@WillPayton said:
@Jezer said:
@WillPayton said:
@Jezer said:
@WillPayton said:
@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:
Shaolin Monk owns MMA fighter while Special Forces watches then shoots Monk.
Unless this is H2H, than in that case Shaolin Monk owns all.
I still dont understand this reverence for Shaolin monks, when their fighting style isnt even a blip on the MMA scene. At least with Karate you have people like Machida who've represented it well. Other styles like wrestling, jiu-jitsu, kick boxing, and muay thai all also have parts in MMA. I'd imagine that anyone who show's up at an MMA tournament doing Shaolin kung fu would get killed easily.
This is fallacious reasoning, implying that a fighting style must be represented on MMA in order for it to be good.
If Shaolin Monks are training in whatever isolated place away from society (I dont know if thats true), would you really expect them to be on the MMA scene? If your last sentence is supposed to be the conclusion based on what you said previously, then that's a unsound conclusion.
Not to mention the fact you've already replied to a post showing a Shaolin Monk showcasing his fighting in the kickbox scene and winning relatively easily. Kickboxing isn't comparable to MMA, but my point is that their striking seems to be up to par and alot of MMA fighters like to do pure striking in their fights.
I agreed that the video was good, but one video between an unknown shaolin guy and an equally unknown kickboxing guy isnt compelling evidence that shaolin is generally better than mma.
There's been plenty of different fighting styles that have made their way to MMA. Why not Shaolin, especially if it's as good as suggested? But even if you're right that it's too secluded, then what's the evidence that it'd beat MMA? You cant have it both ways. Either it's too isolated, in which case you cant say it's better than MMA because there's not enough evidence. Or there IS evidence, but you've only provided one video of a fight against a no-name kickboxer.
That's all good, but what you're saying in this post is not what you said in the post I just replied to. You're addressing these arguments at me; I have no stake in this debate or opinion of who would win. I was simply addressing the fallacious things you said in your past post.
Plus, I think the original point of whoever posting that vid was to show that Shaolin has at least on one occassion competed in an official fight, contrary to someone's expressed belief that we have no clue what they can do, and won.
Either way, I think the general theme I've noticed is that people think the Shaolin's can win in hand to hand because they train harder, longer, and more extensively. There fight philosophy alludes to them being deadlier. I don't think you need someone to actually step in an MMA ring to make a logical guess about what they could do. That's why people are saying they win in hand to hand.
There's a difference between saying they're too isolated to have reached MMA AND saying that they're too isolated for us to know what they're capable(which is incorrect).
I'll agree that a fighting style doesnt have to be represented in an MMA competition like UFC to be good. I didnt bring it up to imply that, only suggesting that since it's the mostly widely known and popular style-independent fighting competition, it's logical to think that a style that's good would show up there.
In any case, it's also fallacious to say that Shaolin's train harder, longer, and more extensively than top mma fighters. From what I've seen many successful mma fighters have been training in some sort of style since they were young, and train in many different techniques from boxing to wrestling, not to mention the physical conditioning.
Regardless, the only evidence so far I've seen that a Shaolin fighter can beat an MMA fighter is a single video with two unknowns. And, since that's the whole point of this thread and based on the showings of MMA fighters, I still go with them to win.
It's only logical to think that way without there being complicating factors such as the seclusion of that fighting style from the rest of the world.
I don't think the "general theme" - meaning I'm quoting the general consensus of previous posts in this thread - said that they train harder, longer, or more extensively than top mma fighters, specifically. I haven't read the OP in a while, but I don't believe it says "Top Shaolin Monks vs Top MMA Fighters". It's more likely that the idea is that they train harder, longer, and more extensively than MMA fighters in general. This is a valid conclusion since MMA fighters come from all different backgrounds of experience and styles, while popular belief is that Shaolin Monks train uniformly to the same degree. So you can have an MMA fighter who started at 16 or 12 or 10, but you're far less likely to have a Shaolin Monk who didn't start at the general age of all Shaolin Monks who have a more unifrom background of experience. If the Shaolin Monks really do start at lets just say 5, then they have been training longer than MMA fighters who's starting age varies dramatically. If Shaolin Monks really do train every part of their body to be a weapon, and condition every part of their body including their nuts(as seen in the video posted earlier), then they are training more extensively than even top MMA fighters who are training a more limited range of body parts to use as weeapons. If they have been conditioning since a young age, then the same thing applies no matter how enthusiastic an MMA fighter might condition themselves after starting at a later age than them. Regardless, even supposing these common assumptions are wrong, it means that it's incorrect not fallacious(fallacious referring to the logic in the argument not the truth of the premises).
Showings only works as an argument if one has better showings than the other. Not if one has showings, and you don't know the showings of the other(thus making it an argument from ignorance), then you can't draw any conclusions from the showings. If Superman has great physical strength feats, and Galactus has none at all, that doesn't mean that Superman is physically stronger than Galactus. It means no one knows.
In the end: I'd give it to a general MMA fighter if they are wellrounded enough. If the MMA fighter is one of the many who love striking and proving they can throw hands, I'd give it to the Shaolin Monk. If they decide to switch to wrestling and such midway through possibly losing a striking match, I'd give it to the MMA fighter. But then again, you have to consider that there are no rules and if Shaolin use every part and attack any part, they are still deadly from the ground while being outwrestled. Can the MMA fighter break habit and start using all the MMA-outlawed strikes in the heat of the moment?
.....In the end: I still can't decide who would win between the average MMA fighter and the average Shaolin monk.
Log in to comment