# Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu



## TSDTexan

Says it doesn't work.

But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.


----------



## kuniggety

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.



I've seen the fight you're talking about. Being a SEAL doesn't mean he's had any extensive in kickboxing/mma. It does mean he is fit. I've trained TMA and I love TMA, but they've been proven to not be as effective in an MMA/no-holds barred context. I would still recommend them any day of the week for fitness, discipline, and self-defense.


----------



## Dirty Dog

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.



Being a seal means you're fit, smart, and determined. It doesn't mean you have any significant training or experience at unarmed combat.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I can't stand Joe Rogan.  I try to ignore him and keep him and his smack talk about of my life.  All of his comments about Traditional Martial Arts is based on his personal failure with his own Martial Arts and not understanding the difference between martial arts that have been developed for sporting purposes and martial arts that have been developed for the sole purpose of destroying someone.   He has never taken a traditional kung fu style to my knowledge. 

Joe Rogan is just bitter that the martial arts that he knows is mainly for sport and point scoring.  He let his arrogance misguide him.  He stated that when he was taking TKD that his hands were terrible and that the Muay Thai fighters were destroying him.  He failed to realized that TKD is most often taught as a sport which mean there are limitations. For example, during TKD competitions the fighters fight with their hands lowered.  But in most traditional martial arts, the students are always being reminded to keep their hands up, and all of the methods learned are for the purpose of destroying and not point sparring.


----------



## Chris Parker

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.


 
I'm sorry, what is the actual point you're making here? A comment that Joe Rogan expressed an opinion (educated or not) with no link, no reference, no support, which you've phrased as "says it doesn't work" (uh… what "doesn't work"? All TMA's? Is that actually what Joe said? Work for what? What is the context of the comments?)? Followed by your argument against whatever you feel Joe said by referencing a single occurrence (again without a link, reference, or support) with no context at all? A boxing ring? Neither the Marines nor a "Shaolin fighter" train for such things… so what does it mean? One guy beat one other guy once in a single environment, so…. what?

Look, I'm not saying that Joe is right or wrong… I don't know what he actually said, or the context in which he said it… what I'm saying is that, if you're going to start a thread in this way, some better communication and clarity might go well in the future. Otherwise it can just come across as kinda sour grapes… and not entirely in keeping with the spirit of the forum.

Now, if you want to provide a reference of what you're talking about (Joe's comments), perhaps that could be a more productive discussion.


----------



## Mephisto

I've heard joe get on his soapbox before, I can see where he's coming from. He requires evidence for proof an art's efficacy. Some arts simply can't be tested. so without testing to prove their quality you are left with faith and belief that the art is effective. tma deserves every bit of scrutiny it gets imo. 

But one also must keep in mind why some arts were created and propagated to begin with which brings up the issue of Rogan's context.you can't criticize an art for not being an effective fighting method when that's not the purpose it was designed for. For some it might be surprising that fighting skill is not the primary purpose of every TMA. 


JowGaWolf said:


> I can't stand Joe Rogan.  I try to ignore him and keep him and his smack talk about of my life.  All of his comments about Traditional Martial Arts is based on his personal failure with his own Martial Arts and not understanding the difference between martial arts that have been developed for sporting purposes and martial arts that have been developed for the sole purpose of destroying someone.   He has never taken a traditional kung fu style to my knowledge.
> 
> Joe Rogan is just bitter that the martial arts that he knows is mainly for sport and point scoring.  He let his arrogance misguide him.  He stated that when he was taking TKD that his hands were terrible and that the Muay Thai fighters were destroying him.  He failed to realized that TKD is most often taught as a sport which mean there are limitations. For example, during TKD competitions the fighters fight with their hands lowered.  But in most traditional martial arts, the students are always being reminded to keep their hands up, and all of the methods learned are for the purpose of destroying and not point sparring.


The whole TMA are for "the deadly/destruction" argument is bs. There are hundreds of TMA designed for different purposes, making a blanket statement one way or the other is bs, you must address each art specifically if you want to criticize or defend it. Also, what do you think they're doing in the ring?one fighter tries to destroy the other. Depending on the martial sport certain rules are out in place to cultivate certain skills. If your art trains punches you can test yourself against a boxer. If your art punches and kicks you can test it in a variety of events. Same for grappling. All training has rules in place, all training will have practices that remove it from reality. Saying your art is for destruction exclusively is bs, you can tell yourself that all day and you're just as diluted as a sports fighter who thinks he's best in the world.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mephisto said:


> The whole TMA are for "the deadly/destruction" argument is bs.


In my book and life experience there are very few TMA out there. Some are only TMA in name but not in practice. Tai Chi is a perfect example of this. There are so many places that don't teach Tai Chi from a traditional standpoint most people only think of it a health exercise.



Mephisto said:


> Depending on the martial sport certain rules are out in place to cultivate certain skills.


I agree with this and it's because of this that some places only train with the purpose of a sport and not for the purpose of actually fighting.  See the 2:00 mark




He makes the statement that TKD did a lot of kicks with their hands down. He said that his hands were terrible.  This alone tells me that his school was 1. Not focus on training TKD for real fight situations or 2. Joe made the choice not to learn how to apply his TKD knowledge to a real fight situation. From my experience when I see most TKD students, I'll have to say #1 is probably what happened. 



Mephisto said:


> Saying your art is for destruction exclusively is bs


Name one part of Jow Ga Kung fu that isn't for the purpose of destroying something on the opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.


The movies make kung fu look flashy and as a result there are misconceptions about real kung fu and how it would look in a real fight.  People see this video and think that this is the same way that kung fu would attack a grappler.  Joe would look at the video and say that the kung fu fighter isn't blocking the kicks.  If you look closely you'll see that he's not only blocking it but he's also striking the knee. 





This is what kung fu looks like against Muay Thai 0:30 - 0:47 and 2:10.  I recognize strikes here because we have similar ones in Jow Ga.





This is what kung fu look like.  I know the guy in the yellow and have sparred against him.





Three examples which are far from what Joe Rogan was yapping about.


----------



## Mephisto

JowGaWolf said:


> In my book and life experience there are very few TMA out there. Some are only TMA in name but not in practice. Tai Chi is a perfect example of this. There are so many places that don't teach Tai Chi from a traditional standpoint most people only think of it a health exercise.
> 
> 
> I agree with this and it's because of this that some places only train with the purpose of a sport and not for the purpose of actually fighting.  See the 2:00 mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He makes the statement that TKD did a lot of kicks with their hands down. He said that his hands were terrible.  This alone tells me that his school was 1. Not focus on training TKD for real fight situations or 2. Joe made the choice not to learn how to apply his TKD knowledge to a real fight situation. From my experience when I see most TKD students, I'll have to say #1 is probably what happened.
> 
> 
> Name one part of Jow Ga Kung fu that isn't for the purpose of destroying something on the opponent.


Defining TMA is another task in and of its self. Once you try to pin down a definition the task gets harder. I think most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata)  and classical highly stylized postures. Korean, Chinese and Japanese arts are the ones I think people most commonly think of. But there are arts within these cultures that don't quite fit the mold; judo, sanda, indigenous wrestling arts. Then you realize that there are western arts, Indonesian/pacific arts, and martisl arts in pretty much every culture many of them much older than some of the arts commonly called TMA (like boxing, fencing, wrestling). So perhaps the term TMA is born out of ignorance or a lack of consideration as it is.

I can agree with most of what you say. I think tkd is an example of rules restricting an art's usefullness and taking it in the wrong direction. If leg kicks were aloud, punches were cultivated more, and heavy contact was more popular in tkd I think the art would have an entirely different reputation.

As for destruction and Jow Ga, now we've named a specific art rather than blanket all "TMA" together. Jow Ga is one kung fu style I'm vaguely familiar with that has a great reputation and good quality controll. I've seen plenty of video of Jow Ga guys doing more than just forms, they actually seem to work a lot of application and spar hard. To my knowledge some Jow Ga guys also enter kickboxing and Muay thai comps and do well. So I won't argue that Jow Ga as a "TMA" isn't about destroying the opponent, I'll just add that what boxing or Muay thai techniqyes arent about destroying the opponent?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mephisto.  
I understand your point and it makes sense. If most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata) and classical highly stylized postures, then I can see where it would be easy for people to make the statement that Joe has made.  If that's the case with Joe, which it appears to be so, then what he's referring to isn't the same thing I'm referring to.  I guess the first step in a topic like this would be to get on the same page as what one would considered as TMA so that the discussion can be about the same content.



Mephisto said:


> I think tkd is an example of rules restricting an art's usefullness and taking it in the wrong direction. If leg kicks were aloud, punches were cultivated more, and heavy contact was more popular in tkd I think the art would have an entirely different reputation.


I agree with this totally.  

If someone says Traditional TKD then my first thoughts are shifted toward Taekkyeon which looks to be the self-defense that TKD sport left out.  Taekkyeon also is older and it's not hard to imagine TKD being born from it as a sporting martial arts.

I would never make a blanket statement  about "ALL"  TMA, mainly because I don't know all TMA. So I apologize for any misunderstanding that I may have caused. Based on how  you explained what most people considered as TMA, then we aren't even talking about the same thing.  The way that I was explained by my Sifu, is that Traditional martial arts was a fighting system that was use in the aid of defending one's village or in an army (before bullets and guns). It has nothing to do with forms but purpose. Which is to fight in a non-sporting manner.  My understanding of TMA is not the same as what you pointed out.  When you explained how most people see TMA as being then Rogan made sense.

Boxing and Muay Thai (more so Muay Thai) is about the destruction of the opponent within a specific set of rules. The goal of both is to cause harm to the other, within the rules of wearing gloves and allowing other people to get up. But for some martial arts the goal isn't to destroy the opponent but to score points on them. Such as this fight




You can clearly see that neither is trying to inflict great harm on the other.


----------



## Drose427

Mephisto said:


> Defining TMA is another task in and of its self. Once you try to pin down a definition the task gets harder. I think most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata)  and classical highly stylized postures. Korean, Chinese and Japanese arts are the ones I think people most commonly think of. But there are arts within these cultures that don't quite fit the mold; judo, sanda, indigenous wrestling arts. Then you realize that there are western arts, Indonesian/pacific arts, and martisl arts in pretty much every culture many of them much older than some of the arts commonly called TMA (like boxing, fencing, wrestling). So perhaps the term TMA is born out of ignorance or a lack of consideration as it is.
> 
> I can agree with most of what you say. I think tkd is an example of rules restricting an art's usefullness and taking it in the wrong direction. If leg kicks were aloud, punches were cultivated more, and heavy contact was more popular in tkd I think the art would have an entirely different reputation.
> 
> As for destruction and Jow Ga, now we've named a specific art rather than blanket all "TMA" together. Jow Ga is one kung fu style I'm vaguely familiar with that has a great reputation and good quality controll. I've seen plenty of video of Jow Ga guys doing more than just forms, they actually seem to work a lot of application and spar hard. To my knowledge some Jow Ga guys also enter kickboxing and Muay thai comps and do well. So I won't argue that Jow Ga as a "TMA" isn't about destroying the opponent, I'll just add that what boxing or Muay thai techniqyes arent about destroying the opponent?



Kukki TKD has without a doubt gone off into its own tangent

But many ITF and Smaller associations havent fell into that

TKD =! TKD  

^in many instances

The majority of the schools my association associates with do face punches and/or leg kicks, only one school actually enforces the "blood rule" at the tournaments for the adults.

I've seen our KJN have people keep fighting after a broken nose

Generally, both those associations fight like the harder karate styles that get praise so much in MMA


----------



## Drose427

I've never been a fan of Joe

FOr a few different reasons, But at the end of the day you have to remember one thing:

He is a UFC commentator/promoter

If a Karate or TKD or Kung Fu guy is fighting, he'll praise those styles

If they aren't, he talks down to them.

His job is it help liven up MMA more, he's gonna bounce on either side of the fence to do so


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drose427 said:


> The majority of the schools my association associates with do face punches and/or leg kicks, only one school actually enforces the "blood rule" at the tournaments for the adults.


I'm glad to hear that all TDK hasn't gone soft.  It's clear from Rogan's statement that he had the misfortune of training with a school that didn't put much weight into punching.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drose427 said:


> I've never been a fan of Joe
> 
> FOr a few different reasons, But at the end of the day you have to remember one thing:
> 
> He is a UFC commentator/promoter
> 
> If a Karate or TKD or Kung Fu guy is fighting, he'll praise those styles
> 
> If they aren't, he talks down to them.
> 
> His job is it help liven up MMA more, he's gonna bounce on either side of the fence to do so



All of this is true.  He "stirs the pot" and nothing get's people talking or more energetic about something than to put down the fighting system that someone else likes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> most people only think of it a health exercise.


Whenever people said, "If you want to fight, buy yourself a gun", you know that person's opinion about MA training is for health, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...

One concern about Kung Fu (CMA) training in general is too many people concern

- too much "micro" point of view, and
- not enough "macro" point of view.

The "mirco" point of  view can be:

- Dantian power,
- dynamic isometrics,
- spine and core skills,
- internal power and internal structure,
- ...

The "macro" point of view can be:

- getting in, getting control, taking down, finishing,
- kick, punch, lock, throw, ground-game integration.
- deal with weapon.
- deal with multiple opponents.
- ...

IMO, we should start from "micro" point of view and move into "macro" point of view in order to see the big picture of our MA training.


----------



## Drose427

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm glad to hear that all TDK hasn't gone soft.  It's clear from Rogan's statement that he had the misfortune of training with a school that didn't put much weight into punching.


