Greatest Martial Artist Ever

Training
101

[quote]punchedbear wrote:

[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]

How about bows and arrows, slings, shurikens, or any number of the pre-gun powder projectile weapons used in war/battle? Many of those have been around as long as axes or swords and took plenty of skill and practice to be used effectively.

102

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
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).
[/quote]

I agree as well. Jason Statham is a martial artist, but do I think he’d have a shot against a real fighter, or a true soldier? Not really.

I stand by my Kelly McCann comments for modern day, especially if we’re leaning back into the range of “warrior” vs. “Martial artist.”

There’s something to be said for someone who might not have the typical technique or blinding speed, but, if you put’em in a room with all the other said fighters and what not, I bet he’d be the last one standing.

On a side note, my buddy was at some seminar or some shit in PA a couple weeks ago and he said McCann showed up by surprise. He told me that when he was shooting McCann was checking everyone and walking around and patted him on the shoulder and said, “Good job” and that it was like the hand of god coming down and congratulating him. I thought it humorous cause I immediately thought of this thread haha.

103

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]punchedbear wrote:

[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]

How about bows and arrows, slings, shurikens, or any number of the pre-gun powder projectile weapons used in war/battle? Many of those have been around as long as axes or swords and took plenty of skill and practice to be used effectively.[/quote]

We should have a T-Nation “Deadliest Warrior” show.

My vote is for Shaka Zulu cause he’s got a cool name. Or the IRA.

104

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
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).
[/quote]

I agree as well. Jason Statham is a martial artist, but do I think he’d have a shot against a real fighter, or a true soldier? Not really.

I stand by my Kelly McCann comments for modern day, especially if we’re leaning back into the range of “warrior” vs. “Martial artist.”
[/quote]

And I still think he’s a good addition to the list.

The thing is that who comes out alive/ahead is going to strongly depend on the details of the situation and the rules of the contest.

If don’t supply anyone with weapons (other than perhaps the walls/floor of the room), then somebody like Karelin, Tyson, Lebell, Fedor or any of the other world champion sport fighters would probably be the last one standing.

If we involved swords it would probably be Musashi.

If we had them fight with sticks, then the Dog Brothers might come out on top.

If it were knives, then perhaps Remy Presas, Rich Ryan, or some other edged weapon expert might be the last survivor.

If it was firearms, then somebody like McCann, or some quick draw artist would prevail.

If we allowed for any weapon they chose to bring, then basically whoever had the best machine gun and best body armor, or the best chemical weapon and the antidote for it might be the only one to live.

etc…etc…etc…

Very cool.

105

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
How about bows and arrows, slings, shurikens, or any number of the pre-gun powder projectile weapons used in war/battle? Many of those have been around as long as axes or swords and took plenty of skill and practice to be used effectively.[/quote]

I dont really know about that. I do archery here with a traditional bow and its a skill but I also have shot rifles and shotguns and thats a skill as well. So not sure if there is a huge difference between the two except the volume a gun can put out.

I think the history nerd in me wants to think of warriors of past as something greater than what we are now. They might be they might not be really I dont think we have an idea.

oh and for deadliest warrior that depends where they are fighting. On the open fields it goes to the Huns or Mongols. Naval warfare give me a Viking. and in the woods I would pick the Germanic tribes that defeated the Romans.