Another note on Oyama; it is pretty well accepted he screwed Andy Hug out of a world title to prevent a gaijin from winning.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wow. Just read this about Oyama.
[i]
Oyama aspired to serve the Imperial Army during the war. He wrote a letter to the highest ranking officers with the blood from his fingers to apply for the Kamikaze pilot. Because it was the elite course he was rejected the first few times because of his back ground however, later Oyama recalls, “After the general saw I wrote in my own blood he knew I was ready to serve. The next week I was supposed to leave as Kamikaze, never returning to my home country.” However, the on the day of his mission, his airplane had malfunctioned.
He later said in an interview for TV program," I had breakfast with my comrades ready to serve our country. In the evening when I returned for supper, the chairs were empty. There were no words to describe what I felt but I know I was given a chance to do something."[/i]
I am not sure if this impresses or disgusts me. I’m leaning more towards “disgusted.”
Although, if that doesn’t make him more “martial” and DEFINITELY more of a warrior than Bruce fucking Lee, I don’t know what would…[/quote]
Well said Irish.
If you judge a martial artist by his understanding of his game, I would have to say Sugar Ray Robinson is one of the best all time. Boxing was not really a sport that he did, more like something that just came naturally to him after a while. He could throw every combination in the books, and make up a few of his own on the spot. He knew just about everything there was to know about his game.
Alright, I’ll bite.
When I think of boxers that I would label great “martial artists”, I think of hard-nosed, head down, workaholic tradesmen with solid fundamentals. So with that in mind…
Hagler
McCallum
Hopkins
There have been fighters with greater power, faster handspeed and quicker reflexes but when I here the word “martial artist” I think of someone who knows their craft inside and out. All of the above are standouts for me.
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Alright, I’ll bite.
When I think of boxers that I would label great “martial artists”, I think of hard-nosed, head down, workaholic tradesmen with solid fundamentals. So with that in mind…
Hagler
McCallum
Hopkins
There have been fighters with greater power, faster handspeed and quicker reflexes but when I here the word “martial artist” I think of someone who knows their craft inside and out. All of the above are standouts for me. [/quote]
Good additions to Robinson duffy.
I’ll add:
Jack Dempsey, the heavyweight not the nonpareil. He knew his craft well enough to write an instruction manual that has stood the test of time.
James Fig is usually considered the first boxing champion. He also had a school where he taught boxing, fencing, and quarterstaff.
Regards,
Robert A
So long as we’re talking boxers then I’ll add:
Joe Louis
Willie Pep
Archie Moore
Kickboxers/Muay Thai fighers I’ll add:
Ernesto hoost
Buakaw
Joe Lewis
Bill Wallace
Benny Urdiquez
Kathy Long (hey gotta give the ladies some nods as well)
And just for the record, I would agree that Bruce Lee should not be anywhere on the list of greatest fighters of all time. Greatest martial artists though (as in people who practice martial arts as a lifestyle) I think he would be on the list somewhere if for no other reason than his influence. He could also probably be on the list of greatest martial arts coaches for his success with Lewis, Norris, Stone, and Wall too.
But let’s keep this discussion to great fighters/soldiers (regardless of whether they later went into film i.e. Lebell and Norris) to avoid any confusion with the term “martial artist”. Sound good to everyone?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
So long as we’re talking boxers then I’ll add:
Joe Louis
Willie Pep
Archie Moore
Kickboxers/Muay Thai fighers I’ll add:
Ernesto hoost
Buakaw
Joe Lewis
Bill Wallace
Benny Urdiquez
Kathy Long (hey gotta give the ladies some nods as well)
And just for the record, I would agree that Bruce Lee should not be anywhere on the list of greatest fighters of all time. Greatest martial artists though (as in people who practice martial arts as a lifestyle) I think he would be on the list somewhere if for no other reason than his influence. He could also probably be on the list of greatest martial arts coaches for his success with Lewis, Norris, Stone, and Wall too.
But let’s keep this discussion to great fighters/soldiers (regardless of whether they later went into film i.e. Lebell and Norris) to avoid any confusion with the term “martial artist”. Sound good to everyone?[/quote]
I think this is where it gets lost. Whats a martial artist and whats a fighter?
To me when someone says greatest martial artist I assume they mean someone who actually fights. Not an actor who claims to have fought. Or this modern day martial artists who has never applied shit in combat but can spout off Taoist sayings like it was nothing.
Also for some reason I dont consider those that have fought with guns great warriors. They should be because they enter a battlefield where life and death is on the line but I always think of hand to hand fighters. Maybe thats a movie influence right there on me.
I consider myself a martial artist, and I don’t fight. I compete, sure, but only because there are tournaments available.
The way I see it, if you practise a martial art, you’re a martial artist (we can debate all day where to draw the line between the hobbyists and the guys that take it seriously, but fuck that for now). A martial artist isn’t a ‘fighter’ until he competes in something that is considered fighting (K1, boxing, MMA, war).
A ‘fighter’ (again, disconsidering the line between the guy that trains and the guy who gets rowdy on a weekend) is almost always a martial artist.
I’d say Bruce Lee, Seagull, that dude from Undisputed, are all martial artists. They aren’t fighters though. Lee did a lot for traditional martial arts, let’s just leave it at that.
[quote]punchedbear wrote:
Also for some reason I dont consider those that have fought with guns great warriors. They should be because they enter a battlefield where life and death is on the line but I always think of hand to hand fighters. Maybe thats a movie influence right there on me. [/quote]
Someone is likely to chime in on this bit, so I think I’ll go first. Yup it’s a movie influence. If you read Cracked, every now and then they’ll put up a ‘Top 10 most Badass soldiers’ list. I rank everyone of those guys above a guy like Bruce Lee, and probably above the boxing greats. Simo Hayha killed what? 700 people? There’s an Indian fella that charged a Pakistani bunker while being shot at with MG fire, and once reaching it, brutally killed everyone inside without ammunition.
If I were to translate a giant knight in a suit of armor, mercilessly slaughtering his foes in battle, to the modern day, the above is what I’d think of, lol.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
[quote]punchedbear wrote:
Also for some reason I dont consider those that have fought with guns great warriors. They should be because they enter a battlefield where life and death is on the line but I always think of hand to hand fighters. Maybe thats a movie influence right there on me. [/quote]
Someone is likely to chime in on this bit, so I think I’ll go first. Yup it’s a movie influence. If you read Cracked, every now and then they’ll put up a ‘Top 10 most Badass soldiers’ list. I rank everyone of those guys above a guy like Bruce Lee, and probably above the boxing greats. Simo Hayha killed what? 700 people? There’s an Indian fella that charged a Pakistani bunker while being shot at with MG fire, and once reaching it, brutally killed everyone inside without ammunition.
If I were to translate a giant knight in a suit of armor, mercilessly slaughtering his foes in battle, to the modern day, the above is what I’d think of, lol.[/quote]
I don’t even think that you need to look for the “Top 10 Most Badass” list. IMO anybody who has seen real combat where they engaged and killed a real enemy, particularly at close quarters, is lightyears beyond any practitioner or combat athlete you could name. At least in terms of being a “warrior”. I don’t say this to disparage any of the boxing greats, traditional martial artists or anybody else. There just isn’t any comparison.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I don’t even think that you need to look for the “Top 10 Most Badass” list. IMO anybody who has seen real combat where they engaged and killed a real enemy, particularly at close quarters, is lightyears beyond any practitioner or combat athlete you could name. At least in terms of being a “warrior”. I don’t say this to disparage any of the boxing greats, traditional martial artists or anybody else. There just isn’t any comparison.
[/quote]
Huh?
I know a girl who clocked her abusive druggy boyfriend in the head with an iron, ultimately causing his death. Does she make this list or what?
[quote]rundymc wrote:
[quote]punchedbear wrote:
Also for some reason I dont consider those that have fought with guns great warriors. They should be because they enter a battlefield where life and death is on the line but I always think of hand to hand fighters. Maybe thats a movie influence right there on me. [/quote]
Someone is likely to chime in on this bit, so I think I’ll go first. Yup it’s a movie influence. [/quote]
Yes it is. Unarmed combat is actually a pretty unusual event on a battle field (or heck even in a lot of civilian situations). Humans have been killing each other with weapons since the dawn of mankind. As weaponry became more and more sophisticated, particularly with the advent of gunpowder/firearms warfare changed and so did the skill sets necessary to make one a good warrior. This in no way makes modern warriors any less effective or worthy warriors than those of old though.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]rundymc wrote:
[quote]punchedbear wrote:
Also for some reason I dont consider those that have fought with guns great warriors. They should be because they enter a battlefield where life and death is on the line but I always think of hand to hand fighters. Maybe thats a movie influence right there on me. [/quote]
Someone is likely to chime in on this bit, so I think I’ll go first. Yup it’s a movie influence. [/quote]
Yes it is. Unarmed combat is actually a pretty unusual event on a battle field (or heck even in a lot of civilian situations). Humans have been killing each other with weapons since the dawn of mankind. As weaponry became more and more sophisticated, particularly with the advent of gunpowder/firearms warfare changed and so did the skill sets necessary to make one a good warrior. This in no way makes modern warriors any less effective or worthy warriors than those of old though.[/quote]
I consider weapons hand to hand if they are not shooting anything. Things like swords,spears, or axes I would still call hand to hand. Not 100% correct term but I doubt we were ever on the battlefields without at least picking up a big stick.
