# How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?



## KangTsai

How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-

-Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
-Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
-Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


----------



## Paul_D

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


Interviews with muggers, on how they select their victims, shows that size has nothing to do with it.  If you carry yourself confidently career criminals will wait for someone less confident to select as a victim, so whilst the actual muscles will have little bearing, the confidence that comes from having them would mean you would be less likely to be selected as a victim.


----------



## marques

Once a big guy said his size avoid him some troubles. BUT if he has one, probably it will be also a big one (weapons, outnumbered...). I believe he is right.

PS: In other words, big size may prevent troubles, but may also motivate the bad guys for a better planning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Paul_D said:


> Interviews with muggers, on how they select their victims, shows that size has nothing to do with it.  If you carry yourself confidently career criminals will wait for someone less confident to select as a victim, so whilst the actual muscles will have little bearing, the confidence that comes from having them would mean you would be less likely to be selected as a victim.



I was nearly mugged a decade ago in Milwaukee. My friend and I were walking downtown and I got across a street before he did. This sketchy guy comes up and ask's me for a light, which is a well-known ploy. I see his greasy buddy in a doorway nearby.

I'm getting ready to take a defensive posture and my friend catches up to me. He's 6 feet 8 inches tall, and solid.

The prospective mugger never even waited to see if I had a light, he just walked quickly away.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked



What on earth is that?


----------



## JP3

Tez3 said:


> What on earth is that?


I was wondering the same thing.

I've reviewed the same data about alert, confident small people being less attractive to a bad guy, such as a mugger, as set out above.  I do have this feeling, after all the years of working the bars, that if a mugger/bad guy/bully-boy is wanting to start something to steal/rob, have fun, get whatever rush it is from hurting someone else, they are way more likely to choose the smaller person than the larger.

Being 6'8" and solid is a really good basis to start from for self-defense.  Problem is, that's probably the upper 1 percentile for size, eh?

And Bill, you said you were about to adopt a defensive posture.  I had this mental image of you always being in a defensive posture. C'mon man, letting us down, letting people get inside your space before you're ready.

Kidding. 

But, on the issue of bodybuilding as part of a martial arts/SD strategy?  I'm not talking about conditioning, or strength training, Those are very useful. But, bodybuilding would take a lot of time awy from actual training, which is way more effective a tool, imo.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> What on earth is that?



Where you have a face like a smashed fish but a good body.


----------



## Flatfish

like that?


----------



## KangTsai

Flatfish said:


> like that?



No, more like all these but mostly the last one.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...SvkCQmHg2Q6jnOIonQjgusZfS7Kht6fC4C7TM_XzqUUOg
/fit/izen takes autism to a new level
/fit/izen belongs on /sp/


----------



## Headhunter

Not really it can also make you more of a target because drunks in a bar may want to have a go against the toughest looking guy there to prove his manhood


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> No, more like all these but mostly the last one.
> https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...SvkCQmHg2Q6jnOIonQjgusZfS7Kht6fC4C7TM_XzqUUOg
> /fit/izen takes autism to a new level
> /fit/izen belongs on /sp/



 I am reluctant to report this post but the third one down is unacceptable, we don't make fun or use autism for jokes or so called 'funny' stories.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

JP3 said:


> And Bill, you said you were about to adopt a defensive posture.  I had this mental image of you always being in a defensive posture. C'mon man, letting us down, letting people get inside your space before you're ready.
> 
> Kidding.



Lol. I can't be in a defensive posture at all times. I'd stick to the ground and break doors off at the hinges when I tried to open them. Super saiyan is work, brother.


----------



## JP3

Bill Mattocks said:


> Lol. I can't be in a defensive posture at all times. I'd stick to the ground and break doors off at the hinges when I tried to open them. Super saiyan is work, brother.


    *snort*
"stick to the ground" had me nearly spew my bad-for-me cola on my keyboard.  You may need to explain that joke to the youth.

Reminds me of a funny thing which happened to me about... shoot, 18 years ago now.

  I'd been in Judo for about 5 years at that point, had my kiddo exposure to aikido, and in the intervening 20-odd years I'd been doing all kinds of strikey stuff to bags, boards, blocks... people.  I had started aikido class and was really enjoying it, since the Tomiki style of aikido uses parallel terminology as judo (Kenji Tomiki was a 4th or 5th dan in judo when Sensei Kano sent him off to train with Ueshiba, so it makes sense).  Anyway, the previous week I'd been in class and the instructors had been focusing on the concept of body-fusion, or body moves as a unit. Fundamental stuff, good stuff.  One of them said that he uses it each time he has to go in/out one of the big outer doors of the building he works in, one of those doors that has the wall-plaque you can push and the door opens for you, or you "can" lean into it and shove it open.  He said he gets his practice by walking up to the door and fixing his posture and position on the fly and blows throught he door with a center-drop taking place on his falling step as his unbendable arm is raised to make contact with the door... like I said, fundamental stuff.

   Anyway, I'm at Court and I head off to the restroom.  Approaching, I saw the door opens inwards, and it's a standard interior fire door, so it's heavy and without really thinking about it much ("Hey bubBubba, hold my beer and watch this!" comes to mind...) I shift my stride length to take the door. So, I'm walking full speed and blast into this door with right arm extended.  It satisfactorialy jumps away from my powerful contact and I feel empowered.  About 1 inch later it encounters resistance but I'm still a-blastin' so momentum does what momentum does and the door blows away from me.... right intot he face of som poor deputy who happened to be reaching for the door at the moment ... just ... after I was starting the drop.  Oops. Knocked him back against the opposite wall.  Uh, sorry man...

Idiot.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

A monk was told to go to his cell and meditate on nothingness.  He told his master he was unable to think of nothing.  So his master told him to meditate on being a bull.

A week later, the monk had not reappeared.  The master went to his cell and demanded he emerge.  He told his master "I cannot come out, my horns won't clear the door."


----------



## oftheherd1

Back to the original question.  Imho as long as the big massive muscles don't interfere with speed or limberness, it may not be a bad way to avoid getting in a fight in the first place.  But if you are thinking of being 'muscle bound' then I would say it is a bad idea. 

Your speed and limberness will likely, no, will indeed be effected.  Limberness and speed is in important in a grappling art for application of techniques, and also in defense.  Striking arts - both in speed of striking and in surviving greater injuries against grappling.


----------



## Paul_D

oftheherd1 said:


> Back to the original question.  Imho as long as the big massive muscles don't interfere with speed or limberness, it may not be a bad way to avoid getting in a fight in the first place.


As people do not generally try to starts fights with people who are bigger and/or stronger, how would bodybuilding prevent larger people trying to start a fight with you?


----------



## crazydiamond

All things being equal a large powerful build matters. This is why there are weight classes in fighting.

I would say that I am more intimated by a strong man/power lifter like build - then the more about looks body builder. There are shades of this - but you can kind of tell "power build" vs "looks build" in a guy.

But - attitude matters as well.


----------



## Transk53

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅



None. For a start a big muscled guy isn't intimidating, nor is any build. It is all in the mind. With Tennis, I guess Andy Murray would send you to sleep with boredom, so I would say that is +100 percent. Gains Goblin. That pretty much covers all. Getting jacked isn't confined to the ugly etc, but would agree the brain cell count would be lacking.

The really imtimidating ones, they are those skirt the shadows in quiet reflection of the environment they are in. Don't use balshy tactics or in your face ballshit, they just coldly calculate when best to strike and stay quiet. And one question, where the hell did the assumption of a knife come from? You realise that being tooled up is obvious right.


----------



## Transk53

crazydiamond said:


> All things being equal a large powerful build matters. This is why there are weight classes in fighting.
> 
> I would say that I am more intimated by a strong man/power lifter like build - then the more about looks body builder. There are shades of this - but you can kind of tell "power build" vs "looks build" in a guy.
> 
> But - attitude matters as well.



Really. Huge muscles are not a obvious indicater of strength accross the board as it were. Raw grunt maybe, but raw grunt is easily countered with applied skill


----------



## Transk53

Paul_D said:


> As people do not generally try to starts fights with people who are bigger and/or stronger, how would bodybuilding prevent larger people trying to start a fight with you?



It wouldn't, and the size issue is just plain silly. The bigger they are the harder they fall kind of rings true. But it is not the fall necessarily, just the bigger target zone. Yeah a body bulider that gets into range to hit would likely hurt, and probably knock you out. However, the logic of the situation can be reversed. That really peeves them off, especially when they realise that a mere weakling is ready to stand and fight


----------



## oftheherd1

Paul_D said:


> As people do not generally try to starts fights with people who are bigger and/or stronger, how would bodybuilding prevent larger people trying to start a fight with you?



I am not a body builder, but I don't try to start fights with anyone, and would not just because I were a body builder.  I am taking body builder to be one intentionally works out in a way as to build visibly large muscles.

I was never taught that size trumped skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


I'll toss in my thoughts on this, because it seems to be wandering a bit (what?? wandering topics on MT???)

In many situations, an attacker or aggressive douchebag does a bit of "mental math". If they think a person is going to be difficult to deal with physically, they are less likely to put themselves into a situation where they may have to do so. This is not universal, but it is not uncommon, either. Many things go into that "equation": 

How confident do they look?
How competent do they look?
How threatening/strong/powerful do they look?
How aware do they look?
How many friends are around them?
And so on. Apparent physical prowess (including strength) would be part of that equation. How big a part? It probably differs from one situation to the next. But it is in there. Scrawny kids get bullied more often than athletically strong kids. Douchebags are probably a bit less likely to have a go at someone who looks bigger than them.

So, my answer is that it matters. Some. Maybe not much, but it matters. The actual size won't really help in a self-defense situation (though strength will), but it may give a slight edge in keeping things from getting to the point where you have to defend.


----------



## Steve

oftheherd1 said:


> Your speed and limberness will likely, no, will indeed be effected.  Limberness and speed is in important in a grappling art for application of techniques, and also in defense.  Striking arts - both in speed of striking and in surviving greater injuries against grappling.


This isn't necessarily true.   Look at gymnasts, dancers, Jean Claude van damme.   When I was heading down to basic training, I met another guy from Seattle who was the biggest, muscliest, fittest and most limber guy I'd ever met.   Seriously, this guy was a physical specimen.   I wish I could remember his name,   It seems like his dad ran a Kung fu school somewhere up north.   Anyway, point is, you can be big and not strong.   You can be small and not limber.  And you can be big, strong and limber if that's what you're training to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This isn't necessarily true.   Look at gymnasts, dancers, Jean Claude van damme.   When I was heading down to basic training, I met another guy from Seattle who was the biggest, muscliest, fittest and most limber guy I'd ever met.   Seriously, this guy was a physical specimen.   I wish I could remember his name,   It seems like his dad ran a Kung fu school somewhere up north.   Anyway, point is, you can be big and not strong.   You can be small and not limber.  And you can be big, strong and limber if that's what you're training to be.


Agreed. The reason most bodybuilders (and, in fact many lifters, in general) aren't limber is because they aren't working toward it. If you work out heavily without stretching, there's a good chance your muscles will actually shorten.


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> This isn't necessarily true.   Look at gymnasts, dancers, Jean Claude van damme.   When I was heading down to basic training, I met another guy from Seattle who was the biggest, muscliest, fittest and most limber guy I'd ever met.   Seriously, this guy was a physical specimen.   I wish I could remember his name,   It seems like his dad ran a Kung fu school somewhere up north.   Anyway, point is, you can be big and not strong.   You can be small and not limber.  And you can be big, strong and limber if that's what you're training to be.



OK, strike "no, will indeed" as there will always be exceptions.

But Jean Claude van Damme?


----------



## Transk53

oftheherd1 said:


> OK, strike "no, will indeed" as there will always be exceptions.
> 
> But Jean Claude van Damme?



Perhaps with JCVD then, the combined body building with concurrent ballet lessons helped.


----------



## punisher73

Too many variables to state that having big muscles will be a deterrent.  In what situation are we discussing?  In general, muggings etc. criminals like to select ones that are going to give the highest reward for the least amount of danger.  Other variables come into play just besides having big muscles.

Also, I have run into many people with "small man syndrome" that purposely try to start things with bigger people (relative term, I know).  Some guys just like to fight and will pick out big people to start trouble with, just because they like to fight.  So being big and muscled actually draws trouble in many places.

If it's just a plain ol' bar situation where someone is drunk and offended, I think that if "big muscles" is deterrent enough to stop the fight, I think that the fight could have been stopped anyways with good de-escalation and communication skills because the person wasn't really wanting to fight, but just wanting to save face.

That being said, I think that fitness and strength training is important and larger muscles may be a by product of that training, but just training for hypertrophy and getting bigger muscles is wasted energy if your ONLY goal is to scare away potential bad guys.


----------



## crazydiamond

Both of these have been posted before for fun. Each of these highlights good fighters (great with Conor) vs strongmen.  I think there is a point to be made when there is notable size differences with muscle. No matter your skill - or evil intentions - you are going to think twice about attacking someone much bigger and stronger.


----------



## Paul_D

crazydiamond said:


> Both of these have been posted before for fun. Each of these highlights good fighters (great with Conor) vs strongmen.  I think there is a point to be made when there is notable size differences with muscle. No matter your skill - or evil intentions - you are going to think twice about attacking someone much bigger and stronger.


Your videos are of consensual sparring/fighting, which has nothing to do with self defence.  So in the case of consensual sparring/fighting (as well as sport/competition;  stepping outside into the pub car park to settle a drunken argument is also consensual violence and not self defence) then yes you would think twice about fighting someone bigger/from a higher weight category. 

But for self defence, victim selection is done your perceived suitability as a victim, most notably body language, not size.  If you pay attention walking down the street, you will see just as many big people with victim body language as you do small people.  Another factor is that consensual violence is one on one, whereas self defence usually isn’t, so again size is not the biggest factor when it comes to selecting a victim.






Don't Walk this Way - How Your Steps Tell Psychopaths who to Attack | The Huffington Post

BBC Inside Out - Asking for it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe?


Old Chinese saying said, "一力降十会 - Strength can defeat 10 techniques". If your opponent is strong than you, no matter how good techniques that you have, it won't work on him.

When a monkey meets a tiger, that monkey has no chance.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old Chinese saying said, "一力降十会 - Strength can defeat 10 techniques". If your opponent is strong than you, no matter how good techniques that you have, it won't work on him.
> 
> When a monkey meets a tiger, that monkey has no chance.



Reminds me of something I heard back when I first started training MA....if two opponents of equal strength fight, the one with the best technique wins. If two opponents with equal technique fight, the one with the most strength wins.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old Chinese saying said, "一力降十会 - Strength can defeat 10 techniques". If your opponent is strong than you, no matter how good techniques that you have, it won't work on him.
> 
> When a monkey meets a tiger, that monkey has no chance.


Not true, unless your opponent knows the techniques and is equally skilled. I've trained with many guys who were bigger and stronger than me. Some naturally so, some by bodybuilding. In no case was my technique useless, so long as I used it where there was an opening.


----------



## crazydiamond

Paul_D said:


> Your videos are of consensual sparring/fighting, which has nothing to do with self defence.  So in the case of consensual sparring/fighting (as well as sport/competition;  stepping outside into the pub car park to settle a drunken argument is also consensual violence and not self defence) then yes you would think twice about fighting someone bigger/from a higher weight category.
> 
> But for self defence, victim selection is done your perceived suitability as a victim, most notably body language, not size.  If you pay attention walking down the street, you will see just as many big people with victim body language as you do small people.  Another factor is that consensual violence is one on one, whereas self defence usually isn’t, so again size is not the biggest factor when it comes to selecting a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't Walk this Way - How Your Steps Tell Psychopaths who to Attack | The Huffington Post
> 
> BBC Inside Out - Asking for it?



Its a factor - and its about ranges.  

You think any form of body language or walking style (short of showing a major injury or disability ) that the "The Mountain" is going to get jumped by any sane bad guy? 

There are reasonable ranges and boundaries in predatory choices.  I am not saying body language does not play a role - but there are limits when someone is clearly strong big.

Also I might say that lifting tends to improve your body language and attitude. If that little guy in the video you showed spent two hard years of nutrition and lifting - even with NO fighting training he would present differently - not just in size but body language. So there are links.


----------



## Paul_D

crazydiamond said:


> You think any form of body language or walking style (short of showing a major injury or disability ) that the "The Mountain" is going to get jumped by any sane bad guy?


Not by one bad guy no.

And which of the three Mountains are you referring to?  If you are talking about Hafþór Björnsson, he is genetic freak and a professional bodybuilder, hardly representative of the majority of people who go to the gym on a recreational basis, which is what we are discussing.

Also, by your logic, if no one attacks big muscly guys Khal Drogo/Conan the Barbarian would never have been glassed in a bar, and Glen Ross (five times UK Strongest Man, three times Britian's Stongest Man) wouldn’t have been attacked in the street with a baseball bat.



crazydiamond said:


> There are reasonable ranges and boundaries in predatory choices.  I am not saying body language does not play a role - but there are limits when someone is clearly strong big.


Of course, but unless they are a clear execption to the rule (Hafþór Björnsson) size is no guarantee that you won't be selected as a victim either (Jason Momoa/Glen Ross).



crazydiamond said:


> If that little guy in the video you showed spent two hard years of nutrition and lifting - even with NO fighting training he would present differently - not just in size but body language. So there are links.


True, but that still isn't going to stop you getting attacked, Jason Momoa/Glen Ross.  Size is one factor, but I don't believe it's as big a deciding factor as you and many others think.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Your videos are of consensual sparring/fighting, which has nothing to do with self defence.  So in the case of consensual sparring/fighting (as well as sport/competition;  stepping outside into the pub car park to settle a drunken argument is also consensual violence and not self defence) then yes you would think twice about fighting someone bigger/from a higher weight category.
> 
> But for self defence, victim selection is done your perceived suitability as a victim, most notably body language, not size.  If you pay attention walking down the street, you will see just as many big people with victim body language as you do small people.  Another factor is that consensual violence is one on one, whereas self defence usually isn’t, so again size is not the biggest factor when it comes to selecting a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't Walk this Way - How Your Steps Tell Psychopaths who to Attack | The Huffington Post
> 
> BBC Inside Out - Asking for it?



We should look at that knockout game and see how many roid boys were chosen as victims.  I am going to suggest not many.  If any.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> We should look at that knockout game and see how many roid boys were chosen as victims.  I am going to suggest not many.  If any.


Because big guys are never selected as victims.
Shogun Rua robbed at gunpoint in Brazil


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Because big guys are never selected as victims.
> Shogun Rua robbed at gunpoint in Brazil



It is percentages. Not absolutes.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> It is percentages. Not absolutes.


Agreed.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Bodybuilding is for looks and for image, its not about self defense. Here is a video that shows that when a bodybuilder goes up against a Jiu Jitsu fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> Bodybuilding is for looks and for image, its not about self defense. Here is a video that shows that when a bodybuilder goes up against a Jiu Jitsu fighter.


Nobody asked if bodybuilding was a good substitute for MA training. They were asking if the physical intimidation factor might be useful in preventing attacks.


----------



## Steve

When I first started training, there was a guy who was a bodybuilder who was also a white belt.  It was eye opening to me what he shared about that sport.  The entire idea of that sport of that sport is to sculpt the body into a shape, which represents and ideal.  The wide shoulders and huge thighs are in contrast to a very small waist. 

When he started, he had very strong arms and legs, but his core was underdeveloped.  Eventually, after about 7 months, he suffered from his first hernia.  He had surgery, eventually had another hernia and had to quick training.   I don't know whether there is a direct correlation between his previous training as a bodybuilder, his lack of core strength and his hernia issues, but he believed there was.


----------



## PhotonGuy

gpseymour said:


> Nobody asked if bodybuilding was a good substitute for MA training. They were asking if the physical intimidation factor might be useful in preventing attacks.



To some extent perhaps it can but attackers all too often choose their victims based in their vulnerability not their size. For instance, somebody with headphones on whose absorbed in their iPhone would be at a much greater level of vulnerability than somebody who is alert to their surroundings and thus much more likely to be picked as a victim regardless of their respective sizes and musculature.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> To some extent perhaps it can but attackers all too often choose their victims based in their vulnerability not their size. For instance, somebody with headphones on whose absorbed in their iPhone would be at a much greater level of vulnerability than somebody who is alert to their surroundings and thus much more likely to be picked as a victim regardless of their respective sizes and musculature.


Agreed, but that doesn't address whether the same person would be less likely to be chosen if they were bigger. In most cases, I think the answer is yes. It doesn't trump other factors, but it is a factor that matters.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, but that doesn't address whether the same person would be less likely to be chosen if they were bigger. In most cases, I think the answer is yes.


Why do you think that?  In the only interview I've read with a mugger interview,  when asked if size played a part in selecting their victim, they said no.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Why do you think that?  In the only interview I've read with a mugger interview,  when asked if size played a part in selecting their victim, they said no.


That's one person, and one type of instance. Size affects some people some of the time (or maybe some people all of the time). Thus, it plays a role. If someone sees two equally vulnerable looking people who appear to have equal stuff to take, and one of them looks like the Rock in his prime, and the other looks like Woody Allen in his prime, which do you think they'd choose? Same for if someone is just propping their ego and looking to pick a fight they can easily win - do they pick Woody or the Rock? There are scenarios where size doesn't matter. There are even scenarios where it may play in the opposite direction (someone with lots of confidence wanting to show off). In most cases it's either a positive or neutral.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> That's one person, and one type of instance. Size affects some people some of the time (or maybe some people all of the time). Thus, it plays a role. If someone sees two equally vulnerable looking people who appear to have equal stuff to take, and one of them looks like the Rock in his prime, and the other looks like Woody Allen in his prime, which do you think they'd choose? Same for if someone is just propping their ego and looking to pick a fight they can easily win - do they pick Woody or the Rock? There are scenarios where size doesn't matter. There are even scenarios where it may play in the opposite direction (someone with lots of confidence wanting to show off). In most cases it's either a positive or neutral.


I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking why you think that.  

Asking me what I think about the Rock and Woody Allen doesn't is irrelevant as I'm not a criminal.  The one interview I have read with a criminal where they were asked about size tells me size isn't a factor.  So my question remains why do you think it is?  What evidence do you have from criminals that influences the way you think, or are you just superimposing what you think onto criminals on the assumption they think they same way you do?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking why you think that.
> 
> Asking me what I think about the Rock and Woody Allen doesn't is irrelevant as I'm not a criminal.  The one interview I have read with a criminal where they were asked about size tells me size isn't a factor.  So my question remains why do you think it is?  What evidence do you have from criminals that influences the way you think, or are you just superimposing what you think onto criminals on the assumption they think they same way you do?


You're assuming the only situation to be considered is the "criminal". I've referred to more situations than that. I'll see if I can dig up any of the old references I have about target choice. Vulnerability is the primary criterion, and that includes perceived physical vulnerability (their likely ability to fight back). In that, smaller/weaker is perceived as more vulnerable.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

PhotonGuy said:


> Bodybuilding is for looks and for image, its not about self defense. Here is a video that shows that when a bodybuilder goes up against a Jiu Jitsu fighter.



To be more precise, that's what happens when a body builder goes against Pedro Sauer in his prime. Sauer may have been giving up 100 pounds, but he is also a very good black belt.  Put an average blue belt up against that same body builder and the outcome may have been different.

That said, you are generally correct about body building. It's focused on developing a certain type of appearance. There are strength gains involved, but they are a side effect of the main goal. Competitors in power lifting, Olympic weight lifting, and strong man contests will generally have much more functional strength than their body building counterparts. None of those are directly aimed at fighting or self-defense, but having a high level of functional strength can certainly be useful in a combative situation.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> I'll see if I can dig up any of the old references I have about target choice.


Thank you, that would be much appreciated.  The more information I can access the better.


----------



## Ironbear24

Idk how afraid are you of me?


----------



## Headhunter

Body builders are not tough guys sure they could probably throw a hard Punch but not with any speed or technique. Look in boxing or mma these big muscular guys after a few minutes they're exhausted and get picked apart


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

intimidation causes more problems than it helps, trust me, I am not that muscular but something about me intimidates people and it just causes problems. That said being conditioned including having well developed muscles will absolutely help you when your engaged in combat.


----------



## kuniggety

I'm not a bodybuilder, ie I don't do the high rep low weight reps used to maximize blood flow to get big puffy muscles. I do however do power lifts (back squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press and occasionally snatched and bent over rows) with high weight and low reps which help tremendously with core strength. It conditions you to work with very heavy weight and so when you're, say, dealing with an averaged sized person, it winds up being almost effortless to move them around. It really helps in grappling... as a supplement to good technique.


----------



## Headhunter

Sami Ibrahim said:


> intimidation causes more problems than it helps, trust me, I am not that muscular but something about me intimidates people and it just causes problems. That said being conditioned including having well developed muscles will absolutely help you when your engaged in combat.


Absolutely a lot of times people see a big guy as a challenge and want to take him to prove their manhood by taking on a big guy and looking good in front of the girls, I mean if you pick a fight with a guy smaller than you you look like a pussy....I'm saying that from the drunken idiots perspective obviously getting in fights in general is just stupid


----------



## Paul_D

Headhunter said:


> I'm saying that from the drunken idiots perspective obviously getting in fights in general is just stupid



But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence.  The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence.  The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.



Defending a drunken fight absolutely is though.
90 killed in single-punch assaults since 2000


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence.  The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.


I don't think he was referring to being drunk, but to being attacked by a drunk idiot with something to prove.


----------



## Steve

You guys are falling into the trap of believing that "self defense" is a useful term with a universally understood and agreed upon definition.   

When people start saying, "but X is not self defense," that is a red flag.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence.  The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.


Not every person who drinks wants to get into a fight.  And not every person who is drunk and fights did so consensually.   And, even if it is consensual, I don't think it's any less "self defense" than a cop getting into a fight (which many have stated is somehow self defense).

It's not the same as being mugged or being raped, but I don't get the sense that's what you have in mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You guys are falling into the trap of believing that "self defense" is a useful term with a universally understood and agreed upon definition.
> 
> When people start saying, "but X is not self defense," that is a red flag.


There may not be a universal definition, but there are things that are fairly universally understood as not being self-defense.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There may not be a universal definition, but there are things that are fairly universally understood as not being self-defense.


Disagree.  It's very subjective, and opportunistic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not every person who drinks wants to get into a fight.  And not every person who is drunk and fights did so consensually.   And, even if it is consensual, I don't think it's any less "self defense" than a cop getting into a fight (which many have stated is somehow self defense).
> 
> It's not the same as being mugged or being raped, but I don't get the sense that's what you have in mind.


I haven't heard a cogent argument that anything consensual is self-defense (though what starts as consensual can morph into a self-defense situation). What I have heard (in a much earlier thread) is some reasonable argument that a) some of what police do is defend themselves when they are attacked, and b) some of what they do, while not actually self-defense, is transferable to self-defense application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Disagree.  It's very subjective, and opportunistic.


I don't know anyone who would argue that attacking someone who is minding their own business is self-defense. Nor that fighting in a ring is self-defense. Those are fairly universally accepted.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> Not every person who drinks wants to get into a fight.



This is true, but then I never said they did.



Steve said:


> And, even if it is consensual, I don't think it's any less "self defense"


Self defence is legal, consensually agreeing to fight people in the street is illegal.


----------



## Steve

Self defense is a legal term.   That is true, and yet it is used to justify all kinds of whackadoo things in martial arts training.  


gpseymour said:


> I don't know anyone who would argue that attacking someone who is minding their own business is self-defense. Nor that fighting in a ring is self-defense. Those are fairly universally accepted.


True, but training to fight in a ring can be the most effective self defense training, depending entirely on how one defines self defense in that discussion.

