Comparision to Steven Seagal

Feel free to discuss everything not related to Dolph. Have a good time and be friendly!

Moderator: Moderators

Postby shooby on 16 Mar 2005, 10:44

I'm not sure that seagall had a better career than dolph ?!?
User avatar
shooby
Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 26 Mar 2004, 13:31
Location: Neuilly Saint Front (FRANCE)

Postby Mosquito on 16 Mar 2005, 11:19

I think he had. He was the star of several A-movies. Dolph had a small part in one A-movie (Johnny Mnenonic) and unfortunately that movie wasn't successful. All the others are B-movies (hm, not sure about Universal Soldier though).
User avatar
Mosquito
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: 08 Nov 2003, 18:23

Postby Tom on 21 Jun 2005, 11:29

Seagal did some solid action movies in the old days. Good fun like Out For Justice, Hard To Kill, Nico and his best Under Siege. They were all repsectable budgets and did very good business. Since then Seagal has done utter crap and has been on a level with Dolph and even lower, but has made more money thanks to his early hits. Poor Dolph's problems was that his first few films were more ambitious ideas that flopped. Masters of The Universe, Punisher and Red Scorpian. If anything Dolph worked on bigger budget films than Seagal as well to start with. Seagals highest was Under Siege which was $16 million, while Red Scorpion was the same and Uinversal Soldier $22 million.

If Dolph has done simpler strtiaght out action films with plenty of ass kikcing and not films that could alienate and annoy a fan base like Masters and Punisher, he would have done better for himself. Better movies as well probably.

Nowadays Seagal is making realy bad films. Put it this way if you see Submerged, that is probably his best movie of recent years, and the main problem? Seagal himself. The iflm actually has some good action and entertainment but is ruined everytime Seagal enters the frame.
User avatar
Tom
Regular
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 13:59
Location: Marlow, England

Postby dlph on 01 Jun 2008, 07:50

The beauty of a Steven Seagal fim is the vast array of martial moves he makes with his whole body. In every angle and all sides, Seagal has a counter-move and defense for every attack. That's a big statement from the aikidomeister' Sensei Steven Seagal. But I enjoy the recent throws and tosses I've seen from Dolph in some of his films. Very similar to Seagal's re-directive energetic self-defense tactics of aikido. I wonder where Dolph learned to toss the bad guys in these films? :?:
Last edited by dlph on 17 Jun 2010, 07:29, edited 2 times in total.
dlph
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 01 Jun 2008, 07:20

Postby dolphage on 02 Jun 2008, 22:38

Aikido is a total sham.
It only works for exhibitions and movies (were the opponent is in on it and knows what he is excpected to do). It looks cool on film but it´s a useless fighting system.

But Dolph borrowed some of the bonebreaking and untouchability of Seagal in Direct Action.
User avatar
dolphage
Regular
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 16:05
Location: Spain

Postby Nathan on 03 Jun 2008, 00:45

I like some of Seagal's techniques..but I find it very unbelievable that he can throw and spin and flip people so easily...I would like to see it done for real..we all know a kick to the face works..but do those wrist locks and then flipping the guy over work or were they just "simulated" in the film by the thugs etc? Oh and I love the fights in Direct Action they are superbly edited and directed and have some really cool angles, truly something special.
User avatar
Nathan
Regular
 
Posts: 1730
Joined: 19 Oct 2006, 23:04
Location: UK, Scotland

Postby dlph on 03 Jun 2008, 17:10

Nathan wrote:I like some of Seagal's techniques..but I find it very unbelievable that he can throw and spin and flip people so easily...I would like to see it done for real..we all know a kick to the face works..but do those wrist locks and then flipping the guy over work or were they just "simulated" in the film by the thugs etc? Oh and I love the fights in Direct Action they are superbly edited and directed and have some really cool angles, truly something special.


Have you seen "The Path Beyond Thought" vhs tape?
dlph
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 01 Jun 2008, 07:20

Postby Nathan on 03 Jun 2008, 17:11

No I haven't.. :(
User avatar
Nathan
Regular
 
Posts: 1730
Joined: 19 Oct 2006, 23:04
Location: UK, Scotland

Postby dolphage on 03 Jun 2008, 18:33

Don´t
User avatar
dolphage
Regular
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 16:05
Location: Spain

Postby Jox on 03 Jun 2008, 19:01

Aikido is very fluid since it's all about using the attacker's flow and energy, but it's very precise and therefore not easy to master obviously. And if it was to be used for real, yes it would be very efficient. But I'll remind here that Aikido (way of harmony) is not a fighting system, although it finds its roots in Aikijutsu. There is not a single attack in Aikido.

Certainly effective (but pretentious as well) what Seagal performs on screen is not exactly in sinc with the teachings of Master Ueshiba, who founded the Aikido and is probably going berserk in his grave watching what image SS is portraying in his films... SS might have learned the technics, he certainly has not learned the moral and spiritual aspects of Aikido...
User avatar
Jox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23038
Joined: 08 Nov 2003, 23:03

Postby dolphage on 06 Jun 2008, 13:47

Aikido IS a fighting system (=martial art/combat training or whatever you want to call it). Sure it involves some philosophical aspects (Tao) and it was designed to defeat an opponent without causing harm. A bit like judo, wich I HAVE practiced. But it is definately a martial art.

