Re: I'm gonna be an idiot and disagree with you guys. :p -- Martial Arts Discussion Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:52:39 10/14/02 Mon
Author: Mike Amos
Subject: Re: I'm gonna be an idiot and disagree with you guys. :p
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "Re: I'm gonna be an idiot and disagree with you guys. :p" on 21:49:14 08/21/01 Tue

>>So your saying, all the styles he performes in his
>>movies,
>>for example, tiger, crane, praying mantis, snake,
>>monkey and the mythical dragon, plus my favourite the
>>Drunkenmaster<-- all these are kung fu wing chun
>>styles,
>
>Are you saying that Tiger, Crane, Praying Mantis,
>Snake, Monkey, Dragon and Drunken Fist are all WING
>CHUN styles???
>
>Where are you getting your information from?
>
>>he performes them, better than i think u guys would be
>>able to. Why i say, cause his a better martial artist,
>>and ya can't say none of these are styles, cause they
>>are!
>
>So there's NO real reason behind your argument, you're
>just saying, "Jackie Chan's a better martial artist
>than all of you because he is and none of you can deny
>it."
>
>Uuuhh, where's the logic in this argument?
>
>Also, you may notice that the Kung Fu he uses in
>movies do not look like the way they do in reality.
>
>>Even people other than him use these styles, because
>>of the fighting techniques such ascircular actions,
>>sweeps, finger clawing, elbow strikes, the list goes
>>on.
>
>Yes, but they don't use it the same WAY that he does.
>In fact, there's not THAT much Kung Fu in Jackie
>Chan's fighting actions at all. It is still mostly
>acrobatics with a bit of Kung Fu chucked in for
>seasoning.
>
>>btw, i don't see olympians/athletes kicking, aerial
>>kicking, blocking etc, in there sports, except maybe
>>taekwondo matches etc.
>
>*points at soccer*
>Kicking (including aerial)
>Blocking (esp. if you're the goalie)
>...etc.
>
>:-)
>
>Umm, there's no real REASON behind any of your
>arguments. You seem to be arguing with your emotions,
>rather than with logic.
>
>Try arguing with reason/logic, as emotional arguments
>seldomly prevail. *smile*
>
>Actually, just yesterday a high school English teacher
>who's also the coordinator of his school's debating
>team, was telling me that one common weakness he sees
>among bad debaters is the fact that they base their
>arguments upon emotions rather than reason/logic.
>
>Also, it's also useful to mention the SOURCE(s) of
>your information whenever possible. For example, in
>some of my other posts here, I have quoted authors
>such as Hsu, Parker and Derwent. Especially if you're
>making a rather outrageous claim like saying that
>Tiger, Dragon, Snake, Praying Mantis, Crane etc., are
>all types of Wing Chun Kung Fu!! *cough*
>
>Please keep this in mind next time you want to
>construct a counter-argument and you will find that
>your posts will become a lot more credible. :) :)
>well does he have any new styles?
What's his next movie ?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]