The better martial art?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I was just looking at some books in a junk mail catalog about the awesome
fighting secrets of so-and-so or such-and-such. They're right before the
books on Tesla's free energy and anti-gravity machines and
extra-terrestrial origins. But that got me wondering, what if one martial
art really is better than another? A martial arts geek might say it's the
training or the practitioner that matters, but nevermind that. They've
been created independently many times, and have been evolving through the
present day, so we can suppose one martial art really is better than
another?

How to model that?

You might make a P/H skill and add some more bonuses. But I think
"better" has to mean more capability for the time you put into it, or
regular Karate at P/A or even P/E.

Comments?


--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> extra-terrestrial origins. But that got me wondering, what if one martial
> art really is better than another? A martial arts geek might say it's the

Better in what situation?

In a one-on-one match, grappling arts reign supreme (as the UFCs have
shown). However, getting locked up with one opponent would be a disaster
against multiple attackers.

That's just one example. Some arts were designed for close-in
fighting typical of city alleys (Wing Chun). Others are better adapted
for open spaces. Some are better for the short, stocky, powerful type
(Parker Kenpo), others are better for the smaller, lighter, more
flexible, typical Asian fighter (Tae Kwon Do). Some are optimized for
armed combat, others for unarmed.

One (Capoeira) even trains for a "hands-bound" situation, having been
developed by Brazilian slaves.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:15:41 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>I was just looking at some books in a junk mail catalog about the awesome
>fighting secrets of so-and-so or such-and-such. They're right before the
>books on Tesla's free energy and anti-gravity machines and
>extra-terrestrial origins. But that got me wondering, what if one martial
>art really is better than another? A martial arts geek might say it's the
>training or the practitioner that matters, but nevermind that. They've
>been created independently many times, and have been evolving through the
>present day, so we can suppose one martial art really is better than
>another?
>
>How to model that?

By giving only one martial art the ability to train Masters.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
[...]
> How to model that?
>
> You might make a P/H skill and add some more bonuses. But I think
> "better" has to mean more capability for the time you put into it, or
> regular Karate at P/A or even P/E.
>
> Comments?

What about it taking the same time to learn (for characters
with same DX, IQ and Will), but you can *continue*
progressing past a point where other martial arts just stop.

I once heard a several-Dan black belt physical education
teacher say that in karate, you could reach 4th Dan through
skill, but getting further Dans depended only on your work
for the "cause", that is you earned them by teaching and
possibly by doing political work. That implied that a 10th
Dan black belter is no better fighter than a 4th Dan black
belter.

What if that was the case for most martial arts, except one?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
> I once heard a several-Dan black belt physical education teacher say
> that in karate, you could reach 4th Dan through skill, but getting
> further Dans depended only on your work for the "cause", that is you

I've heard that before. Actually, the general sense I got is that
third or even second dan represented pretty much everything physical.
The higher levels represented teaching ability.

I took several different arts. I only earned 2-3 ranks in each (about
halfway to brown belt in four different styles). I've seen brown belts
who could kick ass as well as any black belt. Conditioning, strength,
and endurance are more important than advanced technique, IMO.

Take it for what it's worth.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<co0qsd$al8$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
> You might make a P/H skill and add some more bonuses. But I think
> "better" has to mean more capability for the time you put into it, or
> regular Karate at P/A or even P/E.

Though for game balance purposes, you'd still
need to charge more points in some way, such
as requiring Unusual Background to learn the
better martial art.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <BPudnbNx9tIOujncRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> I once heard a several-Dan black belt physical education teacher say
>> that in karate, you could reach 4th Dan through skill, but getting
>> further Dans depended only on your work for the "cause", that is you
>
> I've heard that before. Actually, the general sense I got is that
>third or even second dan represented pretty much everything physical.
>The higher levels represented teaching ability.
>
> I took several different arts. I only earned 2-3 ranks in each (about
>halfway to brown belt in four different styles). I've seen brown belts
>who could kick ass as well as any black belt. Conditioning, strength,
>and endurance are more important than advanced technique, IMO.
>
> Take it for what it's worth.

When I was doing hapkido in school I made it all the way to orange. Wow!
And there was a brown belt who couldn't land a punch without her wrist
collapsing, she asked me how I hit so hard.

It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.

Well, I'd put conditioning first. If someone weighs 90 pounds, has
badly atrophied muscles, and severe asthma, it won't matter much how
much killer instinct he has.

However, that's a relatively minor quibble. Your main point is that
skill level (which should correspond to belt ranking) is highly
overrated for the purposes of determining just how dangerous someone
really is.

