Quote:
Originally Posted by KissBlade
I think the problem with this debate is two fold. One is obvious bias/nationalism. But I think more importantly, if you're talking about actual combat effectiveness, you can't gauge it. After all, if one man is suited towards a certain style that another build isn't, would you say that style is superior? Consequently simply measuring up well if "so and so" fought with "so and so", you need to also figure in body weight, height, speed, etc. of those individuals as well. When you look at all martial arts as a combat formula, the idea of there being a superior style IMO is pointless. Even comparing two styles like karate and wing chun for example, would be futile in saying which is "stronger". Imagine now doing it for two different regions of styles! Keep in mind, even Jeet Kune Do had a vast amount of critics who basically claimed the main strength of Bruce Lee's style was that well ... it was Bruce Lee. The man could've taken pro wrestling and made it dangerous.
|
my intent is not to do this kind of gauging, i'm actually looking for WHY there are these certain kinds of martial arts in the East, and these certain kinds in the West. I'm actually putting the effectiveness on the personal level, like I think you are suggesting with your Bruce Lee point.
you'll notice my post is about why there is this difference. I'm not concerned with if this difference is modern artifice due to nationalism; I don't care one way or the other. I really just want a historically plausible and engaging narrative to weave into a game environment. Of course, the more historically plausible it is, the better; and I don't think difference is simply nationalistic artifice. I believe there really are/were socio-cultural reasons for why there is a rich history of 'martial arts' from the East but not from the West.