Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

to an extent, i agree with you. each style is a tool box with tools in it. how many tools are in the box and how well they are used depends highly on the individulal, their training, their character etc.

however, many styles have some highly impractical tools and remain impractical no matter who is using them. thats the problem. people tend to wall themselves off in their gym/dojo or whatever and create an alternate reality and cult of personality around the person they train with and those that trained them and become more and more and more detached from reality over time... until, like this guy, they have to rely on the age old come back "we don't compete because most of what we study is just too deadly". i've heard that myself more than a few times... and funny enough, its always some jackass thats studied kung fu (or some variation) that says it.

modern competitive fighting is telling us that the most effective fighting is a good standup game of boxing/kicking and a good ground game. its not telling us "Kung Fu is the most effective because its been around for 1000s of years and we can all eventually learn the super secret, dragon talon, two finger touch of death" to knock out opponents.

arguing about what is effective and what isn't, IS productive in my opinion because martial arts, in the absense of combat fighting or real fighting has devolved for the most part into fantasy as there is no way to keep everyone in check.

Originally Posted by NoWhErE

In today's society, most Martial Arts are obsolete of course, but we still train them for the benefits that they give us (discipline, good health and confidence).