No, it's very obvious in this and the other cases that someone is replying to something I didn't remotely say. If you dispute this please explain exactly why instead of just making generalizations. Sure, if both parties agreed to it. See the kung fu/BJJ fight where the kung fu guy got his arm broken. He explicitly said in the next couple sentences that he exactly meant TKD rules and that he would win in them. Also, no mention of dissing was made by either he or me I believe. As for no rules: see above. How so? I'm getting the idea that there's a lot of crap TKD and WC from what the practitioners say themselves! Thus statistically speaking they're a "gray area" in that it's a bet that's riskier. The only one that makes sense at all in the context... Total schools of that style. I clearly stated that I was talking about the chance that if you went to a school of a style, that that school would be a good one. Why would other style schools remotely figure into this? Where are you even getting this: Debatable and a separate issue (practicality versus what would you recommend). Um. Sorry, look again: He brought up statistical correllation of success in/by MMA with TKD where that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I seem to be paying a lot more attention to what's actually being written here. By the way, did you find any of those points I supposedly ignored instead of refuted?