Instigator / Pro
7
1583
rating
17
debates
73.53%
won
Topic

Greco Roman Wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Art
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
4
1586
rating
318
debates
65.88%
won
Description
~ 214 / 5,000

No kritiks

Fight - take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons; not necessarily restricted by a ruleset
Win - to end the fight by physically subduing the opponent

Round 1
Pro
  Thank you RationalMadman for accepting this debate. Greco-Roman wrestling is definitely preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights. 

  In a fight, there are three "areas" within which the fight takes place. These are the initial distance, or the stand up portion, where the fight typically begins. This is the striking range and the outside of the striking range. The second area is the clinch, which is typically entered into naturally when striking begins. The third and final area the fight may take place is on the ground. 

  I argue that the ability to dominate in the clinch is essential for increasing one's ability to win fights. The reason that the clinch is so important, is because that is where it is determined if the fight will stay standing, or if it will go to the ground. As a fighter, it is paramount to impose your will and strengths onto the opponent. The only way to ensure this ability to determine within which area the fight will take place is to be a better wrestler than the opponent. The superior wrestler is inherently better equipped to impose his strengths onto the opponent because the wrestler determines where the fight takes place. If he is a striker or a grappler, it is his ability to wrestle that determines his ability to employ those strengths. 

  To cement this idea in practice, many of the most dominant UFC fighters in history come from a Greco-Roman background (see Jon Jones, Dan Henderson, and Randy Couture). Many more were simply freestyle wrestlers, whose wrestling prowess allowed them to win fights consistently (see Daniel Cornier, TJ dillashaw, Dominick Cruz, and Henry Cejudo). 

  I argue that Greco-Roman wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for learning to dominate in the clinch, and subsequently, impose your strengths onto the opponent. 

  It is important to realize that almost every fight goes into the clinch at some point. Look up any WSHH fights compilation and you'll see over and over, "strike, clinch." Sometimes it is only a slugging match, but the overwhelming majority of fights go to the clinch. The reason is because the act of striking the opponent necessarily entails putting oneself into clinch range. If the superior clincher can get a grip, he'll almost always take his opponent for a ride.

  Greco-Roman wrestling puts a lot of emphasis on throws. It’s undeniable that throws and slams can be extremely effective at both improving position (see timestamp 2:51-3:00) and doing damage in a fight. 

  I follow the following advice for fighting on the ground: 
  1. Always be on top.
  2. When on top, stay on top.
  3. When on bottom do everything you can to get on top.
  4. Don't be tempted by the lazy and seductive nature of the closed guard.

  The reasoning behind this game plan is because far more often than not, the man on the bottom is losing the fight. And no discipline, especially kung fu, teaches one the intricacies of fighting for clinch domination, clinch takedown, and top position control as thoroughly as Greco-Roman wrestling (except maybe freestyle wrestling). 

  A further objection to Kung Fu here is that it, more than most martial arts, is plagued by mysticism. This is an inevitable byproduct of a martial art that has taken out the most important piece of it's training: a resisting opponent. Without a resisting opponent, martial arts will inevitably fall into the pseudo-violence of dim mak, and wing chun. The element of a resisting opponent is paramount to Greco-Roman training (and such training is the reason for BJJ's success as a grappling art as well). With a resisting opponent, useless techniques are ruthlessly weeded out in favor of more efficient ones. In other words, Kung Fu all too often lacks the epistemology of martial arts: a resisting opponent. Greco-Roman wrestling has ruthlessly, for centuries, applied this epistemology to it's art.

  Kung fu has been popularized probably more than any other martial art in mainstream entertainment. But Hollywood isn't real life, and fighting isn't all flipkicks and intricate hand movements; nor is it kata. Fighting is a brutal, nasty endeavor, and grappling is the most important discipline for fighting. The mediator between ground grappling and striking is, invariably, the clinch.

  As for weapons, I think we will both agree that no martial art is useful for disarming a gun. You will die. But a knife is a little different. There is essentially a guarantee that you will be stabbed at least once before you realize a knife is in play. However, functional knife defense is all about controlling the opponent's hand(s). Tying up the opponent is one of the most fundamental Greco-Roman skills. Clearly, the ability to tie up the opponent's stabbing hand is going to translate easier to a greco Roman wrestler than it will a kung fu practitioner.

  In conclusion, Greco-Roman wrestling is, in every way, preferable to kung fu for winning fights. It allows one to control where the fight takes place, gain a better position, throw the opponent onto their head for potentially high amounts of damage, is the most functional of the two for disarming a knife attack, and most importantly of all, has the rigorous epistemology demanded of any martial art that’s serious about it’s violence. Kung fu is plagued by martial arts mysticism, and while excellent exercise, it is not practical technique for what fighting actually entails and demands in order to win.
Con
Key:
KF = Kung Fu
W = wrestling as a whole
GRW (you can guess, it's the debate)

Shifu/Sifu is a 'master' (which includes females) of a skilled art, in this case KF.

Pro has mainly relied on selective YT videos as sourcing, so I'll wait until Round 2 for my own sourcing with rebuttals.


Let's analyse some core foundations of Pro's case:

In a fight, there are three "areas" within which the fight takes place.