To be clear, my point isn't that people are wrong or right in this.  Only that the term is always defined opportunistically, and generally to play to the relative strengths of whatever training one does, as I did above.   It's a general, legal term that describes a context but not technique.  But it is used as an abstract to justify competing or not competing, maiming (or at least pretending to maim), killing (or pretending to kill), running, not running, or anything else.

Around here, it's used to support or dismiss literally any position you don't agree with, and also to sell products.  

As an abstract, like afterlife or world peace, it's fine.   But if it's used in any other way, it's bunk.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> This is true, but then I never said they did.
> 
> 
> Self defence is legal, consensually agreeing to fight people in the street is illegal.


Depending on where you live, it may or may not be legal.

But more to the point, where intent is being judged, the practical difference between self defense and not self defense could be in how the narrative is framed and whether or not you have a decent lawyer.  It could very well have nothing to do with what happened, and could instead hinge on how you describe it


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> Depending on where you live, it may or may not be legal.
> 
> But more to the point, where intent is being judged, the practical difference between self defense and not self defense could be in how the narrative is framed and whether or not you have a decent lawyer.  It could very well have nothing to do with what happened, and could instead hinge on how you describe it



Yes, I agree.  There is an excellent article in the now sadly defunct Jissen magazine written by a Britsh Policeman and martial artist about what you should/shouldn't do and say, and what your rights are, once the police take you in for questioning.

Geoff Thompson also points out that people are often convicted not on what they do, but on the statement they give because they word things incorrectly, and/or don't know what key phrases they need to make sure they get into their statement.

It's another reason martial artists often make bad self defence instructors.  They only give this part of self defence lip service (if they even bother to cover it at all) as they simply have no knowledge of this part of the process.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Self defense is a legal term.   That is true, and yet it is used to justify all kinds of whackadoo things in martial arts training.
> 
> True, but training to fight in a ring can be the most effective self defense training, depending entirely on how one defines self defense in that discussion.
> 
> To be clear, my point isn't that people are wrong or right in this.  Only that the term is always defined opportunistically, and generally to play to the relative strengths of whatever training one does, as I did above.   It's a general, legal term that describes a context but not technique.  But it is used as an abstract to justify competing or not competing, maiming (or at least pretending to maim), killing (or pretending to kill), running, not running, or anything else.
> 
> Around here, it's used to support or dismiss literally any position you don't agree with, and also to sell products.
> 
> As an abstract, like afterlife or world peace, it's fine.   But if it's used in any other way, it's bunk.


There's a difference between self-defense and training for it. I teach for self-defense, but students can only practice for self-defense in class (hopefully, they never actually have a reason to do more). Competition (and the training for it) can be part of someone's training for self-defense, though the competition itself isn't self-defense.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?


----------



## drop bear

Sami Ibrahim said:


> What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?



Technically they are both use of force.

Generally speaking if you are engaged in a conflict you always want the other guy to play the role of the victim.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There may not be a universal definition, but there are things that are fairly universally understood as not being self-defense.



There are things that are fairly universally understood as deserving of a good pummeling as well.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> This is true, but then I never said they did.
> 
> 
> Self defence is legal, consensually agreeing to fight people in the street is illegal.



Wait a second. Do you understand consent though.

"hey I want to fight you"

"well i dont want to fight you"(Backs off puts hands up)

"sorry sir but you really don't get a choice here"(advances towards)

"then prepare yourself for fisticuffs" (bashes guy.)

That for example is not a consensual fight. But is very common for a street fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sami Ibrahim said:


> What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?


Sometimes one has to fight when defending oneself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sami Ibrahim said:


> What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?


When A's fist meets on B's face, B will feel the same amount of pain.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sami Ibrahim said:


> What does "self-defense" and "fighting" have in common?


The mind set is complete the opposite. In

- self-defense, you tell your opponent, "If you dare to touch me, I'll sue you."
- fighting, you tell your opponent, "I'll beat you up so badly that even your own mother won't be able to recognize you".


----------



## JR 137

Why does every thread have to go the self defense vs consensual fighting route?

It gets so old.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> Why does every thread have to go the self defense vs consensual fighting route?
> 
> It gets so old.


Its a tactic that pulls the conversation away from fighting skills development.  Really its a more subtle form of "that doesn't work on the streets."


----------



## Tgace

How to make yourself hard to kill, according to a special operator



> Across the board, the men and women that pass tough selections and outperform their peers in the military are simply stronger than their peers. I did not say “bigger,” I said stronger. Stronger in all tasks, globally stronger. Can you throw on one-third of your bodyweight in armor and gear and carry your friend 400m at a dead sprint? No? Well then, Turbo, I don’t care what your marathon time is.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> "hey I want to fight you"
> 
> "well i dont want to fight you"(Backs off puts hands up)
> 
> "sorry sir but you really don't get a choice here"(advances towards)



You are on my ignore list for good reason, but occasionally are so idiotic you cannot be ignored.  He doesn't have a choice?  He is not able to leave, not able to verbally de-escalate, he cannot not legally defend himself by striking pre-emptively and then leaving (which is not the same as offering to fight him, either legally, nor employs the same skill set as fighting).  His first and only option as you see it is to invite the guy to participate in a fight.

Yes I understand consent, and the difference between fighting and self defence, and I understand the law as it pertains to civilian self protection from criminal violence.  You would do well to do the same.  And for the love of god never attempt to teach a self defence course to anyone anywhere.  Ever.


----------



## Paul_D

JR 137 said:


> Why does every thread have to go the self defense vs consensual fighting route?
> 
> It gets so old.


Because they are two different physical skill sets, and many here who only possess fighting skills, and are unwilling  or unable to understand the difference between the two, and insist on talking about the two as if they were one and the same.

Maybe when they stop, threads will stop going down this route.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> You are on my ignore list for good reason, but occasionally are so idiotic you cannot be ignored.  He doesn't have a choice?  He is not able to leave, not able to verbally de-escalate, he cannot not legally defend himself by striking pre-emptively and then leaving (which is not the same as offering to fight him, either legally, nor employs the same skill set as fighting).  His first and only option as you see it is to invite the guy to participate in a fight.
> 
> Yes I understand consent, and the difference between fighting and self defence, and I understand the law as it pertains to civilian self protection from criminal violence.  You would do well to do the same.  And for the love of god never attempt to teach a self defence course to anyone anywhere.  Ever.


Walking away when someone is trying to attack you is neither easy nor simple. De-escalation only works if they are willing to let it (or if you can confuse them enough, in some cases). Sometimes, they don't leave an option that's better than engaging with physical force.


----------



## Steve

It would be a very bad day to find yourself in a fight, but realize you've only ever learned self defense.  Haha.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> Walking away when someone is trying to attack you is neither easy nor simple. De-escalation only works if they are willing to let it (or if you can confuse them enough, in some cases). Sometimes, they don't leave an option that's better than engaging with physical force.



Unfortunately, I know this a little too well.  I never looked for trouble and always tried to get out of it (including getting out of it before I got into it), but there were times trouble was looking for me.

Simply walking away can be quite dangerous, i.e. turning your back on a potential attacker.  Of all the mistakes I've made, I've never made that one.


----------



## Buka

Tgace said:


> How to make yourself hard to kill, according to a special operator



@Tgace, ever fight anyone stronger than you? I'll bet you have. Yet, you're still here. 

This is a Yin/Yang thing to me. 
On one side you have the old quote, which I somewhat subscribe to as to the general populace. 
_“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.” _
(multiple sources as to who actually coined the phrase)

But then you have personal experience. Just about everyone is stronger than I am. So all of them should have bested, or killed, me. 
Didn't happen.


----------



## Tgace

> On one side you have the old quote, which I somewhat subscribe to as to the general populace.
> _“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.” _
> (multiple sources as to who actually coined the phrase).



Not always....

Just usually....

I think the whole Yin/Yang, "strength is bad" thing is used as an excuse to rationalize a lack of conditioning by many "martial artists". Not ALL. Just many.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> Not always....
> 
> Just usually....
> 
> I think the whole Yin/Yang, "strength is bad" thing is used as an excuse to rationalize a lack of conditioning by many "martial artists". Not ALL. Just many.


I tend to agree with that. If you pit me against an equally skilled MA, but I am stronger (and at least equally fit/conditioned), I have an advantage. Strength, speed, and stamina make a difference, just as skill does. In a short fight/encounter, stamina plays less of a role than the others. Strength, speed, and skill can offset each other (a stronger opponent can be handled with skill or speed, a faster opponent can be handled with skill and maybe strength, etc.). Skill seems to have the largest effect, and strength the smallest (except perhaps in tight grappling), so a large amount of strength differential is most easily offset with a moderate skill differential in the other direction.


----------



## Tgace

gpseymour said:


> I tend to agree with that. If you pit me against an equally skilled MA, but I am stronger (and at least equally fit/conditioned), I have an advantage. Strength, speed, and stamina make a difference, just as skill does. In a short fight/encounter, stamina plays less of a role than the others. Strength, speed, and skill can offset each other (a stronger opponent can be handled with skill or speed, a faster opponent can be handled with skill and maybe strength, etc.). Skill seems to have the largest effect, and strength the smallest (except perhaps in tight grappling), so a large amount of strength differential is most easily offset with a moderate skill differential in the other direction.



This isn't directed at you gpseymour, or anyone in particular here...just freeflowing some thoughts.

IMHO. A rigorous conditioning programs benefit is really just 1/2 in the actual physical attributes it provides. The mental aspect of pushing your way through discomfort (and the discipline of simply doing it even when you don't "feel like it") is just as...if not more..important.

For example, Monday is my "100 burpee day". I do 100 burpees as quickly as I can, which is usually 20-30 at once then 10-15 at a time as I can manage. While the cardio/stamina building aspect of the movement is beneficial, I believe that overriding my "this sucks and I want to stop" reaction is probably more beneficial from a "combat survival" standpoint than what I'm doing for my body.

I think that far too many "run of the mill" martial artists overestimate what they are "good at" and avoid (or belittle the importance) of what they are weak at. That's a human trait IMO and not limited to martial arts alone.

"I cant run a 1/2 mile without puking, but most fights are over in 5 seconds so that's not important and cardio sucks...and I don't like doing it...so cardio isn't important or worth the time."

"Being muscle bound will hurt my martial arts skill so I'll focus on using my opponents strength against them vs working on my strength training...because who has the time? And I'm not good at it, and I don't like people seeing I'm not good at something."

Hell. I'm not a big guy and probably not as strong as I could be, but I work at it and don't try to deny that it's something worth working on. 

That being said, some MA have a significant amount of exercise built right into the practice, but not all of them. I remember being a guest practitioner at a Krav  school where I was warned about how physically demanding it was going to be. To make a long story short, while it was a fun class, that estimation of what "physically demanding" meant was a sad indicator of what the average physical capacity is IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> This isn't directed at you gpseymour, or anyone in particular here...just freeflowing some thoughts.
> 
> IMHO. A rigorous conditioning programs benefit is really just 1/2 in the actual physical attributes it provides. The mental aspect of pushing your way through discomfort (and the discipline of simply doing it even when you don't "feel like it") is just as...if not more..important.
> 
> For example, Monday is my "100 burpee day". I do 100 burpees as quickly as I can, which is usually 20-30 at once then 10-15 at a time as I can manage. While the cardio/stamina building aspect of the movement is beneficial, I believe that overriding my "this sucks and I want to stop" reaction is probably more beneficial from a "combat survival" standpoint than what I'm doing for my body.


Agree. This struggle (I think the Japanese term is _shugyo_) is a part of the real value of training, and something people get from training hard for almost anything (team sports, marathon, etc.).



> I think that far too many "run of the mill" martial artists overestimate what they are "good at" and avoid (or belittle the importance) of what they are weak at. That's a human trait IMO and not limited to martial arts alone.
> 
> "I cant run a 1/2 mile without puking, but most fights are over in 5 seconds so that's not important and cardio sucks...and I don't like doing it...so cardio isn't important or worth the time."
> 
> "Being muscle bound will hurt my martial arts skill so I'll focus on using my opponents strength against them vs working on my strength training...because who has the time? And I'm not good at it, and I don't like people seeing I'm not good at something."


There's good and bad in this approach. Working on strengths tends to bring the second fastest gains (after working on key weaknesses). But it does miss the value of overcoming an obstacle.


> Hell. I'm not a big guy and probably not as strong as I could be, but I work at it and don't try to deny that it's something worth working on.
> 
> That being said, some MA have a significant amount of exercise built right into the practice, but not all of them. I remember being a guest practitioner at a Krav  school where I was warned about how physically demanding it was going to be. To make a long story short, while it was a fun class, that estimation of what "physically demanding" meant was a sad indicator of what the average physical capacity is IMO.


Agreed. I recently changed the "warm up" phase of my classes to be more demanding (putting in a few minutes of HIIT). I did this for the physical development, and also to set the tone for classes to be more energetic. I think a calm and cerebral start sets a very mellow tone for class, and a bit more energy at the onset will hopefully generate more energy in the class.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Buka said:


> @Tgace, ever fight anyone stronger than you? I'll bet you have. Yet, you're still here.
> 
> This is a Yin/Yang thing to me.
> On one side you have the old quote, which I somewhat subscribe to as to the general populace.
> _“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.” _
> (multiple sources as to who actually coined the phrase)
> 
> But then you have personal experience. Just about everyone is stronger than I am. So all of them should have bested, or killed, me.
> Didn't happen.



My has been my thought for years...."There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster, better trained or just plain luckier that you are on any given day...so why worry about it...just train"


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> My has been my thought for years...."There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster, better trained or just plain luckier that you are on any given day...so why worry about it...just train"



Sure. 

Train. 

Train to be as strong, as fast AND as skilled as you can be. 

Luck? You can train that by making good decisions.


----------



## Tgace




----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> Luck? You can train that by making good decisions.



Then it is not luck

Luck - success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> Then it is not luck
> 
> Luck - success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.



Depends on what you think luck is. Sometimes lightening strikes you on a sunny day while mowing the lawn. More often it happens while you are sitting against a flagpole under a thundercloud.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> Depends on what you think luck is. Sometimes lightening strikes you on a sunny day while mowing the lawn. More often it happens while you are sitting against a flagpole under a thundercloud.



That is something entirely different from your previous statement which was "Luck? You can train that by making good decisions." and has little to do with the statement you made which implies luck can be trained and though that training you gain the ability to make good decisions and that is then defined as luck.

What luck is, it actually it depends on the accepted definition of luck which comes from a English dictionary; which is "success or failure apparently brought by _chance_ rather than through _one's own actions_."

Therefore,making good decisions is not luck, unless you happen to make one by accident, then it is luck, but it cannot be trained


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> My has been my thought for years...."There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster, better trained or just plain luckier that you are on any given day...so why worry about it...just train"


You don't need to be stronger and fitter than the other guy.  But you do need to be strong enough and fit enough to be effective.


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> That is something entirely different from your previous statement which was "Luck? You can train that by making good decisions." and has little to do with the statement you made which implies luck can be trained and though that training you gain the ability to make good decisions and that is then defined as luck.
> 
> What luck is, it actually it depends on the accepted definition of luck which comes from a English dictionary; which is "success or failure apparently brought by _chance_ rather than through _one's own actions_."
> 
> Therefore,making good decisions is not luck, unless you happen to make one by accident, then it is luck, but it cannot be trained



"Apparently" is an interesting word.

How To Create Your Own Luck


----------



## Flying Crane

Paul_D said:


> Because they are two different physical skill sets, and many here who only possess fighting skills, and are unwilling  or unable to understand the difference between the two, and insist on talking about the two as if they were one and the same.
> 
> Maybe when they stop, threads will stop going down this route.


There may be some differences in the skill sets, but there is a WHOLE LOT of overlap.  I would say more so than not.  

The difference is really in the dynamics of the interaction outside of the actual combative exchange.  There is a psychological difference, a human interaction difference leading up to the physical side, and different goals in terms of what someone is trying to accomplish.  For example, someone attacked in the street may be trying to escape with minimal injury and any need to "defeat" his attacker takes a distant second place in priority, while a sport fighter intends to stick around in order to defeat his opponent.  This creates a difference in strategy and somewhat of a difference in the kinds of techniques one might use. 

But once it becomes physical, then it becomes much more difficult to claim a difference in the actual physical skills.

Different, yes, but also a whole lot the same.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> "Apparently" is an interesting word.
> 
> How To Create Your Own Luck



Still not luck by definition, it is a catch phrase like "Zen" has become that is all.

Luck, by definition is not planned, or trained. You can use the term any way you wish, I seriously doubt anything I say will change  your mind. However you should also know I will not agree with your use of the word "Luck" because by definition, what you are calling luck, and what the article you attached is calling luck, is not luck. Sorry, facts are facts, and definitions are the accepted meaning of words....that is all.


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> Still not luck by definition, it is a catch phrase like "Zen" has become that is all.
> 
> Luck, by definition is not planned, or trained. You can use the term any way you wish, I seriously doubt anything I say will change  your mind. However you should also know I will not agree with your use of the word "Luck" because by definition, what you are calling luck, and what the article you attached is calling luck, is not luck. Sorry, facts are facts, and definitions are the accepted meaning of words....that is all.



Apparently:
əˈperəntlē/
_adverb_

as far as one knows or can see.

_Fortuna audaces iuvat_


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> Apparently:
> əˈperəntlē/
> _adverb_
> 
> as far as one knows or can see.



Yes I know what apparently means, and I see nothing in any definition that says it can apparently be trained, planed for, or scheduled.

Maybe you would like these better

1. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities:

2. good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance:

3. a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person:


Like I said before, we will not agree, I am working with accepted definitions, that is all. In my view your useage of the word "luck" in your origihal [ost on the topic, where you said "Luck? You can train that by making good decisions." is incorrect, that is all. I am not discussing beliefs about luck nor am I discussing the word luck as a catch phrase.


----------



## Tgace

Apparently dictionary definitions are not so absolute.

"Weak men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." -Ralph Waldo Emerson 

All of our existence is based on decisions. If I choose to sit on the right side of my couch at 2200hrs and that's when the meteor punches through my roof and kills me, that may have been bad luck but it was also dependent on a choice I made. 

Certainly one can't plan on random events like meteors, and I'm not conflating luck with blame, but by FAR most bad luck is founded in bad decisions. Training/making/preparing will certainly influence your so called "luck". 

I see people having lots of what people would call "bad luck", there's a reason for it. Bad luck haunts bad decision making.

Your definition of "luck" is an attempt to use a concept, like "fate", "love" or "God" as a debate point of fact.

I think that this tangent can apply to this thread. If you are a martial artist and ignore physical conditioning, you are gonna find things happening to you that you would call bad luck

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> Apparently dictionary definitions are not so absolute.
> 
> "Weak men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> All of our existence is based on decisions. If I choose to sit on the right side of my couch at 2200hrs and that's when the meteor punches through my roof and kills me, that may have been bad luck but it was also dependent on a choice I made.
> 
> Certainly one can't plan on random events like meteors, and I'm not conflating luck with blame, but by FAR most bad luck is founded in bad decisions. Training/making/preparing will certainly influence your so called "luck".
> 
> I see people having lots of what people would call "bad luck", there's a reason for it. Bad luck haunts bad decision making.
> 
> Your definition of "luck" is an attempt to use a concept, like "fate", "love" or "God" as a debate point of fact.
> 
> I think that this tangent can apply to this thread. If you are a martial artist and ignore physical conditioning, you are gonna find things happening to you that you would call bad luck
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


By no stretch of logic could the meteor impact be attributable to choice. There was no means by which the individual could have made a better choice. That is what defines "chance" in the definitions. The person's choice makes no discernible difference in the odds of it happening. Getting hit by a meteor is luck (unless you know there are some coming, and had a choice of not being there). Getting hit by lightening can be luck (being struck inside your own home, in spite of good decisions) or can be causal (playing golf in a lightening storm).


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> Apparently dictionary definitions are not so absolute.
> 
> "Weak men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> All of our existence is based on decisions. If I choose to sit on the right side of my couch at 2200hrs and that's when the meteor punches through my roof and kills me, that may have been bad luck but it was also dependent on a choice I made.
> 
> Certainly one can't plan on random events like meteors, and I'm not conflating luck with blame, but by FAR most bad luck is founded in bad decisions. Training/making/preparing will certainly influence your so called "luck".
> 
> I see people having lots of what people would call "bad luck", there's a reason for it. Bad luck haunts bad decision making.
> 
> Your definition of "luck" is an attempt to use a concept, like "fate", "love" or "God" as a debate point of fact.
> 
> I think that this tangent can apply to this thread. If you are a martial artist and ignore physical conditioning, you are gonna find things happening to you that you would call bad luck
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You are now putting words in my mouth and making rather large unsupported assumptions about what I am saying, I think in an attempt to be show that you are right and should not be questions. It is not all that hard top understand; I am simply using the dictionary definition with no associated emotion of discussion of contingency plans (planning for a meteor strike which, by the way, is not leaving anything to luck) and also with no thought at all of good luck, bad luck, fate, love, God or to debate such. Honestly I have no idea where that came from or why you threw it in, unless it was an attempt to get away from an indefensible position that was attempting to go against accepted definitions of words which is based on logic, Luck by definition cannot be planed for, trained for or controlled, it is simply luck and that is based on chance, that is all. You can plan for emergencies or meteor strikes or other problems, but that is done to avoid depending on luck.

Any further discussion on this seems pointless. I am very happy with the point I made before, we will not agree, and leave it at that.


----------



## Buka

Tgace said:


> Not always....
> 
> Just usually....
> 
> I think the whole Yin/Yang, "strength is bad" thing is used as an excuse to rationalize a lack of conditioning by many "martial artists". Not ALL. Just many.



Say what?  Where did the "strength is bad" thing come from?

As for conditioning, it was something we always took to another level completely.
What's up, bro? Somebody pee in your cornflakes this morning or something?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Buka said:


> Say what?  Where did the "strength is bad" thing come from?
> 
> As for conditioning, it was something we always took to another level completely.
> What's up, bro? Somebody pee in your cornflakes this morning or something?



Yin and Yang never states strength is bad, if that is what is being said it is a gross misunderstanding of Yin and Yang


----------



## Tgace

gpseymour said:


> By no stretch of logic could the meteor impact be attributable to choice. There was no means by which the individual could have made a better choice. That is what defines "chance" in the definitions. The person's choice makes no discernible difference in the odds of it happening. Getting hit by a meteor is luck (unless you know there are some coming, and had a choice of not being there). Getting hit by lightening can be luck (being struck inside your own home, in spite of good decisions) or can be causal (playing golf in a lightening storm).



I think people sometimes link decisions automatically with "responsibility" and I don't think that's necessarily always the case. We make all sorts of choices...like what breakfast cereal to buy and we make decisions (de-cide like homi-cide where we kill all other choices but one). Like yin/yang they are all intertwined in our fate. You nudge the meteor that is your life in one direction or the other with every one of them.

If I decide to drive drunk and get in an accident or if I decide to take a different route home today and a truck runs a red light and hits me, I get in an accident either way and each decision was associated with the outcome. One was a good/bad decision while the other was simply a selection between choices....one that had the truck in the same time/space as me vs all the others. I believe that our human life is a dynamic system, much like the weather. To understand the weather, science has had to apply its own system of cause and effect in order to make forecasts as to what the future might be. 

Our choices and decisions are what create the "weather systems" of our lives. In that system are the things we cant control and the things we can. I think it's possible that sometimes those things can be intertwined..we call that luck, fate.

There's been several studies on Luck. Psychologists have one take on it:

The Science Of Luck



> So while these chance encounters can’t be controlled, people can do a lot to put themselves in a particular place and time and hope that it’s the right one. An open, positive, go-getter attitude also makes people more likely to appreciate an opportunity and to take advantage of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> I think people sometimes link decisions automatically with "responsibility" and I don't think that's necessarily always the case. We make all sorts of choices...like what breakfast cereal to buy and we make decisions (de-cide like homi-cide where we kill all other choices but one). Like yin/yang they are all intertwined in our fate. You nudge the meteor that is your life in one direction or the other with every one of them.
> 
> If I decide to drive drunk and get in an accident or if I decide to take a different route home today and a truck runs a red light and hits me, I get in an accident either way and each decision was associated with the outcome. One was a good/bad decision while the other was simply a selection between choices....one that had the truck in the same time/space as me vs all the others. I believe that our human life is a dynamic system, much like the weather. To understand the weather, science has had to apply its own system of cause and effect in order to make forecasts as to what the future might be.
> 
> Our choices and decisions are what create the "weather systems" of our lives. In that system are the things we cant control and the things we can. I think it's possible that sometimes those things can be intertwined..we call that luck, fate.
> 
> There's been several studies on Luck. Psychologists have one take on it:
> 
> The Science Of Luck


You are confusing outcome with probability. Remember the definitions center around "chance" (probability, usually random in that usage). If I choose a different path and get in an accident, my decision doesn't change the probability of being in an accident until you know where the accident will be, unless I choose a path that has a higher overall probability of accidents.

There are two ways to look at luck: by the definition (essentially, outcomes whose probability is not altered by decisions based on known information), or by perception (what some perceive as luck is actually the result of not considering the outcomes, so they make bad choices).

The psych article you referenced actually deals with the latter, and claims to refer to the former. It says you cannot put yourself in the right place (random chance), but then turns around and points out how decisions can make "the right place" more likely (perception of chance, but actually changing the odds).


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Yin and Yang never states strength is bad, if that is what is being said it is a gross misunderstanding of Yin and Yang


Yin and Yang are two guys who work out at the 24 Hour Fitness down the street.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Walking away when someone is trying to attack you is neither easy nor simple.


Of course is it.

They can chose to follow you of course, in which case you deal with it in the required way.  But the required way isn't to invite them to fight you (fisticuffs), (unless of course the only skills you have come from consensual sparring, in which case you have no choice).

The general point though is that contrary to what certain martial artists would have us believe, Violence isn't the only possible outcome to a self defence situation.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Of course is it.
> 
> They can chose to follow you of course, in which case you deal with it in the required way.  But the required way isn't to invite them to fight you (fisticuffs), (unless of course the only skills you have come from consensual sparring, in which case you have no choice).
> 
> The general point though is that contrary to what certain martial artists would have us believe, Violence isn't the only possible outcome to a self defence situation.


By "certain martial artists" you surely mean the self defense guys.  Right?


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> By "certain martial artists" you surely mean the self defense guys.  Right?


I was thinking more certain poster(s) in this thread who keep referring to fighting and self defence as if they were synonymous.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Of course is it.
> 
> They can chose to follow you of course, in which case you deal with it in the required way.  But the required way isn't to invite them to fight you (fisticuffs), (unless of course the only skills you have come from consensual sparring, in which case you have no choice).
> 
> The general point though is that contrary to what certain martial artists would have us believe, Violence isn't the only possible outcome to a self defence situation.


The post in question didn't imply it was. It showed the "attacker" not allowing the "defender" to decline. In that case, walking away wasn't an option, and there are many cases where that is true.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> I was thinking more certain poster(s) in this thread who keep referring to fighting and self defence as if they were synonymous.


  I hear what you're saying.  When you said that, my mind jumped to the RBSD, eye gouge, curb stomp crowd.  

For what it's worth, I do think self defense and fighting are synonymous to some people.  Not to others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I hear what you're saying.  When you said that, my mind jumped to the RBSD, eye gouge, curb stomp crowd.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do think self defense and fighting are synonymous to some people.  Not to others.


To me, it mostly depends how you define "self-defense". It's a rather fluid term, as you've commented before. I (usually) define self-defense as the physical defense one puts up when attacked. For me, the things we can do to avoid that attack fall under the umbrella term of "self-protection" (which includes self-defense). That's my usage, and others define them differently. Thus, for me, self-defense does mostly equal fighting (as I define the term "fighting", which is not necessarily a mutually agreed bout).

But that only holds true within my definitions. Others use both "self-defense" and "fighting" differently, so they will have a different view.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim

In this corner we have fighting and in that corner we have self-defense and in this other corner introducing an additional monkey wrench: Killing.
Now, when some people think about fighting, they are not thinking about fighting to the death or to the kill and when they think about self-defense they think about using only the necessary amount of force required to survive and when people think about killing and murder their minds conjure images that are rather interesting. Getting "shanked" repeatedly in the back while peeing in a latrine, getting shot in the base of the skull while kneeling to change a tire. Getting a bag thrown over your head and thrown into a van and driven into a secondary crime scene where you're raped, tortured and set on fire. Anyway, what all three have in common is violence...defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So if you just train to be exceptionally well versed in the language of violence, you will cover all three. (just my two cents and I don't know what I am talking about)


----------



## Paul_D

Sami Ibrahim said:


> In this corner we have fighting and in that corner we have self-defense and in this other corner introducing an additional monkey wrench: Killing.
> Now, when some people think about fighting, they are not thinking about fighting to the death or to the kill and when they think about self-defense they think about using only the necessary amount of force required to survive and when people think about killing and murder their minds conjure images that are rather interesting. Getting "shanked" repeatedly in the back while peeing in a latrine, getting shot in the base of the skull while kneeling to change a tire. Getting a bag thrown over your head and thrown into a van and driven into a secondary crime scene where you're raped, tortured and set on fire. Anyway, what all three have in common is violence...defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So if you just train to be exceptionally well versed in the language of violence, you will cover all three. (just my two cents and I don't know what I am talking about)


By that logic I could take table tennis lessons in my bid to win Wimbledon, after all they're both just about hitting a ball over a net with a bat. 

A mugger will not invite you to fight with the winner going home with your wallet.  A rapists will not stand six feet away in a fighting stance bobbing and weaving out of range.  Criminals operate using the four D's, Deception, dialogue, distraction and destruction.  Your knowledge of the rituals of violence, which you allows you to spot what is going on, brain engagement, pre-emptive striking, ve bal de-escalation, target hardening, threat and awareness evaluation, are far more important in self defence than your ability to throw exploratory jabs to test your opponents reaction and spot potential weaknesses in his ring craft which you could then exploit.

Otherwise people with no fighting skill would never be able to defend themselves, which they have, and skilled fighters/martial artists would never be the victims of crime, which they have.

Fighting and self defence from non consensual criminal violence are two very different things and it is a very costly mistake to think that your success at one will translate into a competent level of ability in the other.


----------



## Headhunter

Sami Ibrahim said:


> In this corner we have fighting and in that corner we have self-defense and in this other corner introducing an additional monkey wrench: Killing.
> Now, when some people think about fighting, they are not thinking about fighting to the death or to the kill and when they think about self-defense they think about using only the necessary amount of force required to survive and when people think about killing and murder their minds conjure images that are rather interesting. Getting "shanked" repeatedly in the back while peeing in a latrine, getting shot in the base of the skull while kneeling to change a tire. Getting a bag thrown over your head and thrown into a van and driven into a secondary crime scene where you're raped, tortured and set on fire. Anyway, what all three have in common is violence...defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So if you just train to be exceptionally well versed in the language of violence, you will cover all three. (just my two cents and I don't know what I am talking about)


Disagree so if you spar all the time that means your ready to deal with a group of armed drugged up street thugs or ready to deal with a guy coming at you from behind while your talking on the phone. Martial arts training is good but it doesn't make you unbeatable. Every single person on this board myself included could easily get knocked out, stabbed, shot, glassed or punched or kicked by any single person. We could get in a fight and be knocked out straight away. Doesn't mean anything about your skills it just means the other person hit you hard. Anyone who thinks they can block every single punch or kick or whatever that's thrown at them is deluded.


----------



## Headhunter

Paul_D said:


> By that logic I could take table tennis lessons in my bid to win Wimbledon, after all they're both just about hitting a ball over a net with a bat.
> 
> A mugger will not invite you to fight with the winner going home with your wallet.  A rapists will not stand six feet away in a fighting stance bobbing and weaving out of range.  Criminals operate using the four D's, Deception, dialogue, distraction and destruction.  Your knowledge of the rituals of violence, which you allows you to spot what is going on, brain engagement, pre-emptive striking, ve bal de-escalation, target hardening, threat and awareness evaluation, are far more important in self defence than your ability to throw exploratory jabs to test your opponents reaction and spot potential weaknesses in his ring craft which you could then exploit.
> 
> Otherwise people with no fighting skill would never be able to defend themselves, which they have, and skilled fighters/martial artists would never be the victims of crime, which they have.
> 
> Fighting and self defence from non consensual criminal violence are two very different things and it is a very costly mistake to think that your success at one will translate into a competent level of ability in the other.


Absolutely like I just commented. Everyone says sparring is so important but is sparring going to help you against guys pinning you against a wall or a gang trying to beat you to a pulp or to stab you or is it going to help when some guys to smash you over the head while you on your phone. Being good at sparing doesn't mean your good at self defence. Sparring has rules and you know who you're fighting and how many people your fighting and how long you'll be fighting for and can move as much as you like. You don't get those luxuries in the street


----------



## jobo

Transk53 said:


> Really. Huge muscles are not a obvious indicater of strength accross the board as it were. Raw grunt maybe, but raw grunt is easily countered with applied skill


I think you need to be careful of that as an assumption. Bodybuilder are by any normal comparison strong, they are lifting quite heavy weight a lot of times and the body Adapts by a) increasing the size of the muscle and b ) by in creasing its efficiency ie they get stronger. They are possibly not as strong in raw grunt as someone who trains exclusively for strength , but has smaller mucles. but that is only any use to you if you train raw strength. Its quite true that some folk just have big mucles and are not particularly strong, but then some are . Just as some folk with hardly any muscle size are unfeasable strong. Strength has more to do with the devepment of the nervous system than the actual size of the muscle in question. The mucle size just helps it along somewhat


----------



## Buka

Training differs in schools, as does terminology, belt gradings, sparring (or not) and on and on. Probably a good thing otherwise everything would be the same. Damn, what would we all carry on about if that were the case? If everything were the same, each day we logged onto the forum it would be like this....



 

For me, I lump everything together under the word "fighting". That's self defense, sparring, competing, rolling, etc. Yes, I know they are not the same thing. Just as a side kick, a front kick, a foot sweep and a jump 360 spinning, hook kick are not the same, but I lump them together as well, under the word "_kicking_".

I do so because of the way I teach. It's a mind set term used to wade through countless years of resistance training. With the people I've taught, when they hear the word _fighting_, they think about fighting, they don't care what kind it is, it's one person against another, or one person against more than one person, or a whole group of people brawling, or fighting for your life. But it's just fighting. (principles remain the same) Doesn't matter if you get suckered from behind and get a cord wrapped around your neck, or are rolling with your friend after class, or are competing in a boxing match. It's fighting. At least to us.

I'm not suggesting anyone else think this way, not everyone's cup of tea, but always made things simpler for us. It's worked so far, going on fifty years now.

As for body builders - never had much of a problem playing with them. Sure, they're strong, but if you make them wear a baggy, long sleeved shirt, you take away a lot of their super powers. 

Now, power lifters, that's another story. Not only are they incredibly strong, they're really fast, really explosive in movement. I hate playing with power lifters. It's like fighting a boulder coming down hill.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> I think you need to be careful of that as an assumption. Bodybuilder are by any normal comparison strong


Actually they comparatively weak.  The low body fat percentages necessary for competition means they have small reserves of energy, and are paradoxically at their weakest when they are at their most ripped.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Actually they comparatively weak.  The low body fat percentages necessary for competition means they have small reserves of energy, and are paradoxically at their weakest when they are at their most ripped.


comparatively weak in comparison to who? That would only be true if they had deprived themselves of carbohydrates', in order to lower their body fat. Low body fat in its self would have no effect at all on there strength or endurance. But I'm quite prepared to accept that body builders who indulge in frantic bulking and cutting mess up their blood chemistry and thus their physical performance. They are still however ridiculasly strong compared with most of the rest of us


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> in comparison to who? That would only be true if they had deprived themselves of carbohydrates', in order to lower their body fat. Low body fat in its self would have no effect at all on there strength or endurance. But I'm quite prepared to accept that body builders who indulge in frantic bulking and cutting mess up their blood chemistry and this their physical performance. They are still however ridiculasly strong compared with most of the rest of us


It's a fact that the bodybuilding "ideal" shape is out of balance.  A bodybuilder will intentionally bulk up in certain areas and neglect others, and surprisingly have very weak cores, as a strong core takes away from the ideal, hourglass shape.   

Now, a strong man, power lifter will often have a very thick core, and those guys... yikes.

There's a different shape, even when they're lean, because they are weight lifting for functional strength and not for an aesthetic.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> Low body fat in its self would have no effect at all on there strength or endurance.


Clearly you no nothing about competitive bodybuilding.  Why do you think you never see anyone ripped and with little body fat on The Worlds Strongest Man?


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Clearly you no nothing about competitive bodybuilding.  Why do you think you never see anyone ripped and with little body fat on The Worlds Strongest Man?


so your point is that because the average body builder is not strong enough to feature in the world strongest man they are weak. Yes in comparison to Eddie hall every one is weak apart from that big  guy from iceland


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> It's a fact that the bodybuilding "ideal" shape is out of balance.  A bodybuilder will intentionally bulk up in certain areas and neglect others, and surprisingly have very weak cores, as a strong core takes away from the ideal, hourglass shape.
> 
> Now, a strong man, power lifter will often have a very thick core, and those guys... yikes.
> 
> There's a different shape, even when they're lean, because they are weight lifting for functional strength and not for an aesthetic.


yes they are not as strong as a power lifter, but that doesn't actually make them weak in comparison to 99.9 of the population. Their still bench pressing 300lbs or more and doing it 12times. For strength endurance they can more than match a single lift expert


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> yes they are not as strong as a power lifter, but that doesn't actually make them weak in comparison to 99.9 of the population. There still bench pressing 300lbs or more and do it 12times. For strength endurance they can more than match a single lift expert


Strong in some ways.  Surprisingly weak in others.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Strong in some ways.  Surprisingly weak in others.


you may have to justify that last remark. Weak in what regards in comparison to who


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> so your point is that because the average body builder is not strong enough to feature in the world strongest man they are weak.


I am saying nothing of the sort.  I don't even know how you arrive at that conclusion based on what I said.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> you may have to justify that last remark. Weak in what regards in comparison to who


Core strength and pretty much any other fit person.

Here's a pretty good summary:

Functional Strength Training vs. Bodybuilding


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> I am saying nothing of the sort.  I don't even know how you arrive at that conclusion based on what I said.


your point seemed to that body builder are weak because they don't feature on the WSM. If that wasn't your point, perhaps you could explain what point the post was trying to make


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Core strength and pretty much any other fit person.
> 
> Here's a pretty good summary:
> 
> Functional Strength Training vs. Bodybuilding


core strength so weak back and weak abs. Glutes pecs lats. Is that what you are claiming. And those are weaker than any fit person who cant dead lift say 500 lbs


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> your point seemed to that body builder are weak because they don't feature on the WSM. If that wasn't your point, perhaps you could explain what point the post was trying to make


I have explained it.  The fact you think this was my point shows you either didnt pay attention to what I wrote, or don't understand what I wrote. I don't see how repeating myself will change either of those things.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> I have explained it.  The fact you think this was my point shows you either didnt pay attention to what I wrote, or don't understand what I wrote. I don't see how repeating myself will change either of those things.


or indeed that your post was nonsensical ? Settle for that shall we


----------



## kuniggety

jobo said:


> core strength so weak back and weak abs. Glutes pecs lats. Is that what you are claiming. And those are weaker than any fit person who cant dead lift say 500 lbs



Your average body builder can't deadlift 500 lbs. If they can, then they're incorporating strong/power lifts into their routine. Some do but many don't as it doesn't really contribute to the physique they're going for as a body builder.

I am not downplaying the work that body builders put in. In fact, many are still strong compared to your average joe but "strength" is not the goal in their training. They stick to lighter weights and higher reps with controlled ascent/descent. They're maximizing blood flow into the muscles which makes them abnormally swollen.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> core strength so weak back and weak abs. Glutes pecs lats. Is that what you are claiming. And those are weaker than any fit person who cant dead lift say 500 lbs


Yeah.  I'm saying that if you are sculpting a body that meets an ideal for competition, functional strength is not all that important.

I started training with a professional bodybuilder.  We were white belts at the same time.  He became strong, but he didn't start strong.   He was stacked, but felt surprisingly weak.  once he stopped bodybuilding and started training for functional strength, it improved.

Conversely, the strongest person I've ever met was a relatively small guy who grew up working on a farm.   He wasn't ripped. And not all that big, but everything about him was strong.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> or indeed that your post was nonsensical ? Settle for that shall we


If that makes you feel better, sure.


----------



## jobo

kuniggety said:


> Your average body builder can't deadlift 500 lbs. If they can, then they're incorporating strong/power lifts into their routine. Some do but many don't as it doesn't really contribute to the physique they're going for as a body builder.
> 
> I am not downplaying the work that body builders put in. In fact, many are still strong compared to your average joe but "strength" is not the goal in their training. They stick to lighter weights and higher reps with controlled ascent/descent. They're maximizing blood flow into the muscles which makes them abnormally swollen.


who said average? His claim was bb have weak cores, that seems to include all bodybuilders
as you have the facts, what is the mean average dead lift weight for body builders ?


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> If that makes you feel better, sure.


I knew we would agree in the end


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Yeah.  I'm saying that if you are sculpting a body that meets an ideal for competition, functional strength is not all that important.
> 
> I started training with a professional bodybuilder.  We were white belts at the same time.  He became strong, but he didn't start strong.   He was stacked, but felt surprisingly weak.  once he stopped bodybuilding and started training for functional strength, it improved.
> 
> Conversely, the strongest person I've ever met was a relatively small guy who grew up working on a farm.   He wasn't ripped. And not all that big, but everything about him was strong.


yea I agree that strength isn't their goal, but its a byproduct of their search for bigger muscles . To base the entire statement that body builders have weak cores on one guy you knew years ago is pushing the generalisation thing a bit far


----------



## kuniggety

jobo said:


> who said average? His claim was bb have weak cores, that seems to include all bodybuilders
> as you have the facts, what is the mean average dead lift weight for body builders ?



You mentioned 500 lbs deadlift as some sort of standard of strength. I'm a military guy and I've known lots of body builders and power lifters. I'm a novice power lifter myself. If you don't train something, then it's not going to get strong. A 500 lbs deadlift is an impressive but doable weight for most males with a couple of years training (2-3x body weight). But that's specifically training it. Deadlifts are not a body building lift.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> yea I agree that strength isn't their goal, but its a byproduct of their search for bigger muscles . To base the entire statement that body builders have weak cores on one guy you knew years ago is pushing the generalisation thing a bit far


Okay, maybe some have a stronger core than you.  That's possibl,e I guess.


----------



## jobo

kuniggety said:


> You mentioned 500 lbs deadlift as some sort of standard of strength. I'm a military guy and I've known lots of body builders and power lifters. I'm a novice power lifter myself. If you don't train something, then it's not going to get strong. A 500 lbs deadlift is an impressive but doable weight for most males with a couple of years training (2-3x body weight). But that's specifically training it. Deadlifts are not a body building lift.


well according to my good friends on muscle talk body building web site dead lift are a staple requirement of any body building routeen. They call them the main lifts and comprise deads, bench press, squats and over head presses. Now as they are a known quantity and I've only just met you, I'm going with them


----------



## Steve

You're going to take the word of some random guys on one forum over the word of some random guys in another forum?  Sounds reasonable.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> You're going to take the word of some random guys on one forum over the word of some random guys in another forum?  Sounds reasonable.


yea but they post vids of themselves doing 300 kg dead lifts , so it's pretty convincing. And I wouldn't ask them for karate advice


----------



## kuniggety

jobo said:


> well according to my good friends on muscle talk body building web site dead lift are a staple requirement of any body building routeen. They call them the main lifts and comprise deads, bench press, squats and over head presses. Now as they are a known quantity and I've only just met you, I'm going with them



Those four lifts are often referred to as strong lifts. They comprise the mainstay of what I use for building strength too. They are not body building lifts. Does that mean body builders can't use them? No, but it's the same as saying "I know some TKD practitioners that know some judo throws and thus judo is part of TKD". No, they're separate disciplines but can be cross-trained.


----------



## jobo

kuniggety said:


> Those four lifts are often referred to as strong lifts. They comprise the mainstay of what I use for building strength too. They are not body building lifts. Does that mean body builders can't use them? No, but it's the same as saying "I know some TKD practitioners that know some judo throws and thus judo is part of TKD". No, they're separate disciplines but can be cross-trained.


well it does seem to be the go to exercise for body builders to develop their legs back and glues . Clearly they also can be used to develop strength, the difference is a bb would use a lighter weight and more reps. In fact strength. Training exercises are more or less the same as bb exercises apart from the weight/ reps used. It's there somewhat false to say dead lifts are primarily a strengh exercise


----------



## kuniggety

jobo said:


> well it does seem to be the go to exercise for body builders to develop their legs back and glues . Clearly they also can be used to develop strength, the difference is a bb would use a lighter weight and more reps. In fact strength. Training exercises are more or less the same as bb exercises apart from the weight/ reps used. It's there somewhat false to say dead lifts are primarily a strengh exercise



Reps and weight are not the only difference. BBs make extensive use of muscle isolation exercises. It's how they get those enormous arms, calves, and other muscles which are indirectly worked during strong lifts but not enough to produce the "pop" look that BBs go for. Power lifters don't stand there for an hour doing arm curls. They're perfect for BBs, giving them those guns, but they don't add to the lifting capability of a power lifter. Deadlifts and squats are compound exercises that build core strength and promote testosterone production which further promotes muscle growth.


----------



## jobo

kuniggety said:


> Reps and weight are not the only difference. BBs make extensive use of muscle isolation exercises. It's how they get those enormous arms, calves, and other muscles which are indirectly worked during strong lifts but not enough to produce the "pop" look that BBs go for. Power lifters don't stand there for an hour doing arm curls. They're perfect for BBs, giving them those guns, but they don't add to the lifting capability of a power lifter. Deadlifts and squats are compound exercises that build core strength and promote testosterone production which further promotes muscle growth.


those we call accessory lifts. That doesn't alter the fact that bb make exstensive use of deads. Or that strengh. Builders do bicep curls, just lower reps and more weight.

I pitch my work out at mid point on the rep range. Usual about 8to 10. Unless I'm having another go at getting my biceps' bigger then it 20 all the way.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> those we call accessory lifts. That doesn't alter the fact that bb make exstensive use of deads. Or that strengh. Builders do bicep curls, just lower reps and more weight.power lifter only do power lifting. Strengh athletes are more than just power lifter
> 
> I pitch my work out at mid point on the rep range. Usual about 8to 10. Unless I'm having another go at getting my biceps' bigger then it 20 all the way.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Okay, maybe some have a stronger core than you.  That's possibl,e I guess.





Steve said:


> Okay, maybe some have a stronger core than you.  That's possibl,e I guess.


I think we may be talking about slightly different things, under the general heading of body builder.
there are quite a few folks,round here who have big arms, chest shoulders, but not much else. This is because they own a bench a bar and some dumb bells and their ownly I interest is  making their pub muscles look impressive. There are those that have big bycepts but an invisible triceps'. This is because they only own the dumb bells. These people are as strong as they look, but only in the places they look strong, When I use the term body builder I'm referring to a) someone who trains the whole body and b) someone who has some idea of what they are doing with training program and diet .


----------



## Buka

Body building is the development of the physique for competitive exhibition.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> I think we may be talking about slightly different things, under the general heading of body builder.
> there are quite a few folks,round here who have big arms, chest shoulders, but not much else. This is because they own a bench a bar and some dumb bells and their ownly I interest is  making their pub muscles look impressive. There are those that have big bycepts but an invisible triceps'. This is because they only own the dumb bells. These people are as strong as they look, but only in the places they look strong, When I use the term body builder I'm referring to a) someone who trains the whole body and b) someone who has some idea of what they are doing with training program and diet .





Buka said:


> Body building is the development of the physique for competitive exhibition.


well it is certainly that, but there is no law saying you cant be a body builder unless you complete. Alot do it for non competative exhibition, or more honestly a lot have body dismophia and can stop trying to look bigger no matter how big they are. It's the male version of bulimia, particularly when you throw the bulking and cutting eating disorder in


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Paul_D said:


> Interviews with muggers, on how they select their victims, shows that size has nothing to do with it.  If you carry yourself confidently career criminals will wait for someone less confident to select as a victim, so whilst the actual muscles will have little bearing, the confidence that comes from having them would mean you would be less likely to be selected as a victim.



I agree. Command presence and how one carries themselves plays a much bigger role than sheer size.  Being aware of your surroundings is key.  Making eye contact (not to challenge but to let them know you know they're there) and then looking away but *NOT* down is key.  Looking down shows intimidation rather than confidence.


----------



## JP3

kuniggety said:


> Those four lifts are often referred to as strong lifts. They comprise the mainstay of what I use for building strength too. They are not body building lifts. Does that mean body builders can't use them? No, but it's the same as saying "I know some TKD practitioners that know some judo throws and thus judo is part of TKD". No, they're separate disciplines but can be cross-trained.



Throws should be part of TKD, but that's a totally different issue.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> Body building is the development of the physique for competitive exhibition.


I agree in the sense of all such "competitive exhibition." Not just on the stage at a Bodybuilding or Fitness/physique competition.  The so called "Pub Musles" (I'd call them Club Muscles myself) are that type of competitive exhibition.  I'm completely OK with that, though I don't engage in it. My wife does.

competitive exhibition example. I go to the gym 2x a week with my wife, who I'm proud to say and claim is a hottie. She works at it very hard, and we had a bit of a lifting/workout argument about 8 years ago about inserting basic squats with a Olympic bar into her fitness-based leg and booty workout. She had this conception, which she read in some non-workout women's mag like Cosmo or something, that "Squats will make your butt and legs big and unsightly." So, she had always avoided them.

For me, I do squats as I've had a bad muscular back injury in my teen years, and I need to keep everything structurally sound (torn spinal erector on one side, stupid story involving a girl... of course and a roller skate), and for the obvious strength benefits in MA. It DOES help to have a good squat if you are trying to shoulder or hip throw an opponent during class/competition and you... don't... quite... get... the ... kuzushi. So, you do bad technique and just pick them up. *shrug* I'm not proud of it, but it IS a thing.
For my lady, she does it so she can (bless her heart) continue to wear her thong bikinis on the beach etc and put a one up on the 20-somethings.  So, this is competitive exhibition in its purerst form.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

JP3 said:


> Throws should be part of TKD, but that's a totally different issue.



Not to get off track, but I'd like to comment that in some TKD circles, throws, locks and pressure points are the norm.  In essence, and I've said this before, TKD can look very much like HKD, and does in many schools.  Not an add-on but the actual way it is taught.


----------



## kuniggety

JP3 said:


> I agree in the sense of all such "competitive exhibition." Not just on the stage at a Bodybuilding or Fitness/physique competition.  The so called "Pub Musles" (I'd call them Club Muscles myself) are that type of competitive exhibition.  I'm completely OK with that, though I don't engage in it. My wife does.
> 
> competitive exhibition example. I go to the gym 2x a week with my wife, who I'm proud to say and claim is a hottie. She works at it very hard, and we had a bit of a lifting/workout argument about 8 years ago about inserting basic squats with a Olympic bar into her fitness-based leg and booty workout. She had this conception, which she read in some non-workout women's mag like Cosmo or something, that "Squats will make your butt and legs big and unsightly." So, she had always avoided them.
> 
> For me, I do squats as I've had a bad muscular back injury in my teen years, and I need to keep everything structurally sound (torn spinal erector on one side, stupid story involving a girl... of course and a roller skate), and for the obvious strength benefits in MA. It DOES help to have a good squat if you are trying to shoulder or hip throw an opponent during class/competition and you... don't... quite... get... the ... kuzushi. So, you do bad technique and just pick them up. *shrug* I'm not proud of it, but it IS a thing.
> For my lady, she does it so she can (bless her heart) continue to wear her thong bikinis on the beach etc and put a one up on the 20-somethings.  So, this is competitive exhibition in its purerst form.



Pics or it didn't happen


----------



## JP3

Kong Soo Do said:


> Not to get off track, but I'd like to comment that in some TKD circles, throws, locks and pressure points are the norm.  In essence, and I've said this before, TKD can look very much like HKD, and does in many schools.  Not an add-on but the actual way it is taught.


Yep, we often cross-trained the HKD in TKD class, generally when answering someone's SD question.


----------



## JR 137

JP3 said:


> I agree in the sense of all such "competitive exhibition." Not just on the stage at a Bodybuilding or Fitness/physique competition.  The so called "Pub Musles" (I'd call them Club Muscles myself) are that type of competitive exhibition.  I'm completely OK with that, though I don't engage in it. My wife does.
> 
> competitive exhibition example. I go to the gym 2x a week with my wife, who I'm proud to say and claim is a hottie. She works at it very hard, and we had a bit of a lifting/workout argument about 8 years ago about inserting basic squats with a Olympic bar into her fitness-based leg and booty workout. She had this conception, which she read in some non-workout women's mag like Cosmo or something, that "Squats will make your butt and legs big and unsightly." So, she had always avoided them.
> 
> For me, I do squats as I've had a bad muscular back injury in my teen years, and I need to keep everything structurally sound (torn spinal erector on one side, stupid story involving a girl... of course and a roller skate), and for the obvious strength benefits in MA. It DOES help to have a good squat if you are trying to shoulder or hip throw an opponent during class/competition and you... don't... quite... get... the ... kuzushi. So, you do bad technique and just pick them up. *shrug* I'm not proud of it, but it IS a thing.
> For my lady, she does it so she can (bless her heart) continue to wear her thong bikinis on the beach etc and put a one up on the 20-somethings.  So, this is competitive exhibition in its purerst form.



When I taught high school physical education, I always taught the squat as part of my strength training unit.  The boys liked it, and the girls hated it.  Most common answer why they didn't want to do it (excluding the ones who didn't want to do anything at all) - it'll make me too big and manly.

That's a common misconception.  I read a scientific study on the squat when I was in grad school that found people who squatted every workout had lower body fat than those who didn't.  The squat was used with light weight as a warmup on days it wasn't used as a regular lift.  And just because they're squatting with weight doesn't mean they have to load up the weight like a power lifter would; they can use weight and reps just like every lift they're currently doing.  

When I explained it that way, the girls who actually lifted incorporated it into their routine.  And most of them actually liked it.

It's all about perspective.  If they look at it that way, it's just a different way of doing lunges, which most women have no problem with.


----------



## JP3

kuniggety said:


> Pics or it didn't happen


Kuniggety you've outed me as a person who has no idea how to use the media embedding tools on MT.  I would be pleased and proud to oblige, I just don't know how. Maybe this is a decent time to learn.



JR 137 said:


> And just because they're squatting with weight doesn't mean they have to load up the weight like a power lifter would; they can use weight and reps just like every lift they're currently doing.
> 
> When I explained it that way, the girls who actually lifted incorporated it into their routine.  And most of them actually liked it.


The dreaded double leg lunge, sometimes seen in iron Gyms across the world, generally accompanied by grunting noises of the large, hirsute males.... well they used to be hirsuite before they shaved it all off, I suppose.

Yes, my lady really likes the way her leg training is going now.


----------



## kuniggety

JP3 said:


> Kuniggety you've outed me as a person who has no idea how to use the media embedding tools on MT.  I would be pleased and proud to oblige, I just don't know how. Maybe this is a decent time to learn.



