A fair amount of spectacular fight scenes come from Asia, but so do a lot of really horrible ones. People walking on water or flying through the air come to mind as I'm not a fan of that specific way of handling a fight. I think it all comes down to preference, because the West also produces a lot of great fight scenes.
You can throw cinematography techniques around all you want and claim one better than the other, but ultimately how good a fight is depends on how well it resonates with the viewer. I would consider the Raid and Raid 2 Eye candy fights. Don't get me wrong they are great, but come on the final confrontation is nonstop fighting for two minutes or more. At that point it's eye candy, albeit damn good eye candy. Eye candy fights are well and dandy but fights with emotional build up and investment can be just as rewarding and is something ANY culture can produce.
On the topic of the thread, which is ACTION movies, not fight movies, I think it's a bit biased to claim American directors are incapable of action. I shouldn't need to say this but literally everything this thread discuses boils down to personal preference, you could argue one cinematography technique is far superior to another but even then the entire purpose of good film making is to give the viewer a good experience. A fight scene isn't the movie, it's part of the movie and arguing that a very specific filming technique needs to be used to have a successful fight scene is naive. Hell, technically Fight Club had fight scenes and while they weren't showy or spectacular they supplemented the overall movie in a positive enough way for me to deem successful or 'good'.