Most practicing martial arts exponents claim that the particular style which they specialize in is the deadliest style of martial arts. Like in religion, there are the usual fanatics who profess that their own style is the best and deadliest of all.
For a lay person who is new to the world of martial arts, the terms and arguments used by martial arts experts can be very confusing. Most likely, you will end up wondering which of all the styles known, is truly the deadliest style of martial arts?
Let me first assure you that anyone who claims to know the deadliest style of martial arts is a big brag. If you use your common sense, you would realize that if indeed there was a style which was the deadliest of all, most people would die out on the streets and the field. Not only that, there would also be combative techniques developed to counter such ‘deadly’ attacks by another group of innovative researchers-cum-fighters.
The truth of the matter is that while certain martial arts moves can injure and kill, there is no style in existence today which can be termed as ‘deadly’. If there was, the world would not be a safe place to live in. if you are keen to know which of the many martial arts style was the most effective in a combat situation, you could study the history of this art and find out which of these styles were used in street fights and battle field which can be extrapolated to modern times.
Of course, all forms of martial arts began as a combat technique but how many of them remain as effective today as they were centuries ago? All these arts today are ‘diluted’ or ‘civilized’ forms which are governed by various safety rules and principles.
Take the example of karate which was originally created to kill or disable the opponent, can you imagine such a form of art being taught in karate schools in the country today? Most of the potentially hazardous moves have been ruled out to prevent injury or harm to the opponent. While karate might have been created with deadly combat in mind, it may not remain so today.
The ‘deadly’ image of martial arts which rest in our minds is mainly created by dream merchants of Hollywood and filmmakers of other Asian countries. ‘Deadly’ martial arts specialists like Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee might have displayed some ‘killing’ moves on camera, but remember they were movies where the more important aspect was to create a ‘dramatic’ effect in the minds of the audience.
In cinema, everything is larger than life, to create an impact and increase its box office returns. Display of martial arts skills is no exception. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a memorable movie in this genre but if you get yourself down to earth, trust me, no one can catch a flying bullet or defy all laws of physics and gravity to fly into air.
Another impossibility often shown in movies is an old Asian man killing or maiming an opponent using a technique called ‘death touch’ or ‘dim mak’. Though the movies will want to make you believe that such a death touch is possible, where you simply touch someone at a particular spot and he drops dead, it is a pretty absurd idea.
Think about it. If it was really possible, would everyone not learn and use it? If it was true, many people would learn this and start building defense against it too. Just for the records, you can check out the police records of our country to find how many people died of dim mak!
While there is no ‘deadliest style of martial arts’ in existence in modern times, there are many extremely effective lessons that can be learnt from schools which teach martial arts so that you could develop your self defense skills in the event you are touched ever by ‘dim mak’!
Archive for December, 2010
Deadliest Style Of Martial Arts
Friday, December 17th, 2010How to Tell If You Really Need to Hire a Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyer
Thursday, December 16th, 2010Some people love to do everything by themselves alone, after all, indeed, they can. They are the ones who hate to ask directions on the highway and those who never uses manuals for putting together some equipment at home. They are those who think they don’t require help from other people and even when it comes to declaring bankruptcy. So, the question from them is “Do I really need the help of a consumer bankruptcy lawyer?
Although I admire those people who tend to do all things by themselves, of course, there are still some limits. And the limits are those situations where one needs other people’s help. If you are considering declaring bankruptcy, then obviously, you are having serious problem financially and you need help from outside.
Whether you like it or not, you now have reached the point in your life where you require help in solving your financial problem. The situation in bankruptcy is complex, particularly that there are new changes in the bankruptcy code. Because of this, you will really need assistance from a good consumer bankruptcy lawyer or simply a bankruptcy attorney who will help you through the process.
Stating a Case- The 1996 National Securities Market Improvement Act
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010Fraud and schemes have plagued the stock market since its inception. It is too alluring for some to resist trying to get an undeserved piece of the large amounts of money moved around on the market. Cleverly disguised, fraudulent schemes must always be anticipated and monitored for accordingly. Throughout the stock market’s history numerous rules and regulations have been enacted in attempt to deter deceptive practices, but as the adage goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way.