I might be an old fart but I don't know how to embed your own images either. You can link to stuff online or upload a file of yours as an attachment with the button by post reply.


----------



## Steve

Click on the gallery link and upload some pics to a new album.


----------



## Buka

kuniggety said:


> I might be an old fart but I don't know how to embed your own images either. You can link to stuff online or upload a file of yours as an attachment with the button by post reply.



"Might"?


----------



## kuniggety

Buka said:


> "Might"?


Hey, some of us are on the cusp. Not everyone has securely attained that title such as yourself.


----------



## Steve

Glad this got necro'd.  Some good discussion about self defense definitions and bodybuilding.  I enjoyed re-reading the thread.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> Glad this got necro'd.  Some good discussion about self defense definitions and bodybuilding.  I enjoyed re-reading the thread.


my body type is thin, wiry and tall. i weighed 100 pounds when i was 18 years old! i could eat a horse a day then, and not gain a pound. i began weight training at 18, and employed body-building science off and on throughout my twenties and early 30's. at 33  i weighed 180 lbs, solid lean muscle, and yes, i was viewed as 'probably not worth the trouble.'  however, i had gained some insight over those years, and learned to 'cycle' body building with functional strength training, to 'teach' the new muscles how to work in situations other than the controlled excersizes performed to force them to grow.

body building specifically relies on isolation and catabolisis. you force a muscle to work alone and quickly reach a state of failure. this is not what you want to train your body to do, if you're goal is strength applicable to martial arts technique. functional strength excersizes focus on using the entire body as a coordinated unit, as with pistol-squats, one-arm-push-ups, and other whole body excersizes. whats more is that you do not approach failure, but instead do the excersizes several times a day, every day. training your body to perform more effeciently. you will build muscle this way but very slowly, and you will lose some of the mass built by body building when you stop, but you didn't need it. muscles grow fast, tendons do not.  

in summary, body building is useful if you need it. but the long road is better. i am 48 now and recovering from an accident, but aside from that ( and i have gotten pretty skinny again as my activity has been less since last may) but i have retained functional strength and mobility. i don't look as good as i did ten years ago, but that is fine with me. continuing to use body building out of vanity at this point in my life would only decrease my longevity, i'm only concerned now with function. 

hollywood has taught us what 'strong' looks like, but this is largely an illusion. at a certain point, too much muscle mass becomes a liability, depending of course on your skeleton-and the amount of real estate available to anchor thick tendons to bone. any muscle that exceeds the possible attachment capacity of your skeleton will just slow you down.


----------



## Alan0354

I only talk about weight training(part of body building) here. I think strength is very very important for MA. You need strength on top of MA technique. I don't buy into you have good technique, you don't need strength. Bruce Lee was about the first that emphasize on weight training, now most of the pro fighters and athletes use weight training as part of the workout regiment . Not only for strength, but for injury recovery. That's the reason you see older and older athletes that are still on top of their game pass 40.

I spend half my workout on weight training. I can say for sure if I were to be forced to give up MA or weight training, I'd give up MA in a heart beat. My back and neck will not survive without weight training.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Alan0354 said:


> Bruce Lee was about the first that emphasize on weight training, now most of the pro fighters and athletes use weight training as part of the workout regiment . Not only for strength, but for injury recovery. That's the reason you see older and older athletes that are still on top of their game pass 40.
> 
> I spend half my workout on weight training. I can say for sure if I were to be forced to give up MA or weight training, I'd give up MA in a heart beat. My back and neck will not survive without weight training.


If your MA already contains weights, you don't ever have to give up anything.

Have you ever trained with rings?


----------



## Alan0354

Oily Dragon said:


> If your MA already contains weights, you don't ever have to give up anything.
> 
> Have you ever trained with rings?


No, cane is the only thing I train. I am not giving up anything, I do it half and half. Both are just as important. MA is aerobics, completely different. People need both.

From my interacting with quite a bit of MA people in Kung Fu even when I was in Hong Kong, they even said too much muscle get in the way and slow you down. That's very common in the old believes. That's the reason you see the older MA generation were so thin. 

I look at it as injury recovery just as much as strength.  It is very different the weight  of weapon training vs actually weight training. The weight exercise for recovery is very different from swinging the weapon. Just lately, I have left shoulder and elbow problem from punching too much and swing the stick, I have to find weight exercise to tame the pain and knock on wood, I found it.


----------



## caped crusader

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


Depends how far you take Bodybuilding. If you are a mass monster thonged warrior on stage it´s not that healthy but if you are a guy who wants some size and does cardio without abusing steroids then it´s all good and can use it in a fight. sure skill can win as we saw in the BJJ fighter against a big Bodybuilder posted a while back but also look at the MMA Guys. Some carry a fair bit of muscle. Even Heavy weight Boxers use weight training and a decent amount of muscle. was Tyson slow? muscle bound although he had good size using Bodybuilding training in his workouts? nope was a Raging bull in the ring !


----------



## Alan0354

caped crusader said:


> Depends how far you take Bodybuilding. If you are a mass monster thonged warrior on stage it´s not that healthy but if you are a guy who wants some size and does cardio without abusing steroids then it´s all good and can use it in a fight. sure skill can win as we saw in the BJJ fighter against a big Bodybuilder posted a while back but also look at the MMA Guys. Some carry a fair bit of muscle. Even Heavy weight Boxers use weight training and a decent amount of muscle. was Tyson slow? muscle bound although he had good size using Bodybuilding training in his workouts? nope was a Raging bull in the ring !


When technique of both fighters are equal, the one that is stronger definitely win. Remember the fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges? Gracie obviously did not train as much in weights are Huges. When they were on the ground, Huges just flatten Gracie, that was brute strength. Gracie got flatten and being ground and pound until the referee stopped the fight. It wasn't even a contest.

Gracie might have better technique than Huges, but just look at him, he just didn't look like he has much muscles. I bet those light or middle weight UFC fighters can bench like 315lbs(3 X 45lbs plate on each side). Imagine if he fight with some BJJ of the same weight, even he's at the bottom, just press up and the BJJ guy might go flying.


----------



## caped crusader

Alan0354 said:


> When technique of both fighters are equal, the one that is stronger definitely win. Remember the fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges? Gracie obviously did not train as much in weights are Huges. When they were on the ground, Huges just flatten Gracie, that was brute strength. Gracie got flatten and being ground and pound until the referee stopped the fight. It wasn't even a contest.
> 
> Gracie might have better technique than Huges, but just look at him, he just didn't look like he has much muscles. I bet those light or middle weight UFC fighters can bench like 315lbs(3 X 45lbs plate on each side). Imagine if he fight with some BJJ of the same weight, even he's at the bottom, just press up and the BJJ guy might go flying.


Agree Alan. It's  like some Aikido guy trying to apply Nikyo on a trained beefy arm ..Just won't happen regardless of the dreamers wishes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> When technique of both fighters are equal, the one that is stronger definitely win. Remember the fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges? Gracie obviously did not train as much in weights are Huges. When they were on the ground, Huges just flatten Gracie, that was brute strength. Gracie got flatten and being ground and pound until the referee stopped the fight. It wasn't even a contest.
> 
> Gracie might have better technique than Huges, but just look at him, he just didn't look like he has much muscles. I bet those light or middle weight UFC fighters can bench like 315lbs(3 X 45lbs plate on each side). Imagine if he fight with some BJJ of the same weight, even he's at the bottom, just press up and the BJJ guy might go flying.


Maybe the term bodybuilding has evolved. When I was hanging out with some bodybuilders, it was all about muscle size, and strength was secondary. Bodybuilding - as defined that way - isn’t all that beneficial to self-defense. It limits mobility (back then, it significantly limited ROM, too - perhaps that has evolved) and often flexibility. The muscles in MMA are generally from strength training, which is a different animal, and highly beneficial to fighting skill.


----------



## caped crusader

Gerry Seymour said:


> When I was hanging out with some bodybuilders,


Emm...ok. I guess JK van Damme Was not flexible and he did some competition Bodybuilding. Flex wheeler & others. 


			Flex Wheeler Interview | Idai Makaya Publications


----------



## BrendanF

There have been plenty of 'flexible' bodybuilders; several have done full splits on stage.  Doesn't mean that "It limits mobility (back then, it significantly limited ROM, too - perhaps that has evolved) and often flexibility." is an inaccurate statement.  Muscle bulk does limit ROM beyond a point:








Alan0354 said:


> When technique of both fighters are equal, the one that is stronger definitely win. Remember the fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges? Gracie obviously did not train as much in weights are Huges. When they were on the ground, Huges just flatten Gracie, that was brute strength.



I'd say when technique is equal, the one that is 'fitter' will generally win.  With fitness obviously implying an holistic view in which aerobic/anaerobic capacity is prioritised.


----------



## Dirty Dog

caped crusader said:


> Emm...ok. I guess JK van Damme Was not flexible and he did some competition Bodybuilding. Flex wheeler & others.
> 
> 
> Flex Wheeler Interview | Idai Makaya Publications


Which doesn't change the truth of the general case.




While it is entirely possible to train for multiple goals, the goal of traditional body building is bulk and definition. Not flexibility. And not strength.


----------



## Alan0354

I don't know about the extreme body builder, there's no reason why they cannot be flexible if they want to and stretch.

I belonged to Gold's Gym which is a heavy duty gym, there were people that went on competition circuit for body building, they were not just big, they were very fit also. I know enough "big" friends that are flexible, some into martial arts. Most of them don't do body building but still work hard and get very strong. They look big and intimidating also even though they don't compete.

Not too many people want to compete in body building but just want to get big. It is very hard and expensive to go on real body building and compete. You have to get down to like 4% body fat, the diet is very very expensive and it literally take over your life. A lot of people just train and get big, but not interested in competition. In professional's eyes, they might not qualify to compete, but for normal eyes, they sure look big and nice and trim. Those are the ones you have to watch out. They might not be the "real" body builder in the pure sense, but they are strong and a lot of them are fast and flexible. Just because they are big doesn't not mean they don't train in fighting. I know a guy going to the gym during the morning lunch break, they train in Karate after work.

It's funny I heard a lot of kung-fu people in Hong Kong said more muscles slow you down and make you inflexible. From my experience, they were just jealous because they were small and thin. You definitely can be both, big and good in fighting.


----------



## Ivan

Alan0354 said:


> It's funny I heard a lot of kung-fu people in Hong Kong said more muscles slow you down and make you inflexible. From my experience, they were just jealous because they were small and thin. You definitely can be both, big and good in fighting.


Muscles do slow you down because they are not responsible for how fast you strike. Take Bruce Lee or Ryan Garcia, they are extremely slim in comparison to heavyweight boxers, bodybuilders, etc. But they are much faster.  Usually, there are two avenues for achieving striking force. Technique factors in too, but I am talking about speed or mass. Kamaru Usman holds the world record for the hardest punch in the world, but he's not as fast as either Garcia or Lee. 

No one likes to admit it, but all the muscles that boxers and fighters have are usually for show or aesthetic reasons - it strokes the ego. Sure, abdominals are great for protecting the stomach and vitals, but unless you're wrestling or grappling, there's not much advantage to getting big for a striking fight. It will add to your knockout power, but speed does that too. I personally really aspire to be on the more muscular end, because it is an insecurity of mine. I don't like the idea of being as skinny as I used to be, and I feel that my size and physique made me a very vulnerable target when I was younger both in the ring and outside of it. I also think it looks good, and that muscularity can be used to intimidate opponents. It also gives me confidence.

Regardless, muscles do slow you down and make your gas out quicker in fights too.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Alan0354 said:


> It's funny I heard a lot of kung-fu people in Hong Kong said more muscles slow you down and make you inflexible. From my experience, they were just jealous because they were small and thin. You definitely can be both, big and good in fighting.


Exactly. I mean, just look at all the really bulky sprinters and marathon runners!

Oh... wait...


----------



## Steve

Have you guys seen some of the dudes in the NFL?  They may not be faster the the elite level sprinters, but they are screaming fast… and big… and strong.  Talking linebackers running 40 yards in less than 5 seconds.


----------



## BrendanF

Ivan said:


> No one likes to admit it, but all the muscles that boxers and fighters have are usually for show or aesthetic reasons - it strokes the ego. Sure, abdominals are great for protecting the stomach and vitals, but unless you're wrestling or grappling, there's not much advantage to getting big for a striking fight.



It's just not that simple.  Muscle is absolutely essential for speed; there is a reason that the fastest people in the world are muscular:












Those muscles are not for aesthetic reasons - they are what make these people the fastest humans to ever live.

There is also a reason that endurance athletes do not carry as much muscle.  At a certain point weight and strength become a hindrance in endurance activity.  Thus a balance is required.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ivan said:


> Muscles do slow you down because they are not responsible for how fast you strike. Take Bruce Lee or Ryan Garcia, they are extremely slim in comparison to heavyweight boxers, bodybuilders, etc. But they are much faster.  Usually, there are two avenues for achieving striking force. Technique factors in too, but I am talking about speed or mass. Kamaru Usman holds the world record for the hardest punch in the world, but he's not as fast as either Garcia or Lee.
> 
> No one likes to admit it, but all the muscles that boxers and fighters have are usually for show or aesthetic reasons - it strokes the ego. Sure, abdominals are great for protecting the stomach and vitals, but unless you're wrestling or grappling, there's not much advantage to getting big for a striking fight. It will add to your knockout power, but speed does that too. I personally really aspire to be on the more muscular end, because it is an insecurity of mine. I don't like the idea of being as skinny as I used to be, and I feel that my size and physique made me a very vulnerable target when I was younger both in the ring and outside of it. I also think it looks good, and that muscularity can be used to intimidate opponents. It also gives me confidence.
> 
> Regardless, muscles do slow you down and make your gas out quicker in fights too.


Strength matters. If those muscles were only for show, somebody would come along and not bother spending time on that, put the time to better use, and dominate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

caped crusader said:


> Emm...ok. I guess JK van Damme Was not flexible and he did some competition Bodybuilding. Flex wheeler & others.
> 
> 
> Flex Wheeler Interview | Idai Makaya Publications


Exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It is possible to do some bodybuilding and be flexible. In general, bodybuilding (as it was done back then, at least) is not conducive to flexibility. I actually had a couple of bodybuilders explain to me that shortening the muscle was desirable, as it "showed" better. There were bodybuilding techniques designed to develop muscles that were shorter, for that reason.

Add to that the issue of over-isolation. To show a muscle off, it's better if you target it directly in the exercises. So bodybuilders tend to use a lot of isolation, and less multi-group exercise (again, going from what was done back then - this could be different now). That isolation meant support muscles weren't properly recruited. That's just asking for injuries as you use the large muscles to do hard work in grappling (and probably in striking), without the support muscles to stabilize properly.

Quite different in strength training. Because strength training is about the work the body can do, rather than how it looks, ROM and support muscles are given more attention.


----------



## Ivan

Gerry Seymour said:


> Strength matters. If those muscles were only for show, somebody would come along and not bother spending time on that, put the time to better use, and dominate.


Strength matters but not as much in striking. For example, the power of your punches come from the rotation of your torso, not how muscular your arms are.


----------



## Hanzou

Ivan said:


> Strength matters but not as much in striking. For example, the power of your punches come from the rotation of your torso, not how muscular your arms are.



Yet heavyweight boxers tend to have rather massive arms....

Bodybuilding is quite important in self defense, because if you look like a Dwayne Johnson, or Xena: Warrior Princess, the chances are the bad guys are going to leave you alone.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> Exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It is possible to do some bodybuilding and be flexible. In general, bodybuilding (as it was done back then, at least) is not conducive to flexibility. I actually had a couple of bodybuilders explain to me that shortening the muscle was desirable, as it "showed" better. There were bodybuilding techniques designed to develop muscles that were shorter, for that reason.
> 
> Add to that the issue of over-isolation. To show a muscle off, it's better if you target it directly in the exercises. So bodybuilders tend to use a lot of isolation, and less multi-group exercise (again, going from what was done back then - this could be different now). That isolation meant support muscles weren't properly recruited. That's just asking for injuries as you use the large muscles to do hard work in grappling (and probably in striking), without the support muscles to stabilize properly.
> 
> Quite different in strength training. Because strength training is about the work the body can do, rather than how it looks, ROM and support muscles are given more attention.


I can't recall where, and it's too early for me to dig around, but I could swear I've read articles/studies on flexibility that suggest it, like many things, is significantly impacted by genetics.  Not to say that you can't improve it with effort, but some people are inherently more flexible, and will be able to maintain or increase their flexibility fairly easily.  Some will lack flexibility and will need to work very hard for minimal gains.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> Strength matters but not as much in striking. For example, the power of your punches come from the rotation of your torso, not how muscular your arms are.


And how do you power the rotation of your torso?


----------



## Ivan

Flying Crane said:


> And how do you power the rotation of your torso?


You rotate faster


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> Yet heavyweight boxers tend to have rather massive arms....
> 
> Bodybuilding is quite important in self defense, because if you look like a Dwayne Johnson, or Xena: Warrior Princess, the chances are the bad guys are going to leave you alone.


In self defense, yes. In fighting it's a different matter. And the type of fighting matters too.


----------



## Steve

Ivan said:


> You rotate faster


What makes you rotate faster?  I think it's a can of spinach.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> It's just not that simple.  Muscle is absolutely essential for speed; there is a reason that the fastest people in the world are muscular:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those muscles are not for aesthetic reasons - they are what make these people the fastest humans to ever live.
> 
> There is also a reason that endurance athletes do not carry as much muscle.  At a certain point weight and strength become a hindrance in endurance activity.  Thus a balance is required.


To punctuate the point, DK Metcalf is on the Seahawks.  He's a wide receiver... and huge.  He's listed as 6'4" tall and about 230lbs, and is about the same size as the linebackers .  He didn't quite qualify for the Olympic trials, but he ran 100 meters in 10.37 seconds.  Difference in speed between him and the guys who qualified was about 3/10ths of a second.  









						DK Metcalf impresses in 100 with a 10.37 but falls short of Olympic Trials
					

Metcalf finished 15th out of 17 in the prelims, but turned in a time that appeared to surprise the announcers, including four-time Olympic medalist Ato Bolden.




					www.seattletimes.com


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> You rotate faster


How do you power that rotation?


----------



## Ivan

Flying Crane said:


> How do you power that rotation?


You kick off the ground


----------



## Hanzou

Ivan said:


> In self defense, yes. In fighting it's a different matter. And the type of fighting matters too.



Kind of hard to defend yourself if you can't fight. In addition, if someone is punching me in the chest, and my chest is solid muscle, my chances of getting hurt by the blows are decreased. On the flip side, if someone tries to tackle me and I can bench press hundreds of pounds, I can probably toss that person aside like a child.

In short, strength matters. It actually matters a lot.


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> Kind of hard to defend yourself if you can't fight. In addition, if someone is punching me in the chest, and my chest is solid muscle, my chances of getting hurt by the blows are decreased. On the flip side, if someone tries to tackle me and I can bench press hundreds of pounds, I can probably toss that person aside like a child.
> 
> In short, strength matters. It actually matters a lot.


I did mention it matters in grappling situations. But in striking, muscle on your chest doesn't help. Almost none of the places people or fighters target are protected by muscle. Solar plexus, chest cavity, jaw, nose... None of those are protected by chest muscle. Furthermore, it is possible to be strong without being big. Hypertrophy doesn't completely equate to strength.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> You kick off the ground


Ok, I guess I wouldn’t describe it so much as a kick off the ground as a push.  But my point is, you are still engaging physical strength to do this, you just do the work with the legs and less with the arms and shoulders.  More efficient.  But some baseline of strength is still important in the arms and torso that works together with the legs and the torso rotation, as well as simply needs to be rugged enough to survive the impact when the strike lands.  The strongest torso rotation possible is no good if the wrists and arms and shoulders collapse in injury upon impact.


----------



## Ivan

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I guess I wouldn’t describe it so much as a kick off the ground as a push.  But my point is, you are still engaging physical strength to do this, you just do the work with the legs and less with the arms and shoulders.  More efficient.  But some baseline of strength is still important in the arms and torso that works together with the legs and the torso rotation, as well as simply needs to be rugged enough to survive the impact when the strike lands.  The strongest torso rotation possible is no good if the wrists and arms and shoulders collapse in injury upon impact.


Physical strength does not necessarily mean you have tons of muscle. Bruce Lee was one of the people who proved this. The guy was physically strong enough to do dragon flags and one-handed pushups. But he wasn't built like a locomotive


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> Physical strength does not necessarily mean you have tons of muscle. Bruce Lee was one of the people who proved this. The guy was physically strong enough to do dragon flags and one-handed pushups. But he wasn't built like a locomotive


I understand this.  Physical strength does not need to equate to big and bulky.  But physical strength is still an important factor in landing a powerful strike.  It isn’t the only factor or even the most important one.  But it still matters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ivan said:


> Strength matters but not as much in striking. For example, the power of your punches come from the rotation of your torso, not how muscular your arms are.


Boxers hit hard - they have to. Good boxers are pretty much universally muscular. They need support muscle in the arms for form (to support the power delivery) and strength in the torso to power the punch. Strength in the legs aids movement and reduces the chance that leg fatigue becomes a factor (though I suspect that latter is less an issue in self-defense situations, as they are unlikely to last the equivalent of several rounds).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I can't recall where, and it's too early for me to dig around, but I could swear I've read articles/studies on flexibility that suggest it, like many things, is significantly impacted by genetics.  Not to say that you can't improve it with effort, but some people are inherently more flexible, and will be able to maintain or increase their flexibility fairly easily.  Some will lack flexibility and will need to work very hard for minimal gains.


I've read something similar (with zero recall of where). Like other areas, it's likely a matter of degree, though with a pretty wide range. So, given how un-flexible my legs have always been (in spite of years of stretching in soccer and MA), I probably have some bad genetics in the mix, and would never be as flexible as some of my training partners were with little effort. Of course, a "me" that worked more on flexibility would be more flexible, and a "me" that did more bodybuilding back in the day would likely be less flexible.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Hyper mobility may be connected to propensity of injury to fasciae and interstitial tissues. 2 general surgeons I work with have offered anecdotal evidence to support this idea. If I find the study I will post it.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Flying Crane said:


> And how do you power the rotation of your torso?


Legs man!


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I can't recall where, and it's too early for me to dig around, but I could swear I've read articles/studies on flexibility that suggest it, like many things, is significantly impacted by genetics.  Not to say that you can't improve it with effort, but some people are inherently more flexible, and will be able to maintain or increase their flexibility fairly easily.  Some will lack flexibility and will need to work very hard for minimal gains.





Gerry Seymour said:


> I've read something similar (with zero recall of where). Like other areas, it's likely a matter of degree, though with a pretty wide range. So, given how un-flexible my legs have always been (in spite of years of stretching in soccer and MA), I probably have some bad genetics in the mix, and would never be as flexible as some of my training partners were with little effort. Of course, a "me" that worked more on flexibility would be more flexible, and a "me" that did more bodybuilding back in the day would likely be less flexible.


You are correct. Genetics absolutely play a role is someones flexibility. It's probably most accurate to say that genes will influence your range of flexibility, and training will determine where in your range you will be. So you can improve your flexibility, but maybe not as much as you'd like.
Everyone can improve their flexibility, but not everyone can be as rubbery as Bill Wallace.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Nope


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

I 


Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I guess I wouldn’t describe it so much as a kick off the ground as a push.  But my point is, you are still engaging physical strength to do this, you just do the work with the legs and less with the arms and shoulders.  More efficient.  But some baseline of strength is still important in the arms and torso that works together with the legs and the torso rotation, as well as simply needs to be rugged enough to survive the impact when the strike lands.  The strongest torso rotation possible is no good if the wrists and arms and shoulders collapse in injury upon impact.


I pull with the foot against the ground, rather than push. Like a car tire pulls against the ground.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Hyper mobility may be connected to propensity of injury to fasciae and interstitial tissues. 2 general surgeons I work with have offered anecdotal evidence to support this idea. If I find the study I will post it.


Google Hypermobility spectrum disorder. Associated with a number of common maladies, notably, hernia, pelvic floor collapse, ACL rupture, joint dislocation, and rectal prolapse. You can keep your double jointedness, I will keep my parts in place, please and thank you!


----------



## Alan0354

Ivan said:


> Physical strength does not necessarily mean you have tons of muscle. Bruce Lee was one of the people who proved this. The guy was physically strong enough to do dragon flags and one-handed pushups. But he wasn't built like a locomotive


But he is only about 140lbs soaking wet.

If you throw a punch in perfect form and land it perfectly, you don't need a lot of strength and you don't need a lot of muscle. But in real fight, situation seldom is perfect, that's where you need brute strength and muscle. If you watch the UFC heavy weight fight ( they just showed like two days ago), the guy can knock out the opponent while retreating and no time to rotate the waist, set up, good shoulder movement and all. He just dropped the guy cold throwing out a punch in bad form. Those are pure muscle and strength.

It is also true if you obtain an arm bar or some choke, you don't need a lot of strength to break the joint or break the neck. But while you are getting there, you struggle to get in place, and the opponent struggle, it is pure strength and muscle that get you there to do the arm bar and chokes.

Muscle and strength is very important, real fight is not like demonstration where you already get to the perfect position and only need very little strength to knock out, break the joint or break the neck of someone.

I practice Judo before, they always say it doesn't take strength to throw the person down. BS!!! It takes a lot of strength to tussle and pull the opponent in before you throw them down. In one belt test, my opponent was scared of me as I was heavy. He didn't even try to throw me, he just stiff arm me and kept me at a distance. I couldn't pull him in or push him and trip him. Turned out to be a draw. If I have big muscle and strong, I could just out pull him and pulled him in, that would be an easy throw.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Alan0354 said:


> he just stiff arm me and kept me at a distance. I couldn't pull him in or push him and trip him. Turned out to be a draw. If I have big muscle and strong, I could just out pull him and pulled him in, that would be an easy throw.


To break apart a stiff arms hold doesn't require big muscle but technique - tearing. Technique is like to find the right key to open the right lock. With the right key, you can open the lock with little effort.


----------



## Alan0354

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To break apart a stiff arms hold doesn't require big muscle but technique - tearing.


There are rules in Judo, you cannot just do anything.

It's so easy to talk. Do it in real life is totally different. You need strength to get into position, you cannot just assume the opponent is moron. If they know defense, it will make it so much harder to get to the right position. During the interim, it likely to be muscle that make of break the situation.

Like I said about fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges, Gracie just don't have the strength to prevent Huges from flatten him out. It's so obvious if you watch the match. It's raw strength to tussle for position. All the technique of Royce Gracie did not help him. He got TKO the first round, it's wasn't even a close fight. Huges just over power him, period. That was a really sad ending to Gracie. Old school, didn't believe in strength training. He got no muscle. He's lucky the referee stopped the fight, or else it would really get ugly and humiliating.

As much as I like cane fight and MA, I still spend half of my workout on weight lifting.  If I have to choose one or the other, it's a no brainer, I drop MA in a heart beat.



Ha ha, it would be very educational to have an UFC fight, get the best UFC fighter at 140lbs against an average 180lbs UFC fighter, make sure they are same height. Let them fight and see what happen. I bet it won't last half a round and the best 140lbs one will get KO.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Alan0354 said:


> There are rules in Judo, you cannot just do anything.
> 
> It's so easy to talk. Do it in real life is totally different. You need strength to get into position, you cannot just assume the opponent is moron. If they know defense, it will make it so much harder to get to the right position. During the interim, it likely to be muscle that make of break the situation.
> 
> Like I said about fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges, Gracie just don't have the strength to prevent Huges from flatten him out. It's so obvious if you watch the match. It's raw strength to tussle for position. All the technique of Royce Gracie did not help him. He got TKO the first round, it's wasn't even a close fight. Huges just over power him, period. That was a really sad ending to Gracie. Old school, didn't believe in strength training. He got no muscle. He's lucky the referee stopped the fight, or else it would really get ugly and humiliating.
> 
> As much as I like cane fight and MA, I still spend half of my workout on weight lifting.  If I have to choose one or the other, it's a no brainer, I drop MA in a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha, it would be very educational to have an UFC fight, get the best UFC fighter at 140lbs against an average 180lbs UFC fighter, make sure they are same height. Let them fight and see what happen. I bet it won't last half a round and the best 140lbs one will get KO.


40 lbs?  That's not much more than a few steaks.  

Think bigger.


----------



## Alan0354

Oily Dragon said:


> 40 lbs?  That's not much more than a few steaks.
> 
> Think bigger.


Those UFC fighters are fit even though they are just average, that's pretty much 40lbs extra muscles. It's a huge difference. Different dimension of strength.

I have no doubt the small guy will dance around and hit the bigger guy left and right first, but all it takes is one good punch from the big guy and the small guy goes flying.

you go to mid-heavy weight of 200lbs, that would be cruel.


----------



## BrendanF

Alan0354 said:


> Ha ha, it would be very educational to have an UFC fight, get the best UFC fighter at 140lbs against an average 180lbs UFC fighter, make sure they are same height. Let them fight and see what happen. I bet it won't last half a round and the best 140lbs one will get KO.



You seen any of the first UFCs?


----------



## Alan0354

BrendanF said:


> You seen any of the first UFCs?


Yes, I know you are going to say Royce Gracie beat up the bigger guy at the beginning. That was because they strikers did not know anything about grappling. It was a total surprise to the strikers. Just like you take a small martial artist facing a bigger guy that doesn't know how to fight. Of cause the small MA guy likely win. Gracie sure looked pitiful at the last fight with Matt Huge.

BUT, if the bigger know something about grappling, Gracie is going to have a hard time winning. One CANNOT assume the opponent doesn't know how to fight. I know a lot of people like to talk like that. BUT if all else equal, more strength is going to win.

In fact technique doesn't have to be equal, as long as the big guy know enough, the brute strength gives a lot of advantage for the lack of technique. Anyone doesn't think so is kidding themselves.

Once the wrestler realize their grappling and ground game is very effective, all the wrestlers join. Gracie might be clever not to fight after UFC4, he would have a hard time facing Dan Severn, Mark Coleman just a few months later.


----------



## tim po

Bruce Lee weighed 127lbs at the peak of his career. it's all about the BONES. he had a small skeleton, it would have been useless for him to gain much more weight.

muscles are enveloped in sheaths of tissue that coalesce into tendon, which then attach to the skeleton. the bigger the bones, the more real estate is available to attach tissue, the more functional muscle a body can carry. exceed your bodies carrying capacity, the extra muscle is a liability. build muscle too fast, you damage the fascia.

strength = the ability to apply force to a given task. what are you training to be strong at? is a gymnast stronger than a swimmier? on parrallel bars, yes. not in the water.

mass moving at speed= power, but you need strength to get mass moving fast. 

if you flex your muscles tight, you can't move, you have to be relaxed. if you are still relaxed when you strike, it won't hurt. it is more important to be able to move instantly from fluid and relaxed to contacting the muscles at once in the moment of impact, then you must be able to relax completely again, just as instantly. it is easier to train this ability with body weight excersizes and isometric contraction, which Bruce Lee also knew.

appearances are for the insecure. don't forget, you get old one day. want to still be able to defend yourself, when you are too old to train weights anymore? take it slow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> There are rules in Judo, you cannot just do anything.
> 
> It's so easy to talk. Do it in real life is totally different. You need strength to get into position, you cannot just assume the opponent is moron. If they know defense, it will make it so much harder to get to the right position. During the interim, it likely to be muscle that make of break the situation.
> 
> Like I said about fight between Royce Gracie and Matt Huges, Gracie just don't have the strength to prevent Huges from flatten him out. It's so obvious if you watch the match. It's raw strength to tussle for position. All the technique of Royce Gracie did not help him. He got TKO the first round, it's wasn't even a close fight. Huges just over power him, period. That was a really sad ending to Gracie. Old school, didn't believe in strength training. He got no muscle. He's lucky the referee stopped the fight, or else it would really get ugly and humiliating.
> 
> As much as I like cane fight and MA, I still spend half of my workout on weight lifting.  If I have to choose one or the other, it's a no brainer, I drop MA in a heart beat.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha, it would be very educational to have an UFC fight, get the best UFC fighter at 140lbs against an average 180lbs UFC fighter, make sure they are same height. Let them fight and see what happen. I bet it won't last half a round and the best 140lbs one will get KO.


At 40lbs difference, there will be more than muscle that comes into play. The sheer mass matters (affects power in punching, as well as several aspects of grappling - both standing and ground). Then there's reach - at that big a difference, there's usually a significant difference in height. So, yes, it would go badly for the lighter guy, but that's not entirely about muscle. Strength matters, but it's not a raw determining factor.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> Yes, I know you are going to say Royce Gracie beat up the bigger guy at the beginning. That was because they strikers did not know anything about grappling. It was a total surprise to the strikers. Just like you take a small martial artist facing a bigger guy that doesn't know how to fight. Of cause the small MA guy likely win. Gracie sure looked pitiful at the last fight with Matt Huge.
> 
> BUT, if the bigger know something about grappling, Gracie is going to have a hard time winning. One CANNOT assume the opponent doesn't know how to fight. I know a lot of people like to talk like that. BUT if all else equal, more strength is going to win.
> 
> In fact technique doesn't have to be equal, as long as the big guy know enough, the brute strength gives a lot of advantage for the lack of technique. Anyone doesn't think so is kidding themselves.
> 
> Once the wrestler realize their grappling and ground game is very effective, all the wrestlers join. Gracie might be clever not to fight after UFC4, he would have a hard time facing Dan Severn, Mark Coleman just a few months later.


I have noticed that these conversations always devolve into a ufc discussion. I’m not training to fight in ufc, and neither are any of the people in these conversations here. I doubt that anyone will be attacked on the street by ufc fighters because they are busy training in the gym. If you are talking competition, the ref and rules are there as a safety net. In real life, it happens in a split second. In real life, you don’t get options. I’m not worried about what this mma guy does or how much that ufc guy lifts. I especially don’t give a hoot about fantasy fights that involve Bruce Lee. Why is it that this poor guy is a benchmark for every conversation? He was a great actor, a great athlete, and is respected. Unless I’m wrong (please correct me if I am) No one here is comparable to these pro fighters and famous athletes. My point is that when the whole thread turns into hypothetical arguments about famous or dead people doing martial arts in some contrived situation, none of that is useful or applicable to us normal people that practice martial arts as a part of life. Feet on the ground is much more nutritious, I much prefer to hear about, and discuss what YOU real living everyday martial artists do. YOUR stories and experiences have real value to me.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have noticed that these conversations always devolve into a ufc discussion. I’m not training to fight in ufc, and neither are any of the people in these conversations here. I doubt that anyone will be attacked on the street by ufc fighters because they are busy training in the gym. If you are talking competition, the ref and rules are there as a safety net. In real life, it happens in a split second. In real life, you don’t get options. I’m not worried about what this mma guy does or how much that ufc guy lifts. I especially don’t give a hoot about fantasy fights that involve Bruce Lee. Why is it that this poor guy is a benchmark for every conversation? He was a great actor, a great athlete, and is respected. Unless I’m wrong (please correct me if I am) No one here is comparable to these pro fighters and famous athletes. My point is that when the whole thread turns into hypothetical arguments about famous or dead people doing martial arts in some contrived situation, none of that is useful or applicable to us normal people that practice martial arts as a part of life. Feet on the ground is much more nutritious, I much prefer to hear about, and discuss what YOU real living everyday martial artists do. YOUR stories and experiences have real value to me.



Yeah but what about Bruce Lee vs Godzilla 

my taijiquan shifu is more than 6 inches shorter than I am, is about half my weight and over 20 years older than I am. He never seemed to have much problem toss me around like a ragdoll and knocking me to the floor with the greatest of ease while he appears calm and relaxed


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah but what about Bruce Lee vs Godzilla
> 
> my taijiquan shifu is more than 6 inches shorter than I am, is about half my weight and over 20 years older than I am. He never seemed to have much problem toss me around like a ragdoll and knocking me to the floor with the greatest of ease while he appears calm and relaxed


That’s what I’m talking about!  I’m 6’2” 215lbs. My Sifu was 6’5” 260 lbs. he was lightning fast and extremely gentle with people. He could create intense pain with almost no effort, but rarely did. He cared for us students as if we were his own children. He never let us get too full of ourselves, and always kept us grounded in reality.  I can never forget him effortlessly picking me off the ground by my head (thumbs under my jaw And huge fingers latched onto my skull.)


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah but what about Bruce Lee vs Godzilla
> 
> my taijiquan shifu is more than 6 inches shorter than I am, is about half my weight and over 20 years older than I am. He never seemed to have much problem toss me around like a ragdoll and knocking me to the floor with the greatest of ease while he appears calm and relaxed


Bruce Lee could have saved Tokyo from Godzilla by using that one choke technique in ufc #3,546.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s what I’m talking about!  I’m 6’2” 215lbs. My Sifu was 6’5” 260 lbs. he was lightning fast and extremely gentle with people. He could create intense pain with almost no effort, but rarely did. He cared for us students as if we were his own children. He never let us get too full of ourselves, and always kept us grounded in reality.  I can never forget him effortlessly picking me off the ground by my head (thumbs under my jaw And huge fingers latched onto my skull.)


My sifu is about 5'7" and I'm 6'1", and he is over 20 years older than I am


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Xue Sheng said:


> My sifu is about 5'7" and I'm 6'1", and he is over 20 years older than I am


Unfortunately both my Sifu and Sigung have passed away. Get all you can from them while they are here, I regret every missed class.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Unfortunately both my Sifu and Sigung have passed away. Get all you can from them while they are here, I regret every missed class.



I have not trained with him in years, he is in his 80s now and when I left I was the last of his old martial arts dinosaurs. All that was left was forms only folks


----------



## Alan0354

Gerry Seymour said:


> At 40lbs difference, there will be more than muscle that comes into play. The sheer mass matters (affects power in punching, as well as several aspects of grappling - both standing and ground). Then there's reach - at that big a difference, there's usually a significant difference in height. So, yes, it would go badly for the lighter guy, but that's not entirely about muscle. Strength matters, but it's not a raw determining factor.


I did specified they have to be same height, which is easy to find, they should be about 5' 10", this is to make sure the reach is comparable. So the difference is the muscle/strength.


----------



## Alan0354

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have noticed that these conversations always devolve into a ufc discussion. I’m not training to fight in ufc, and neither are any of the people in these conversations here. I doubt that anyone will be attacked on the street by ufc fighters because they are busy training in the gym. If you are talking competition, the ref and rules are there as a safety net. In real life, it happens in a split second. In real life, you don’t get options. I’m not worried about what this mma guy does or how much that ufc guy lifts. I especially don’t give a hoot about fantasy fights that involve Bruce Lee. Why is it that this poor guy is a benchmark for every conversation? He was a great actor, a great athlete, and is respected. Unless I’m wrong (please correct me if I am) No one here is comparable to these pro fighters and famous athletes. My point is that when the whole thread turns into hypothetical arguments about famous or dead people doing martial arts in some contrived situation, none of that is useful or applicable to us normal people that practice martial arts as a part of life. Feet on the ground is much more nutritious, I much prefer to hear about, and discuss what YOU real living everyday martial artists do. YOUR stories and experiences have real value to me.


No, it's about comparing apple to apple. You don't just talk about a trained small guy fighting with an untrained big guy.

Same I can make the case of a lighted weight training guy beat up a heavier guy that has no training what so ever!! You cannot make a case compare one expert to a novice. Of cause the weight training fit guy is going to beat the crap out of the bigger guy with no training. That's not a comparison!!!

To make the case of comparison, you *HAVE* to compare the comparable trained person, one is bigger and one is smaller.

If you like to, you can compare a talented MA guy that is smaller to a bigger guy trained in the same style but not as good. I bet the weight(muscle, not fat) really makes a difference.



Why are people keep comparing a trained person to a non trained person to make their case??


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Xue Sheng said:


> I have not trained with him in years, he is in his 80s now and when I left I was the last of his old martial arts dinosaurs. All that was left was forms only folks


That’s a pity. So few of the old guys are left and even fewer who want the old way of training. Where in the world are you? Do you teach?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> No, it's about comparing apple to apple. You don't just talk about a trained small guy fighting with an untrained big guy.
> 
> Same I can make the case of a lighted weight training guy beat up a heavier guy that has no training what so ever!! You cannot make a case compare one expert to a novice. Of cause the weight training fit guy is going to beat the crap out of the bigger guy with no training. That's not a comparison!!!
> 
> To make the case of comparison, you *HAVE* to compare the comparable trained person, one is bigger and one is smaller.
> 
> If you like to, you can compare a talented MA guy that is smaller to a bigger guy trained in the same style but not as good. I bet the weight(muscle, not fat) really makes a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people keep comparing a trained person to a non trained person to make their case??


I’m not comparing. I think the whole argument is bollocks in the first place. I don’t think any of it matters. Little guys, big guys, who cares? I’m interested in YOU guys. What do YOU do? Each person is far too complex to be put in these silly constructs of big guy vs trained little guy. Unless you are talking about a person you know intimately, with all of the nuance that makes up a person, these arguments are meaningless. One cannot see the mind of a person, and very often, that is the factor that carries the day.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s a pity. So few of the old guys are left and even fewer who want the old way of training. Where in the world are you? Do you teach?



Northeast USA, NYS, I use to help him teach (mostly push hands and Dao, but I did occasionally help with the rst of it too) and I use to teach at my wife's practice. Will again, but currently recovering from knee replacement so teaching again is still a ways down the road


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Xue Sheng said:


> Northeast USA, NYS, I use to help him teach and I use to teach at my wife's practice. Will again, but currently recovering from knee replacement so teaching again is still a ways down the road


Well wishes for your healing.


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I have noticed that these conversations always devolve into a ufc discussion. I’m not training to fight in ufc, and neither are any of the people in these conversations here. I doubt that anyone will be attacked on the street by ufc fighters because they are busy training in the gym. If you are talking competition, the ref and rules are there as a safety net. In real life, it happens in a split second. In real life, you don’t get options. I’m not worried about what this mma guy does or how much that ufc guy lifts. I especially don’t give a hoot about fantasy fights that involve Bruce Lee. Why is it that this poor guy is a benchmark for every conversation? He was a great actor, a great athlete, and is respected. Unless I’m wrong (please correct me if I am) No one here is comparable to these pro fighters and famous athletes. My point is that when the whole thread turns into hypothetical arguments about famous or dead people doing martial arts in some contrived situation, none of that is useful or applicable to us normal people that practice martial arts as a part of life. Feet on the ground is much more nutritious, I much prefer to hear about, and discuss what YOU real living everyday martial artists do. YOUR stories and experiences have real value to me.


Just speaking for myself here, I find the discussions on training make the most sense when they focus on things that rank and file people can be taught to do reliably on their own.  But it's also useful to use famous people as examples, because we can all easily see them executing the techniques.  

So, that said, it makes sense that the UFC (or boxing, or other similar things) are used, because we can just pull up the footage and see the same thing.  But those examples are only really useful in the context of showing a high level, high pressure instance of something we can all learn to do if we train in a practical way.  

Absent common, easily viewed examples, these discussions quickly devolve into "what ifs" and "yeah buts".  I hope that makes some sense... I'm multitasking, which is something I don't do well.


----------



## Alan0354

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I’m not comparing. I think the whole argument is bollocks in the first place. I don’t think any of it matters. Little guys, big guys, who cares? I’m interested in YOU guys. What do YOU do? Each person is far too complex to be put in these silly constructs of big guy vs trained little guy. Unless you are talking about a person you know intimately, with all of the nuance that makes up a person, these arguments are meaningless. One cannot see the mind of a person, and very often, that is the factor that carries the day.


This IS the subject!!!

If you want to change the subject, by all means.


----------



## Alan0354

Steve said:


> Just speaking for myself here, I find the discussions on training make the most sense when they focus on things that rank and file people can be taught to do reliably on their own.  But it's also useful to use famous people as examples, because we can all easily see them executing the techniques.
> 
> So, that said, it makes sense that the UFC (or boxing, or other similar things) are used, because we can just pull up the footage and see the same thing.  But those examples are only really useful in the context of showing a high level, high pressure instance of something we can all learn to do if we train in a practical way.
> 
> Absent common, easily viewed examples, these discussions quickly devolve into "what ifs" and "yeah buts".  I hope that makes some sense... I'm multitasking, which is something I don't do well.


Agree,

I want to add: To do a comparison( in this case whether muscle is useful), you have to be scientific. Which is to eliminate as much variables as possible. you have to have the two people that are trained, the height is the same so reach is about the same. The variable is one has more muscle, the other has more skill. *Then you can compare between skill vs muscle.*

I never understand why people keep talking as if one trained compare to someone untrained. Of cause, the trained person is going to win. I can make the case a smaller person that only do weight training and fit but no MA skill, he can beat up a bigger guy that is totally untrained. THIS PROVES NOTHING. Anyone wants to claim more muscle is not useful in MA fighting *has to make the case* against someone that is not as good, but still with training but more muscles.


Ha ha, I remember when I was a red belt in TKD, there was a big guy a head taller than me came in as a beginner white belt. When we sparred, I could hit him as will, easy meat. BUT.............then after a few months when he got his yellow belt, did I got beat up(figuratively speaking), left and right. I just couldn't get to him, his punching reach is longer than my kicks!!! It was obvious that his skill is not even close to me, but I was just not good enough to overcome his reach.


Back to my UFC 140lbs vs 180lbs case. I am sure in point sparring, the 140lbs champ is going to score much higher than the 180 as the light guy is better and faster. BUT, if it is a real fight that only one gets to walk off the stage, my bet is on the 180.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> Just speaking for myself here, I find the discussions on training make the most sense when they focus on things that rank and file people can be taught to do reliably on their own.  But it's also useful to use famous people as examples, because we can all easily see them executing the techniques.
> 
> So, that said, it makes sense that the UFC (or boxing, or other similar things) are used, because we can just pull up the footage and see the same thing.  But those examples are only really useful in the context of showing a high level, high pressure instance of something we can all learn to do if we train in a practical way.
> 
> Absent common, easily viewed examples, these discussions quickly devolve into "what ifs" and "yeah buts".  I hope that makes some sense... I'm multitasking, which is something I don't do well.


I get it. Just annoys me a tad when it always rolls back to the same ol quotes. My eyes roll up so that I can’t see, I groan and moan in agony. The dust where the dead horse used to be begins to swirl around etc. I can’t help crying out once in a while.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Alan0354 said:


> Agree,
> 
> I want to add: To do a comparison( in this case whether muscle is useful), you have to be scientific. Which is to eliminate as much variables as possible. you have to have the two people that are trained, the height is the same so reach is about the same. The variable is one has more muscle, the other has more skill. *Then you can compare between skill vs muscle.*


A sample size of one is never science.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> A sample size of one is never science.


I've proposed the basic framework for a study... just looking for sponsors to fund it.  When you send me that knife, just enclose that first check.  Or I can take venmo, cash app, zelle, or paypal.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> This IS the subject!!!
> 
> If you want to change the subject, by all means.


I dont mean to offend you. I just have an opinion on the way it’s being discussed. Please accept my apologies if my wording was improper. I stand by the spirit of my statement. I’m interested in how the people here do it or experience it.


----------



## Alan0354

Dirty Dog said:


> A sample size of one is never science.


You are free to get more samples, at least start with the right approach.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Alan0354 said:


> Agree,
> 
> I want to add: To do a comparison( in this case whether muscle is useful), you have to be scientific. Which is to eliminate as much variables as possible. you have to have the two people that are trained, the height is the same so reach is about the same. The variable is one has more muscle, the other has more skill. *Then you can compare between skill vs muscle.*
> 
> I never understand why people keep talking as if one trained compare to someone untrained. Of cause, the trained person is going to win. I can make the case a smaller person that only do weight training and fit but no MA skill, he can beat up a bigger guy that is totally untrained. THIS PROVES NOTHING. Anyone wants to claim more muscle is not useful in MA fighting *has to make the case* against someone that is not as good, but still with training but more muscles.
> 
> 
> Ha ha, I remember when I was a red belt in TKD, there was a big guy a head taller than me came in as a beginner white belt. When we sparred, I could hit him as will, easy meat. BUT.............then after a few months when he got his yellow belt, did I got beat up(figuratively speaking), left and right. I just couldn't get to him, his punching reach is longer than my kicks!!! It was obvious that his skill is not even close to me, but I was just not good enough to overcome his reach.
> 
> 
> Back to my UFC 140lbs vs 180lbs case. I am sure in point sparring, the 140lbs champ is going to score much higher than the 180 as the light guy is better and faster. BUT, if it is a real fight that only one gets to walk off the stage, my bet is on the 180.


Ok ok but what if the 140 guy has me on a leash leading me around?


----------



## Alan0354

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I dont mean to offend you. I just have an opinion on the way it’s being discussed. Please accept my apologies if my wording was improper. I stand by the spirit of my statement. I’m interested in how the people here do it or experience it.


Oh no, I don't take it that way, just a discussion. This thread is about whether more muscle makes a difference.

Peace.


----------



## BrendanF

Alan0354 said:


> I want to add: To do a comparison( in this case whether muscle is useful), you have to be scientific. Which is to eliminate as much variables as possible. you have to have the two people that are trained, the height is the same so reach is about the same. The variable is one has more muscle, the other has more skill. *Then you can compare between skill vs muscle.*



There is an obvious, uncontrolled variable.

'Trained' is not a consistent measure - who decides, and how.. that two people are 'equally trained'?  Two people who have been training for exactly the same amount of time are obviously not going to have exactly the same degree of skill.  Is someone going to magically 'know' that two people are equally skilled?

It's a frivolous discussion.


----------



## Alan0354

BrendanF said:


> There is an obvious, uncontrolled variable.
> 
> 'Trained' is not a consistent measure - who decides, and how.. that two people are 'equally trained'?  Two people who have been training for exactly the same amount of time are obviously not going to have exactly the same degree of skill.  Is someone going to magically 'know' that two people are equally skilled?
> 
> It's a frivolous discussion.


I did not say two trained exactly equal. In fact, I said choose the small one that is better compare to the bigger one. In order to establish some sort of standard, I said specifically pick the 140lbs *best* of UFC to fight with an *average* 180lbs UFC fighter. *Just by specifying UFC fighter, I narrow to those that are good enough to be in UFC fights*, that control to a specific minimum standard. I specified the same height to ensure they have similar reach.

Yes, there's no absolute controlled comparison, but it is the best I can think of. Hell, it's sure better than people that said "muscle is no use, it slow you down and get in the way!!". By what standard they use to say this? At least I am trying to be fair. If anyone has better ways, I am all ears. I just cannot accept what is being said. This is very miss leading, giving people false hope that if they train, they are all good. It is NOT.

Do not say muscle doesn't matter, do not say height doesn't matter. It is irresponsible to say that to students. They might go out and start something they cannot finish thinking they can win. Life is not that simple. Just train, the more people train, the better chance they can win.


----------



## BrendanF

Of course size and strength matters.  But so does skill.  So does luck.  This is one of my favourite size mis-matches:


----------



## Alan0354

BrendanF said:


> Of course size and strength matters.  But so does skill.  So does luck.  This is one of my favourite size mis-matches:


Of cause, there are exception like luck, there is always possibility the small guy somehow lands a perfect punch and knock out the big guy. As for skill, if you have a better way to control that than what I described, I am all ears. All I know is it's wrong to say size doesn't matter, muscle just gets in the way of speed and flexibility. That's a totally lie and is irresponsible to tell student this. Should just say muscle and height clearly give advantage, but good skill can compensate and overcome the lack of power and reach to a certain extend. That would be an honest assessment.


----------



## BrendanF

Alan0354 said:


> there are exception like luck, there is always possibility the small guy somehow lands a perfect punch and knock out the big guy. As for skill, if you have a better way to control that than what I described, I am all ears.



Fedor did not win through luck.  As I said, there is no way to quantify skill, and being a trait in constant flux, it cannot be held constant.



Alan0354 said:


> All I know is it's wrong to say size doesn't matter, muscle just gets in the way of speed and flexibility. That's a totally lie and is irresponsible to tell student this. Should just say muscle and height clearly give advantage, but good skill can compensate and overcome the lack of power and reach to a certain extend. That would be an honest assessment.



I've heard people make all sorts of stupid claims regarding fighting.  The only honest assessment is actual fighting.  Everything 'matters'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Alan0354 said:


> muscle just gets in the way of speed and flexibility


I haven't seen anyone here say muscle gets in the way of speed and flexibility. I have said that the bodybuilding I was exposed to (both the approach and the hypertrophy it is intended to encourage) can get in the way of both speed and flexibility. Strength can be an asset to at least speed (so far as I know, it has no direct effect on flexibility).


----------



## Xue Sheng

Gerry Seymour said:


> I haven't seen anyone here say muscle gets in the way of speed and flexibility. I have said that the bodybuilding I was exposed to (both the approach and the hypertrophy it is intended to encourage) can get in the way of both speed and flexibility. Strength can be an asset to at least speed (so far as I know, it has no direct effect on flexibility).



I am not against building muscle, but have noticed, in some cases, that the more muscle one builds, the higher ones center tends to get.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> I haven't seen anyone here say muscle gets in the way of speed and flexibility. I have said that the bodybuilding I was exposed to (both the approach and the hypertrophy it is intended to encourage) can get in the way of both speed and flexibility. Strength can be an asset to at least speed (so far as I know, it has no direct effect on flexibility).


I feel it is more correct to say the way the muscle is built can get in the way of flexibility. Using the comparison between a gymnast and a bodybuilder is the perfect example. 
It does take strength to facilitate and/or augment speed. But when the person passes the threshold over into muscular bulk (different for every body type) this will usually slow them down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not against building muscle, but have noticed, in some cases, that the more muscle one builds, the higher ones center tends to get.


There is possibly some truth to that, especially if someone is very focused on the easiest "show" muscles (ignoring lower body and trunk).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> I feel it is more correct to say the way the muscle is built can get in the way of flexibility. Using the comparison between a gymnast and a bodybuilder is the perfect example.
> It does take strength to facilitate and/or augment speed. But when the person passes the threshold over into muscular bulk (different for every body type) this will usually slow them down.


The thread was originally about bodybuilding, which is why I commented about the impact of bodybuilding.

MMA, gymnastics, and a horde of other sports demonstrate that strength can come with flexibility.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not against building muscle, but have noticed, in some cases, that the more muscle one builds, the higher ones center tends to get.


Probably because most people have bad posture whether they lift or not, and the more they have to carry, whether it's fat or muscle, the worse they get at stressing their lower back, and then deal with spine problems later on.

Building muscle mass is one thing, learning to walk around with it properly?  Anybody who goes to a gym knows not everyone knows this.  Some people gracefully move around with their tone, others move like glaciers.

My take on this is pretty simple, more muscle means more maintenance.  It can be overdone to the point where you're spending every day just working on keeping it, when that should come naturally just being active. 

There will come a point when I'll have just the right amount of muscle for me, the key is to keep training and not worry so much about looking like The Hulk.  Banner Hulk, balanced, is the way to go.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Yeah, bodybuilding and strength weight training are two different things, but both can be overdone with negative affect on one's MA.  Aside from the physical liabilities, there is a mental one.

It's natural to rely on your strengths.  _When your strength IS strength, you will rely on this, instead of technique. _
This will seriously restrict one's advancement in MA.  I have seen this in a number of students, and is very hard to correct.