I've seen quite a few black belts who were very technically
proficient, but didn't really intimidate me that much. Some seem to me
to be more like glorified dancers. They were graceful and all that, but
not really all that dangerous.

OTOH, I've sparred with orange belts who were STRONG. I would NOT
want those guys mad at me.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <BMWdnYznCJkjRDncRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
>> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.
>
> However, that's a relatively minor quibble. Your main point is that
>skill level (which should correspond to belt ranking) is highly
>overrated for the purposes of determining just how dangerous someone
>really is.
>
> I've seen quite a few black belts who were very technically
>proficient, but didn't really intimidate me that much. Some seem to me
>to be more like glorified dancers. They were graceful and all that, but
>not really all that dangerous.
>
> OTOH, I've sparred with orange belts who were STRONG. I would NOT
>want those guys mad at me.

I also have a relatively minor quibble, I don't think /GURPS/
Skill level exactly corrisponds with belt ranking. Skill level
corrisponds exactly to how often you hit, belt ranking
corrisponds to how well you examiner thinks you are executing the
moves of a particular martial art. A proficient fighter could be
failed because the examiner does not like the _style_ they
fight with.

--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <BMWdnYznCJkjRDncRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
>> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.
>
> Well, I'd put conditioning first. If someone weighs 90 pounds, has
>badly atrophied muscles, and severe asthma, it won't matter much how
>much killer instinct he has.

On the other hand, if he's a pacifist, however strong he is he might just
stand there and take it. The quip just means there's more to be gained by
a 10% increase in one attribute versus a 10% increase in another.

>
> However, that's a relatively minor quibble. Your main point is that
>skill level (which should correspond to belt ranking) is highly
>overrated for the purposes of determining just how dangerous someone
>really is.

I guess I wouldn't say "highly" overrated. I mean, there are people that
could literally walk into a knife fight and take combatants' knives away.
Not many in the US, but there were and maybe still are police-type outfits
in the Phillipines that did exactly that in rebellious regions where
taking a man's sword away is like taking a Texan's gun. Killer instinct
and conditioning alone can never get you to that level.

But I've seen enough stories about the black belt that gets beaten up by
the street fighter or the bar room brawler. But street fighters that earn
black belts are something else.

There was a guy at my brother's school who was a prison guard, and he
practiced all kinds of fancy baton techniques. But then there was a riot,
he was pounding cons for hours, broke several batons, and couldn't even
unclench his hand when it was over. His technique went to hell pretty
fast in that incident, and after that his training focused on
conditioning. But that wasn't a typical one-on-one or one-on-few
scenario.

>
> I've seen quite a few black belts who were very technically
>proficient, but didn't really intimidate me that much. Some seem to me
>to be more like glorified dancers. They were graceful and all that, but
>not really all that dangerous.
>
> OTOH, I've sparred with orange belts who were STRONG. I would NOT
>want those guys mad at me.

When I was in school, my hapkido instructor talked about a football player
who was in the class. And they were working on some throw, and he tried
again and again and couldn't get it right. He picked up his partner, held
him over his head, and said "Now what do I do?" The instructor said "Why
do you care?"
--
"Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of
Congress... But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <fbeb907f.0411241157.53f97660@posting.google.com>,
Theodore Jay Miller <TedJMill@Mindspring.com> wrote:
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<co0qsd$al8$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> You might make a P/H skill and add some more bonuses. But I think
>> "better" has to mean more capability for the time you put into it, or
>> regular Karate at P/A or even P/E.
>
>Though for game balance purposes, you'd still
>need to charge more points in some way, such
>as requiring Unusual Background to learn the
>better martial art.

Yes, that's the thing. Think that would be good for a 15 point UB? 15
points into a UB and 4 points into Improved Karate, or 19 points into
Karate? Whether it's actually an advantage or not would depend highly on
the context.

--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <co2mkm$occ$1@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>,
mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr. M.J. Lush) wrote:

> In article <BMWdnYznCJkjRDncRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
> Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
> >> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.
> >
> > However, that's a relatively minor quibble. Your main point is that
> >skill level (which should correspond to belt ranking) is highly
> >overrated for the purposes of determining just how dangerous someone
> >really is.
> >
> > I've seen quite a few black belts who were very technically
> >proficient, but didn't really intimidate me that much. Some seem to me
> >to be more like glorified dancers. They were graceful and all that, but
> >not really all that dangerous.
> >
> > OTOH, I've sparred with orange belts who were STRONG. I would NOT
> >want those guys mad at me.
>
> I also have a relatively minor quibble, I don't think /GURPS/
> Skill level exactly corrisponds with belt ranking.