In today’s world there are many rules and regulation in place to protect investors against fraud, but there are always loopholes and gaps that allow for some to cheat the system. There is a regulation in place, the 1996 Securities Market Improvement Act, which determines whether securities should be monitored at a state or federal level, but is this current system effective in monitoring and protecting investors against fraud?Supervision and Acts
To understand where these securities rules and regulations come into play, it is important to understand their history. A great place to begin is at the lowest point of America’s stock market history, the infamous crash.
Shortly after the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S. Congress passed two momentous proposals in effort to regulate the stock market and protect investors against fraud, The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A regulatory body, called the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC, was created by section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as an independent agency of the United States government. The SEC was formed to regulate and enforce federally established securities laws and served to establish a government-supervised financial industry. The goal of the SEC was to restore investor confidence in the turbulent and oftentimes fraudulent post-crash marketplace.
While the SEC monitored and regulated securities on a federal level, individual states also enforced statewide securities regulation, to combat fraud at a local level. These state enforced rules and regulations are termed, Blue-sky laws. Blue-sky laws regulate the offerings and sales of securities within a certain state to protect investors against fraud. Most of these laws require securities to be registered at a state level prior to being sold within the state.Dual Regulation Woes
While registering securities at both state and federal levels served to regulate against fraud at two levels, federal securities laws and state Blue-sky laws oftentimes not only duplicated one another, but added a bit of a headache to the registration and regulation processes as well.
As a first step toward highlighting the need to do away with dual regulations, The Revised Uniform Securities Act of 1985 or RUSA was enacted. RUSA did not remove state-level security registration processes, but it served to prepare for legislative activity that would. It also included an exception on registering securities traded on NASDAQ at a state level, which most states passed in to law between 1985 and 1990.
To further deal with the confusion and other issues that dual regulation caused, in 1996, the US Congress passed the National Securities Market Improvement Act or NSMIA, which amended Section 18 of the 1933 Act. This Act applies to securities listed on the American Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and NASDAQ.NSMIA
NSMIA was adopted as an attempt to create a federally controlled, uniform securities registration code to follow. The code eliminated the need for securities owners of nationally traded stocks and mutual funds to register at both state and federal levels, and thereby pre-empted all state Blue-sky laws. NIMSA did however, preserve states rights to maintain anti-fraud authority over all securities traded within its borders.
While the ability of states to prosecute violations of state-based securities antifraud statutes was left intact, states lost control over much of their securities regulatory authority. This loss of state control can be seen well in the investment advisor arena as NSMIA specifically removed states’ power to regulate securities controlled by investment advisers with Assets Under Management or AUM, totaling over 25 million dollars (including private placements) instead placing them under regulation of the SEC.Loopholes
Since everything was so simple as to who would govern securities and registration, things were much easier and fraud was reduced, right? Well to a certain degree it was, but there are of course loopholes to the NIMSA act, such as Regulation D Rule 506 offerings, which are exempt from registration requirements.
Regulation D allows for the sale of securities to be exempt from registration with the SEC, if one of three rules are met and as long a company files a Form D with the SEC after their securities are sold. Form D is notice that contains the names and contact information about a company’s CEO’s and stock promoters, but little else.
Regulation D companies that also use the Rule 506 exemption can raise unlimited amounts of money without ever registering with the SEC, and since NSMIA, they are not regulated by the states either, so they enjoy basically no regulatory scrutiny.
This lack of regulation has opened the door to fraud and many argue that it could be easily stopped in its early stages if states were given more regulatory powers.Should state regulatory ability be re-instated?
There have been discussions by states securities officials that there should be a legislative reform effort to revise state and federal regulatory authority. If states were permitted to exercise regulatory enforcement to address fraud in the beginning stages, then it could be stopped before investors suffer significant losses.
The North American Securities Administrators Association President, Fred Joseph has urged for the adjustment of the AUM or Assets Under Management from 25 million to 100 million arguing that even small investment advisors typically manage more that 25 million. He has also asked that Congress increase state authority to enforce regulation over large investment advisors to counter fraud.
Overall, the arguments seem to be that states should be able to have increased authority to screen for securities fraud at its earlier level when there may just be evidence of slightly deceptive practices instead of downright fraud. This early detection could save investors from the harm of unregulated securities fraud.