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."

5 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!
  4. 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 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