Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Science

You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years 493

Posted by kdawson
from the but-the-pay-is-lousy dept.
jmcbain tips a fascinating interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do). The question was, how much training would it take for a normal person to become Batman? The professor says: "You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess... In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years." The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death — or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:50AM (#24241383) Journal
    and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.
  • by mrbluze (1034940) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:51AM (#24241407) Journal

    The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death â" or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

    So, after all that, we should all stick to our day-jobs? Thanks Slashdot, you saved us again!

    • Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.
      • by owlnation (858981) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:57AM (#24241515)
        Not to mention that there's a great deal of viral marketing in it now -- vis a vis this "article"
      • by smussman (1160103) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:02AM (#24241589)
        If you want magazine that does a good job summarizing recent developments in science in layman's terms (or pretty close), I've found Science News [sciencenews.org] to be pretty good. I certainly enjoy reading it, and I feel they do a good job of summarizing without dumbing down.
      • its pop science (Score:5, Insightful)

        by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:07AM (#24241687) Homepage Journal

        pop science is important. it is a gateway to serious science for many youngsters and average joes

        you are dismayed it does not feature serious science

        ok, so go read something else

        why the hate for a magazine of pop science?

        it serves a valuable function. are you angry that some obscure technical journal is not popular? so why are you angry that a piece of pop science is doing what a piece of pop science must do?

        if it is serious science, it is relegated to obscurity, as a rule. because it needs to be digested for the masses, where anything popular takes place

        why don't you understand this?

        • Re:its pop science (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:14AM (#24241801) Homepage
          Scientific American as it was had a unique role, presenting things in an approachable fashion but still being quite rigorous. It's shift towards a wider demographic means that there is no longer a magazine at that level. In terms of popular science magazines, there's already Discovery and Popular Science, so it's not as if without the new SA there would be no science gateways for young people.
      • by MightyYar (622222) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:27AM (#24241991)

        I like Scientific American - I don't think you're being fair. The "fun" articles are obvious and they are careful to make no claims of certainty. Actually, I really have to put my thinking cap on when they get into Astrophysics these days.

        Just as a for-instance, their medical articles are top-notch... my wife is a physician and will often read them. Their environmental articles are also often very interesting. It's not like the whole issue is full of Batman trivia!

        Of course, I also like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics - but those I approach more from a comic book angle. At least Popular Mechanics has practical car and home project advice.

      • by iwein (561027) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:35AM (#24242131)

        Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

        Looking at /. from even 5 years ago, let alone 10, shows you how lame it has become. It used to be about news for nerds and stuff that matters, now it is just about wannabe nerds whining about Popular Science. The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You think SciAm is bad, try actually reading Popular Science. It's all science-fiction military technology.

        Part of the problem is actually that the mainstream news has gotten much better science reporting, so the gap between the NYT or Newsweek and SciAm has gotten to be quite narrow. It's still not as good as SciAm used to be, but most major newspapers have, if not a legitimate 'science person' on staff, easily-accessible consultants who can help break things down for them. Once you add in Wikipedia and

      • It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments

        It's bad writing.

        SciAM got political and that turned a lot of people off, the same way NYT or WashPost did. They tried to dumb things down while still pretending to be smart and all it did it was anger their core readership and they bailed.

        Science has exploded beyond the ability of writers to manage... It used to be that 50 years ago, you could probably have a smattering of what's new in physics and a few other fields, but right now, what's new in physics is a highly specialized thing and it takes way too much to understand what's even old versus what's new. The baseline education of some high school teaches a mathematics based on a level of calculus that's 100 years old at best, physics that's basically newtonian mechanics and chemistry is just doing the old "let's make break up water trick" when right now scientists are looking at individual atoms.

        All of this points to a colossal failure in writing. We have a body of technical knowledge that is so disorganized that it takes way too long for humans to really communicate it to each other in order to share the knowledge. Roger Penrose made a heck of a go at it in his book about how everything works, but even he falls into the horrible trap of using bad names for different mathematical constructs. At least biologists got it right when put a taxonomy on species ... but in math we have Fourier Transforms, Newton's Method, and it's just a disorganized mess, and on top of that horrible language, we stack everything we know about the basic laws of the universe.

        What the world needs is a bank of good writers that also know math and physics to go in there and get rid of biographically named crap, and organize things in a more direct and intuitive fashion. For the love of god, you can't let a scientist in the field do it, because they are just terrible at naming and organizing.

        Writers, step up, and take command!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:52AM (#24241417)
    It's only 90 days from being a weakling to stopping bullies from kicking sand in your face. Isn't that what most nerds here really seek?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mmkkbb (816035)

      Even the mostly testosterone filled martial arts class has more of a chance of containing an actual attractive female than training alone at home with just those comics for company.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Nursie (632944)

      Don't you mean Mr Apollo?

      You can beat up bullies 'til they cry
      "Oh lah! Oh, crikey! Let go, you rotter! Don't punish me!"

      Yes, just give me ten years of your life, and I'll trade in that puny flab for living muscle..
      Physique you deserve!

      Strong!
      Chest and shoulders to hold your shirt!

      Five years ago, I was a four stone apology
      Today, I am two separate gorillas.

      No tiresome exercises, no tricks,
      no unpleasant bending, Wrestle poodles and win!

      Play beach ball! Shave your legs! Lope over walls!
      Tease people! Brush them

  • Bonk (Score:5, Funny)

    by usefulidiot127 (1317861) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:53AM (#24241427)
    I've still yet to figure out how I can get things like "Bam, Pow, Biff, Boom" to pop out in the air when I hit people. I think that would require more training than anything else.
  • by DeltaStorm (118517) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:53AM (#24241433) Homepage

    when you can just get hit in the head [youtube.com].

  • by Scotteh (885130) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:54AM (#24241449)
    10 to 12 years for the physical training, but Batman was more than physical ability. He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.
    • by CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:08AM (#24241699) Journal

      A large portion of the Batman storyline revolves around the question of whether or not that's really true.

      One of the more poignant observations made in the comics was by Commissioner Gordon when he pointed out that there were always regular criminals in Gotham before Batman arrived, but there weren't any supervillians until after Batman made room for them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Provocateur (133110)

        I remember reading this LARGE comic (Batman Black And White? Alex Ross' art iirc) where Batman realized that he spent too much time fighting criminals but not crime. He had caught this kid, and it made him pause. Later on, as Bruce Wayne, he wondered what could be done to the neighborhood that kid was in. He gave the go-signal to projects that revitalized that run-down neighborhood. When he saw the kid again--can't remember if he was Bruce or Batman -- the kid was doing alright.

    • by Shotgun (30919) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:09AM (#24241707)

      Haven't you heard. Might makes right. So training for the skills is the same as training for the morals.

    • by kannibal_klown (531544) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:59AM (#24242533)

      What about the mental component? While the movie Batman Begins didn't do too much with it, Batman's greatest asset is his mind.

      He's a genius and one of the greatest minds in the DC universe. He uses it be one of the greatest detectives and occasional research, and use strategies/tactics to take down even the greatest forces (even Superman).

      It isn't his physic and toys that let him stand with the greatest heroes and face the most dangerous villains, but his greatest asset: his mind.

      Without his mind he's just some generic tough guy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LandDolphin (1202876)
        I think that is one of the reasons I always liked Batman. He was on par with Superman, but a mere mortal.
  • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:55AM (#24241479)

    Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.

  • Losing != death (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday July 18, 2008 @09:57AM (#24241523)

    Losing means death -- or at least not being able to be Batman anymore.

    That's BS. The Adam West Batman lost and got captured tons of times. That's when his utility belt's contents really got interesting!

  • 10,000 hours (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OzPeter (195038) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:01AM (#24241581)
    I remember a stat that I saw a long time ago (I can't remember who to attribute it to). But basically it said that with 10,000 hours of training you can go from zero to a world class practitioner in *any* field you choose. That could me artist, scientist, astronaut etc.

    But I doubt that many people have the finances or drive to keep up such a regime until you achieve your goal. And thats what separates the world class people from the rest of us.

    Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by wattrlz (1162603)

      ... Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

      Hmm, what qualifies as Really short [wikipedia.org] ? I'd pay special attention to the entries for Bogues, Boykins, and Webb.

    • Re:10,000 hours (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:24AM (#24241937)

      That's about six hours a day on most days for five years. With world class teaching and appropriate practice facilities, that sounds pretty consistent with what I've found in everything from playing a musical instrument to martial arts. Obviously there are going to be some prerequisites: someone is going to have to be fairly smart to become a world class chess player, or fairly tall to become a world class basketball player. But you can get seriously good at most things if you have the resources and you're willing to devote the time to it.

      The thing I always regret with my hobbies is that I never appreciated the difference a really good teacher and training facilities can make when I was young enough to take advantage of them. By the time I found a teacher who could answer my deeper questions in most cases, I had already spent several years studying with mediocre teachers and without access to the best facilities, or in one case well over a decade just messing around and learning by experimentation without any guidance. These things do work up to a point — after all, someone had to work each difficult thing out first — but for most of my hobbies, I could probably have achieved in 1–2 years what in reality took me 5+ with a lesser teacher and limited facilites, or a decade of experimentation on my own.

  • by bigattichouse (527527) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:02AM (#24241591) Homepage
    Staying on top of his game is all part of his psychosis. If you hadn't noticed, he's a bit of a whackjob himself.
  • by burtosis (1124179) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:03AM (#24241611)
    And am awaiting the panel at Comic-Con.
  • by objekt (232270) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:05AM (#24241649) Homepage

    And did not become Batman. I started at age 33 and by age 39 I had been in Physical Therapy 3 times; once for neck pain and twice for hip pain. I was not very flexible when I started training and was equally inflexible when I stopped. At least I didn't get much worse.

    On the plus side, for a while I was reasonably confident in my ability to defend myself in a fair fight against a similarly skilled and otherwise unarmed person. It's now been another 6 years I'm quite out of practice and out of shape.

    So as usual, YMMV.

  • Batman? Phooey (Score:4, Informative)

    by Henry V .009 (518000) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:07AM (#24241671) Journal
    Batman is a wanker. Now, how many years would it take to become an awesome superhero, like Rorschach?
    • Physically — Not that much work involved, but you should be bad-ass in a bar fight
    • Gadgets — Buy a case of pantihose, paint some black splotches on it and you're there
    • Mentally — Spend at least two hours a day meditating on the fact that most human beings are whores and scum
  • by jvp (27996) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:09AM (#24241715)

    Yeah, the character has an almost super-human physique. And yes, he's got a big pile 'o cash that helps him afford the toys and tools he uses during his "night job". But there's more to it.

    Wayne can out-think any of his opponents. His schtick is that he's 5-10 steps ahead of anyone. If he gets into a fight, he's already out-thought the opponent and knows exactly how the fight's going to end.

    That's harder to teach. You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:10AM (#24241729)

    ...more than a couple of attackers, and you're in trouble. Facing ten bad guys, short of some super-exo-skeleton that boosts your strength and armours your body against instantaneous impact and sustained pressure and torsion, you're going down hard, quickly. And no, they don't always helpfully attack one or two at a time: watch half a dozen cops taking down a violent drunk some time.

    And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat. That means at least knocked out or injured seriously enough that they can't fight, not the cutesy pain compliance stuff. If they are weak and clueless when it comes to fight, you are fit and highly skilled when it comes to fighting, you can find some sort of weapon, you are lucky with the environment, and there aren't too many of them, you might just do this for long enough to create an opportunity to escape. Maybe, if you're really lucky.

    But it's a fun read, I'll give it that. :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat."

      That's why we make firearms. All that unarmed combat bullshit is entertaining, but if you want to stop an opponent from functioning, kill him.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        That's why we make firearms.

        I wondered whether someone would come up with that. You're going to need one heck of a weapon to take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you, though.

        Then again, you're Batman. Maybe you really do have some funky combination of flashbangs, smoke bombs, and defensive equipment that renders you immune to their effects. :-)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geminidomino (614729) *

          You're going to need one heck of a weapon to take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you, though.

          This is my BOOMSTICK [midamericarecreation.com]

          Don't forget to factor in human nature. At most, you'll only need to take down 2-3 before they get close enough to grab you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by foniksonik (573572)

      you've got it exactly right. I trained in martial arts for 10 years... 1st degree black belt (didn't have time or dedication to go another 10 years to get 2nd degree ;-)

      If you find yourself in a fight like described you have to aim to put your opponents down... immobilize them. Break knees, break necks, knock them out and down... as fast as possible, then when their buddies are reeling from your viciousness you run like hell. (assuming they didn't all just dog-pile you)

      If the fight is not going to happen (a

  • by oneiros27 (46144) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:18AM (#24241857) Homepage

    For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.

    It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson [captainjackson.org], Zetaman [wweek.com], Captain Prospect [washingtonpost.com] or some other "real life superhero" [wikipedia.org]

  • by mr_nazgul (1290102) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:20AM (#24241883) Homepage
    The Batman workout video collection...

    How much will you pay for this?

    900$?

    NO!

    500$?

    NO!

    For a limited time, just two easy payments of one parent!
  • by jmoo (67040) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:24AM (#24241943)

    I think what I liked most about Batman Begins is that it gave a reasonable explanation as to why Bruce Wayne would dress up like a bat. As much as Batman is a skilled fighter, he is also good at using psychological warfare on his opponents. Consider that during the fight at the docks, he had been playing enough mind games on the crooks that they were off balanced when he attacked them in a large group.

    Now granted in real life most people would piss their pants laughing at a guy dressed up like a giant bat (also a viable attack strategy) but the idea is that batman is such a terrifying character that you are thrown off and are easier to take down.

  • Fuck that. (Score:5, Funny)

    by GungaDan (195739) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:26AM (#24241973) Homepage

    Hang out in the YMCA locker room and you can be Robin in under 5 minutes.

  • by Techguy666 (759128) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:26AM (#24241979)

    That just takes a spray of acid to the face or a dunk in a chemical vat. No training time whatsoever.

    On another note, I get peeved by everyone ignoring Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" moniker and generally accepted reputation as one of DC Universe's smartest humans. Everyone focuses on Batman's physical skills where, in "reality", having keen observational skills and an intellect allowing superior strategems probably alleviates a lot of the need for ultimate physical skills.

  • by PinkyDead (862370) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:27AM (#24241993) Journal

    Batman's really only cool because of his enemies.

    Batman vs the purse snatcher or Batman vs the social welfare fraudster etc, would get pretty boring after about a week.

    Clearly "You, Too, Could Be The Joker In 10 To 12 Years" is required , or maybe just some freaky chemistry.

    Then again, an "if you build it, they will come" universal harmony thing might apply...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:27AM (#24242001)

    http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2005/06/20/batman-movies-superheroes-cx_de_0620batman.html [forbes.com]

    http://xrl.us/batman [xrl.us]

    Being Batman
    David M. Ewalt, 06.20.05, 7:28 PM ET

    Dark clouds have gathered over Gotham. Crime is rampant, despair is
    widespread and no one is safe. Who will rescue the metropolis from
    itself, fight the forces of evil and save the good people of the city?

    Why don't you do it?

    Plenty of us would love to fight for truth and justice--if only we had
    magic powers or mutant genes. We all love superheroes. Last weekend,
    Batman Begins was the No. 1 film in the U.S., pulling in $71.1 million
    over its first five days. The Batman movie franchise is also one of
    the most lucrative of all time, with five movies (not counting Batman
    Begins) grossing nearly $1 billion.

    OK, so he also has a couple billion dollars. Batman's alter ego, Bruce
    Wayne, is an old-money heir and the owner of Wayne Enterprises, a
    massive international-technology conglomerate. In our Forbes Fictional
    Fifteen, we estimated his net worth at $6.3 billion. If he were a real
    guy, he'd be the 28th richest person in America, right behind News
    Corp.'s (nyse: NWS - news - people ) Rupert Murdoch.

    Wayne uses his riches and corporate connections to equip himself with
    the latest and greatest in military hardware, and uses those tools to
    help him fight villains like the Joker, the Riddler, and Ra's Al Ghul.

    But you don't have to be a billionaire to become a caped crusader.
    Using commercially available training, technology and domestic help,
    the average guy could conceivably equip himself to become a real-world
    superhero, provided he's got at least a couple million to spare.

    What would it cost to become a real-world Dark Knight? Click here [forbes.com].

    The Training
    Cost: $30,000

    You'd better be ready to defend yourself if you plan to take on all
    the thugs and super-villains that call Gotham home.

    In the new movie, young Bruce Wayne goes to Tibet on the mother of all
    study-abroad trips and ends up learning the martial arts from a group
    of vigilante ninjas called the League of Shadows. But similar training
    is available to those not lucky enough to get plucked out of obscurity
    by Liam Neeson.

    A good place to start would be an internship at the birthplace of kung
    fu, the Shaolin Temple in Henan, China. One month of training at the
    prestigious Tagou school costs about $740, including a private room
    and training with a personal coach. It'll take a while to get good
    enough to stop the Joker's worst thugs, though, so count on spending
    at least three years and about 30 grand for the trip.

    The Suit
    Cost: $1,585

    They say the suit makes the man, and Batman's no exception. Without
    his outfit, it'd just be Bruce Wayne running around out there, and
    there's nothing particularly scary about a billionaire playboy in his
    underpants.

    Batman's suit is a modified piece of infantry armor built by the
    applied sciences division of Wayne Enterprises. It's waterproof,
    bulletproof, knife-proof and temperature-regulating. Paired with an
    impact-resistant, graphite-composite cowl and spiked ninja-style
    gauntlets, it allows Batman to protect himself against everything from
    swords to machine guns. Wayne Enterprises also supplies Batman with
    his cape, a specially designed nylon-derivative fabric that stiffens
    when hit with an electric charge, allowing Batman to use it as a
    glider. All this doesn't come cheap. In the new movie, Wayne's told
    that the armor alone costs $300,000.

    Real-world superhero wanna-bes will have to go with a much more
    prosaic solution. We recommend a lightweight ProMAX OTV bulletproof
    jacket, which will cover your ar

  • Street fighting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:39AM (#24242199)

    Let's see some hands: How many people have been in a street fight? Against one person? Against two?

    When I was young, I was sort of a bad ass. I was a "baby huey" sort of kid. Without working out, I was 6' 210lbs in high school. 32 inch waste 46 inch jacket. I was pretty strong. When I started working out, for football, I started bench press at 210lbs, my weight.

    I hung out in Dorchester and South Boston and got in a lot of fights. 1:1 I could hold my own against almost anyone, even the kids who took karate. 2:1, I would usually get my ass kicked unless I could get rid of the first guy quickly. 3:1, no f-ning way you're getting out without serious bruises or broken bones.

    Batman is a myth. It can't happen. Kung Foo movies are a joke. Guns are popular because you *can* take on a bunch of people at once. Hand to hand, no matter how big and strong you are, two or three guys are stronger than you.

    • Re:Street fighting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by objekt (232270) on Friday July 18, 2008 @11:04AM (#24242615) Homepage

      Just because you can't beat multiple opponents doesn't mean others can't.

      My grandfather was a golden gloves boxer turned weight lifter. 5'10" 225-240 lbs when he competed. Could dead lift 500 lbs with one hand. Actually came from the same area as you. :) He was a natural athlete all his life and a veteran of many street fights. He could take on 5 guys, and did on more than one occasion. Would confront gangs of punks well into his 60s.

      Took 7 strong men to drag him to the old folks home. Alzheimer's + elite athletes are a dangerous combination.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Nick Number (447026)

      32 inch waste

      Wow, TMI.

      I suppose that's impressive from a physiological standpoint, but how does it make you a better fighter?

  • by hellfire (86129) <deviladv AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 18, 2008 @10:56AM (#24242483) Homepage

    What about the expert skills in chemistry? Forensics? Psychology? Research? His business skills? Batman is also a consumate detective, so given his expert skill in these areas how long would it take to get those levels of ability?

    You would think a Scientific magazine might also be interested in the mental aspect?

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Friday July 18, 2008 @11:02AM (#24242561) Homepage Journal
    I was bitten by a radio active sloth and now I can do the laying around of TEN men!
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday July 18, 2008 @12:39PM (#24244175)

    The stuff you see on the screen, in the ring (including MMA) will get you killed on the street.

    The real martial arts don't in fact take 10 years to train for, they only take a few months to teach the techniques, a few months to practice them until automatic and a few months to get into decent shape to apply them. You see, what you are taught 3 or 4 times a week for 10 years when you attend a typical dojo is almost certainly complete bollocks. It almost certainly isn't effective karate, it almost certainly isn't effective kung fu. In fact it almost certainly doesn't resemble the original material taught by the old masters in any way.

    The addition of rules for sparring, competition have removed virtually all of the effective techniques. Few of which are taught any more in the dojo because they are forbidden in competition.

    Effective (real) karate, kung fu, tai chi, boxing, wrestling etc are in fact functionally the same thing. Simple and brutal self defence techniques which are easy to apply when the addrenalin has removed all your co-ordination and your opponent's pain sensitivity. Virtually all of the "styles" you see these days are ... Ballet ... Not karate, not kung fu, not tai chi. If you are not practicing and training eye gouging, fishooking, choking, strangling, biting, stamping, headbutting, groin crushing as well as the more sophisticated stuff, you are kidding yourself (and your students if you have the gall to teach any) on.

    Unless you train for effectiveness in the dojo, you are seriously going to get your backside handed to you the first time you attempt a spinning reverse head kick on a damp, slippy pavement when some moron and his 4 mates decide you looked at them wrong.

     

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...