  1. The initial distance, or the stand up portion, where the fight typically begins. This is the striking range and the outside of the striking range.
  2. The clinch, which is typically entered into naturally when striking begins.
  3. The ground.
Rather than disregard my opponent's knowledge, I'll agree with him that this is how wrestlers see it. I am also not entirely disagreeing, however, I would say that in Kung Fu there's much more 'flow' between these three and more like five 'areas'

In KF, it's much more conceptual and technique-based differentiation, I have never come across a Sifu who overtly teaches 'areas' of a fight, instead they teach the five core concepts (there's more concepts in KF, this is just specifically for combat):

  1. Similar to the 'initial distance' Pro mentions, the use of sticks, stones, legs, and even the arms (in a hand-stand position) to abuse long-range and hurt the enemy while the enemy can't fight back or doesn't expect it. This also applies in shorter-range too, when your arms are loose and theirs aren't etc.
  2. 'The clinch' in W, is much more split up in KF, there is 'dodging' as a core skill referring to the handling of opponents who have superior range advantage and ability on you.
  3. The third concept is to train your brain and body to be flexible with the situation. More than any other martial art, KF teaches you to never have only trained at a specific striking pattern or muscle movement, instead it encourages you to train brutally at a variety but still to train each punch, kick, dodge, lock etc very much. In other words, while it encourages adaptability very much, it doesn't just say 'be adaptable' it gives specifics on what to practise in each 'department' so you can outplay/outfight your opponent no matter what style they bring to the table.
  4. The fourth concept is constant attention to both breathing and balance. These are often taught with the same 'forms' and are strongly pushed at an early stage in KF. The ability to never once be low on oxygen or caught off balance means you never spend a group of milliseconds, let alone second, making up for what you are short of. You do not ever 'force' the opponent to lose balance or oxygen, that is one unique thing about KF, instead you train to consistently have perfect breathing and balance yourself and only exploit the opponent if they themselves have made an error. This applies to all situations in KF when it comes to deciding the 'when' and 'how' of pulling off a move on the opponent. You do not force mistakes via aggression, you observe and remain defensive and elusive yourself.
  5. The fifth concept is where W and KF can finally see eye to eye, grappling. Except if you put a KF Sifu against a W expert, they won't let the wrestler get close enough to maintain their grip long enough to win the fight. You will see immense grappling skills, grip-loosening elbows, knees, locks, twists etc to force the opponent to relinquish their control of the grapple. Even if the KF person is on the ground and being kept down there with force, they will time their breathing, focus on their positioning and notice where the opponent is maintaing the 'lockdown' stance and either hurt the opponent elsewhere to loosen them where they have the iron grip or passively resist the opponent with very well positions defensive maneuvres until the opponent realises they need to work harder to finish them off. This will take respiratory and even emotional tenacity away from the opponent so once the situation is undone, the KF practioner has the entire advantage and will force the fight to remain away from the 'third area' that Pro speaks about.
Do note that with number 5, it is very different if the KF practioner is against a striker, they'd instead become more dodge-heavy and even grapple-friendly rather than anti-grapple. It is not against KF teaching to 'tackle' the opponent but once the opponent is down you don't keep wrestling as such, you use their position to land kicks and stuff like that. The reasoning behind this is that in KF, your body itself shouldn't win the fight, it should only stop the opponent winning, you are attacking their strategy more than their body (this is one of the primary things that separates KF from almost all other martial arts).

==

Now, let's look at something else Pro says: 
I follow the following advice for fighting on the ground: 
  1. Always be on top.
  2. When on top, stay on top.
  3. When on bottom do everything you can to get on top.
  4. Don't be tempted by the lazy and seductive nature of the closed guard.

  The reasoning behind this game plan is because far more often than not, the man on the bottom is losing the fight. And no discipline, especially kung fu, teaches one the intricacies of fighting for clinch domination, clinch takedown, and top position control as thoroughly as Greco-Roman wrestling (except maybe freestyle wrestling). 
That's great, and Pro even showed how brutally well this works against what I can only call a naive KF practitioner in the video where he tries to show Wing Chun.

In an MMA ring, there are things about the ring and rules that make it inevitably favour W over KF. That's why I explicitly made Pro put a definition in the debate description that proves we are talking about real-world fights. A KF practiioner would need things like eye gouging, neck hits, groin hits and potentially neck-breaks and finger, breaks as well as biting in order to handle the wrestler. It is not necessarily true that they'd need to do all these things, instead the fact no rule exists means the wrestler can't do what he did to the Wing Chun practioner, so readily. KF is not made for cage fighting because its method to counter heavy grapplers is a series of brutal life-threatening strikes, elbows, bone-breaks etc all of which are banned in MMA ring fighting. In KF the way you handle the type of fighting who wants to come in hard and fast and get you on the ground for a beating, is to hit them back at parts of their body that blackmail them to release their grip if they don't want severe instant pain or to die even. Sometimes if against a very evolved kind of wrestler, you can't reach these parts of their body so it's more a war of attrition where you hit their muscles (at pressure points, which Karate also knows about and teaches) such as the armpit, inner thigh, chin (hitting them at the bottom of the jaw so it locks and the pain stuns them momentarily), these kind of moves are the 'elusive' side of KF.

The fact Pro can write their strategy as such a ridiculously simple and 'stay on top, be bigger and better' type process is very askin to wrestling indeed. This is also why KF practitioners mimic wrestlers when handling strike-only martial arts like Karate and Tae Kwon Doe (they grapple them, get in close and make everything awkward with locks and counter-strikes).

The problem with Pro's approach here is he is trying to tell you how he/she approaches fighting, that doesn't really matter to the debate. Pro can claim he knows it works incredibly well in real fights but what do you do when guns, knives and baseball bats are at play? What if you're against a gang?

Real fights aren't always 1 on 1 in a small-space environment, which is where wrestling gets to shine. Instead, there are a huge variety of situations, tools and concepts at your disposal. KF Sifus will even train blndfolded so that if they're fighting in a situation either in the dark or with sand in their eyes (you get the idea) they aren't going to be completely defenseless. The only martial art I am aware of to train at this as much as KF at coping in situations where it's not favouring the normal style of it, is ninjutsu. KF and Ninjutsu both have dedicated parts of their teachings that revolve around how to trick and cope with opponents who are either superior to them at their normal style or very counter-heavy to their normal style. KF is much more in-depth about it though, since Ninjutsu teaches you much more about how to sneak up on an instantly kill opponents, which isn't always realistically an option in fights and I guarantee you that without a weapon, a ninja would not necessarily cope well vs a wrestler in broad daylight (where darkness isn't a mutual disadvantage), whereas a KF practioner could indeed as their body is their primary weapon, always.

Pro's mentality and strategy only work if you are all of the following:

  • Bigger (or as big), this means weight class more than height.
  • Stronger gripping and more experienced with the 'back and forth' motions of grappling and brutally keeping the opponent on the floor (or flipping them around if you are beneath)
  • Close enough to start doing this and superior at knowledge of handling close-range combat
  • In a ring or environment where it's either enclosed or there's reason the opponent is scared to escape (or the surface is somehow slippery)
  • Weapons are basically not available or are being held by someone pathetic at using them (I'll rebuke Pro on KF being bad at this in R2)
  • There is only one (or maximum two) opponents to handle and neither is a proficient fighter to force you off of the other one
If all that is true and you are a great wrestler then the most you can argue is that it's just as good as KF.

KF is there for people of all sizes, backgrounds, fitness levels and reasons for doing martial arts. Sure, Pro will say 'so what? This is not about that, it's only about combat' but KF understand that 'combat' is about avoiding slipping up yourself in any way, whereas almost every single other martial art approaches combat as a situation where you want to be superior to your opponent and force them to slip up or cave in.

In real life, many things are at our disposal, even the concept of screaming for help at the right time in the right way (so you didn't waste oxygen, for instance) are concept understood by the highest level of KF practitioners. Are you going to teach a woman to just wrestle with her bigger, stronger male rapist? What about if that same rapist is then ganged up on by a gang? Should he get 'on top' which he sure has practise at? No, the others will kill him. 

KF trains everything in fighting, from your core reflex responses to certain attacks to the way your brain and body handle situations. GRW doesn't even scratch the surface in depth of what it teaches to real-world application, it was built for 1-on-1 weaponless encounters in enclosed spaces and isn't good for any other scenario.

==

What is KF in terms of Combat?

Some people think KF is just Tai Chi or some soft, slow format built more for bodily fitness and mental wellbeing then anything else. It is indeed a way of life for many but that's because it doesn't 'draw a line' between hardcore combat and softcore 'art'. In KF, you are aiming to be as flexible, fast and agile as possible. The idea being that if you maintain these things, you are doing the best you can do in the fight, watching and waiting for the opponent(s) to fail to do so. If they are a group in a circle, you either try to turn them into a line where they run at you one by one or you pay very close attention to their positions and force their strikes to hurt one another if they are super aggressive. You also can try and pick a fight with the 'alpha' of the group if you believe it's possible to.

KF is about hard work meeting clever 'skill' usage. It teaches to both outwork and out-evade the opponent. If you dodge them well and they don't dodge you well, you will erode them over time, this concept in all MMA matches is actually a KF concept. 
Round 2
Pro
  Thank you for your response. I just don’t have enough room to thoroughly address every one of my opponent’s mistakes as my rough draft did, so I’m going to try and group the main ideas into rebuttal sections to make this fit.

  There are three qualities that allow an individual to win fights: technique, athleticism, and aggression. Greco-Roman wrestling teaches all three and demands all three for success in the sport. For this reason, and those already mentioned, it translates almost seamlessly into fighting. 

  I should have said “distances” rather than areas. This is not a wrestler’s perspective, they are a fact of fighting. There are only three distances within which a fight can take place. The "five concepts" my opponent has mentioned are not relevant to the three distances within which a fight can take place.

KUNG FU HAS NO EPISTEMOLOGY

  This is really the crux of my contentions: Kung Fu has no epistemology. It does not train against resisting opponents.

   The lack of training against a resisting opponent leaves the Kung Fu practitioner completely unprepared for the aggression and resistance of an attacker. Consider the blindfolded Kung Fu techniques. I have yet to see a practical application of these blindfolded techniques against a resisting opponent. All the stuff you find online is against people that are fully cooperating. Please show me an example of a kung fu practitioner executing a technique blindfolded against a resisting opponent. Without live resistance, there is nothing separating fantasy from what works. However, wrestling can actually be trained with a blindfold, and it’s very effective.

    While kung fu may encourage variety, it's lack of real epistemology, and lack of viable technique, necessarily leaves the kung fu practitioner in a worse position in a fight than a Greco-Roman wrestler. I would have liked if my opponent had provided some source material so we could analyze these techniques. However, Greco-Roman wrestling teaches brutally effective techniques for controlling the fight, And if you want to, slamming the opponent on their head. No mysticism here, just hard Olympic epistemology, developed over the last couple thousand years. 

THE FIVE CONCEPTS

  1.  Any old bloke can give you a good one when you're not expecting it. Hitting someone when they don’t expect it is not exclusive to Kung Fu.
  2.   My opponent provided no sourcing to demonstrate what technique he is referring to, and I can't find it online. However, the idea of "dodging" in a clinch doesn't make much sense. In the clinch you are entangled with the opponent, fighting for a superior clinch position. Pummeling is the process of fighting for a dominant control position. Once a dominant position is established, the wrestler may keep it standing or take the opponent down and establish a dominant position on the ground. No amount of dodging is going to prevent that if you don't know how to fight for a dominant clinch position. KF is inadequate for teaching how to fight for a dominant position in the clinch. 
  3.   While kung fu may encourage variety, it's lack of real epistemology, and lack of viable technique, necessarily leaves the kung fu practitioner in a worse position in a fight than a greco Roman wrestler. I would have liked if my opponent had provided some source material so we could analyze these techniques. However, Greco-Roman wrestling teaches brutally effective techniques for controlling the fight, And if you want to, slamming the opponent on their head. No mysticism here, just hard Olympic epistemology, developed over the last few thousand years. 
  4.   The concept of breathing and balance is not exclusive to Kung Fu. Standing up the right way in the clinch, having your weight adjusted properly, and breathing properly are all fundamental to Greco-Roman wrestling. No Kung Fu technique is going to be more effective than a suplex. I invite my opponent to source a technique. 
  5.   It is necessarily the wrestler's decision where the fight takes place. It is unrealistic to think that you can strike the opponent consistently while not getting in to tie up range. The best strikers in mixed martial arts necessarily have to train wrestling so that they have the technique to get onto their feet and work their a-game. In the overwhelming majority of fights, the superior wrestler determines where the fight takes place.   Once upon a kung fu practitioner is on the ground, he's getting smashed. Consolidating the top position is fundamental to Greco-Roman wrestling, because of the emphasis on pinning. Kung fu does not teach you how to pummel. So once forced into a clinch, the Kung Fu practitioner will lose the dominant position, and get slammed. Once on the bottom he's going to be carrying his opponent's weight, and eating his opponent's strikes. In the video I provided of the Wing Chun practitioner fighting the MMA practitioner, the mixed martial artist shot, took down his opponent, and went into the knee-mount position. From the knee-mount position, he began delivering elbows to the opponent's face. I wager this is pretty much exactly what would happen: the Kung Fu practitioner throws some strikes, gets tied up, loses the clinch position, gets slammed or thrown, gets mounted, and gets his face beaten in with strikes.

MMA RULES FAVOR STRIKERS

  The structure of mixed martial arts rules favor strikers over grapplers. The rounds guarantee that the striker will be stood back up if he can survive. The short time limit per round, necessarily means that grapplers have less time to work once they do get the takedown. Wrestling is favored over Kung Fu in fighting, not because of the rules, or the cage, but because it's effective for controlling the fight. The kung fu practitioner looked naive because he couldn't stop the takedown and got smashed. He was naive about wrestling and bjj, and it showed. Take Stipe Miocic vs Francis Ngannou 1 as an example of what I've been talking about. Ngannou was an incredible striker, and the hardest puncher in MMA ever, but Stipe was an NCAA Division 1 wrestler. What happened? The bigger, stronger striker, got tied up, taken down, and grinded out until his body failed. Over and over, until the end of the fight, Stipe, while considerably smaller, smashed his opponent, who failed to train his wrestling adequately for the fight. Then, in their rematch, it was wrestling that let Ngannou stuff the takedown attempt and subsequently knock his opponent out. 

BASEBALL GANGS
 
  We discussed guns and knives already. With baseball bats, your best bet is to time the swing (because it's obvious which way the bat is going to swing based on which shoulder it's resting over), close the distance, and wrestle the bat from them. If it's a gang, no martial art is going to help you, except firearm competence.

PAIN COMPLIANCE

  Pain compliance is only effective against wimps, not a tough, determined opponent bent on your destruction. Damage is always, invariably, more reliable than pain compliance. With that being said, all fighting involves a give and take. If you are on the bottom, getting elbowed in the face from a knee-mount position, biting the opponent is just going to make them hit you harder. Biting the guy smashing you is not a viable technique because you will be receiving much more damage than you are dishing out. It is extremely difficult to get a hold of small joints like the finger, especially when receiving strikes to the face. A neck-break is even less viable, because wrestlers (and also boxers and such) train their neck muscles to handle stress. Honestly, the person most at risk of getting their neck broken is the guy getting thrown on his head. I really can't stress this enough, you will almost certainly not break your opponents neck in the fight, especially from the bottom. Eye gouging can be somewhat effective, but it relies on 1) being in striking range, and 2) being accurate enough with the strike to hit the opponent's eye, which is a tiny target. The striking range necessarily puts one into danger of getting tied up in a clinch. So you may poke the guys eye, but he's gonna tie you up and slam you on your head, which has a much higher damage output. Groin strikes are also practically useless, because of the give and take. 1) throwing a kick makes it SO MUCH EASIER for a wrestler to get a hold of you, in which case you're getting slammed, and 2) the damage from receiving a groin strike is often ignorable under the influence of adrenaline. Neck strikes can be effective, but they, like all strikes, have to land to be effective, and are far less reliable than strikes to the chin or liver. In the end, all standing strikes suffer from the disadvantage of forcing the striker to enter into tie up range.

MISC. REBUTTALS


“Pro's mentality and strategy only work if you are all of the following:
 
  • Bigger (or as big), this means weight class more than height.
  • Stronger gripping and more experienced with the 'back and forth' motions of grappling and brutally keeping the opponent on the floor (or flipping them around if you are beneath)
  • Close enough to start doing this and superior at knowledge of handling close-range combat
  • In a ring or environment where it's either enclosed or there's reason the opponent is scared to escape (or the surface is somehow slippery)
  • Weapons are basically not available or are being held by someone pathetic at using them (I'll rebuke Pro on KF being bad at this in R2)
  • There is only one (or maximum two) opponents to handle and neither is a proficient fighter to force you off of the other one”
  While being bigger and stronger inherently makes one a better fighter, a wrestler does not necessarily have to be bigger than the opponent in order to win the clinch and secure the takedown. “Flipping them around” is known as a sweep or a reversal, which are common wrestling techniques that are taught from early on. Wrestling knowledge necessarily entails technical knowledge of clinch-fighting. A ring or enclosure isn’t necessary to tie up the opponent, because striking range entails clinch range. If I can reach out and touch you with a strike, then I can grab you as well. If the opponent is trying to escape, then there is no fight. The surface upon which the fight takes place doesn’t have to be slippery, I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea. 


“ Are you going to teach a woman to just wrestle with her bigger, stronger male rapist?”

  Preferably, she would have a gun, or be able to run away. But if fighting is the only option, then Greco will invariably give her a better chance at winning than Kung Fu for the reasons I just mentioned. Better athleticism, rigorously proven technique, and the aggression necessary to potentially dominate and win are all products of Greco-Roman training. She is much more likely to get dominated and subdued herself if all she does is Wing-Chun hand fighting against cooperating opponents.

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, Greco-Roman wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights. Greco trains athleticism, rigorously proven techniques, and aggression. It is a deeply technical art for dominating the clinch and consolidating the top position. Winning a fight is much easier for the one who can control from the top, because it is easier to smash, strike, and/or submit the opponent from the top position. Further, Greco Slams and throws can be devastating in terms of damage dealt to the opponent and positional advantage gained. Kung Fu is devoid of the epistemology that separates fantasy martial arts from techniques that win fights. Greco relies on this epistemology, a resisting opponent, completely to determine what works and what doesn't. Thousands of years later, we have the brutally effective art of Greco-Roman that we have now.

out of space, will get to rest later.
Con

 1. Any old bloke can give you a good one when you're not expecting it. Hitting someone when they don’t expect it is not exclusive to Kung Fu.
This is great, it ties in with me saying:
KF is there for people of all sizes, backgrounds, fitness levels and reasons for doing martial arts.
In real life, many things are at our disposal, even the concept of screaming for help at the right time in the right way (so you didn't waste oxygen, for instance) are concept understood by the highest level of KF practitioners. Are you going to teach a woman to just wrestle with her bigger, stronger male rapist? 
This is actually me using the same idea itself in how I structure my rebuttal. In fighting me on the concept of 'hit the enemy when they don't expect it or can't fight back' being applicable to even an elderly man fighting, Pro has inadvertently conceded and set in stone one of my other points. I do not deny that Kung Fu can be done well enough by an elderly practitioner, though a supple, fit younger adult towards middle-aged adult will probably have the best balance between having a very refined body in terms of both flexibility and strength and the hardened, toughened joints and body parts to handle complex, difficult combos and moves.

The idea of a Kung Fu fighter could be described as an extremely attractive individual who is just out of your grasp throughout the entire encounter. You want badly to get to them but every time you go for it, they either evade you sneakily and strike you back or they make your move itself hurt you by good manevres that lock you or hurt you more (using the elbows and forearms at the correct angle to block a punch or the knee to block a kicker's shin are both kung fu and muay thai ideas but kung fu certainly invented it on its own).

Kung Fu teaches you to be fast, flexible and brutal (in your hits). You are either evading, blocking or hurting your opponent. While your opponent is supposed to be continually perplexed as to what you're intending to do (which is why the speed of Bruce Lee was quintessential to his ability to 'flex' it), it's essential that you know what you're intending to do and why. This applies to more than just the fight itself, it's about where you are positioned, if there's a weapon nearby, if there's a police station nearby, a hospital or anything that can lead to you handling the entire encounter in a way that ensures you get out alive and well. 

What Pro says isn't unique to KF is more quintessential to KF than almost all martial arts other than Ninjutsu. These two have a lot in common because they both have stealth (masking intent and not allowing the enemy to deceive you), speed and flexibility to the situation as core concepts within them. The idea that you should strike and hurt the opponent when they aren't expecting it isn't strongly taught in most other martial arts, so it is actually quite unique indeed to Kung Fu unless we bring Ninjutsu up. KFhas it over W, at the very least.

==

The MMA stuff

To show that MMA prefers strikers, Pro shows us a fight where a grappler defeated a striker. As ironic as that is, I can understand his point (kind of?) He is saying that the grapple had to work very hard to defeat the striker and that in a lot of grappling scenarios the ending of rounds gives the inferior grappler a clean break to come back on their feet. He also says something about scoring (though that is unfounded and I have seen no evidence of it).

What I am saying is that specifically for Kung Fu, MMA rings are terrible environments and the rules add to it. Kung Fu is at its best when there's many items lying around, tables to jump on, angles to dodge and of course brutal hits to shock and even kill opponents with (or at least break their bones and damage windpipe). This isn't permitted in MMA unless proven to be an accident (or a chest shot that happens to break ribs which is considered a non-rule-breaking life-threatening bone break that the opponent should have had their guard up against). In general, locks and brutal strikes are not permitted. It is against Kung Fu teaching to strike for something like a head-based knockout which fighters like Conor McGregor are/were known for (I say were as he's semi-retired now).

This is a comment from a user on a forum but perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say:
The knees/kicks to a grounded opponent does favor wrestlers, because they basically have free reign to shoot without fear of consequences. That's really it, though.
To be clear he is saying no knees or kicks to grounded opponents are allowed (not that they are).

This user replies to several other users who try to rebuke him and in the end those who say it favours strikers end up resorting to rhetoric whereas those who say it favours grapplers and wrestlers explain why.

Here comes at a later page:
the fact that you basically can't mount any effective offense against someone who goes for a takedown definitely and unfairly favors wrestlers. You can't thrown 12/6 elbows, and you can't knee or kick someone who has one knee or hand down; those are the best strikes to use against someone going for a takedown.

This is a fantastic explanation of the issue with it and that's not even specific to Kung Fu vs Wrestling at all (Kung Fu isn't known for heavy elbow strikes but this does explain what I'm trying to say)

I know these are just forum posts, the problem is it's so obvious and blatant idk what to say. Kung Fu has grappling in it anyway but in Kung Fu you grapple vs strong strikers and striker brutally and fast vs strong grapplers, it's basically a concept of bringing what the enemy is unfamiliar with to the table, this isn't capable of working well in an MMA ring because the kind of life-threatening grappling or striking KF practitioners use is banned.

I am talking about headbutts to the nose where you die from it, during the grapple, that isn't unique to KF but is definitely part of their teachings (Shaolin Monks harden their head specifically for this) 


As for fitness and all that stuff, Kung Fu is just as good if not better.

I have never come across someone claiming that Kung Fu doesn't make you as fit as another martial art. Wrestlers are often overweight (by design) whereas in Kung Fu you go for a slender-toned build because flexibility and rapid strikes that 'whip' the enemy (which can't be pulled off by weak limbs or body) are extremely important to high-level KF.

I will show you some real KF experts and their bodies, you tell me if they are fit or not.


Of course, say what you want about how 'real' his KF was, Bruce Lee's body deserves a display here:
^ that's about as far from photoshopped as you can get.

Now, I will explain how and why KF is linked strongly to health. It is because diet is a part of what you're taught, as are habits like how to walk, stand, sit, breathe, balance yourself etc. This applies to daily life. Karate and Ninjutsu are known to teach to this depth also. I am not certain about other martial arts in terms of if they teach daily life habits like that.

Until this debate I have never ever in my entire life heard of someone suggesting that KF isn't an extremely health-positive martial art. It actually goes into mental health as part of its training more than any other martial art I know of, primarily because mental awareness to surroundings and an 'empty mind' are concepts that are interwoven into the martial art's teachings.

^ Tai Chi is a softer form of KF, it's absolutely part of it.

And here are the reason why, as we present the top 10 health benefits of martial arts:
  • Total body workout: Martial arts are a high-aerobic workout that uses every muscle group in the body. Your stamina, muscle tone, flexibility, balance and strength will all improve through martial arts.
  • Healthy lifestyle: Due to the total-body nature of a martial arts workout, tons of calories are burned during every class. However, you’ll also find that your natural eating signals become better regulated, so food cravings will disappear and you’ll eat less as a result.
  • Self confidence: Due to the goal setting, positive encouragement and respect for values that are part of all martial arts programs, the greatest benefit usually reported by martial arts students is greater self-confidence. You become more comfortable in all situations – whether you’re in danger or simply doing a task that takes you beyond your comfort zone — and you’ll discover you can accomplish anything you set your mind to.
  • Improved cardiovascular health: Research has found that the only real way to improve the status of the cardiovascular system is by participating in activities that stress the heart, lowering blood pressure, and enhancing sleep quality. The results are not purely physical - practitioners may find it helps alleviate depression and anxiety and improves the mood. such as martial arts.
  • Weight loss: A one hour session of moderate intensity martial arts can burn up to 500 calories.
  • Improved reflexes: Research has found that by participating in martial arts, you not only improve your reflexes while performing the activity, but actually experience faster reaction times during all activities of your life. This is very important in a number of daily activities, such as driving.
  • Focus and stillness: As Bruce Lee pointed out, behind the punches, kicks and knees, a true martial artist learns to sit with himself and see where his weaknesses are. As a martial artist, your will learn what it is to be still, challenged and focused.
  • Teaches great morals and values: Martial arts wisdom has it that after consistent practice, one becomes less impulsive and aggressive towards others. The Shaolin moral code for example comprises 12 ethics, 10 forbidden acts and 10 obligations. Patience, insight and calmness are considered pre-requisites of good Kung Fu. This reminds students of the right attitude, frame of mind and virtues to strive for inside and outside the studio.
  • Muscle tone: By participating in martial arts, you can greatly improve the amount of muscle mass you have in your body. The higher your muscle mass, the higher your metabolic demands will be, and subsequently the more calories you will burn each day, thereby helping prevent obesity and promote weight loss. High levels of muscle mass also lead to increased agility, thereby preventing falls as you age.
  • Better mood: Researchers have found that participating in a regular exercise routine is one of the best ways to improve your mood. Performing martial arts is not only a good way to relieve stress and frustration, but may actually help to make you happier. The endorphins released by physical activity appear to be active in your body for as many as four hours after exercise.

As for the weapons stuff. Pro doesn't know what he's talking about.


The following link is from a scripted movie, you aren't permitted to post real gory fights on YT. Therefore, I cannot help but look to realistic fiction:

KF trains not just to stop weapons but use them. Shaolin Monks protected literal emperors and kings from fervent enemies using Kung Fu. Pro is the one delusional when he says:

Pain compliance is only effective against wimps, not a tough, determined opponent bent on your destruction. Damage is always, invariably, more reliable than pain compliance.
This is great. Now tell me how you will deal with a neck grab to your adam's apple. That is a KF signature move in life-threatening situations especially vs eager grapplers.
Round 3
Pro
  Thank you for this debate, it's been fun. 

  My opponent has completely dropped, among others, my main point: that kung fu doesn't train with a resisting opponent. The only techniques that my opponent has sourced are iron body techniques that rely on breaking bricks and things, but never training with an actual resistant opponent. Kung fu has no way of separating fantasy technique from reality.

  "This is actually me using the same idea itself in how I structure my rebuttal. In fighting me on the concept of 'hit the enemy when they don't expect it or can't fight back' being applicable to even an elderly man fighting, Pro has inadvertently conceded and set in stone one of my other points. I do not deny that Kung Fu can be done well enough by an elderly practitioner, though a supple, fit younger adult towards middle-aged adult will probably have the best balance between having a very refined body in terms of both flexibility and strength and the hardened, toughened joints and body parts to handle complex, difficult combos and moves."

  Striking someone when they don't expect it is not a kung fu exclusive practice. It's honestly not even very reliable, because lots of people are really tough and will just eat your strikes. Knocking people out is hard. Grappling is much more reliable for dominating a fight than striking someone from a standing position.

  Greco wrestling and top position control win fights. In this fight, the guy immediately gets double-underhooks and takes his opponent down. Then he smashes the opponent from the top mounted position, delivering strikes and consolidating position, and then submitting him.

STRIKING 

  My opponent has also completely missed my point that if you're close enough to strike, you're close enough to grab. He insists:

"...but every time you go for it, they either evade you sneakily and strike you back or they make your move itself hurt you by good manevres that lock you or hurt you more...Kung Fu teaches you to be fast, flexible and brutal (in your hits)."

    I don't think Kung Fu has any merit in the striking department, but since my opponent has provided no sources, I have nothing to analyze. Consider boxing. The whole idea is to knock the opponent out in a strictly striking martial art, but tons of boxing matches end without a knockout. Boxing is a far more developed striking art than Kung Fu for the same reason that wrestling is so effective: training with a resisting opponent. Yet, boxers can't reliably knock everyone out, while the technically superior wrestler can essentially systematize the process of throwing you on your neck. The fact is that some guys are just tough, and striking isn't as reliable as technical knowledge of the clinch. 

THE MMA STUFF

"To show that MMA prefers strikers, Pro shows us a fight where a grappler defeated a striker."

  My point is that even though the rules favor strikers, it was wrestling that determined who won in both of their fights. In the first, the superior wrestler was Stipe, who made Ngannou carry his weight until he was tired; and in the rematch, Ngannou stuffed the takedown with his own wrestling technique and knocked Stipe out with superior striking ability. In both cases, wrestling determined who imposed their will and won the fight.

"This is a comment from a user on a forum but perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say:
'The knees/kicks to a grounded opponent does favor wrestlers, because they basically have free reign to shoot without fear of consequences. That's really it, though'"

  A grounded opponent in MMA traditionally means a fighter with one or both hands on the canvas. The vast majority of takedowns do not require this to be executed. Some guys do get knocked out with a flying knee while shooting for a double leg, but it's not consistently reliable. A double leg shot may entail duck walking, but Greco-Roman wrestling doesn't incorporate leg attacks. So this isn't accurate, because the wrestler isn’t grounded when he shoots. Greco-Roman wrestling takedowns don't require a shot besides a penetration step, which doesn't ground the fighter. The Greco-Roman penetration step is different from the freestyle penetration step, because the wrestler remains standing. Therefore, this point doesn't apply.

“Here comes at a later page:
the fact that you basically can't mount any effective offense against someone who goes for a takedown definitely and unfairly favors wrestlers. You can't thrown 12/6 elbows, and you can't knee or kick someone who has one knee or hand down; those are the best strikes to use against someone going for a takedown.

  This is also inaccurate since there are forms of offense against takedowns. One layer of takedown defense may involve framing with the elbows against the opponent’s head as you sprawl. It’s essentially an elbow strike as they come in. 12-6 elbows are usually pretty terrible takedown defense, because if you don’t move your hips relative to your opponent, “you will be striking your way to your back.

 “I am talking about headbutts to the nose where you die from it, during the grapple, that isn't unique to KF but is definitely part of their teachings (Shaolin Monks harden their head specifically for this) ”
 
  Headbutts to the nose during the grapple are not going to kill you. Notice in the video, that the headbutts were all delivered from the top. The better wrestler necessarily determines who is on top. Therefore, greco-roman wrestling necessarily equips one to deliver headbutt strikes better than Kung Fu.

ATHLETICISM

“As for fitness and all that stuff, Kung Fu is just as good if not better."

  Yes, Kung Fu is good for athleticism. I even said, “Kung fu is plagued by martial arts mysticism, and while excellent exercise...” But athleticism is only part of the equation, one also needs technique and aggression. Greco-Roman trains all three of these, while Kung Fu fails to apply epistemology to its techniques, resulting in bad technique and poor aggression.

WEAPONS

“As for the weapons stuff. Pro doesn't know what he's talking about...KF trains not just to stop weapons but use them."

  I have already explained why wrestling is important for knife defense and disarming a baseball bat, but wrestling is of the utmost importance even in swordfighting. 

MORE UNREALISTIC TECHNIQUES

“This is great. Now tell me how you will deal with a neck grab to your adam's apple. That is a KF signature move in life-threatening situations especially vs eager grapplers.”

  An attempt to grab at the neck will usually be answered with a punch in the mouth. Once you grab a guy’s neck though, you are in a grappling situation. A Greco-Roman Wrestler is probably gonna arm drag you, take your back, and slam you on your neck. Not to mention, it isn’t going to work on people without an adam’s apple. 

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, Greco-Roman Wrestling is obviously preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights. It is an integral part of essentially every fight, weapons or without. Greco-Roman places a huge emphasis on the most important thing that Kung Fu lacks: real epistemology; aka, a resisting opponent. In all ranges within which a fight can take place, grappling is a real threat. The clinch is a natural position that people enter into as a natural result of striking, and invariably, the one who can better fight for a dominant position in the clinch will win. Greco teaches not only how to dominate the position in the clinch, but how to throw, slam the opponent, and consolidate the top position with a pin. It’s patently obvious the advantage this provides over Kung Fu, a martial art that can’t even separate fantasy technique from what actually works in a fight.

VOTE PRO!

Con
I want to say something, I really screwed up with my link and it's a very understandable mistake I made.

I knew this video from before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMObHRmVF9E

Same title almost with same uploader... I didn't expect the parody video made by himself...

That said, I do admit that vs a gun, both wrestling and kung fu are initially equally screwed. I do however assert that in all weapons other than a gun, the KF is superior. Wrestlers want to remove the weapon entirely, KF want to keep it 'in the game' and utilise it well.

Baseball bats, swords, knives, you name it, if it's in the hand of a KF pro, they will use it better than the average gangster or wannabe thug by far.

Here's another video of a somewhat realistic application of KF in a real life vs death type scenario:

^ Michael Jai White's character doesn't solely use Kung Fu in this movie but in this scene, he definitely is using it. At times, he was using Muay Thai in the movie (especially in the prison fight scene that's the most famous one of this movie). In this scene, his opponent is using what appears to be a fusion between Kung Fu and Tae Kwon Do, I cannot specifically say which as he's definitely using a strike-focused hybrid but because he tends to try to finish with strong kicks where the heel does the striking, I would say it's TKD-influenced.

Just so you are clear, Michael Jai White is the one in the casual/baggy outfit, his opponent is in the suit.

==

In this debate Pro's main idea of Wrestling and why it's superior is this:
  I follow the following advice for fighting on the ground: 
  1. Always be on top.
  2. When on top, stay on top.
  3. When on bottom do everything you can to get on top.
  4. Don't be tempted by the lazy and seductive nature of the closed guard.
- Round 1 

This simplistic outline of what W is based on hasn't changed throughout the debate. Pro literally is advocating for this being a superior system of self-defence and path to victory in a fight than KF which I said is based on the following (and Pro didn't contest it, he just tried to 'flip it around' by challenging each point:
  1. Similar to the 'initial distance' Pro mentions, the use of sticks, stones, legs, and even the arms (in a hand-stand position) to abuse long-range and hurt the enemy while the enemy can't fight back or doesn't expect it. This also applies in shorter-range too, when your arms are loose and theirs aren't etc.
  2. 'The clinch' in W, is much more split up in KF, there is 'dodging' as a core skill referring to the handling of opponents who have superior range advantage and ability on you.
  3. The third concept is to train your brain and body to be flexible with the situation.
  4. The fourth concept is constant attention to both breathing and balance.
  5. The fifth concept is where W and KF can finally see eye to eye, grappling
I elaborate more on 2-5 in Round 1.

I am confused what exactly Pro thinks is superior about wrestling. I argued that W required you to be big and strong much more than KF, to which Pro agreed and said that all martial arts are done better by big-built, tall people yet also admitted an elderly man can efficiently do KF (to mock my 'hurt the enemy while they don't expect it' element of KF. KF was developed by one of the smallest races on the planet and unlike Karate (which has since been done efficiently by bigger built people), KF isn't especially done better or worse by people of a certain build (though flexible, supple bodies definitely do it best). 

In real life, we are not always in an enclosed space where we can just run like a madman or madwoman at our opponent, hold them down with bodyweight, not get efficiently hurt back and kill the opponent or 'subdue' them in this way... That's not how real life fights work.

Pro says in the description of the debate that this isn't about rule-based fighting yet he commits the fallacy many who mock KF as a martial art do; he resorts to MMA/UFC ring-fighting with rules and limitations to KF, in order to mock it.

I have basically said what needs to be said in the Round before. KF prepares you much better than W for chaotic scenarios with weapons and multiple attackers.