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."

The Year is 2007

[Nymz]

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.

Re:Uhh

[pwolk]

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.

Lots of BS in the martial arts world

[Anonymous Coward]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Not invincible

[twelveinchbrain]

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.

Re:Next time...

[kaizokuace]

7. Profit (if you win the lawsuit).

Silly rabbit, this is America, the obligatory 'Profit' is only won by the lawyers themselves.

Re:ninja's "calling out" shaolin monks?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not invincible

[Critical Facilities]

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.

Bullshit

[Mystery00]

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.

Competition destroys martial arts.

[Colin Smith]

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.

 

Re:Competition destroys martial arts.

[try_anything]

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.

Re:Competition destroys martial arts.

[Colin Smith]

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 [summersdale.com]". 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.
 

Re:Competition destroys martial arts.

[try_anything]

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.