Ask a question

Do People Critize Fighters A Little Too Much

People criticize hapkido because it isn't in MMA, but doesn't hapkido include Korean kicking and judo throwing, and those are in MMA?

People often criticize what they don't know and what they don't understand. It is often a cop out. Saying something is not practical is one of the biggest signs of a person ignorance. What that really says is I don't know how to use it and or my skill level is not on that level. I can't use it.

I don't teach my students to use high kicks in self defense. But I will never tell them it is not practical or that it can't be used in self defense. They are very effective for those with the skill level to use it. We teach it for demonstrations, but not for self defense. The reason why is it is a high risk high reward technique. I rather teach a low risk medium to high reward technique.

Hapikido uses a lot of small joint manipuations. They use a lot of wrist locks and wrist lock throws. These techniques will not work well in mma. One reason of course is not because it is deadly, because it isn't. it is because it would cause too many injuries. The other huge reason is that it will not work as well on the weighted, padded gloves used in mma. Those will lessen the effectiveness of the techniques.

The person that is skillful in hapkido doesn't care so much that ignorance like this is or isn't good because you don't see it or recognize it in mma. Their biggest concern is that it works when they need it to work for them.

Techniques used in hapkido and other arts that are said to not to be practical, useless, etc have worked for me and many others. It works in our favor when people underestimate what we can do and what we know.

I wouldn't call hapkido tkd kicking with judo throws. It does have kicks, strikes and throws that are found in many other styles. But they are not the gist of the style.

Why do people always feel the need to compare and criticize?

I have found that people feel the need to compare and especially criticize when they feel badly about themselves.Remember that next time someone bullies you. :)Also, it is just human nature to compare things because it is just how our brains are built. Criticizing on the other hand, especially the way I think of it, is really not nice at all.“Yay! Story time!!”When I was in around fifth grade, there was a new girl named A (name changed). She has just moved as her old apartment had gotten too small because her mom has just had triplets. She soon befriended some of my friends, but not me. She kind of made an agreement with them that they could either be friends with her or me, and A being more popular, they chose her. Sometimes when I looked over at lunch, I saw them looking me up and down, pointing, and laughing. Needless to say, A felt badly about herself because most of her mom’s attention was going to the three new babies in their household. Her mom had no time for her, and instead of working out the problem, she put her pain, sadness, and anger on someone else (me). But I always made light of the situation and said to myself, “maybe she just really hates her haircut,” which looked a bit like this…Nothing against this type of hairstyle, of course! I think it looks great! :)

Why do people criticize Rahul Gandhi even when he's fighting for us so hard?

If you heard the Walk the Talk interview  last week, of H Biswa Sarma formerly of the Congress and now of the BJP  in Assam this question would be totally irrelevant and you would also say (to paraphrase an old slogan ) Hell no ..Rahul must go !Rahul Gandhi came through as a petulant, vainglorious, puffed up utterly foolish person who has learnt nothing and will never amount to anything inspite of 500 crore makeover by ad agencies. It really bothers me why Congressmen want this reluctant, incompetent travesty of a leader to be the face of their party. By not removing him from their horizon the Congress Party is actually sounding its own death knell much to the dismay of all of us who actually want to see a vibrant resurgent Congress make a comeback .According to the interview Rahul Gandhi met this young man from Assam  and asked him his views on the person he had chosen to be the state congress president. On being informed by Sarma that whilst the person was a good man he was not the right choice to lead the party against a confident BJP  Mr Gandhi  leaves the room and comes back smiling a few moments later with the same person walking in behind him  having told him exactly what Sarma had said about him . Now is that the way a mature leader is expected to behave one partyman against another and sit back and enjoy their discomfiture.?  I'm sorry but I find this inexcusably childish and petulant....not a quality that I would want in my leader. As if this were not enough Rahul Gandhi goes to Assam a few days later ostensibly to broker a peace between the CM of Assam and the state congress president,  with his puppy dog in tow whom he feeds biscuits through out the serious talks  and finally ends with allowing the puppy to eat from the plate of biscuits lying on the table ! This is exactly what the interview can hear it yourself on NDTV . Lets be honest ....who on earth would want this person to even chair a neighbour hood committee meeting leave alone lead this great country of ours ????RAGA is no match for Modi ....the Congress ought to ditch the advice and presence of the Digvijays and Moti Lal Vohras of this world and find from amongst themselves another youthful capable leader will happen in the  natural course of events provided they find the courage to go on without the Gandhi name and it must happen real soon if 2019 is to have  a credible opposition.

How do you think the people in the future would describe our civilization? What will they admire? What will th?

They would criticize that we worry too much about little things, like allowing gay marriage and not focusing on economic problems.

They would admire our technologic innovations but criticize that we are addicted to them

They would criticize some peoples addiction to alcohol, drugs, etc.

They would criticize our lack of ability to save money or use it wisely.

They would criticize the lack of respect we have for others, the fighting/violence we have today, bullying, etc.

They would criticize that we don't help people that are in need or "selfish."

They would admire that the life we live today is much easier with transportation such as cars, etc.

They would admire the buildings and citylife we have, as well as fascinating jobs.

They would admire the educational system we have today, that most people are able to go to school.

They would admire the beauty of life, the world, and the places we could travel to.

How justified is the criticism that US soldiers and Marines rely too much on air support and will be an average fighting force without it?

It's dumb. It's like saying a carpenter relies too much on power tools or businesses rely too much on automation. These people still have the capability to do it the old fashioned way. They may be a little rusty at first, but I know lots of accountants that can still set up a set of pen and ink books. But would you hire then over the accountant that brings the latest technology to the job?Our ground troops have proven time and time again that they are quite competent when it come to good old fashioned hand to hand. I've seen it with my own two eyes. We are a supremely disciplined fighting force. Discipline is what wins battles. Using our artillery and air superiority competently is no less challenging than small squad tactics. And remember, those bombs and planes take a minute to show up most of the time. We tend to be the force at the disadvantage in most of our fights. We are rarely on the offensive these days. We usually get ambushed, and we frequently find ourselves out numbered.Here's a question, without IEDs and ambush tactics, would guerilla fighters be average at best? Do they rely too much on those two things?

Why are Rahul and Sonia Gandhi criticized by so many Indians despite them fighting for rights?

Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi visited the Nepal embassy in the capital on Friday to pay his tributes to victims of the earthquake, but ended up getting panned on social media for apparently referring to some text on his cellphone while writing the condolence message.TV cameras were quick to spot the cellphone in front of him as he sat writing the message on the visitors' book.TV grabs showed him looking at his phone while writing, apparently to copy down the text he may have earlier keyed in.On Friday, Rahul met ambassador Deep Kumar Upadhyay, and wrote in the condolence book: "Over the last week, the world has watched in horror as the tragedy in Nepal unfolded.Some wounds will never heal, but as Nepal begins the hard task of rebuilding... the people of India stand with you in strength and solidarity ."(Picture courtesy: @iYashwant/Twitter)A Cambridge student cant writ his own condolence message in English.Rahul Gandhi is 45 ( still a "youth leader") but is his resume still blank?Other than being elected as an MP thrice from his family fiefdom and then going on to nap in the Parliament.How does the Congress even imagine projecting such an inexperienced person as PM?There is a slight improvement i must admit he had just spoken thrice in 10 years as MP of UPA govt.However as opposition he has made 2 speeches in one year still far far behind that of an avg MP.How can u make him PM.