I think the student identifies himself as being strong, so it's hard for him to step out of this self-perception into the realm of technique and speed.  It's kind of like having to change one's habit or personality - takes a lot of dedicated effort to rework oneself.  It also takes some courage to put your best asset (comfort zone) on the back burner to work on other things.  Being the strongest guy is often enough to win a fight, so there is no incentive to change - until he comes across someone with significant speed and skill.

Technique, speed and strength - I teach these elements in this order.  I put the latter as least important.  Substantial
force can be realized by speed + technique.  Strength is good, but not when it supplants or lessens the other two qualities as can happen with those who value their muscles too much.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> I think the student identifies himself as being strong, so it's hard for him to step out of this self-perception into the realm of technique and speed.


Agree with you 100% there.

I had one student who were with me for 6 years. At the end of the 6 years, he was still depending on his strength. His opponent could not take him down (he had some defense skill). He had no skill to take his opponent down either (he had never developed any offense skill).

When I wrestled on the mat, I liked to wrestle with guys who were much bigger and stronger than I was. One day my teacher restricted me to only wrestle with lighter weight guys. He told me that to wrestle with a big/strong guy could destroy my speed intention. Since most big/strong guys are not moving very fast, my body could get lazy and move slow too. That's not good for my speed development in the long run.

But strength did help me after I had developed the wrestling skill. During my last tournament, I spent 3 months to move a 200 lb rock daily. During that tournament I knew I was the strongest guy in the whole tournament. I moved myself from the heavy weight into the super heavy weight. I was only 180 lb that year, but my opponent were all over 220 lb. My strength had no problem to defeat all my super heavy weight opponents in that tournament. I still remember that one of my opponents his arm muscle was as big as my leg muscle.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> The thread was originally about bodybuilding, which is why I commented about the impact of bodybuilding.
> 
> MMA, gymnastics, and a horde of other sports demonstrate that strength can come with flexibility.


Understood. I have seen many gymnast who are straight up ripped. They have many 'bodybuilding' qualities by virtue of acquiring the strength to perform (which would derail us into another muscle building discussion). Maybe not in a competition body builder sense where individual muscles circumference is measured and such, but well beyond the average sedentary person.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Understood. I have seen many gymnast who are straight up ripped. They have many 'bodybuilding' qualities by virtue of acquiring the strength to perform (which would derail us into another muscle building discussion). Maybe not in a competition body builder sense where individual muscles circumference is measured and such, but well beyond the average sedentary person.


That’s the distinction of bodybuilding, as I know the term. It’s about muscle size, not strength (though there is obviously some strength development). And that was the reason I made the distinction about strength training. The methodology and results are different.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s the distinction of bodybuilding, as I know the term. It’s about muscle size, not strength (though there is obviously some strength development). And that was the reason I made the distinction about strength training. The methodology and results are different.


Bodybuilding isn’t just about muscle size, it’s also about a highly specific aesthetic in terms of the relative proportions of the muscles and the absence of body fat. A high level power lifter or strong man competitor may have more total muscle mass than an equivalent body builder, but they won’t have the right aesthetic to win a bodybuilding contest. They will have more functional strength, though.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Bodybuilding isn’t just about muscle size, it’s also about a highly specific aesthetic in terms of the relative proportions of the muscles and the absence of body fat. A high level power lifter or strong man competitor may have more total muscle mass than an equivalent body builder, but they won’t have the right aesthetic to win a bodybuilding contest. They will have more functional strength, though.





Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s the distinction of bodybuilding, as I know the term. It’s about muscle size, not strength (though there is obviously some strength development). And that was the reason I made the distinction about strength training. The methodology and results are different.



Once again, to punctuate the point, these are two of the strongest humans in the world, ever.  They have each executed feats of strength that are literally the stuff of legend.  I tried to find two pictures of these guys where they are low body fat, but even at their leanest, they don't look anything like bodybuilders.  

Hafthor Bjornsson



 

Eddie Hall:


----------



## tim po

strength is not universal. our bodies can get stronger in a great many ways, and they will become stronger at performing specifically the task that you train them to be strong at, and they will learn to do it the way you train them to do it.

a gymanast is much stronger than a powerlifter. at gymnastics, not deadlifts. a body-builder is strong-very strong- at the specific intentional excersizes used to force the muscles to grow. these are specifically isolation excersizes, performed with very heavy weight(high intensity) to achieve positive muscle failure as quickly as possible.

so body building, though more muscle is built, providing more muscle to contract and thus apply force to the (dumbell curl?) task at hand, the body as a whole is being trained to work as inefficiently as possible, using as few muscles as possible to perform the task, and fail quickly at that. 

for this reason, i do not agree that building muscle quickly by applying bodybuilding science has any direct benefit to martial arts application (perhaps, dissuading an attacker by being jacked, perhaps) and in fact is a hinderance if overused to feed vanity,  

also in the pictures above (are they the same guy?) he has a very asthetically balanced and lean physique, but he could look like a butterball and still have all the muscle he needs to do what he does. it is HOW he does it, that makes him so strong. he knows how to use his whole body, he is skilled. also, look at his wrists, and his ankles. thick, broad, heavy bones, lots of real estate available to anchor connective tissue.  each of us can only ever hope to be as strong as the body we are part of was born to be, and we reach our potential as martial artists by learning to use the whole body(which includes mind), not one muscle at a time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Let's compare the following 4 cases:

1. Weak guy without MA training.
2. Weak guy with MA training.
3. Strong guy without MA training.
4. Strong guy with MA training.

It's easy to tell that 1 < 2, and 3 < 4. 

How about 3 and 4? I believe in weapon fight 3 < 2. But in open hand fight, it may go either way.


----------



## Oily Dragon

dvcochran said:


> Understood. I have seen many gymnast who are straight up ripped. They have many 'bodybuilding' qualities by virtue of acquiring the strength to perform (which would derail us into another muscle building discussion). Maybe not in a competition body builder sense where individual muscles circumference is measured and such, but well beyond the average sedentary person.


Gymnasts have some of the best functional strength of anyone on the planet.  That's the kind of balance that makes sense for martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's compare the following 4 cases:
> 
> 1. Weak guy without MA training.
> 2. Weak guy with MA training.
> 3. Strong guy without MA training.
> 4. Strong guy with MA training.
> 
> It's easy to tell that 1 < 2, and 3 < 4.
> 
> How about 3 and 4? I believe in weapon fight 3 < 2. But in open hand fight, it may go either way.


I agree. I think it's a matter of degrees, too. Someone who's a bit stronger than me (and untrained) probably loses to me in a fight. Someone who is a lot stronger than me and more athletic might be able to make up for my training if they are also very aggressive and tough (toughness is one of those variables that we don't usually include in the simplified look, but matter a lot). Likewise, someone with a little MA training probably doesn't overcome even a moderate difference in strength, but someone with a lot of training (and good fitness, etc.) has a good chance of making up for a larger difference in strength.


----------



## Hanzou

So this friendly sparring match took place recently;






This is an example of how size and strength can dictate a fight. Firas is on of the most skilled Jitsu guys on the planet, and the only thing he could do was leg locks to get a submission. If Laratt knew a bit more BJJ, Firas would have had no chance to submit him.

Also in terms of self defense, not many people are going to mess with Devon Laratt on the street.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> I agree. I think it's a matter of degrees, too. Someone who's a bit stronger than me (and untrained) probably loses to me in a fight. Someone who is a lot stronger than me and more athletic might be able to make up for my training if they are also very aggressive and tough (toughness is one of those variables that we don't usually include in the simplified look, but matter a lot). Likewise, someone with a little MA training probably doesn't overcome even a moderate difference in strength, but someone with a lot of training (and good fitness, etc.) has a good chance of making up for a larger difference in strength.


Toughness is a good choice of words. 
It is seldom a born-in trait (although genetics play a part) and can come from/through a number of conduits, so it is hard to define at face value when talking about SD ability.


----------



## tim po

toughness, yeah. but _meanness_, don't forget that. the ability to get real mean on demand is worthy of pondering.


----------



## dvcochran

tim po said:


> toughness, yeah. but _meanness_, don't forget that. the ability to get real mean on demand is worthy of pondering.


I think I get what you are saying but, to me, 'meanness' comes in many forms. Sometimes it is a very unbecoming human quality. 
More often than not, meanness as you describe, it just outright fear forced into motion when involved in a SD encounter. 
In the competition realm, being able to turn emotions and off as needed is a critical asset.

To me, all these are quite different from toughness. The first example that comes to mind, how many times have you seen a guy at a tournament who has tons of intent, and outwardly seems fully turned on, hyped up and ready to go. Looking downright mean. And then, for whatever reason, they straight up flop when they enter the ring. 

In your definition, would be put meanness and ruthless in the same subset?


----------



## Xue Sheng

dvcochran said:


> Toughness is a good choice of words.
> It is seldom a born-in trait (although genetics play a part) and can come from/through a number of conduits, so it is hard to define at face value when talking about SD ability.



As a side note, one of the toughest people I ever knew was my Sanda Shifu. Didn't act tough, did not do anything to show he was tough, but there was something about the way he carried himself and is attitude towards life in general that made me think that. And there was nothing I would call meanness about him. Of course training by striking, kicking, elbowing and kneeing trees helped too


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Xue Sheng said:


> As a side note, one of the toughest people I ever knew was my Sanda Shifu. Didn't act tough, did not do anything to show he was tough, but there was something about the way he carried himself and is attitude towards life in general that made me think that. And there was nothing I would call meanness about him. Of course training by striking, kicking, elbowing and kneeing trees helped too


Probably the toughest guy I ever trained with was a few years junior to me in NGA. He worked as a mover, and just _was _tough. Was - and still is - one of the nicest guys I've ever known, but I suspect if someone went after his kids, he'd be the meanest SOB they ever met.


----------



## tim po

dvcochran said:


> I think I get what you are saying but, to me, 'meanness' comes in many forms. Sometimes it is a very unbecoming human quality.
> More often than not, meanness as you describe, it just outright fear forced into motion when involved in a SD encounter.
> In the competition realm, being able to turn emotions and off as needed is a critical asset.
> 
> To me, all these are quite different from toughness. The first example that comes to mind, how many times have you seen a guy at a tournament who has tons of intent, and outwardly seems fully turned on, hyped up and ready to go. Looking downright mean. And then, for whatever reason, they straight up flop when they enter the ring.
> 
> In your definition, would be put meanness and ruthless in the same subset?


yes ruthless, determined? there are better words. in this thread the original idea was psychological intimidation factor of the appearance of strength-as is achieved by bodybuilding/weightlifting. many impressive looking body-builders are not actually tough, having built their muscles in a controlled environment and rested and eaten well afterwards, while hard labor and determined martial arts training develops perseverance and forbearance, toughness, mind body and spirit. 

meanness as i meant it is the ability to switch on an animal sort of savagery, giving a person who seeks inner peace the ability to strike viciously in a sudden self defense encounter. i do not advocate becoming a 'mean person', but cultivating in yourself the ability to 'do mean things' when your own moral code allows it, to save yourself. if you lack the mindset to cause harm when needed, you'd better be really good at what you train to do. it is possible to defend without harm, but requires greater skill. for the purposes of pure self-protection, especially excluding firearms which make it so much easier (but still very possible that unprepared persons will be unable to shoot to kill),you gotta be willing to get mean and dirty, however 'unbecoming'. just my opinion, once i might have been more confident in my physical prowess to defend without causing harm, but i am not young anymore. for me success would likely hinge more upon my willingness to be brutal from the outset, to whatever degree the threat involved made appropriate-no more, no less. i'm not a mean person, but can be pretty horrible if i need to be.

sports are not the same conversation. when i think of tactics for self-defense, i am not thinking about what works for professional athletes and highly-trained martial artists, but for average people with enough provocative interest to train a bit for the however unlikely eventuality of being attacked. mindset training and general awareness can't be overlooked, those of us who train for many years may take these things somewhat for granted, but many people fail to defend themselves becasue they hesitate, or pull their punches, out of an instinctual reluctance to 'be mean'. and yes, this comes from fear, an instinct of self-protection that does not always lead us to making the best choices, and must be redirected through training to develop appropriate responses to replace reactions.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> yes ruthless, determined? there are better words. in this thread the original idea was psychological intimidation factor of the appearance of strength-as is achieved by bodybuilding/weightlifting. many impressive looking body-builders are not actually tough, having built their muscles in a controlled environment and rested and eaten well afterwards, while hard labor and determined martial arts training develops perseverance and forbearance, toughness, mind body and spirit.
> 
> meanness as i meant it is the ability to switch on an animal sort of savagery, giving a person who seeks inner peace the ability to strike viciously in a sudden self defense encounter. i do not advocate becoming a 'mean person', but cultivating in yourself the ability to 'do mean things' when your own moral code allows it, to save yourself. if you lack the mindset to cause harm when needed, you'd better be really good at what you train to do. it is possible to defend without harm, but requires greater skill. for the purposes of pure self-protection, especially excluding firearms which make it so much easier (but still very possible that unprepared persons will be unable to shoot to kill),you gotta be willing to get mean and dirty, however 'unbecoming'. just my opinion, once i might have been more confident in my physical prowess to defend without causing harm, but i am not young anymore. for me success would likely hinge more upon my willingness to be brutal from the outset, to whatever degree the threat involved made appropriate-no more, no less. i'm not a mean person, but can be pretty horrible if i need to be.
> 
> sports are not the same conversation. when i think of tactics for self-defense, i am not thinking about what works for professional athletes and highly-trained martial artists, but for average people with enough provocative interest to train a bit for the however unlikely eventuality of being attacked. mindset training and general awareness can't be overlooked, those of us who train for many years may take these things somewhat for granted, but many people fail to defend themselves becasue they hesitate, or pull their punches, out of an instinctual reluctance to 'be mean'. and yes, this comes from fear, an instinct of self-protection that does not always lead us to making the best choices, and must be redirected through training to develop appropriate responses to replace reactions.


I don't consider ruthlessness to be a positive trait, and wouldn't want to encourage that in anyone, for any reason.  Meanness, either.   While you have to realize that some folks are just mean and ruthless, how you relate to them is up to you.  Personally, I don't voluntarily hang around anyone whom I believe to be ruthless.  Someone who is ruthless is just inherently not a good person.

Ruthless and determined are not synonyms.  They are completely different terms.  I would suggest that "steadfast" is more synonymous with determined than "ruthless."  

Why are we even talking about being ruthless?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Gerry Seymour said:


> Probably the toughest guy I ever trained with was a few years junior to me in NGA. He worked as a mover, and just _was _tough. Was - and still is - one of the nicest guys I've ever known, but I suspect if someone went after his kids, he'd be the meanest SOB they ever met.



Pretty much the same, he's be tough without the Sanda...and I would not recommend going after his kids.

I figure it came from his growing up in Heilongjiang...


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Pretty much the same, he's be tough without the Sanda...and I would not recommend going after his kids.
> 
> I figure it came from his growing up in Heilongjiang...


I don't recommend going after anyone's kids, as a general rule.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I don't recommend going after anyone's kids, as a general rule.


That’s in the other thread titled how to collect from a deadbeat.


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That’s in the other thread titled how to collect from a deadbeat.


LOL.  Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"  

Step 1:  Be ruthless
Step 2:  Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
Step 3:  Go after the kids.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> LOL.  Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"
> 
> Step 1:  Be ruthless
> Step 2:  Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
> Step 3:  Go after the kids.


No no no you are skipping important steps! It’s much more subtle than that. Maybe I should start this thread just to see what kind of kooky response will come up...


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> LOL.  Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"
> 
> Step 1:  Be ruthless
> Step 2:  Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
> Step 3:  Go after the kids.


What should I title it? How to use MA to be more successful at a life of crime? How to collect the vig? Most effective way to get more mileage out of a ho?


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> I don't consider ruthlessness to be a positive trait, and wouldn't want to encourage that in anyone, for any reason.  Meanness, either.   While you have to realize that some folks are just mean and ruthless, how you relate to them is up to you.  Personally, I don't voluntarily hang around anyone whom I believe to be ruthless.  Someone who is ruthless is just inherently not a good person.
> 
> Ruthless and determined are not synonyms.  They are completely different terms.  I would suggest that "steadfast" is more synonymous with determined than "ruthless."
> 
> Why are we even talking about being ruthless?


because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.

i agree that i wouldn't want to be described by any of these words, by anyone EXCEPT the dude who tries to knife me in the back!  sure, i love the idea of gently disarming him, buying him a cup of coffee and making friends. but..

most of us on here follow a martial arts path, and it is a long road with many attributes being collected slowly over time, if you are astute and observant. but there are also, it seems, people here seeking advice for 'self-defense', which suggests they are seeking a shorter road.   i acknowledge that it represents a higher level of attainment to be able to calmly and effectively disarm an attacker, and i actually do aspire to that in my training. but if faced with imminent death, there is nothing too nasty for me, and that is something i have also deliberately cultivated, doesn't imply that i am wont to unleash it, i am not.


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> What should I title it? How to use MA to be more successful at a life of crime? How to collect the vig? Most effective way to get more mileage out of a ho?


Don't get carried away.



tim po said:


> because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.
> 
> i agree that i wouldn't want to be described by any of these words, by anyone EXCEPT the dude who tries to knife me in the back!  sure, i love the idea of gently disarming him, buying him a cup of coffee and making friends. but..


Why are you swinging from one extreme to another?  Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?



tim po said:


> most of us on here follow a martial arts path, and it is a long road with many attributes being collected slowly over time, if you are astute and observant. but there are also, it seems, people here seeking advice for 'self-defense', which suggests they are seeking a shorter road.   i acknowledge that it represents a higher level of attainment to be able to calmly and effectively disarm an attacker, and i actually do aspire to that in my training. but if faced with imminent death, there is nothing too nasty for me, and that is something i have also deliberately cultivated, doesn't imply that i am wont to unleash it, i am not.


We can disagree.  I'm fine with that.  This is similar to that other thread about hating your enemy. This isn't about how other people act.  It's about how we choose to act, and whether we actually have a functioning, consistent moral compass.  I mean, if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.

 I don't think being ruthless is a trait that is to be admired in anyone.  I certainly wouldn't want to be known as ruthless, and I wouldn't want to promote ruthlessness in anyone I know.

 Are other people ruthless?  Sure.  Some people seem to be proud of it.  Do I want to be friends with, or even friendly to them?  Probably not, at least, not if they understand what ruthlessness really is.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Someone who is truly ruthless is probably someone I would actively avoid associating with, and while I would prefer not to harm that person, I would not hesitate to do so.  Recognizing it when you see it helps you protect yourself from those dudes.

I guess to say it as simply as I can, the opposite of ruthlessness isn't meekly naive.  You can be compassionate without being victim, just as you can protect yourself without being a sociopath.

So, maybe when you guys are talking about being mean and ruthless, you have an unconventional definition of those words that changes their meaning significantly.  If so, I'm willing to try and figure out what you really mean.  But if you actually intend to use the words in their true sense, we may just fundamentally disagree.  Because ruthlessness is intrinsically immoral, in my opinion, and unnecessary for self defense.


----------



## tim po

tim po said:


> because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.



to speak in these terms does run the risk of suggesting developing a cruel nature, and i am not. however, failing to psychologically prepare for actually doing to someone the things we train to do, could result in the inability to do what needs done.

 i think we are at a point of defining the rift between traditional martial arts and practical self-defense. the long road vs. the short, so to speak. and the big draw back of the short road? lack of moral compass. cultivating animal ferocity is another skillset to be trained. fear will be experienced,  all animals experience it when they are threatened, and fight or flight is better than freeze and die. 

 we can't just 'rely on our animal' to go berzerk and save us.  like a guard dog, the animal must be trained, must be obedient, or it might turn on you.  cultivating this ferocity is, imho, paramount to achieving practical skill in self-defense without long-term martial arts training.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> Why are you swinging from one extreme to another? Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?


i said, i'm not a mean person. if i could survive being attacked by making friends with my attacker i would. but i'd be dead. 

i am not a fighter. i don't look for trouble. but when my life or the life of someone i love are in danger, i am not at all concerned with being 'a nice guy'. 

that is why i originally said 'meanness' is a subject worhty of ponder, i was implying that one must consider the brutal reality of having to use damaging technique, and understanding what it takes to call that out of yourself at a moment's notice.  

hate is not the same thing.  a lion does not hate a gazelle. a fox does not hate a rabbit. nature employs savage cruelty all the time, yet i seriously doubt any creature other than human beings have ever experienced hate. 

thank you for bringing up that distinction, it is important.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> to speak in these terms does run the risk of suggesting developing a cruel nature, and i am not. however, failing to psychologically prepare for actually doing to someone the things we train to do, could result in the inability to do what needs done.
> 
> i think we are at a point of defining the rift between traditional martial arts and practical self-defense. the long road vs. the short, so to speak. and the big draw back of the short road? lack of moral compass. cultivating animal ferocity is another skillset to be trained. fear will be experienced,  all animals experience it when they are threatened, and fight or flight is better than freeze and die.
> 
> we can't just 'rely on our animal' to go berzerk and save us.  like a guard dog, the animal must be trained, must be obedient, or it might turn on you.  cultivating this ferocity is, imho, paramount to achieving practical skill in self-defense without long-term martial arts training.


Having been around people who are entirely unpredictable, sometimes violently so, as much as I have... I have a visceral reaction to the idea that going "unleashing" or "cultivating" ferocity and ruthlessness is a good thing.  That just sounds like a terrible idea, for anything, including self defense.  I am distrustful of it, and my guard goes up every time I run across it.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> , if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.


that is an interesting sentence.  i think i know what you mean, but right and wrong are subjective, and do change from one circumstance to another. and i do reserve the right to make that choice in any circumstance where i consider my life threatened by another creature. we all must. no one can do it for us.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> i said, i'm not a mean person. if i could survive being attacked by making friends with my attacker i would. but i'd be dead.


This is interesting.  I don't think I'd ever want to make friends with my attacker.  I have no interest in that, and personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to be friends with someone who attacks them?  As I said, I would prefer to avoid ruthless people altogether, if given the choice.




tim po said:


> i am not a fighter. i don't look for trouble. but when my life or the life of someone i love are in danger, i am not at all concerned with being 'a nice guy'.
> 
> that is why i originally said 'meanness' is a subject worhty of ponder, i was implying that one must consider the brutal reality of having to use damaging technique, and understanding what it takes to call that out of yourself at a moment's notice.
> 
> hate is not the same thing.  a lion does not hate a gazelle. a fox does not hate a rabbit. nature employs savage cruelty all the time, yet i seriously doubt any creature other than human beings have ever experienced hate.
> 
> thank you for bringing up that distinction, it is important.


You're welcome.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> This is interesting. I don't think I'd ever want to make friends with my attacker. I have no interest in that, and personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to be friends with someone who attacks them? As I said, I would prefer to avoid ruthless people altogether, if given the choice.


it was metaphor, illustrating a point. don't take me too literally. all i am saying is that i am as a nice a guy as i can be to any and everyone who will let me. if i was naturally mean, never would have thought about it! but i am not. so i cultivated it, in my martial path. it is a trained response, like the rest of my skillset of self-defense.


----------



## tim po

tim po said:


> it was metaphor, illustrating a point. don't take me too literally. all i am saying is that i am as a nice a guy as i can be to any and everyone who will let me. if i was naturally mean, never would have thought about it! but i am not. so i cultivated it, in my martial path. it is a trained response, like the rest of my skillset of self-defense.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> that is an interesting sentence.  i think i know what you mean, but right and wrong are subjective, and do change from one circumstance to another. and i do reserve the right to make that choice in any circumstance where i consider my life threatened by another creature. we all must. no one can do it for us.


Okay.  We're starting to move into a bit of a fuzzy area here, but what you're talking about is a pretty loosey-goosey form of ethical relativism, which I'm not too keen on.

I'll just say that circumstances can force us to do things we would prefer not to, based on conflicting values (e.g., we may be forced to harm another in order to protect our family).  But this idea of ruthlessness speaks to values and intent.  If you haven't given some thought to what your actual values are, I highly recommend it.  Just as an exercise, write down what things you value and then prioritize them.  Imagine that they are in direct conflict... which way would you go?  

So, for example, let's say you value kindness, empathy, integrity, and lawfulness (as a short list).  What would you do if you had to choose between being honest and being kind?  Do you value integrity over empathy?  Try to think about how you've actually acted in the past... think of real life situations where you've had to make a choice.

If nothing else, this will help you in the future to be more mindful and deliberate, and will actually help you be more decisive in a crisis.  In my opinion.


----------



## tim po

we are getting off-topic. my original comment was in the context of where the conversation was at the moment: toughness was supported as being more important than 'strength' (as cultivated in a gym) that is how i understood it, and my meaning was that imo, meanness is more important than muscle-and perhaps as important as toughness as defined.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> Okay.  We're starting to move into a bit of a fuzzy area here, but what you're talking about is a pretty loosey-goosey form of ethical relativism, which I'm not too keen on.
> 
> I'll just say that circumstances can force us to do things we would prefer not to, based on conflicting values (e.g., we may be forced to harm another in order to protect our family).  But this idea of ruthlessness speaks to values and intent.  If you haven't given some thought to what your actual values are, I highly recommend it.  Just as an exercise, write down what things you value and then prioritize them.  Imagine that they are in direct conflict... which way would you go?
> 
> So, for example, let's say you value kindness, empathy, integrity, and lawfulness (as a short list).  What would you do if you had to choose between being honest and being kind?  Do you value integrity over empathy?  Try to think about how you've actually acted in the past... think of real life situations where you've had to make a choice.
> 
> If nothing else, this will help you in the future to be more mindful and deliberate, and will actually help you be more decisive in a crisis.  In my opinion.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> we are getting off-topic. my original comment was in the context of where the conversation was at the moment: toughness was supported as being more important than 'strength' (as cultivated in a gym) that is how i understood it, and my meaning was that imo, meanness is more important than muscle-and perhaps as important as toughness as defined.


Sure.  I was commenting on ruthlessness and meanness.  I don't know how that came up, but I don't think it's necessary or all that helpful.   Folks started defending ruthlessness, so I tried to explain what I mean.  

So, if you're saying that some folks are mean (or ruthless), and that's an important thing to keep in mind, I agree.  If you're saying, as others did, that in order to be effective, we need to figure out how to cultivate meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> ethical relativism?... i do not believe in belief, i do not accept absolute standards, i am perfectly secure in my intent to do no unnecessary harm, and in my ability to determine when i have no choice but to cause harm. that said, when that time comes, i am prepared to fight to the last as ferociously as any animal should, but humans tend to fool themselves into being afraid to do so, you know, ethics, religious qualms, all that good stuff that civilized community is founded on..in theory. but i'm talking only about the moment when i think of nothing else but neutralizing the threat to my person, and i am not afraid to be mean, comes down to it.


Look, whatever works for you.  My personal opinion is that ethics and "all that good stuff" aren't things that should be casually disregarded in a crisis... as I said before, I personally find that problematic, and people who do so are unpredictable and to be handled with care.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> Sure.  I was commenting on ruthlessness and meanness.  I don't know how that came up, but I don't think it's necessary or all that helpful.   Folks started defending ruthlessness, so I tried to explain what I mean.
> 
> So, if you're saying that some folks are mean (or ruthless), and that's an important thing to keep in mind, I agree.  If you're saying, as others did, that in order to be effective, we need to figure out how to cultivate meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree.


no, i think i am the one who brought this up, and am therefore defending it is a mindset worthy of training...but perhaps the scope of the word 'ruthless' is what is in question,, i may just not understand what it means in this sense.  it's good to hear conflicting opinions, that is how ideas find equilibrium.  it is a sensitive subject, and perhaps one i have taken too much for granted in introducing without explainantion.

i'll try one more time:   i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves. i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense. i also do advocate becoming a highly skilled martial artist who doesn't need to, but for the rest of us... yeah.