Of course there are attacks in Aikido. A throw is an attack, a lock is an attack. Allthough the strikes and kicks etc that are thaught in Aikido are mainly there for the reason of being protacted AGAINST so they are not really a part of the practice but they still teach them.

Aikido training is Kata bound, there is an uke (performing a predecided attack) and a nage (performing a defence against it). And in training you are trying to get these moves to look as fluent as possible. Like a dance. The "attacks" you defend against look like those cheesy "rape prevention attacks" with some guy acting out some over exaggerated kick or punch or stab or whatever. The problem with this kind of training is obvious. The only thing you train yourself at is Kata. Not actually defending yourself in a real situation.

There are no Aikido practioners in mixed martial arts (forgetting that it would in some ways go against the idea of Aikido to practice MMA) But then again it goes against "the gentle way" (Judo) to do that aswell, but there are judoka doing very well in MMA (we at least did sparring/randori along with the Kata) . Aikido, not so much.

Long story short; Aikido gargles balls.
User avatar
dolphage
Regular
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 16:05
Location: Spain

Postby Jox on 06 Jun 2008, 14:27

OK I won't go further as this discussion is getting on my nerves.

So I will just add this: no it's not whatever I or anybody wanna call it! Why do you think is there the term martial ART?!
which btw have been totally abusively used by the so-called MMA or "mixed martial arts" which have nothing artsy or honorable about them however tough those guys are... and as you put it nicely "it would in some ways go against the idea of Aikido to practice MMA"

and NO, a throw is not necessarily an attack I'm sorry...

BTW check out my article about the Japanese karate film "Kuro-Obi" (Black Belt) in UK mag COMBAT on www.combatmag.co.uk out the 16th of this month
User avatar
Jox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23038
Joined: 08 Nov 2003, 23:03

Postby dolphage on 06 Jun 2008, 18:00

We agree that Aikido is a martial art. Good. That, at least, gives me a starting point.

This will hopefully help you understand the defenition of martial arts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

To save some time I´ll just go ahead and quote the introduction:

"Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they maybe studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat a person physically or to defend oneself from physical threat."

Don´t be sorry.. a throw IS an attack. A throw is an attack even if it is performed on someone while they are trying to hit you, using their own movement against them. Then it´s a COUNTERattack.
Any counterattack is still an attack. Even if you are using your opponents own agression/strenght/momentum to defeat him you are still actively trying to defeat him.

The term is Martial ARTS because that is what they used to call all studies in 15th century Europe (where the term originated). The arts of War (=Martial arts), The arts of astronmy, the arts of philosophy etc. Not because it´s "artsy", as you put it.

Are there any more questions or can we move on to discussing what a douche Steven Seagal is?
User avatar
dolphage
Regular
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 16:05
Location: Spain

Postby Jox on 06 Jun 2008, 22:10

well we got on the wrong foot here and this something that could be argued and still is argued in books and such... yes i misunderstood the term "throw" (I have been studying karate in a mix of French and Japanese, not English which is my secondary language that I don't master as much I try to show it), and of course you're right on some level and "artsy" maybe wasn't the proper term, but martial arts as they were later developed had something more than the just the fighting dimension.

I don't read wikipedia for this kind of stuff, but I've read my share martial arts books for the last 20 years, again I maybe expeditious and approximative here but I don't have the time or energy to be more precise but again I don't want to continue this and gain nothing at it...

and I don't think we need to convince anyone here that SS is a douche (which was confirmed to me one morning in an exasperate tone by Danny Lerner and one of the DC line producers) but if you feel like it ...
User avatar
Jox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23038
Joined: 08 Nov 2003, 23:03

Postby dolphage on 07 Jun 2008, 16:59

You should read Wikipedia for this kind of stuff.
Wikipedia can be a terrible place to gain unbiased information but it is many times the best place to do so. An article about a very narrow subject that is not subjected to a lot of peer review can be completely inaccurate, but any major subject will have thousands of knowledgable, passionate people amending and reviewing the information until it is presented in a well rounded way, with controversies and critisisms documented.
A book is compiled by one person or a couple of people (information can of course be gathered from many sources but excactly wich information makes it into the book and wich doesn´t is ultimately decided by the writer/writers).
On any big subject Wikipedia has defenitions that other encyclopedias can only dream of. Whereas a book can be as biased as it wants to be and it will never be amended or corrected.

You keep talking about this discussion "getting on your nerves" and not having the time and energy to keep it up "and gain nothing at it". Has it ever struck you that you need someone to stand up to you every once in while? You are always bullying people on this forum, well this is what it feels like! You should see it as a good learning experience!

BTW, You speak Japanese?!
User avatar
dolphage
Regular
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 16:05
Location: Spain

Next

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests