heritage by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    That point of view is theirs.

    I prefer to think that most concepts are served well by medium level documentation to consisting of a presentation and a FAQ. When a student does this basic homework beforehand, it means his questions to the Master become more intelligent.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  54. Legal action? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    I'd be glad they're only threatening legal action. You wouldn't want them to come do the Shaolin version of a blanket party on you for posting a story about them, would you?

    Just think about it -- Shaolin monks gone Mafia -- "I hear you said bad things about us, (beatings) that's not going to happen again, (more beatings) is it?"

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  55. What's next? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

    What's next? "Knights Templar call for far-reaching tort reform"? "Jedi Knights file civil suit against Empire for breach of verbal contract in Dantooine destruction"?* Sheesh. Just go kick the guy's ass -- isn't that more in keeping with this particular conflict?

    * I'm embarrassed to have been able to cast this particular sentence as fast as I could type. Pardon me, I must now go freshen the tape on my glasses.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  56. 36 chambers by oblonski · · Score: 1

    /*ancient chinese voice/ Shaolin shadow boxing, and the Wu-Tang swordstyle...

    /*second ancient chinese voice/ If what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu-Tang could be dangerous...

    /*sound of swords being unsheathed.../ shhhiiiiinnngggggggg.....

    /*first ancient chinese voice/ I'll let you try my Wu-Tang sword style

    /*Sounds of intense sword-fighting and exclamations from combatants/

    /*fade to black.../

    --
    Move along now, nothing to see here! Go on!
    1. Re:36 chambers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think your Wu-Tang Sword can defeat ME?!

  57. Honestly, I'm not surprised... by Ub3rT3Rr0R1St · · Score: 1

    Even if it didn't happen, I'm sure it could happen. I mean, just look at this website. How can you deny those facts? http://http//www.realultimatepower.net/

  58. Pirates vs. Monks vs. Ninjas by wronski · · Score: 1

    Yet more proof, as if any was needed, that pirates rule. Shaolin Monks use lawyers to intimidate; Ninjas are intimidated by lawyers. Pirates, by definition, are not afraid of lawyers, and have no use for them except as ballast. QED.

  59. Cowboy myth? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    "Cowboy myth"

    I'm not sure what you mean about the cowboy myth. There is very real documentation of the bandits that roamed the Western U.S. in the 19th century: witness accounts, wanted posters, photographs, legal documents, you name it. Locals really would put together a possy and hunt them down when they became too much of a problem. So I don't know what you're referring to as a myth. There are fictions stories and movies, but no one is ascribing any kind of historical accuracy to them.

    1. Re:Cowboy myth? by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean about the cowboy myth. There is very real documentation of the bandits that roamed the Western U.S. in the 19th century: witness accounts, wanted posters, photographs, legal documents, you name it. Locals really would put together a possy and hunt them down when they became too much of a problem. So I don't know what you're referring to as a myth. There are fictions stories and movies, but no one is ascribing any kind of historical accuracy to them.
      I'm not sure what they mean either. But what you describe are not cowboys, but criminals. Cowboys were agricultural workers. There is plenty of "mythology" surrounding them. For instance the idea that they all owned horses and carried guns. In most of the 19th centurty west it was illegal for cowhands to carry guns. It was also unusual for a 19th century cowboy to own his own horse. Those were typically supplied by their employer. Sometimes small ranchers would sell horses to hands at the end of a season, but it wasn't prevelant, mainly because horse ownership was a potentially significant burden to an unemployed cowboy. Also, most cowboys didn't work for independent ranchers. They worked for large cattle companies based in the east and Britain. These companies formed "Cattlemen's Associations" which dominated western politics and squeezed out independent competition. They pushed through legislation banning gun ownership by cowboys and banning cattle ownership by non-members, especially cowboys. That is what Cattle Kate was executed for, taking cattle in payment for goods and services. The opression of independent ranchers and workers by the cattlemen's associations was the cause of several range wars, most notably the Johnson County War.

      Also most people probably underestimate the level of minority penetration in the cowboying trade. The very first American cowboys were slaves in Texas, and even in the post civil war free range golden age of the trade, a good 25% of cowboys were black. Some modern rodeo events, notably bulldogging, originatesd in black cowboying practices. Another 12-15% of early American cowboys were Mexican Vaqueros. Their contribution to the tradecraft is perhaps even more fundamental. They basically invented American horsemanship. As the 20th century dawned the number of black cowboys decreased while vaqueros increased. Some sources claim they were a full 33% of the industry by 1900.

      By coincidence, a friend of mine is prosecuting a cattle rustling case as we speak.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    2. Re:Cowboy myth? by pizpot · · Score: 1

      "cowboy myth"?

      Huh? My uncle has a ranch, 20 horses and whispers to them. They come to him like they know better, whereas they just laugh at me. He wears cowboy boots and a cowboy hat. Not much of a myth. If he was herding cattle for a living then what would you call him, a cow herder?

  60. Aum, Mani, Pardon me? humm. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, grasshopper only in secret, ancient and deadly but enlightened art of "FUNG-GOOL" can we ever hope to de-feet da Shaolin munks in dey own crib yo!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  61. we live in wierd time by netdur · · Score: 1

    Ninja: I will kick your ass
    Shaolin Monk: I will sue your ass
    Pirate: all your base are belong to us

    --
    "Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
  62. Who Would Buddah Sue? by witchman · · Score: 1

    This is the most redicules thing I've ever heard of from supposedly Buddhist monks! What the Hell? I'm pretty sure that the whole freaking idea behind Buddhism is to let go of your ego. This is the most ego related thing I've ever heard of.

  63. My favorite way to achieve relaxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind Tai Chi for achieving relaxation, Tie One On.

  64. Now they're suing you too... by Franklin+Brauner · · Score: 1

    Word has just come in that the monks are filing a lawsuit against you now as well, and demanding a retraction and apology.

  65. Re: Transmission of Heritage by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    And you'd be wrong about techniques. Sure, describing what something is supposed to feel like is a good start, but it takes someone who knows to tell you why your technique is failing on one guy and working on another.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  66. What happened to the times by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    What happened to the times when such a dispute was settled with a good thrashing?

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  67. Shaolin Challenges Ninja ... And Wins! by yetiseti · · Score: 1
    Afraid the facts mixed up.

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0080172/

    I own the actual fight footage and can attest that Chinese Gung Fu bested every style the Japanese could throw at it, and without Bruce Lee's help.

    No legal defense technique was needed then, and still not now.

    Confucius says:

    If have sidekick in comedy act, funny har har

    If receive side kick in kung fu, Yie Ar! Not funny, but still can be side-splitting

  68. Its the 21st century by ce33na66 · · Score: 0

    When I was in my 20's I took Kung Fu lessons. I like what the instructor said in the first class. "If you are here to learn self defense, then quit and go buy a gun."

  69. Blown WAY out of proportion by TroopaCabra · · Score: 0

    I can personally say that I have been in an encounter with a Shaolin Monk on more than one occasion and they're not so Arrrggh! ...or was that a pirate? Japanese food is better than Chinese food too IMO.

    ..(is this my anonymous tag? Whoops- now I did it!)

  70. no, the myth is cowboys could fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i, er, mean, be shot out of a horses rear like a bullet :D