----------



## tim po

tim po said:


> no, i think i am the one who brought this up, and am therefore defending it is a mindset worthy of training...but perhaps the scope of the word 'ruthless' is what is in question,, i may just not understand what it means in this sense.  it's good to hear conflicting opinions, that is how ideas find equilibrium.  it is a sensitive subject, and perhaps one i have taken too much for granted in introducing without explainantion.
> 
> i'll try one more time:   i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves. i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense. i also do advocate becoming a highly skilled martial artist who doesn't need to, but for the rest of us... yeah.


i see no direct correlation to ruthless self defense skills and lacking/flexible ethics. unless you are one who would use such ruthlessness for personal gain, but is that not the essence of all evil?


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves.





tim po said:


> i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense


I don't see the difference between these two things.  



tim po said:


> i see no direct correlation to ruthless self defense skills and lacking/flexible ethics. unless you are one who would use such ruthlessness for personal gain, but is that not the essence of all evil?


Sure, I get that.  My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own.  Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point.  That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> I don't see the difference between these two things.
> 
> 
> Sure, I get that.  My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own.  Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point.  That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?


hm. kinda seems like your trying pretty hard to perpetuate this semantic misinterpretat


Steve said:


> I don't see the difference between these two things.
> 
> 
> Sure, I get that.  My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own.  Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point.  That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?



ion.
ruthlessness, to me, means 'getting it done by whatever means necessary', and when training for mortal self-defense, i see no reason not to be ruthless as i understand it, in what you are willing to do to survive. if it is what you need to do to survive. the discussion has been had about legal ramifications already. if ruthless means something else entirely to you, please explain. i don't see how it is 'intrinsically immoral'.

ok, survival IS personal gain, i meant along the lines of proactively going after others in a ruthless manner, for personal gain. this does not mean it has to be how you regard people in everyday life, or that you do not value compassion and forgiveness. remember i'm not talking about fighting now, or competition, though ruthlessness is a winning trait in those arenas, it can be at the expense of sportsmanship and disrespectful to your opponent. i take for granted i guess that martial artists understand the razor's edge between power and corruption, the edge we walk on when we study these skills.


----------



## tim po

you know what i would describe as 'ruthless'? nature. in nature, all living beings struggle for survival every moment of every day. the end is usually rather violent, for most of them, but nature has equipped every life form to deal with that in it's own way. it's actually why we go into 'shock'. the cat who turns back on the coyote and fights like a demon from hell makes it home.  the one that keeps running doesn't. was the first cat wrong for fighting so ruthlessly? (we all know cats are immoral) should the cat 'feel bad' if the coyote looses an eye? should he have shown mercy?. despite our illusions, we are not separate from the natural order, and when attacked visciously this point is never more clear. and i say, let 'm have it! don't worry whether or not they will ever play the violin again.


----------



## Steve

tim po said:


> hm. kinda seems like your trying pretty hard to perpetuate this semantic misinterpretat
> 
> 
> ion.


I'm really not.  Just trying to be clear.  I'm happy to let it go when you are. 



tim po said:


> ruthlessness, to me, means 'getting it done by whatever means necessary', and when training for mortal self-defense, i see no reason not to be ruthless as i understand it, in what you are willing to do to survive. if it is what you need to do to survive. the discussion has been had about legal ramifications already. if ruthless means something else entirely to you, please explain. i don't see how it is 'intrinsically immoral'.



Okay.  I have a more conventional understanding of what ruthless means.  No worries.  Just to be clear, I don't think the trade off here is ruthless or death. 



tim po said:


> ok, survival IS personal gain, i meant along the lines of proactively going after others in a ruthless manner, for personal gain. this does not mean it has to be how you regard people in everyday life, or that you do not value compassion and forgiveness. remember i'm not talking about fighting now, or competition, though ruthlessness is a winning trait in those arenas, it can be at the expense of sportsmanship and disrespectful to your opponent. i take for granted i guess that martial artists understand the razor's edge between power and corruption, the edge we walk on when we study these skills.


Sure, intrinsically immoral is too strong.  I got a little carried away.  But not by much.  Ruthlessness to me suggests a lack of empathy, lack of compassion, or lack of mercy.  I don't think you need to be merciless to do what you need to do.  I don't think you need to forego compassion to successfully defend yourself.

Let me try a completely different approach.  I have giant dogs.  A St. Bernard and a Great Pyrenees.   I have had a lot of animals over the years, and have had to take more than a few in to be put to sleep, when their quality of life was just too bad.  I didn't like it, but I didn't have to somehow become ruthless in order to do it.  It doesn't mean I shied away from it.  I just did what I had to do, and what I believed was the right thing to do in that moment. 

Why does self defense have to be any different?  I think the idea of having to become something I'm not (i.e. ruthless or mean) in order to defend myself is just inherently problematic.  Giant red flags for me.  And the idea of training other people to get to a place where they are voluntarily becoming something so inherently negative as ruthlessness just isn't a good idea, in my opinion.

I hope this is all clear.  I'm just sharing what I think.  As I've said many times, if you don't agree, I'm totally okay with that.


----------



## tim po

Steve said:


> I'm really not.  Just trying to be clear.  I'm happy to let it go when you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  I have a more conventional understanding of what ruthless means.  No worries.  Just to be clear, I don't think the trade off here is ruthless or death.
> 
> 
> Sure, intrinsically immoral is too strong.  I got a little carried away.  But not by much.  Ruthlessness to me suggests a lack of empathy, lack of compassion, or lack of mercy.  I don't think you need to be merciless to do what you need to do.  I don't think you need to forego compassion to successfully defend yourself.
> 
> Let me try a completely different approach.  I have giant dogs.  A St. Bernard and a Great Pyrenees.   I have had a lot of animals over the years, and have had to take more than a few in to be put to sleep, when their quality of life was just too bad.  I didn't like it, but I didn't have to somehow become ruthless in order to do it.  It doesn't mean I shied away from it.  I just did what I had to do, and what I believed was the right thing to do in that moment.
> 
> Why does self defense have to be any different?  I think the idea of having to become something I'm not (i.e. ruthless or mean) in order to defend myself is just inherently problematic.  Giant red flags for me.  And the idea of training other people to get to a place where they are voluntarily becoming something so inherently negative as ruthlessness just isn't a good idea, in my opinion.
> 
> I hope this is all clear.  I'm just sharing what I think.  As I've said many times, if you don't agree, I'm totally okay with that.


i hear ya, and i don't need to be right. but i don't like being misunderstood.  and of course, now i'm hearing the cobra kai mantra in my head....

but i have defended my right to trust my own moral compass, and stated that i always seek to do no more then what is absolutely necessary. but that does not imply doing less than is necessary, and perhaps it is just my experience that has lead me to see things the way i do, but if doing something truly horrible to someone is what i have to do to stop them? not losing any sleep.  

i said what i said because some people need to give themselves this kind of permission, to understand that it actually is ok to train to attack someone with extreme prejudice in the name of defending your life. a moment of hesitation can mean life or death, and mental preparation is important. sorry if the word struck a nerve, and it is a slippery slope with some nasty sh*t at the bottom.  meanness doesn't imply mercilessness, but mercilessness doesn't imply malicious intent by itself.  it can and usually does mean that, but can also be used to imply a lack of hesitation to cause injury when necessary. being merciful is better, but you're skills have to be too.


----------



## Unkogami

9 times out of 10, people talk about being "mean" or "ruthless" as an attempt to imagine they could pull a "grandma lifts car off her grandson" magically overcoming their weaknesses and other shortcomings "when I have to." We are as strong as we are strong, we are as fast as we are fast, we can do what we can do. Little imagination games are for kids.


----------



## tim po

9 times out of ten, eh? thank you for sharing this profound observation.

don't believe anyone has mentioned superpowers. this is a very natural innate power we have within us, and training to deploy it as needed is part of the way i approach self-defense, no need to be squeamish about it. 

i am not telling anyone what they should do, just perspective from my own path.


----------



## Unkogami

tim po said:


> ...this is a very natural innate power we have within us, and training to deploy it as needed is part of the way i approach self-defense....


If someone else is stronger, faster, smarter, or just better than you, your "innate power" won't change that. Imagining otherwise is kids stuff.


----------



## tim po

Unkogami said:


> If someone else is stronger, faster, smarter, or just better than you, your "innate power" won't change that. Imagining otherwise is kids stuff.


truly you have a dizzying acumen, sir.

it is precisely because we may be attacked by someone bigger, stronger and faster than us that we train in the first place. it is because we are also likely to be attacked by someone who is also _meaner_ than us, that i cultivate the ability to get 'mean' myself in response. if i was a mean person to begin with, i would not have to. but then, i'd be the one looking for a victim. it is not about being invincible, it is about leveling the playing field. the one who has already committed to the attack has an edge, they are mentally prepared. if we are still busy in our minds worrying about whether or not our actions are righteous, they win. animals think faster than humans. use your animal brain. it's much faster.


----------



## Unkogami

tim po said:


> .... it is because we are also likely to be attacked by someone who is also _meaner_ than us, that i cultivate the ability to get 'mean' myself in response.....


How? There is only one real way to 'train' such a thing, and it's not in a 'dojo.'


----------



## tim po

Unkogami said:


> How? There is only one real way to 'train' such a thing, and it's not in a 'dojo.'


who said it was?


----------



## Unkogami

tim po said:


> who said it was?


And no matter what you do, stronger is still stronger, faster is still faster, smarter is still smarter, and better is still better regardless of any "innate power."


----------



## tim po

Unkogami said:


> And no matter what you do, stronger is still stronger, faster is still faster, smarter is still smarter, and better is still better regardless of any "innate power."


and meaner is still meaner. glad we agree.


----------



## Unkogami

tim po said:


> and meaner is still meaner. glad we agree.


And "meaner" means exactly jack squat compared to all those other attributes.


----------



## tim po

Unkogami said:


> And "meaner" means exactly jack squat compared to all those other attributes.


if you say so.


----------



## Unkogami

tim po said:


> if you say so.


I say so.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> Don't get carried away.
> 
> 
> Why are you swinging from one extreme to another?  Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?
> 
> 
> We can disagree.  I'm fine with that.  This is similar to that other thread about hating your enemy. This isn't about how other people act.  It's about how we choose to act, and whether we actually have a functioning, consistent moral compass.  I mean, if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.
> 
> I don't think being ruthless is a trait that is to be admired in anyone.  I certainly wouldn't want to be known as ruthless, and I wouldn't want to promote ruthlessness in anyone I know.
> 
> Are other people ruthless?  Sure.  Some people seem to be proud of it.  Do I want to be friends with, or even friendly to them?  Probably not, at least, not if they understand what ruthlessness really is.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Someone who is truly ruthless is probably someone I would actively avoid associating with, and while I would prefer not to harm that person, I would not hesitate to do so.  Recognizing it when you see it helps you protect yourself from those dudes.
> 
> I guess to say it as simply as I can, the opposite of ruthlessness isn't meekly naive.  You can be compassionate without being victim, just as you can protect yourself without being a sociopath.
> 
> So, maybe when you guys are talking about being mean and ruthless, you have an unconventional definition of those words that changes their meaning significantly.  If so, I'm willing to try and figure out what you really mean.  But if you actually intend to use the words in their true sense, we may just fundamentally disagree.  Because ruthlessness is intrinsically immoral, in my opinion, and unnecessary for self defense.


Well I’m kidding. But since we were talking ruthless…


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> Don't get carried away.
> 
> 
> Why are you swinging from one extreme to another?  Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?
> 
> 
> We can disagree.  I'm fine with that.  This is similar to that other thread about hating your enemy. This isn't about how other people act.  It's about how we choose to act, and whether we actually have a functioning, consistent moral compass.  I mean, if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.
> 
> I don't think being ruthless is a trait that is to be admired in anyone.  I certainly wouldn't want to be known as ruthless, and I wouldn't want to promote ruthlessness in anyone I know.
> 
> Are other people ruthless?  Sure.  Some people seem to be proud of it.  Do I want to be friends with, or even friendly to them?  Probably not, at least, not if they understand what ruthlessness really is.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Someone who is truly ruthless is probably someone I would actively avoid associating with, and while I would prefer not to harm that person, I would not hesitate to do so.  Recognizing it when you see it helps you protect yourself from those dudes.
> 
> I guess to say it as simply as I can, the opposite of ruthlessness isn't meekly naive.  You can be compassionate without being victim, just as you can protect yourself without being a sociopath.
> 
> So, maybe when you guys are talking about being mean and ruthless, you have an unconventional definition of those words that changes their meaning significantly.  If so, I'm willing to try and figure out what you really mean.  But if you actually intend to use the words in their true sense, we may just fundamentally disagree.  Because ruthlessness is intrinsically immoral, in my opinion, and unnecessary for self defense.


I grew up around, and was raised by truly ruthless and sociopathic people. I am not that, but I am unfortunately familiar with what that really means.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> How? There is only one real way to 'train' such a thing, and it's not in a 'dojo.'


Where is that exactly? What is that one and only real way to “train” such a thing? Just curious.


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Where is that exactly? ...


Out in the real world.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> Out in the real world.


Wait the dojo isn’t real? I don’t know what you mean by the real world.


----------



## tim po

i believe it is this gentleman's perspective that i am speaking from fantasyland.  i get that a lot, mostly from people afraid of learning what they have failed to understand.

there is only one place anything is learned. there is only one person who can teach us anything at all. that person is us, and it all happens in our mind. no matter what we observe, experience, or are taught in words or actions, it is our own ability to assimilate the information into something our bodies can do on their own.  we also have the ability to tailor our mindset for optimal results, and most martial arts offer tremendous tools for learning to control the primal mind, even if it is rarely mentioned the way i have here... and all of this happens the only place that it can, in our minds.


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Wait the dojo isn’t real? ...


No, most are not.


----------



## tim po

don't cry unk. maybe just try to not be a troll?  just a suggestion.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

tim po said:


> i believe it is this gentleman's perspective that i am speaking from fantasyland.  i get that a lot, mostly from people afraid of learning what they have failed to understand.
> 
> there is only one place anything is learned. there is only one person who can teach us anything at all. that person is us, and it all happens in our mind. no matter what we observe, experience, or are taught in words or actions, it is our own ability to assimilate the information into something our bodies can do on their own.  we also have the ability to tailor our mindset for optimal results, and most martial arts offer tremendous tools for learning to control the primal mind, even if it is rarely mentioned the way i have here... and all of this happens the only place that it can, in our minds.


Nicely written.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> No, most are not.


Except yours?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> No, most are not.


What makes it real? Oh wait there are likely 200 threads on this.


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Except yours?


Mine?
??????


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> Mine?
> ??????


Yes yours. Your dojo. Do you have one or attend one?


----------



## Oily Dragon




----------



## Oily Dragon

Thread is so off the rails, I actually feel the need to post here.

How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?​
Very.  My evidence?  Nobody would ever tried to fight Hugh Jackman in the real world.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> Thread is so off the rails, I actually feel the need to post here.
> 
> How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?​
> Very.  My evidence?  Nobody would ever tried to fight Hugh Jackman in the real world.
> 
> View attachment 27866


Is that from body building? He needs to have that vein looked at. I’m no doctor but who was his surgeon?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> View attachment 27865


Lmao!


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Yes yours. Your dojo. Do you have one or attend one?


Not the way you seem to be thinking.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Is that from body building? He needs to have that vein looked at. I’m no doctor but who was his surgeon?


The Weapon X Program.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> Not the way you seem to be thinking.


I’m not thinking anything, I’m asking you because you said most dojo’s aren’t real. It’s a genuine question.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> The Weapon X Program.


The plastics guy in the practice must be horrified.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> The Weapon X Program.


Things didn’t get better over there, just look at Deadpool. Back to the drawing board…


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Unkogami said:


> Not the way you seem to be thinking.


It might help the flow of conversation/help others understand your viewpoint better if you share a bit about your experience (in martial arts and/or in real SD situations), so we know where you're coming from.


----------



## Unkogami

Oily Dragon said:


> Thread is so off the rails, I actually feel the need to post here.
> 
> How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?​
> Very.  My evidence?  Nobody would ever tried to fight Hugh Jackman in the real world.


Why not?


----------



## Unkogami

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It might help the flow of conversation/help others understand your viewpoint better if you share a bit about your experience (in martial arts and/or in real SD situations), so we know where you're coming from.


It's sort of a long story.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Unkogami said:


> Why not?


Duh.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> It's sort of a long story.


We have time write at your leisure. I’m interested or I wouldn’t have asked.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> Why not?


Because he is rich and has good lawyers.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Unkogami said:


> It's sort of a long story.


For most of us it is. Can't think of anyone off the top of my head on this site who hasn't had twists and turns in their journey.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Unkogami said:


> It's sort of a long story.


I don't think we have any shortage of bandwidth or storage space.


----------



## tim po

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Is that from body building? He needs to have that vein looked at. I’m no doctor but who was his surgeon?


body building, and a whole lot of creatine and arginine alpha-ketoglutarate. pro's can go up and down in muscle mass very quickly, they have money, time, and the best professional trainers. look at Christian Bale. Reign of Fire, he's jacked. 2 years later, the Machinist, he was rail thin. 2 more years, he was the Dark Knight.  although i enjoyed that Wolverine movie most of all( there were Ninjas, ok?) i got the impression they made for no other reason than becasue someone noticed that Hugh Jackman had gone to the trouble of becoming Huge Jackedman!


----------



## tim po

tim po said:


> body building, and a whole lot of creatine and arginine alpha-ketoglutarate. pro's can go up and down in muscle mass very quickly, they have money, time, and the best professional trainers. look at Christian Bale. Reign of Fire, he's jacked. 2 years later, the Machinist, he was rail thin. 2 more years, he was the Dark Knight.  although i enjoyed that Wolverine movie most of all( there were Ninjas, ok?) i got the impression they made for no other reason than becasue someone noticed that Hugh Jackman had gone to the trouble of becoming Huge Jackedman!


actually, Logan was my favorite.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

tim po said:


> body building, and a whole lot of creatine and arginine alpha-ketoglutarate. pro's can go up and down in muscle mass very quickly, they have money, time, and the best professional trainers. look at Christian Bale. Reign of Fire, he's jacked. 2 years later, the Machinist, he was rail thin. 2 more years, he was the Dark Knight.  although i enjoyed that Wolverine movie most of all( there were Ninjas, ok?) i got the impression they made for no other reason than becasue someone noticed that Hugh Jackman had gone to the trouble of becoming Huge Jackedman!


I was just jokin around which is what I’m usually up to. Can’t take me too seriously.


----------



## _Simon_

Oily Dragon said:


> Thread is so off the rails, I actually feel the need to post here.
> 
> How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?​
> Very.  My evidence?  Nobody would ever tried to fight Hugh Jackman in the real world.
> 
> View attachment 27866


Not with those claws!!!


----------



## Unkogami

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It might help the flow of conversation/help others understand your viewpoint better if you share a bit about your experience (in martial arts and/or in real SD situations), so we know where you're coming from.





Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It might help the flow of conversation/help others understand your viewpoint better if you share a bit about your experience (in martial arts and/or in real SD situations), so we know where you're coming from.


     I grew up in and around the parts of Boston and NE the tourists don't frequent. You learned how to handle your **** early and often on those streets. Wrestling and football made school interesting. After college (when I graduated I was ranked 13th in the nation, NCAA Div. 1), I took a year to heal and save a very modest amount of $$ then sold my car and bought a one-way ticket to the furthest place from home I could identify on a globe. Turned out to be a city in the middle of China. I landed, wandered around for a few days, ran into a guy from England, and after 30-40 beers he agreed to try and get me a job teaching at a university in the city where he had been working for about a year. His girlfriend at the time also introduced me to a very nice young lady, but that's another story.      

    Anyway, I met some people who knew some people who knew some people and I got to training early, early morning before teaching classes and late evening after teaching and learned as much of as many Chinese martial arts as I could. I also met some guys who wrestled for the provincial wrestling team that competed in China's version of national comps. Worked out with that team a lot, so I managed to keep pretty busy. During all this I befriended a lot of folks who the local Han tended to shun. Some Uyghur folks in particular tended to raise the ire of local Han farmers, so we got into some pretty interesting street fights late at night when the night markets were letting out and folks had a good amount of booze in them. Some hair-raising **** went down during those. My friend, the guy from England, was no fighter, so he got pretty freaked out during some of these when he happened to be around. 

     During Spring Festival one year me, the British guy and two Japanese ladies we were seeing at the time traveled around China as widely as we could, and here and there ran into some folks who had a beef with Japanese people or American people and various unpeaceful events took place accordingly. I should say though that most people were astonishingly welcoming, generous and hospitable to all of us. The great, great majority of folks were so wonderful to all of us that it really left a lasting impression on me. Anyway, while we were traveling, we took in some places along the southern border of China and Burma and Laos. Some of the villages along here seemed to be built around fighting rings where a lot of Chinese MA and the Laotian/Burman versions of Thai boxing and some sorts of Silat were practiced and tested straight out. Almost everywhere we went, the local folks wanted to put on an MMA kind of thing to see how I could do against their local guys. A lot of these guys were tough as hell, but I acquitted myself well enough to earn the respect of the locals. A few times I got the impression that some of the pro guys were going a little easy on me, but I wasn't about to make an issue of it. I had enough bruises and blackeyes as it was. Most combat sport guys everywhere in the world (more stories there) share a respect with anyone who puts their *** on the line. So, our trip along this border had its fair share of interesting experiences in local-made gyms/rings/streets. It would take a long time to recount them all (one actually involved a sort of fireworks battle - ridiculous).

     Family matters called me back to the states, and when that was resolved I decided to take a job in Japan. During the years that I lived and worked there I had the opportunity to learn and practice various Japanese martial arts. These included Kempo, Kendo, Aikido, Iaido, and several others to lesser degrees. While working out at a local gym one day I met a guy who ran his own Nihon Kempo club, and he invited me to go teach his students some wrestling. They did a lot of free sparring, so I had the opportunity to go live with guys from a number of different backgrounds several times a week. When they went live they really went live, so that was fun. I didn't get into many street altercations during my years in Japan. Mostly with other gaijin who were drunk and bad-mouthing the US. I of course made time to continue practicing the things I had learned during my years in China as well. 

    Once again personal family matters called me back to Boston, and this time I became involved in business interests that mostly kept me there. I made a point of hitting different gyms/clubs/dojos around the greater Boston area on a regular basis. Sort of a circuit of boxing, Muay Thai, Capoeira, CMA, JMA, Ninjutsu, etc. When MMA became a thing, I hit a few of those gyms too. A wrestling club in one of the sketchy parts of Boston was a regular weekly stop. As will happen, there were incidents now and again on weekends. Especially when hanging out with some friends who were not good at drinking or fighting, or controlling themselves. Career interests continued to develop, and at one point I had to go to Korea to train and manage a few branches of a hagwan. I was there for about 7 months. Not long, but I made a point of finding opportunities to train Ssireum and Taekkyeon as much as I could. Time passes and many things transpired over the years and decades, but I have always trained and built on all I have learned. I am now teaching at an inner city school district, and I am also head wrestling coach for all the high schools in the city. 

     So, that's about where I'm at.


----------



## tim po

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I was just jokin around which is what I’m usually up to. Can’t take me too seriously.





Unkogami said:


> I grew up in and around the parts of Boston and NE the tourists don't frequent. You learned how to handle your **** early and often on those streets. Wrestling and football made school interesting. After college (when I graduated I was ranked 13th in the nation, NCAA Div. 1), I took a year to heal and save a very modest amount of $$ then sold my car and bought a one-way ticket to the furthest place from home I could identify on a globe. Turned out to be a city in the middle of China. I landed, wandered around for a few days, ran into a guy from England, and after 30-40 beers he agreed to try and get me a job teaching at a university in the city where he had been working for about a year. His girlfriend at the time also introduced me to a very nice young lady, but that's another story.
> 
> Anyway, I met some people who knew some people who knew some people and I got to training early, early morning before teaching classes and late evening after teaching and learned as much of as many Chinese martial arts as I could. I also met some guys who wrestled for the provincial wrestling team that competed in China's version of national comps. Worked out with that team a lot, so I managed to keep pretty busy. During all this I befriended a lot of folks who the local Han tended to shun. Some Uyghur folks in particular tended to raise the ire of local Han farmers, so we got into some pretty interesting street fights late at night when the night markets were letting out and folks had a good amount of booze in them. Some hair-raising **** went down during those. My friend, the guy from England, was no fighter, so he got pretty freaked out during some of these when he happened to be around.
> 
> During Spring Festival one year me, the British guy and two Japanese ladies we were seeing at the time traveled around China as widely as we could, and here and there ran into some folks who had a beef with Japanese people or American people and various unpeaceful events took place accordingly. I should say though that most people were astonishingly welcoming, generous and hospitable to all of us. The great, great majority of folks were so wonderful to all of us that it really left a lasting impression on me. Anyway, while we were traveling, we took in some places along the southern border of China and Burma and Laos. Some of the villages along here seemed to be built around fighting rings where a lot of Chinese MA and the Laotian/Burman versions of Thai boxing and some sorts of Silat were practiced and tested straight out. Almost everywhere we went, the local folks wanted to put on an MMA kind of thing to see how I could do against their local guys. A lot of these guys were tough as hell, but I acquitted myself well enough to earn the respect of the locals. A few times I got the impression that some of the pro guys were going a little easy on me, but I wasn't about to make an issue of it. I had enough bruises and blackeyes as it was. Most combat sport guys everywhere in the world (more stories there) share a respect with anyone who puts their *** on the line. So, our trip along this border had its fair share of interesting experiences in local-made gyms/rings/streets. It would take a long time to recount them all (one actually involved a sort of fireworks battle - ridiculous).
> 
> Family matters called me back to the states, and when that was resolved I decided to take a job in Japan. During the years that I lived and worked there I had the opportunity to learn and practice various Japanese martial arts. These included Kempo, Kendo, Aikido, Iaido, and several others to lesser degrees. While working out at a local gym one day I met a guy who ran his own Nihon Kempo club, and he invited me to go teach his students some wrestling. They did a lot of free sparring, so I had the opportunity to go live with guys from a number of different backgrounds several times a week. When they went live they really went live, so that was fun. I didn't get into many street altercations during my years in Japan. Mostly with other gaijin who were drunk and bad-mouthing the US. I of course made time to continue practicing the things I had learned during my years in China as well.
> 
> Once again personal family matters called me back to Boston, and this time I became involved in business interests that mostly kept me there. I made a point of hitting different gyms/clubs/dojos around the greater Boston area on a regular basis. Sort of a circuit of boxing, Muay Thai, Capoeira, CMA, JMA, Ninjutsu, etc. When MMA became a thing, I hit a few of those gyms too. A wrestling club in one of the sketchy parts of Boston was a regular weekly stop. As will happen, there were incidents now and again on weekends. Especially when hanging out with some friends who were not good at drinking or fighting, or controlling themselves. Career interests continued to develop, and at one point I had to go to Korea to train and manage a few branches of a hagwan. I was there for about 7 months. Not long, but I made a point of finding opportunities to train Ssireum and Taekkyeon as much as I could. Time passes and many things transpired over the years and decades, but I have always trained and built on all I have learned. I am now teaching at an inner city school district, and I am also head wrestling coach for all the high schools in the city.





