Which version of "MMA" has the least rules ?

I don't badmouth him in the sense that I think he is wrong, just extremely late to the party.

The fact that I just summed up what he did without being a movie star says why I hate the cult of personality around him; he wasn't revolutionary any more than I am.

Everybody on the "inside" of the fighting game knew all these things; all he did was sell it to a bunch of hipsters who would have been wearing Ed Hardy they were making T shirts at the time.

If I can deduce what he did without him, what exactly is revolutionary about it? Thousands of people independently knew the same things decades before him, they were just less pretentious about it and weren't movie stars.

Just imagine Bruce Lee explaining his grand theories on fighting to Jack Dempsey, who would promptly stop him and say "yea, no ****" and then actually point out some flaws on Lee's theories, like his punching method.

 

Alright - well thanks for the answer. I don't know what your problem is on this - but I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Basically its just annoying to see him get credit that others deserve at the very least equal amounts of.

 

At least AJAX agrees with me.:hey:yep:good

 

Greatness doesn't exactly come from knowing how to save the world but sitting quietly in your corner.

Lee gets credit where it's deserved. He philosophy was great and he was right about the things sugarnold mentioned and he made it popular. If "inside" fighters knew about those thing that should be trained they should've come to ufc and proven it. On the other hand we have 15 years of development in MMA only to come up with what Bruce Lee has talked about 30 years ago.

 

And Bruce Lee talked about 30 years ago what Jack Dempsey wrote a book about during WW2; but Dempsey's was much much better.

And while no they didn't come to the UFC (mostly because it didn't exist) guys like Santana, Kimura, the Gracies, and countless others were fighting Vale Tudo fights.

 

Dont be a dick.
I'm open-minded enough to consider that the widespread homosexuality in ancient greece and the insistence on athletes performing nude and the general worship of the male body in their society are not unrelated phenomena.
An expert on ancient greece would be able to discuss that sensibly and politely, and explain the cultural signifcance of those practices, and put forward an educated opinion without insults.

I never said anything about men in orange robes - that's your imagination. Nor "eye gouging their way out of a fight" - I'm simply saying eye gouges or strikes can be a technique in a real fight, and someone out there might have practiced them.
I'm just be open-minded. You act like you know everything that happens or can happen - pure arrogance.

 

Again, with the robed monks. I never said anything about that.

Sanshou/SanDa is kung fu, so why you arguing ?

The chinese martial arts and the japanese have been borrowing and sharing for centuries. The originators of Brazilian Jui-Jitsu actually consider India and China to have spread the system out over 2000 years, and consider it a historical actuality that chinese used such art for real fighting. Chin Na and the original combat versions of Ju-Jitsu are linked historically, though it's unclear who influenced the other. The history of chinese martials isn't all folklore and fairy tales, it's not all about "magic monks", there's actual tradition of fighting science and battle-tested unarmed systems there.
Whether you like it or not.