Im not sure I'd call it "soft"

A lot of Kukki guys (especially those who started before electronic scoring) kick hard, and can take kicks. Theyre just not used to a kickboxing style sparring because its so different than their sport.

Pure boxers have had the same struggle in Kickboxing and MMA

As for Joe, He competed in kukki style events according to the video everyone shows to call him a "TKD master"

Similar rules to what we have in the olympics, but it was USTU instead of what is is now(USAT I think, but I always get it wrong haha)


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Name one part of Jow Ga Kung fu that isn't for the purpose of destroying something on the opponent








Context. Here we see an art that is designed to destroy someone that comes at you with a pre arranged attack and then just stops for no good reason.


----------



## hoshin1600

Haters will hate.
Joe makes a statement about Kung fu and everyone chimes in bashing him and the art he studied and his job...that's the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. Instead of bashing the guy and tuning him out just because you don't like the guy how about actually listening to what someone has to say and try to understand where he is coming from. I can guarantee if he was here to defend himself you would come away with a different understanding.


----------



## TSDTexan

hoshin1600 said:


> Haters will hate.
> Joe makes a statement about Kung fu and everyone chimes in bashing him and the art he studied and his job...that's the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. Instead of bashing the guy and tuning him out just because you don't like the guy how about actually listening to what someone has to say and try to understand where he is coming from. I can guarantee if he was here to defend himself you would come away with a different understanding.



I don't hate him. I simply think he is off base or misguided.

I have heard his repeated refrain about kung fu and other tma. He hated on the showing of respect by bowing, and hates foreign terms like Sabanim.

Of course he is a Westerner, who undoubtedly trained under Westerners, so I can't ding him too hard.

He poopoos Chi/Ki as fantasy martial arts.
But then... From his mindset if it isn't a hard style that instantly translates in to combat application then it isn't real but is fantasy martial art.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Context. Here we see an art that is designed to destroy someone that comes at you with a pre arranged attack and then just stops for no good reason.



I've seen that video hundreds of times and he's showing various techniques that are in the system. Pre-arranged attacks are always used for demonstrating techniques.The reason that he stops is because the technique has been demonstrated. Here's what's going as far as I can tell

0:09  looks to be a parry with the right, trap with the left and a palm strike to the head most likely targeting the nose with the purpose of breaking it.
All of the attacks up to 0:14 looks to be the same parry, trap, strike face. I can't tell if any were strikes to the eyes or just the nose. One appeared to be attacking the bone right under the eye.
0:14 attack to the head and it should be targeting specific areas on the head
0:18 parry, trap, and then a hit to the head with a signature Jow Ga punch. The guy is falling from the weight of the forearm pushing his head that way. If that punch actually landed then the energy would have followed the path of where the guy fell. If someone got hit with it in a real world application then it can easily break the jaw. 
0:20 those are our jabs. Real world fight situation would be to throw a few of those and then go big.  It's the same with other styles of fighting.
0:26 in my opinion I would try to attack a round house kick that way, but the application is to attack the nerve in the leg, and quickly smash the face before you regain balance (in reality the attack actually targets somewhere else near the face but not on the face)
0:43 I think that's from the tiger form. purpose to is to break the nose then blind the person.
0:46 strike the nerve in the leg and give an upper cut.
0:48 is a combination attack.  Every system has a combination attack.  The purpose of the combination attack is to deal damage and then reset.  Plowing in with a non-stop combination is a bad plan because it doesn't take long for the defender find your weakness. It also puts you at greater risk for someone to drop and shoot on you in order to put you on the ground.
The rest after that are a bunch of attacks from tiger.  again break the nose and blind the opponent.
1:37 is an anti-grappling technique. It's not impressive because the shoot isn't what a BJJ guy would do.  The shoot is more typical of someone who doesn't know how to shoot. This is the downside of only training with people who use the same style. He actually misses the mark with using this technique.
1:39 is a more realistic shoot. But he still misses the technique. The technique that he's using takes a high degree of skills to make it work.
1:42 he finally gets the technique correct.
1:49 bad shoot, not the best technique to use to defend the technique. at least not the one I would use.
The rest is like 1:49.  The technique alone isn't wrong, but in my opinion it's not the technique that I would use to defend against someone shooting for the legs or waist.  It's definitely not the technique that we use to defend against the shoot.  When defending against a shoot, a person needs to take into consideration the impact of the shoot. Only the 1:42 mark takes into consideration of the impact.  I had a similar technique demonstrated on me by my sifu and it works, but it requires a high level of skill because if you miss the target then you're in trouble.

Almost all of the attacks were very practical and can be done in a real fight.  The same techniques can also be done multiple ways and they don't require that a person punches with a specific hand first.


----------



## JowGaWolf

hoshin1600 said:


> Haters will hate.
> Joe makes a statement about Kung fu and everyone chimes in bashing him and the art he studied and his job...that's the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. Instead of bashing the guy and tuning him out just because you don't like the guy how about actually listening to what someone has to say and try to understand where he is coming from. I can guarantee if he was here to defend himself you would come away with a different understanding.


If he was here to defend himself then I would say the same thing nothing would change except I would ask him to define Traditional Martial Arts so that I can know if his definition of a Traditional Martial Art is the same as mine.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The thing about Joe is that he takes his own personal failings and disappointments with his TDK and assumes that everyone who takes a Traditional Martial Arts has the same failing and short comings as he did.  I also understand that if I would also be mad if my instructor pumped up my ego with belts and tournaments making me think that I was better than I really was, only to find out the hard way, that beginner Muay Thai students could defeat my black belt.  Who wouldn't be mad, especially after all of the testing fees, and money that was spent only to be mislead.  My school tells that story all the time to people who are curious about learning Jow Ga.  Even if they don't choose us, we give them tips on how to tell the difference between someone who gives belts out like candy and someone who will actually condition you to be a fighter.

Instead of Joe helping others by telling them about the mistakes that he made and the signs that they should look out for, he just uses a blanket statement about TMA.  Not everyone is going to be a good MMA and BJJ is like any other sport, not everyone is going to be good at it.  Fighting is the same way, no matter the style, not everyone is going to be good at it.  Taking a Martial art, MMA, or BJJ isn't a guarantee that you can't be beat.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drop bear
This is for you. Since you don't like pre-arranged attacks  This is exactly what it looks like when trying to figure out how to use Jow Ga Kung Fu.  You take the forms, break them apart, and try to actually use what you know. The sparring that you see them will allow them to know what techniques work best in what what situations. This how the hard lessons are learned from mistakes and stupid decisions.  This is where any ideas of fancy kung fu fighting go out the door. 





And This is what a Jow Ga Sifu should say when you aren't doing Jow Ga





This is what you look like when you don't do Kung Fu.  The Sifu should have been saying the same thing that the other guy did.  "Technique from form... no boxing"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Instead of Joe helping others by telling them about the mistakes that he made ...


Agree!

If you spend too much time in your "form training" and not enough time in your "sparring/wrestling training", that's your problem and not your style problem. All MA styles will give you a set of tools to use in combat. It's you who need to figure out how those tools should be used properly.

Old saying said, "Teacher leads you into the door, you have to develop MA skills for yourself".


----------



## WaterGal

JowGaWolf said:


> In my book and life experience there are very few TMA out there. Some are only TMA in name but not in practice. Tai Chi is a perfect example of this. There are so many places that don't teach Tai Chi from a traditional standpoint most people only think of it a health exercise.



Well, and more broadly than that, what is a TMA?  What makes a martial art "modern" or "traditional"?  Age?  Training style?  Cultural background?  For example - BJJ is older than Hapkido.  And yet, BJJ is "modern" and Hapkido is "traditional".  Why?


----------



## TSDTexan

WaterGal said:


> Well, and more broadly than that, what is a TMA?  What makes a martial art "modern" or "traditional"?  Age?  Training style?  Cultural background?  For example - BJJ is older than Hapkido.  And yet, BJJ is "modern" and Hapkido is "traditional".  Why?



BJJ is modern in the sense that it isn't frozen, and there is a lot of flux, and we should set a definition for Traditional... Because that could mean a lot of things.

Does it try to preserve things like forms, or a school of thought, from each generation.
BJJ is always trying to innovate... Sometimes a lack of standardized naming and the dropping of a technique after a few generations leads to " new discovered technique " that already existed... Compare the new mantis guard... And its really the old De La Riva guard.

If BJJ tightly codified all techniques and principles and locked them down as fixed... Than it wouldn't be modern but traditional. It would discourage attempts at innovation, and seek to maintain and preserve a status quo.

While the Founder's Hapkido is fairly new. Circa 1963... It shares among other things a common ancestor art with BJJ. The artform Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu.

and that itself is based on something even older..(but
The bad blood between Korea and Japan have made accurate records opaque to say the least, or clear as mud.)

Marc Tedeschi has a really good book on holding, with various locks and holds and frames up the same technique with the variation on how each discipline employs the same tech.


If it faithfully preserves or tries to preserve the founder's art= traditional....

If it is not frozen but in flux, lack of unified universal standards...= Modern.

BJJ is about 101 years old, depending on which Japanese founder/transmitter we look at bringing it to brazill.

Hapkido is about 60 years old. And has very strong preservation traits... But forks out new standards based organizations.


----------



## Steve

Well, for what it's worth, I think Joe Rogan's job is to stir the pot and don't hold that against him. I've seen him praise TKD when it's being used effectively in an MMA bout, as he's praised other traditional styles.   

Regarding what's traditional or modern, I think it's been well discussed.  I stand by my simple test.  If you're learning or teaching a technique in a particular way for reasons other than because it's the most efficient or effective, you're in a traditional art.  If you've ever said, "this is just how it's done in {insert art name}," it's likely a "traditional" art.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> I think Joe Rogan's job is to stir the pot and don't hold that against him.


i dont think joe's job is to actually "stir the pot" but rather he is the type of guy that speaks his mind and doesnt give a $^@* what anyone thinks.  



JowGaWolf said:


> The thing about Joe is that he takes his own personal failings and disappointments with his TDK and assumes that everyone who takes a Traditional Martial Arts has the same failing and short comings as he did.


Failings?  he was a really good TKD practitioner where is the failing in that?  From what i think i remember him saying is that he got his *** handed to him by a boxer and he realized that TKD is really lacking in hand development.  if you dont think this is true you are delusional.  i am not saying TKD guys cant work their hands but within the style they will never be on the same level as a boxer.

when i hear Joe talk in the clip you posted, what i feel he is saying is that it is funny to him but also very sad that there are so many martial artists out there who are self delusional about their ability to defend themselves and fight in a real situation.  
i am a traditionally trained MA and i agree with him on this 100 %  i have met and worked with way to many people that to put it lightly are delusional.  when he bashes TMA for me its no big deal, i agree with him. i know the comment doesnt pertain to me... now others may find it hits a little to close to home and feel the need to defend what they do and their art.



JowGaWolf said:


> Drop bear
> This is for you. Since you don't like pre-arranged attacks  This is exactly what it looks like when trying to figure out how to use Jow Ga Kung Fu.  You take the forms, break them apart, and try to actually use what you know. The sparring that you see them will allow them to know what techniques work best in what what situations. This how the hard lessons are learned from mistakes and stupid decisions.  This is where any ideas of fancy kung fu fighting go out the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And This is what a Jow Ga Sifu should say when you aren't doing Jow Ga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you look like when you don't do Kung Fu.  The Sifu should have been saying the same thing that the other guy did.  "Technique from form... no boxing"



and if these clips are your reality then ...yeah he is talking about you.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Well, for what it's worth, I think Joe Rogan's job is to stir the pot and don't hold that against him. I've seen him praise TKD when it's being used effectively in an MMA bout, as he's praised other traditional styles.
> 
> Regarding what's traditional or modern, I think it's been well discussed.  I stand by my simple test.  If you're learning or teaching a technique in a particular way for reasons other than because it's the most efficient or effective, you're in a traditional art.  If you've ever said, "this is just how it's done in {insert art name}," it's likely a "traditional" art.



OK so answer me this?
If you're learning or teaching a technique in a particular way for reasons  because it's the most efficient or effective, you're in a "what" art?

And what If you've said, "this is just how it's done in, because its highly effective and efficient" {XYZ-Fu}," it's likely a "what" art.?


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont think joe's job is to actually "stir the pot" but rather he is the type of guy that speaks his mind and doesnt give a $^@* what anyone thinks.


I disagree.  His job is to be a recognizable face for the UFC (not MMA, but specifically the UFC brand).  And he cares very much what the Fertitta brothers and Dana White think.  He was reasonably successful before the UFC, but his bread and butter is his work as the color commentator for the brand.  A function of his job is to create visibility for the UFC and do his part to keep the brand in the news.  Creating a bit of controversy, i.e. stirring the pot, is very much a facet of this.   

I agree with the rest of what you posted.  I've said it before, the issue is seldom the techniques.  It's the way the techniques are trained.  The fallacy at work here is this mistaken idea that because someone can do it, I can do it (whatever "it" is).  Lyoto Machida trains in Shotokan Karate and he's been successful in the UFC.  Therefore, the Shotokan karate in which I train is successful in the UFC.   It presumes that the way Machida trains in Shotokan is the norm, when from what I gather, it is not.    Ronda Rousey's judo has overpowered wrestling in a scramble.  Does this mean that judo > wrestling?  I'd say it only suggests that Rousey's judo > Tate's (or whomever else) wrestling. 

The good news is that we live in a time where violent crime is, for most of us, a very unlikely thing to occur to us.  We are living in an age that indulges our happy delusions of grandeur.  We train in styles and tell ourselves that we're capable martial artists, but we are not (most of us.)  And the chances of ever having to confront this harsh reality of our training are exceedingly slim.  Is kung fu effective in a street fight?  No real way to know, and statistically, it's very likely you'll never find out.  And unless you find yourself in a situation where you are called upon to use those skills, you will never know.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> OK so answer me this?
> If you're learning or teaching a technique in a particular way for reasons  because it's the most efficient or effective, you're in a "what" art?


Non-traditional or practical style.  





> And what If you've said, "this is just how it's done in, because its highly effective and efficient" {XYZ-Fu}," it's likely a "what" art.?


Traditional, because the "this is just how it's done" is the driver. 

Okay, maybe I'm not being clear.  There are a lot of factors that go into why a style is trained in a particular way.  Efficacy is one factor.  Consistency is another.  Historical preservation.  Culture.  You name it.  If the most important factor in your training is that you teach as you were taught, you are in what I would consider a traditional style.  That's the very definition of the term "tradition." 

BJJ isn't traditional because there is room to innovate and no real concern with polluting the style with outside influences.  Wing Chun is, I would say, traditional.  The very presence of "anti-grappling" and the sincere desire within WC to invent a grappling system within the boundaries of the traditional WC canon of techniques and philosophies is a good example.  Only a style concerned with tradition would do this, and it's certainly not the most efficient or effective way to go about it.


----------



## hoshin1600

I would like to point out that Joe was a successful comedian and tv personality before his gig at the ufc.  Fear factor, Radio city and his successful pod cast.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I would like to point out that Joe was a successful comedian and tv personality before his gig at the ufc.  Fear factor, Radio city and his successful pod cast.


He's had quite a career.  But he's always been loyal to the UFC.  He's worked for them since the late 90's...  I don't think he's in the first 10 events, but came on board shortly after that, IIRC.  

I hate to nitpick, but I think you mean Radio City.  he was also the replacement for Adam Corrolla on the Man Show.  LOL.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Drop bear
> This is for you. Since you don't like pre-arranged attacks  This is exactly what it looks like when trying to figure out how to use Jow Ga Kung Fu.  You take the forms, break them apart, and try to actually use what you know. The sparring that you see them will allow them to know what techniques work best in what what situations. This how the hard lessons are learned from mistakes and stupid decisions.  This is where any ideas of fancy kung fu fighting go out the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And This is what a Jow Ga Sifu should say when you aren't doing Jow Ga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you look like when you don't do Kung Fu.  The Sifu should have been saying the same thing that the other guy did.  "Technique from form... no boxing"



See I would have said as the pressure heats up that ability to kung fu decreases. From the pre arranged attacks where there is time and space to do over emphasised responses. To light sparring where less sophisticated attacks and defence get used. To heavy sparring where there is a nod to the kung fu and that is s about it.

Actually that happens with every style including boxing. 

And from there we take the idea back to destruction. Because suddenly the fifty shot arm breaking combinations disappear. You don't have the space to pull them off and what you are left with is the basic mechanics of fighting. Hit and don't get hit.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> I hate to nitpick, *but I think you mean Radio City*.


That should be News Radio.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> See I would have said as the pressure heats up that ability to kung fu decreases. From the pre arranged attacks where there is time and space to do over emphasised responses. To light sparring where less sophisticated attacks and defence get used. To heavy sparring where there is a nod to the kung fu and that is s about it.



If you are training like the guys that I pointed out then the ability to do kung fu increases. The only way that the ability to use kung fu decreases is if you don't try to use the techniques in sparring.  The kung fu techniques that I know how to use correctly use in sparring, are the same techniques that I would use in a real street fight.  Sparring + the punching and kicking drills makes it possible for me to understand when and how a technique should be use in a real fight.  The first thing that you learn when using kung fu techniques when sparring is that you don't execute the technique the same way that you do it in the form.  If you are trying to do over emphasized responses and attacks then it means you don't understand how to apply the technique.  In such a case, it's not a problem with the Kung Fu but an issue with the students understanding.

The most combos that we do is 6.  We are trained to throw 3-4 combinations and then reset.  The 3-4 combination count is common in many styles of fighting such as boxing, and Muay thai.  We don't need 50 strikes to break an arm. We have both long and short range fighting techniques so we can use whatever space is given.  Even our long fist techniques can be shorted if needed without reducing a lot of the power.  In a real fight my kung fu is the advantage not the disadvantage.  If you fall back into basic kicking and hitting then it means that you either don't trust your style of kung fu or you don't know how to apply it in a real fight.