Unkogami said:


> I grew up in and around the parts of Boston and NE the tourists don't frequent. You learned how to handle your **** early and often on those streets. Wrestling and football made school interesting. After college (when I graduated I was ranked 13th in the nation, NCAA Div. 1), I took a year to heal and save a very modest amount of $$ then sold my car and bought a one-way ticket to the furthest place from home I could identify on a globe. Turned out to be a city in the middle of China. I landed, wandered around for a few days, ran into a guy from England, and after 30-40 beers he agreed to try and get me a job teaching at a university in the city where he had been working for about a year. His girlfriend at the time also introduced me to a very nice young lady, but that's another story.
> 
> Anyway, I met some people who knew some people who knew some people and I got to training early, early morning before teaching classes and late evening after teaching and learned as much of as many Chinese martial arts as I could. I also met some guys who wrestled for the provincial wrestling team that competed in China's version of national comps. Worked out with that team a lot, so I managed to keep pretty busy. During all this I befriended a lot of folks who the local Han tended to shun. Some Uyghur folks in particular tended to raise the ire of local Han farmers, so we got into some pretty interesting street fights late at night when the night markets were letting out and folks had a good amount of booze in them. Some hair-raising **** went down during those. My friend, the guy from England, was no fighter, so he got pretty freaked out during some of these when he happened to be around.
> 
> During Spring Festival one year me, the British guy and two Japanese ladies we were seeing at the time traveled around China as widely as we could, and here and there ran into some folks who had a beef with Japanese people or American people and various unpeaceful events took place accordingly. I should say though that most people were astonishingly welcoming, generous and hospitable to all of us. The great, great majority of folks were so wonderful to all of us that it really left a lasting impression on me. Anyway, while we were traveling, we took in some places along the southern border of China and Burma and Laos. Some of the villages along here seemed to be built around fighting rings where a lot of Chinese MA and the Laotian/Burman versions of Thai boxing and some sorts of Silat were practiced and tested straight out. Almost everywhere we went, the local folks wanted to put on an MMA kind of thing to see how I could do against their local guys. A lot of these guys were tough as hell, but I acquitted myself well enough to earn the respect of the locals. A few times I got the impression that some of the pro guys were going a little easy on me, but I wasn't about to make an issue of it. I had enough bruises and blackeyes as it was. Most combat sport guys everywhere in the world (more stories there) share a respect with anyone who puts their *** on the line. So, our trip along this border had its fair share of interesting experiences in local-made gyms/rings/streets. It would take a long time to recount them all (one actually involved a sort of fireworks battle - ridiculous).
> 
> Family matters called me back to the states, and when that was resolved I decided to take a job in Japan. During the years that I lived and worked there I had the opportunity to learn and practice various Japanese martial arts. These included Kempo, Kendo, Aikido, Iaido, and several others to lesser degrees. While working out at a local gym one day I met a guy who ran his own Nihon Kempo club, and he invited me to go teach his students some wrestling. They did a lot of free sparring, so I had the opportunity to go live with guys from a number of different backgrounds several times a week. When they went live they really went live, so that was fun. I didn't get into many street altercations during my years in Japan. Mostly with other gaijin who were drunk and bad-mouthing the US. I of course made time to continue practicing the things I had learned during my years in China as well.
> 
> Once again personal family matters called me back to Boston, and this time I became involved in business interests that mostly kept me there. I made a point of hitting different gyms/clubs/dojos around the greater Boston area on a regular basis. Sort of a circuit of boxing, Muay Thai, Capoeira, CMA, JMA, Ninjutsu, etc. When MMA became a thing, I hit a few of those gyms too. A wrestling club in one of the sketchy parts of Boston was a regular weekly stop. As will happen, there were incidents now and again on weekends. Especially when hanging out with some friends who were not good at drinking or fighting, or controlling themselves. Career interests continued to develop, and at one point I had to go to Korea to train and manage a few branches of a hagwan. I was there for about 7 months. Not long, but I made a point of finding opportunities to train Ssireum and Taekkyeon as much as I could. Time passes and many things transpired over the years and decades, but I have always trained and built on all I have learned. I am now teaching at an inner city school district, and I am also head wrestling coach for all the high schools in the city.
> 
> So, that's about where I'm at.


you sound like a no nonsense badass to me Unkogami, and that is a hell of a life story. i am sincerely interested, now, in why you take so much offense to what i am saying in this thread, recognizing that i am obviously missing something that is causing misunderstanding of my intent. it sounds like you grew up tough and stayed tough, and perhaps for you hesitation to use force when needed was never an issue and not something you ever had to think about, but it is not so for some people, and i personally found it necessary to train my mind, more specifically, develop the mind i was born with and train the one i have learned to use for social integration in a way that allows the original to have dominion in circumstances it is better prepared for. dropping one-line-negativity bombs on what(i thought) was a productive and respectful conversation doesn't help anyone understand what you know that i am missing.
i know animals better than i know people, just the way i am. i understand them, the way most people understand one another and i struggle. but the way i see it, 99% of what we consider "ourselves" does not belong to 'us' at all. 'we' are like boarders, who rent a room in the attic of an industrial factory. most of what 'our' bodies are doing every moment of our lives happens completely autonomously to our conscious thought process. our brain no less, what constitutes 'conscious mind' is a small and insignificant portion of what our brains are doing. i have trained to use the animal mind, as it is far more capable of using the potential of this body, than my 'social identity' ever will be. that is the 'power' i was referring to, to be clear. 
also in my training i include techniques that as you seemed to  rightly imply, are not taught in any legitimate dojo, they cannot be, in a world of liability. my luck, i suppose, to have met and trained with people who didn't care. (and survived). but i do believe that in every TMA that this very concept IS being trained, though probably never discussed, and to what degree it makes a difference is up to the student. no one can do this for us, it happens, in our own mind.
when i spoke originally of meanness, i was simply implying that in a fight(or attack) all things being equal, the meaner participant has an edge. never implied that meanness is more important than anything else, only a significant factor (like speed, strength, training, intelligence, etc) not to be over looked. i do think it amounts to more than diddly-squat.
animals aren't mean, but they are not merciful. they aren't mean, because 'meanness' doesn't exist in their world, it does in ours because we define certain behaviors as such-therefore i chose to use the word i thought best suited simplicity. when the word 'ruthless' was offered as synonmous with meanness, i agreed, but didn't anticipate it would only further skew my intention. i think in meanness and ruthlessness people are hearing 'sadistic' and 'cruel', but i do not mean to advocate these things. the Samurai were ruthless in combat, but not sadistic in nature.  
in short, though i train to do as little harm as is necessary, i also train to do as much harm as is necessary, without hesitation or remorse. there is no time to make the distinction when it counts, that is why i train to use the mind that can think that fast.
quick example of the autonomous mind, recent enough to mention but not a combative application: 
 i had a gig hanging art for some folks who just moved to town, moving furniture, etc. one piece had previously been hung horizontally but fit better vertically, so i moved the screws that it hung on. two days later i was in the same room, two feet from that painting, back turned to it speaking with the owners. there was a faint 'crack' behind me, i turned my head to see the painting 2" lower than it had been hung. the wood had a flaw and cracked, the painting fell free, only it didn't fall very far-because my outstretched left arm, at as far backward an angle as possible, was gripping the edge between my thumb and fingers. by the time i turned my head, i'd already caught the falling painting, before i even knew what was happening. the conscious mind cannot do that, the body, and the mind that really controls it, can. this mind also has a very different sense of self-preservation than the mind that is taught all our lives to be 'more than animals'. so for me, the identity that seeks harmonious existence amongst my own species(however distasteful i often find us) is a separate mind than the one that trains to protect the life of this vessel.
how is this relevant to the original post? the question of whether or not the appearance of strength as achieved by bodybuilding gives a person an edge for self-defense. only so much to say beyond 'maybe' about that, so naturally the topic moved to bodybuilding vs. strength training, toughness and attitude, etc as per how they qualify to this end. so here we are, not terribly far from where we started.  and i think i've said all i can, i hope this ( and getting rid of the unintentionally 'ruthless' looking samurai image i had originally chosen for my icon) helps you understand where i am coming from, i welcome thoughtful retorts to my approach to self-defense training.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> I grew up in and around the parts of Boston and NE the tourists don't frequent. You learned how to handle your **** early and often on those streets. Wrestling and football made school interesting. After college (when I graduated I was ranked 13th in the nation, NCAA Div. 1), I took a year to heal and save a very modest amount of $$ then sold my car and bought a one-way ticket to the furthest place from home I could identify on a globe. Turned out to be a city in the middle of China. I landed, wandered around for a few days, ran into a guy from England, and after 30-40 beers he agreed to try and get me a job teaching at a university in the city where he had been working for about a year. His girlfriend at the time also introduced me to a very nice young lady, but that's another story.
> 
> Anyway, I met some people who knew some people who knew some people and I got to training early, early morning before teaching classes and late evening after teaching and learned as much of as many Chinese martial arts as I could. I also met some guys who wrestled for the provincial wrestling team that competed in China's version of national comps. Worked out with that team a lot, so I managed to keep pretty busy. During all this I befriended a lot of folks who the local Han tended to shun. Some Uyghur folks in particular tended to raise the ire of local Han farmers, so we got into some pretty interesting street fights late at night when the night markets were letting out and folks had a good amount of booze in them. Some hair-raising **** went down during those. My friend, the guy from England, was no fighter, so he got pretty freaked out during some of these when he happened to be around.
> 
> During Spring Festival one year me, the British guy and two Japanese ladies we were seeing at the time traveled around China as widely as we could, and here and there ran into some folks who had a beef with Japanese people or American people and various unpeaceful events took place accordingly. I should say though that most people were astonishingly welcoming, generous and hospitable to all of us. The great, great majority of folks were so wonderful to all of us that it really left a lasting impression on me. Anyway, while we were traveling, we took in some places along the southern border of China and Burma and Laos. Some of the villages along here seemed to be built around fighting rings where a lot of Chinese MA and the Laotian/Burman versions of Thai boxing and some sorts of Silat were practiced and tested straight out. Almost everywhere we went, the local folks wanted to put on an MMA kind of thing to see how I could do against their local guys. A lot of these guys were tough as hell, but I acquitted myself well enough to earn the respect of the locals. A few times I got the impression that some of the pro guys were going a little easy on me, but I wasn't about to make an issue of it. I had enough bruises and blackeyes as it was. Most combat sport guys everywhere in the world (more stories there) share a respect with anyone who puts their *** on the line. So, our trip along this border had its fair share of interesting experiences in local-made gyms/rings/streets. It would take a long time to recount them all (one actually involved a sort of fireworks battle - ridiculous).
> 
> Family matters called me back to the states, and when that was resolved I decided to take a job in Japan. During the years that I lived and worked there I had the opportunity to learn and practice various Japanese martial arts. These included Kempo, Kendo, Aikido, Iaido, and several others to lesser degrees. While working out at a local gym one day I met a guy who ran his own Nihon Kempo club, and he invited me to go teach his students some wrestling. They did a lot of free sparring, so I had the opportunity to go live with guys from a number of different backgrounds several times a week. When they went live they really went live, so that was fun. I didn't get into many street altercations during my years in Japan. Mostly with other gaijin who were drunk and bad-mouthing the US. I of course made time to continue practicing the things I had learned during my years in China as well.
> 
> Once again personal family matters called me back to Boston, and this time I became involved in business interests that mostly kept me there. I made a point of hitting different gyms/clubs/dojos around the greater Boston area on a regular basis. Sort of a circuit of boxing, Muay Thai, Capoeira, CMA, JMA, Ninjutsu, etc. When MMA became a thing, I hit a few of those gyms too. A wrestling club in one of the sketchy parts of Boston was a regular weekly stop. As will happen, there were incidents now and again on weekends. Especially when hanging out with some friends who were not good at drinking or fighting, or controlling themselves. Career interests continued to develop, and at one point I had to go to Korea to train and manage a few branches of a hagwan. I was there for about 7 months. Not long, but I made a point of finding opportunities to train Ssireum and Taekkyeon as much as I could. Time passes and many things transpired over the years and decades, but I have always trained and built on all I have learned. I am now teaching at an inner city school district, and I am also head wrestling coach for all the high schools in the city.
> 
> So, that's about where I'm at.


Great story. That’s why I asked.  My personal interest on this site is to discover how other long term martial artists got to where they are and how they experience it now. I feel that I learn more from people if I have some idea of their background. Thank you for sharing. Now after all this training, at all these different “dojo’s” It sounds like you have a ton of experience. I do not dispute the existence of charlatans, but to say most are fake seems odd considering your story. What led you to believe most dojo’s are fake?


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> .... What led you to believe most dojo’s are fake?


I've been in too many real places at the source and also walked into too many belt factories and/or day care centers. Perhaps it has left me cynical.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Unkogami said:


> I've been in too many real places at the source and also walked into too many belt factories and/or day care centers. Perhaps it has left me cynical.


Any particular martial art style that you prefer Or favor? Any particular teacher that impacted that? None of my business, of course. The reason I ask is that while I have some small amount of boxing and JJJ, the vast majority of my training is in CMA. It sounds like you trained in many different styles and I wonder how that colors your personal style? You said your initial skill boat was in wrestling at a very high level. Do you still fight/move like a wrestler, did martial arts exposure change your perspectives on how you approach fighting?


----------



## Unkogami

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Any particular martial art style that you prefer Or favor? ....


Whatever works for you, works. This is bound to be different for every individual and every individual situation.


----------



## Unkogami

Unkogami said:


> Whatever works for you, works. This is bound to be different for every individual and every individual situation.


I will say this: having been in a lot of hairy situations at points all along the journey, I have at times noted an awareness of different skills coming in handy at different times and different circumstances. The most obvious is wrestling. It is perhaps the most fundamental set of combat skills. Most people are pretty helpless when it comes to this, and the most you are ever likely to run into is some over the hill, out of shape, former high school hero who is far less skilled than he wants to believe. Boxing skills are also fundamental, and super fun when dealing with some slow reaction time drunk who doesn't have a clue about how slowly he is really moving. Of course speed is the first thing to go as you age, so that has to be kept in perspective. If you investigate various arts long enough, you'll notice a great many movements and principles in common - even when subtly distinguished and expressed via different terminology (and of course languages) and cultural contexts. 

I often recall one instance that really left an impression on me vis a vis skills from various training. One night when I had recently returned from China, an old friend of mine wanted to go out for drinks. Well, we _really_ went out for drinks. I had forgotten that my friend wasn't so good at drinks, and sure enough he picked a fight with everyone at every bar we hit. When we ran out of bars and the rest had shut down we found ourselves out in a real 'townie' neighborhood around 3 AM. My by then super-drunk friend was sure a friend of his lived nearby so he went about banging on every door and ringing every bell block by block. You can guess what eventually happened. I had just about had it and was waiting in the middle of the road as he went into yet another vestibule to buzz every buzzer on the board. It was silent for a little too long and then it happened. My buddy came flying through the (mostly) glass door like he had been fired from a cannon. He was followed close behind by an enormous mountain of human being. As if huge and very angry wasn't enough, something else seemed to be going on behind the eyes. My buddy was out cold on the sidewalk. It was a bad scene. Since letting him beat my friend to death wasn't an option, giant drugged up dude and I ended up in the middle of the street having at it. Coked-up (or somethinged-up) giant dude did seem to have some experience, so it was a rough go. It seemed to go on forever, back and forth, with me putting him down and him getting right back up throwing some serious haymakers. It was during all this that I had a real sense of some of the exact movements that I had practiced hundreds and hundreds of times at 4:00 AM in the park outside the city wall of Xi'an from a Taijichuan master.  I was a long way from there. Anyway, this went on for what seemed like a long time until eventually the guy just had enough and walked away, both of us bloodied and torn. I don't know what he was on, but he sure took a lot of damage and kept going. 

So, that was a situation where I was aware of different skills from different sources in the moment.


----------



## dvcochran

I had to go back and read the OP and several subsequent posts to get perspective on the topic. As with most long running topics this one has gone many different places. Normal for any topic with a modicum of depth to it.

I feel there is great value in hearing everyone's real world experience's and how they factor into the topic, both the good and the bad. This can be difficult since one's perspective can affect the retelling of a story.

I am an average built to smaller guy so almost everyone is either taller or heavier than I am. While my weight has not changed much in the last 30 years, what makes up that weight has. I am not nearly as muscular as I once was. In my peak fitness, not many people gave me cause for concern.
Me and my friends were known for starting fights. It was just the way we grew up. There were zero martial arts in my area growing up so I suppose some would argue that this subset consisted of unskilled fighters. I would argue that this could not be farther from the truth. While the skill set was different from most classical MA's, it is a skillset that was engrained from birth for most people. More carnal and very raw. A person worth their salt was learning all along the way, especially considering the 'training' was almost 100% actual fighting. People who could not/cannot stomach this just do not run in those circles.
More stories than I care to remember here and some I will never forget.
Me and my friends knew each other well enough to know each other's strengths & weaknesses, and no 'fight starters' were allowed. And to be certain, we won some fights, we lost some fights. But there was a degree of 'honor' in our fights; always one on one (as long as it did not turn into a boot stomping) and we never ganged up on any one person. There were times when one of us would get whipped. If the guy wanted more, it was always next guy up. Or vise-versa. It was most definitely formative years.

I was on a Job in LA one time. First time I had ever been to California. I had some free time, so a group took me sight-seeing. I was straight up in tourist mode. While walking, I had distanced myself from the group somewhat. I knew nothing about it being unsafe to walk on the inside of the sidewalk there, so I was walking along, rubber necking at all the sites. When I came to a cross alley, a guy came out and nailed me with a shank of some kind in his hand, badly cutting me at the eye. I went down to one knee. I felt the guy on me and could tell he was a big guy, but I never gave ground. When I stood up, he was running down the alley. The people with me said had I went to the ground he would have mugged me.
It took 16 stitches to close the eye and man oh man did it suck the next two days commissioning and programming a system with the headache I had and one eye completely swollen closed.
In hindsight, I got more pissed at the people I was with. No warning about what 'not' to do or any offer of help. Kind of a 'yea, it happens' mindset.  Just a very different mentality from what I am used to.
This is the most poignant 'I did not see it coming' attack I can remember.

From a historical perspective, I cannot regale you with my travels to different countries or monastery's to train in any great MA's depth although I have trained and competed in other countries. Much of this was geared toward competition where there is a specific skillset and the fighting is rules bound. So, I do not feel this greatly applies to the OP. 
I can honestly say the mass of a person never gave me a ton of hesitation, but a tall person could. I had to learn how to chop a person down since hitting below the belt just did not register with me back then.

A purely body builder physique has such a different purpose from raw, or athletic strength. Things like flexibility, agility, hostility, etc... do not factor into the equation very much. None the less, it would likely make a person take pause in the case of a physical encounter, if because of the sheer mass of a striking member if nothing else. Even an errant blow from a body builder could end things very fast.
When I apply this to the ring/mat, I would say the fighting dynamics of the higher weight classes are different in most metrics. Using a boxer as the example, their best skill is often their defensive ability. It amazes how 'easy' they make Not getting hit look. The minute slipping and rotating they do is impressive and easy to miss if you do not know what you are looking at. When your adversary can put you out with one hit, the value of this skill cannot be overstated. Even though they may be massive, (aka bodybuilder) boxers know how to move, at least within the confines of the match. Of course, most all of this skill is transferrable.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


As a  old martial art instructor, bodybuilding or strength building should be practiced by all martial artist. I'm 5'2" and small bone. At one time I was benching 200 lbs three time. Weights helps your martial art, any style of martial art.
Sifu
Puyallup, Wa


----------



## psycosteve

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


In the fights, I have been in competitively and in the street. There have been some weird things I have seen that have impacted my views on hand-to-hand combat in general.  Conditioning and techniques are both equally important. Size does matter in a fight.  Not only in the amount of damage they take but how much damage they can deliver.  Intimidation is purely psychological but the discrepancies between you and another person should always be considered.  I have big dumb and strong guys beat the crap out of more skilled fighters as the reverse is also true.  As for intimidating factors, avoiding a fight is preferable to getting into one. If your potential attacker is thinking like a predator, then not projecting weakness is a good idea.   But appearing like a strong target might be enough for them to see you as a threat. Everything is situational.


----------



## Yanli

marques said:


> Once a big guy said his size avoid him some troubles. BUT if he has one, probably it will be also a big one (weapons, outnumbered...). I believe he is right.
> 
> PS: In other words, big size may prevent troubles, but may also motivate the bad guys for a better planning.


  In my much younger years, I was a bouncer at a bar that my worked at, and I found many times that you get drunken idiots that want to challenge bigger men. When men are sober, you do not have that too much, but it does still exist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Yanli said:


> In my much younger years, I was a bouncer at a bar that my worked at, and I found many times that you get drunken idiots that want to challenge bigger men. When men are sober, you do not have that too much, but it does still exist.


Yeah, the drunk guys never challenged me (5' 10", 175 lbs), or even bucked up at me. The big guy who could ragdoll them? They'd occasionally buck up at him if they were drunk and full of testosterone - his arms were almost as big around as my legs (and all muscle - dude was a beast). But I never saw one actually have a go at him, which was probably a good decision.


----------



## Yanli

psycosteve said:


> In the fights, I have been in competitively and in the street. There have been some weird things I have seen that have impacted my views on hand-to-hand combat in general.  Conditioning and techniques are both equally important. Size does matter in a fight.  Not only in the amount of damage they take but how much damage they can deliver.  Intimidation is purely psychological but the discrepancies between you and another person should always be considered.  I have big dumb and strong guys beat the crap out of more skilled fighters as the reverse is also true.  As for intimidating factors, avoiding a fight is preferable to getting into one. If your potential attacker is thinking like a predator, then not projecting weakness is a good idea.   But appearing like a strong target might be enough for them to see you as a threat. Everything is situational.


  I agree that large men have beaten a skilled MA, but that is not because of their size, it is because of the skilled fighter. What I have found incredible, you will have a 3rd or 4th degree black belt, and they forget everything they have learned when they get into a fight. But size being a factor, one should have learned enough from MA that size is not a factor. There was one time my wife was tending bar and a obnoxious man comes in and slams his hand on the bar and demanded a beer, my wife politely tells him in a minute, she was busy with other customers, he jumps over the bar behind her and puts his hand on her shoulder, (Big Mistake lol), she quickly turns around and thrust a punch at his stomach and he goes flying backwards landing on his butt. My wife was 95 pounds, 4'11, and 35 years old. She is know a Shifu. My wife can drop just about anyone, no matter what size they are, it may not always be a punch to the stomach, it may be something more aggressive. She is 58 going on 59 next month, and she can still drop just about any average man. I say average meaning anyone that is not as skillful and powerful as her Lord & Master, don't tell her I said that lol. After 37 years, I still can't get her to call me lord & master, not even master lol.


----------



## Yanli

Gerry Seymour said:


> Yeah, the drunk guys never challenged me (5' 10", 175 lbs), or even bucked up at me. The big guy who could ragdoll them? They'd occasionally buck up at him if they were drunk and full of testosterone - his arms were almost as big around as my legs (and all muscle - dude was a beast). But I never saw one actually have a go at him, which was probably a good decision.


  I am 6'1 and was 190 pounds, a person that I became friends with was 6'5 and around 300 pounds. I was about 33 years old, and a gentlemen/boy lol, was 22. Out of the blue, he comes up to me and my friend and says he not afraid of us, we both looked at each other confused on why he found it necessary to say that. My wife and recently moved to that state, so we were outsiders. Well, later that evening the 22 year old tries getting up to attack us, but his friend tries holding him down, as I get over there, he throws a punch at his friend, I luckily stopped it and took him down. Well, there I was, an outsider holding down a boy that everyone knows, as I am watching everyone gathering around me, I see Tiny looking at me and giving me the thumbs up, as if to say I have your back. My wife and I got to be well known in that town as a MA people that do not tolerate fights in the bar. You have those that want the challenge of proving themselves against a big guy or MA.


----------



## Yanli

Transk53 said:


> It wouldn't, and the size issue is just plain silly. The bigger they are the harder they fall kind of rings true. But it is not the fall necessarily, just the bigger target zone. Yeah a body bulider that gets into range to hit would likely hurt, and probably knock you out. However, the logic of the situation can be reversed. That really peeves them off, especially when they realise that a mere weakling is ready to stand and fight


  I found that against a very muscular man, if a strike will not work against the normal points, go for the joints. Never mind the face, chest, or stomach, the joints are the weakest spots.


----------



## Yanli

crazydiamond said:


> All things being equal a large powerful build matters. This is why there are weight classes in fighting.
> 
> I would say that I am more intimated by a strong man/power lifter like build - then the more about looks body builder. There are shades of this - but you can kind of tell "power build" vs "looks build" in a guy.
> 
> But - attitude matters as well.


  The one flaw I find with the large bodybuilders is their flexibility, they tend to be fairly slow at throwing punches. I of course do not mean this about all bodybuilders, just those that do not do the necessary proper stretching.


----------



## Yanli

JP3 said:


> I was wondering the same thing.
> 
> I've reviewed the same data about alert, confident small people being less attractive to a bad guy, such as a mugger, as set out above.  I do have this feeling, after all the years of working the bars, that if a mugger/bad guy/bully-boy is wanting to start something to steal/rob, have fun, get whatever rush it is from hurting someone else, they are way more likely to choose the smaller person than the larger.
> 
> Being 6'8" and solid is a really good basis to start from for self-defense.  Problem is, that's probably the upper 1 percentile for size, eh?
> 
> And Bill, you said you were about to adopt a defensive posture.  I had this mental image of you always being in a defensive posture. C'mon man, letting us down, letting people get inside your space before you're ready.
> 
> Kidding.
> 
> But, on the issue of bodybuilding as part of a martial arts/SD strategy?  I'm not talking about conditioning, or strength training, Those are very useful. But, bodybuilding would take a lot of time awy from actual training, which is way more effective a tool, imo.


When I first started out, I was taught in the old what you might say Asian manner, my form of body building or strength building was throwing punch's and arm movements with dumbbells and using a 10 pound weight bar to practice the long and short style. I never once went to a weight room, my arms and strength was building up just fine, and I was getting the strength where I needed it.


----------



## Yanli

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was nearly mugged a decade ago in Milwaukee. My friend and I were walking downtown and I got across a street before he did. This sketchy guy comes up and ask's me for a light, which is a well-known ploy. I see his greasy buddy in a doorway nearby.
> 
> I'm getting ready to take a defensive posture and my friend catches up to me. He's 6 feet 8 inches tall, and solid.
> 
> The prospective mugger never even waited to see if I had a light, he just walked quickly away.


  Do you still live in Wisconsin?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

olindaprotect said:


> When I was young, my brother and I used to go boxing. After a while, I understood that boxing wasn't for me and gave it up.


I'm confused how this pertains to the question about bodybuilding. Did you switch to that?


----------



## Yanli

KangTsai said:


> How much do you think the intimidation factor of massive, aesthetic muscles play into keeping yourself safe? I think you'll be pretty good, as long as you aren't the one starting that potential knife fight in the first place.
> The intimidation levels hold exception for other branching physiques I think-
> 
> -Nordic strongman: intimidation factor +120%
> -Tennis (only your dominant forearm is big and nothing else): intimidation factor -50℅
> -Gains Goblin (short, dumb, ugly, but jacked): intimidation factor -12℅


  I had mentioned in many other post regarding size, you study MA to learn how to fight and/or defend, so size should not be an issue. The one with the greater speed a reflex has the greater chance of winning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Yanli said:


> I had mentioned in many other post regarding size, you study MA to learn how to fight and/or defend, so size should not be an issue. The one with the greater speed a reflex has the greater chance of winning.


Size will always matter. Strength matters, reach matters, weight matters. The idea of training is to counter those advantages with skill. If I'm up against someone my size, any advantage in skill tips the scales my way. If the other guy is 4" taller and significantly stronger, I need a LOT of skill to overcome his advantages.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> Size will always matter.



Hold up a minute...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Gerry Seymour said:


> Strength matters,


Everything have counters. 

Extreme hardness + extreme speed have no counters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Everything have counters.


Of course.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Extreme hardness + extreme speed have no counters.


Even those have counters. If they didn't, someone who was tough and fast would be simply unbeatable. But it's a hard combination to beat, for sure.


----------