My comment wasnt really a shot at modern day soldiers more as they dont get recognized for what they do and how well they do it. For some reason I think of guys with axes charging into battle as great and glorious and pulling a trigger not so much. Might be the history buff in me as well.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I don’t even think that you need to look for the “Top 10 Most Badass” list. IMO anybody who has seen real combat where they engaged and killed a real enemy, particularly at close quarters, is lightyears beyond any practitioner or combat athlete you could name. At least in terms of being a “warrior”. I don’t say this to disparage any of the boxing greats, traditional martial artists or anybody else. There just isn’t any comparison.
[/quote]
Huh?
I know a girl who clocked her abusive druggy boyfriend in the head with an iron, ultimately causing his death. Does she make this list or what?[/quote]
Lol. Better update my list to include Ezzard Charles, Edwin Valero, Max Baer etc.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I don’t even think that you need to look for the “Top 10 Most Badass” list. IMO anybody who has seen real combat where they engaged and killed a real enemy, particularly at close quarters, is lightyears beyond any practitioner or combat athlete you could name. At least in terms of being a “warrior”. I don’t say this to disparage any of the boxing greats, traditional martial artists or anybody else. There just isn’t any comparison.
[/quote]
Huh?
I know a girl who clocked her abusive druggy boyfriend in the head with an iron, ultimately causing his death. Does she make this list or what?[/quote]
That’s kind of an interesting question, but not really what I was getting at. I more meant that, to me, you don’t need to be the type of uber badass that wins any notoriety on the battlefield to be a warrior.
Any of the countless scared kids taking doors in Baghdad, crawling through the bush in Vietnam or storming the beaches at Normandy were undeniably warriors (provided they found the courage to close with and engage the enemy). To say they weren’t because they didn’t square off and try to kill each other hand to hand just doesn’t make sense to me. The cop shooting it out in some shitty apartment with the shotgun-toting crazy bastard who means to kill his own familiy in his living room is more deserving of the title “warrior” than even the most dominant competitor in combat sports or the more structured TMA’s.
This has all been said already in this thread, and probably said better than I could. I only chimed in at the mention of “gunfighters” not being great warriors.
Lots of great examples in this thread BTW. Thanks everyone.
[quote]punchedbear wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
So long as we’re talking boxers then I’ll add:
Joe Louis
Willie Pep
Archie Moore
Kickboxers/Muay Thai fighers I’ll add:
Ernesto hoost
Buakaw
Joe Lewis
Bill Wallace
Benny Urdiquez
Kathy Long (hey gotta give the ladies some nods as well)
And just for the record, I would agree that Bruce Lee should not be anywhere on the list of greatest fighters of all time. Greatest martial artists though (as in people who practice martial arts as a lifestyle) I think he would be on the list somewhere if for no other reason than his influence. He could also probably be on the list of greatest martial arts coaches for his success with Lewis, Norris, Stone, and Wall too.
But let’s keep this discussion to great fighters/soldiers (regardless of whether they later went into film i.e. Lebell and Norris) to avoid any confusion with the term “martial artist”. Sound good to everyone?[/quote]
I think this is where it gets lost. Whats a martial artist and whats a fighter?
To me when someone says greatest martial artist I assume they mean someone who actually fights. Not an actor who claims to have fought. Or this modern day martial artists who has never applied shit in combat but can spout off Taoist sayings like it was nothing.
[/quote]
The ambiguity of the term “martial artist” is why I suggested keeping the discussion to fighers/live fire warriors. “Martial artist” could mean something completely different to different people (maybe one thinks in terms of a fighter, and the other thinks in terms of a notable figure who helped change or popularize MA’s like Lee). The term “fighter” or “warrior” on the other hand is a little more black and white and implies that the individual must have had extensive combative experience (either in the ring, on the battlefield, or at the very least in the dojo/kwoon/gym against reputable opponents).
Musashi.
No one mentioned Fedor Emelianenko?
With his recent losses the legend of Fedor kinda took a hit. In his Pride days guy was downright scary and almost invincible. I the slam he took from Randelman only to get up and win was amazing and something every MMA fan should see.
Who knows with a win against Hendo maybe he rights the ship and gets that mystique back but his recent losses didnt help his status as greatest fighter ever.
I don’t know, I think Fedor should still be in the discussion. Dude had one hell of a run and beat all types of opponents (from those who were outstanding at their specific discipline like Coleman and Randleman in wrestling, Nog in BJJ, and Cro Cop in striking; he also beat some guys who had a very significant size/strength advantage over him). He is also a fairly small HW, yet chose not to try to cut to 205 like many guys his size, but instead decided to take on the big boys at their weight class.
Sure, he’s lost his last two fights, but unless a fighter retires early (when they are still on top) age catches up to even the best of them and they inevitably lose a couple. Hopefully he’s just smart enough not to wind up like Ken Shamrock, Toney, Coleman or any of the other fighters who are long overdue to retire for good and at best wind up as side shows/freak show attractions.