Actually this is NOT the relationship skill level and belt ranking have in
GURPS (at least as far as MA 2e is concerned). The relationship is that
your AVERAGE skill in ALL the Primary skills is.

Of the 47 styles only 19 (Aikido/Aiki-jutsu, Chin Na, Escrima, French
Fencing, Hapkido, Italian Rapier fencing, Jeet Kune Do, Jujutsu,
Kendo/Kenjutsu, Kobujutsu, Kuk Sool Won, Kuntao, Military hand to hand,
Muay Thai, Police hand to hand, Professional Kickboxing, Savate, Uechi Ryu,
and Wing Chun) have combat skills as all their Primary skills. The
remaining 28 have some non-combat skill as part of the Primary skills list.

Further more not only does a yellow belt have to have an average of 12 but
will have had to have put in at least 2 points into ALL the Primary skills.

> Skill level corrisponds exactly to how often you hit, belt ranking
> corrisponds to how well you examiner thinks you are executing the
> moves of a particular martial art. A proficient fighter could be
> failed because the examiner does not like the _style_ they
> fight with.

Or more than likely the student has focused totally on the combat side of
things and forgotten to improve some non-combat primary skill.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Gregory L. Hansen <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> In article <BMWdnYznCJkjRDncRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
> Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
>>> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.
>>
>> Well, I'd put conditioning first. If someone weighs 90 pounds, has
>>badly atrophied muscles, and severe asthma, it won't matter much how
>>much killer instinct he has.
>
> On the other hand, if he's a pacifist, however strong he is he might just
> stand there and take it. The quip just means there's more to be gained by
> a 10% increase in one attribute versus a 10% increase in another.

Incidentally, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu (and old kenjitsu style that
my sister and her husband study) actually demands some degree of pacifism
from its students (and did so since its founding in 1447): never draw your
sword against followers of another school. The reason for this was that
this style was too deadly compared to other styles, which brings us back
to the original topic.

Personally, I think the idea that some martial arts are inherently better
than others is bullshit. But many styles focus on different things, and
in extreme cases (like sport versions (judo, kendo, etc) the situations
they focus on are very unrealistic. But if you look at the martial art
templates in GURPS MA, you'll see that lots of styles teach have not
just practical combat skills, but also the sport skills, as well as
culture and philosophy and stuff like that. So that basically makes
the points put into the style less effective in terms of raw combat
ability. There's certainly no need for a cheaper Karate skill.

Ofcourse there's also the problem that the Karate, Judo and Boxing skills
don't accuately reflect all the different styles. But introducing a new
skill for each style would make things too complicated and unbalanced,
and a balanced and playable system is much more important than accurately
simulating all the subtleties of different martial arts styles. Because
of you simulate those subtleties, you should really do the same with
the hundreds of different ways to use Broadsword or other combat skills
(there were actually European swordfighting schools, not too dissimilar
from Japanese schools, the main difference being that the European ones
died out), not to mention all the lack of detail in non-combat skills.

Sticking to my own area of expertise, Computer Programming (prolog)
produces vastly different results than Computer Programming (J2EE), and
discplines like Extreme Programming, choice of software life cycle,
use of design patterns or other programming techniques and conventions
like Hungarian programming (yuck) all have a big influence on the
effectiveness of your programming. But a system that simulates all of
that would be absolutely horrible, and the same is probably true with
martial arts. If someone is better, have him put extra points into the
skill.


mcv.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 25 Nov 2004 01:29:39 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs2.xs4all.nl> wrote:


>Personally, I think the idea that some martial arts are inherently better
>than others is bullshit. But many styles focus on different things, and
>in extreme cases (like sport versions (judo, kendo, etc) the situations
>they focus on are very unrealistic. But if you look at the martial art
>templates in GURPS MA, you'll see that lots of styles teach have not
>just practical combat skills, but also the sport skills, as well as
>culture and philosophy and stuff like that.

I was thinking about the elves of "The Outstretched Shadow" a recent
novel. Thehought occured to me that even though with their long lives
they might train into kickass warriors, they would always be
handicapped to a certain extent by the fact that they would have to
buy Sword Art or Karate Art instead of the base skill, because they
would never sacrifice "proper form" for mere effectiveness.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <ELSdnSyA394BtTncRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>> extra-terrestrial origins. But that got me wondering, what if one martial
>> art really is better than another? A martial arts geek might say it's the
>
> Better in what situation?
>
> In a one-on-one match, grappling arts reign supreme (as the UFCs have
>shown).

These days the supreme art in that type of match is "mixed". Gotta
have some grappling ability and some striking (though one may emphasize
one over the other), and a lot of physical conditioning.

> However, getting locked up with one opponent would be a disaster
> against multiple attackers.

Maybe, though I've heard arguments and anecdotes to the contrary.
However, taking on multiple opponents by yourself is generally a very
bad idea regardless of fighting style unless you totally outclass them,
anyway.

--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:29:31 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> It's been said that skill comes after killer instinct and conditioning,
> in that order, in determining how good a fighter you are.

I think it depends on what you mean by 'fighter'. If you mean someone
who can get into a ring and slug it out, or who otherwise fights
pretty much equal opponents one on one as a rule, yes. If OTOH you
mean someone who is good at killing people, conditioning isn't very
important, because if you just want to kill someone you don't bother
with the 'fair fight' - you ambush them with superior weaponry and
slaughter them. Likewise, if you're interested in self-defence you
won't need the conditioning so much because if it's a drawn out affiar
you've probably already screwed up really badly.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:22:19 -0700, Arthur Samuels
<arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> In a one-on-one match, grappling arts reign supreme (as the UFCs have
> shown).

Are they still top dog?

> However, getting locked up with one opponent would be a disaster against
> multiple attackers.

It certainly makes it likely one of the others will put the boot in.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:22:19 -0700, Arthur Samuels
>> In a one-on-one match, grappling arts reign supreme (as the UFCs have
>>shown).
>
>
> Are they still top dog?

They were in the early UFC matches. Those were the ones with the
least in the way of rules, therefore the closest to a real fight. As
weight classes and timed rounds were introduced, striking became more
important.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <9pedndJxiKeitDXcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
Arthur Samuels <arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:22:19 -0700, Arthur Samuels
>>> In a one-on-one match, grappling arts reign supreme (as the UFCs have
>>>shown).
>>
>>
>> Are they still top dog?
>
> They were in the early UFC matches. Those were the ones with the
>least in the way of rules, therefore the closest to a real fight. As
>weight classes and timed rounds were introduced, striking became more
>important.

The hitters are also learning to deal with the grapplers. It's an arms
race, the martial arts and competition fighting have always been evolving
and they continue to evolve.

--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:14:06 -0700, Arthur Samuels
<arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> They were in the early UFC matches. Those were the ones with the
> least in the way of rules, therefore the closest to a real fight. As
> weight classes and timed rounds were introduced, striking became more
> important.

Is that the sole reason though, or did the 'striking' types adapt
their technique to deal with grapplers?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>weight classes and timed rounds were introduced, striking became more
>>important.
>
>
> Is that the sole reason though, or did the 'striking' types adapt
> their technique to deal with grapplers?

I dunno. I just reported the facts. I'm a moderately good fighter,
but by no means an expert. You could have a valid point. However, I
suspect not. The striking arts have had centuries to adapt already to
other styles.

More to the point, IMO, is the timed round. The master grapplers like
Royce Gracie won by locking someone up and wearing them down. If Gracie
or his ilk were forced to break off every 2-3 minutes, it would greatly
degrade the effectiveness of a grappler.

I have yet to see a streetfight with timed rounds and a ref.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:45:33 -0700, Arthur Samuels
<arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> More to the point, IMO, is the timed round. The master grapplers like
> Royce Gracie won by locking someone up and wearing them down. If Gracie
> or his ilk were forced to break off every 2-3 minutes, it would greatly
> degrade the effectiveness of a grappler.
>
> I have yet to see a streetfight with timed rounds and a ref.

When it comes to that streetfights often have nasty hard concrete to
fall and on broken bottles and stuff lying around. They also often
don't have barriers all round the sence to stop striking types from
backing up constantly, and often do have friends willing to step in
and bottle you. They certainly don't have weight categories, though
that works both ways.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> When it comes to that streetfights often have nasty hard concrete to
> fall and on broken bottles and stuff lying around. They also often
> don't have barriers all round the sence to stop striking types from

Sure. Even the earliest UFC matches weren't pure streetfights.
However, they were as close as you're gonna get in a sporting event,
pretty much. The later UFCs introduced more rules, making them less like
a real fight.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <vnqgq0p23vsdoos21lg9s533lnuu2nmnio@4ax.com>,
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:14:06 -0700, Arthur Samuels
><arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> They were in the early UFC matches. Those were the ones with the
>> least in the way of rules, therefore the closest to a real fight. As
>> weight classes and timed rounds were introduced, striking became more
>> important.
>
>Is that the sole reason though, or did the 'striking' types adapt
>their technique to deal with grapplers?

They most certainly have. Sprawl & Brawl, Ground & Pound.

You no longer find "pure" stylists doing at all well in that type
of contest. Everybody crosstrains these days.

--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk