the best 2 martial arts

Thanks, Pro. == RE: REBUTTAL == 1) I proved that while both TKD and JKD teach important mechanisms of counterattacks and defense, JKD teaches the *best* of the TKD methods and combines them with the best of other methods of offense to make the fighter more well rounded. Pro responded by not challenging this assertion at all (therefore it stands), and instead repeating that JKD is suited to Bruce Lee's needs only. I very clearly negated this point in the last round (under point 3B) when I pointed out that JKD incorporates the best moves not only according to Lee, but to fighters all over the world. Wiki asserts this as well: "JKD not only advocates the combination of aspects of different styles, it also can change many of those aspects that it adopts to suit the abilities of the practitioner." Pro's point has been negated. POINT - CON 2) Pro contends that DM is superior because it teaches specific points of contact that could take down an opponent. I mentioned that JKD teaches that same method (and in fact expands on it). Both methods teach the same techniques of hitting specific "take down" points, and Pro's only response was that DM was not taught to Bruce Lee -- for which Pro offers not one shred of evidence -- which nonetheless does not negate my point. Lee did not have to be educated on DM specifically to utilize the same techniques; Pro has given no proof Lee did not train for DM; and again other fighters who did know DM (and other arts) helped incorporate the best moves. POINT - CON 3A) Pro makes several contentions. First, "The way that TKD generates power and control is by focusing all power into the smallest area possible." This is just one technique while JKD employs several great ones. For instance, they advocate low kicks utilizing the principle of economy of motion by reducing the distance a kick must travel, thus minimizing the "time" element. Low kicks are also more difficult to detect and thus guard against [1]. There are other methods that teach you to use what the best mechanism is in the particular fight: efficiency, directness or simplicity. This can be accomplished by attacks in combinations (aimed to rapidly overcome the opponent before they have a chance to defend themselves), progressive indirect attacking (faking your opponent out by attacking one area, leaving them defenseless for an opening in another more harmful area), hand/foot immobilization (making it impossible for your opponent to use that appendage), etc. Pro hasn't proven that TKD's methods are better in any way. Second, Pro posits that Bruce Lee was too focused on his career to learn all methods of the best martial arts. However, as described by sources in previous rounds, JKD has expanded heavily over the years and has been added to and improved by fighters all over the world. The original conception was Lee's, but some of the best martial artists have contributed heavily to its influence affirming the true hybrid nature of the style. This source notes, "Individuals may, and if fact are expected to, modify, add and delete" [2]. I've proven via sources and other explanations that JKD is a true hybrid art [3]. POINT - CON 3B) Pro contends that only physically fit people can participate in JKD while people of all types can use TKD. On the contrary, I proved that different fighters can utilize different JKD techniques depending on their particular strengths and weaknesses, and in the last round I also proved how Krav Maga actually is among the best types of fighting for the less physically fit (or smaller) people. POINT - CON 4) Doot. 5) Pro says my source does not prove that KM was made for disadvantaged people. The source from the last round ((1)) specifically explains how it was derived for the Israelites who were always outnumbered in battle, and the other source explains specifically how it is best suited for smaller people (I'll explain it again in a minute...). POINT - CON 6) Pro says DM is primarily based on having complete control over the opponents central and sympithetic nervous system, but does not explain how or why this is so. I pointed out that adrenaline is considered a *good* thing that could be used to one's advantage in a fight, as Pro agrees it heightens senses, increases strength, etc. Pro never proved that adrenaline was bad or that DM could kill someone by simply making their adrenaline increase; he simply explained how the hormones work. POINT - CON 7) Pro writes, "actually there has been no records of both your martial arts making 5th place for most deadly... if i am wrong please send a link to where you got you information." In the last round I provided a link proving that my systems have, in fact, been ranked among the best ((2)). POINT - CON == Re: CONTENTIONS == 1) Pro writes, "now in my earlier debates i said that in taekwondo the emphisise technique in order to get maximum power and speed that is why i belive TKD to be supiror when it comes to smaller and weaker opponents." First, saying it "emphasizes technique" means nothing considering all forms of martial arts emphasize technique. Second, I've repeated that KM uses chokes and joint locks rather than strikes, and leverage and technique rather than strength *thereby making it the best method for smaller people.* POINT - CON 2) I explained how KM prepares you for all types of attacks (being outnumbered, using weapons, etc.). Pro says KM is inferior because it doesn't teach stress or adrenaline training. This is false. "Krav Maga utilizes specific drills and scenario-based training to mimic the adrenaline response, which allows students to acclimate to how the body responds" [4]. Pro's point has been proven false and negated; KM does teach how to be effective under pressure. POINT - CON 3) Pro concedes that JKD also utilizes effective pressure points, therefore cites the fact that Dimmak seeks to control "systems" i.e. one's stress or adrenaline system as a mechanism which makes it superior. However I've explained that KM teaches one how to not let adrenaline take control over their system making this a moot advantage. Additionally, the book 'Real Fighting: Adrenaline Stress Conditioning Through Scenario-Based Training' praises JKD as a method that gives this form of martial art the same advantage, meaning Pro hasn't proved still how his arts are better. POINT - CON 4) Pro concludes that TKD and DM are superior because they teach "restraint, only then will you achieve true victory in one blow." However, I've explained that JKD teaches the same concept of intercepting attacks, and using that interception to fuel your next move. KM's goal isn't restraint: it's to escape unharmed. Restraint may or may not be the best method in a particular moment; my systems allow the fighter to know and utilize whatever happens to be the best mode of attack in any particular situation. POINT - CON == Conclusion == KM techniques are straight forward and based on natural instincts, as opposed to TKD and DM which consist of complex movements, fancy strikes that necessitate flexibility and coordination, and pinpoint accuracy that can take years to master. Because the techniques are natural, it's easy to respond under stress using KM. The fact that it teaches specifically how to confront *any* and every threat makes it among the best. JKD being a hybrid that also seeks to suit the particular fighter and situation also prove superior; it utilizes the BEST modes of all arts and eliminates the fluff. My systems leave you confident under stress and pressure, and non-susceptible to Pro's DM "adrenaline techniques" making them moot. My systems also make the fighter most versatile at both offensive and defense, and implement the best techniques from all forms of fighting. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...