----------



## Chris Parker

TSDTexan said:


> While the Founder's Hapkido is fairly new. Circa 1963... It shares among other things a common ancestor art with BJJ. The artform Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu.



Er… what? Please find me anything that says that there is any connection whatsoever between Daito Ryu and BJJ. Anything. 



TSDTexan said:


> and that itself is based on something even older..(but
> The bad blood between Korea and Japan have made accurate records opaque to say the least, or clear as mud.)



Er… no.



Steve said:


> Regarding what's traditional or modern, I think it's been well discussed.  I stand by my simple test.  If you're learning or teaching a technique in a particular way for reasons other than because it's the most efficient or effective, you're in a traditional art.  If you've ever said, "this is just how it's done in {insert art name}," it's likely a "traditional" art.



Speaking as someone who trains in probably the most "traditional" of all systems here… there is never a single occurrence of any of these systems doing anything at all because "that's just how it's done here". There are always, always, always reasons for everything that is done… and those reasons, 99% of the time, are eminently pragmatic and practical… and all based around effectiveness and efficiency. You just have to recognise the context.


----------



## Steve

> Speaking as someone who trains in probably the most "traditional" of all systems here… there is never a single occurrence of any of these systems doing anything at all because "that's just how it's done here". There are always, always, always reasons for everything that is done… and those reasons, 99% of the time, are eminently pragmatic and practical… and all based around effectiveness and efficiency. You just have to recognise the context.



And I  don't believe for a second that the reason is always, always, always pragmatic and practical.   Maybe at one time.  Sure.  Or I wouldn't be traditional.


----------



## TSDTexan

Chris Parker said:


> Er… what? Please find me anything that says that there is any connection whatsoever between Daito Ryu and BJJ. Anything.



I will oblige you.

(1) Kano studied Takeuchi Ryu.
(1b) Takano, Yano, Kotaro Imei, and Hikasuburo Ohshima were all close colleagues of Kano, and participated in the construction of the Kodokan syllabus and kata.

Takeuchi Ryu is a comprehensive combat art, but is particularly well-known for bokken (wooden sword), jo (staff), and osae (immobilization) techniques.

Takeuchi Ryu was derived from the Daito Ryu line, and was founded in June of 1532.

Chumutaki Hisamori Diasuke Takeuchi was a prince who lived in Okayama, and studied Daito-Ryu. He met an ancient warrior named Takagi (in a dream) who emphasized certain principles that were to underlie Takeuchi-Ryu. The school became known as the "Hinoshito Torido Kaizan Ryu," or "school of the supreme and unsurpassed art of combat."

The techniques of Takeuchi Ryu are divided into five kyo (teachings or principles), related to Takeda's Five Principles-ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, and gokyo.

(2) Daito Ryu.
Kano had deep connections with the Takeda family who would later lead the school.

Shiro Saigo was an adopted son of Tonomo Saigo, soke of this school before Takeda.

Shiro Saigo came to Tokyo at the age of 14 to seek Jujutsu instruction and pursued Kano because of his reputation. Later, he quit both the Kodokan and Daito Ryu when his conflicting obligations to the two masters led him to an impasse.

Kano, always concerned that some important knowledge might be lost, engineered an obligation of Sokaku Takeda, Tonomo Saigo's successor, so that Takeda had to teach and reveal the inner secrets (okuden) of the ryu to Mochizuki, an uchideshi of Kyuzo Mifune, so that these secrets could be brought back to the Kodokan.

This angered Takeda who attempted to disparage the Kodokan at every opportunity. Takeda claimed he knew 3,000 techniques, probably because he always charged for instruction, and did so at a fixed price per technique.

Mochizuki eventually made Judan (10th dan) in this art. Later, Kenji Tomiki was sent to Morihei Ueshiba, who was obligated to accept the student, and eventually awarded him Kudan (9th dan). Ueshiba formed his art (Aikido) from Daito Ryu and Yagyu Ryu.

Daito Ryu does have a large number of techniques, and includes sword, staff, and body arts. It is an Aiki Jujutsu, focusing on internal methods.

by Steven R. Cunningham, Ph.D.

6th dan Judo, 7th dan Jujutsu, 6th dan Karate
Chief Instructor, Ju Nan Shin Academy Manchester, CT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reisi Nakamoto

Reisi Nakamoto was not only proficient in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, but also a master of Okinawan Kempo under Shigeru Nakamura. His most outstanding student was Dr. Rod Sacharnoski, who is world famous as a master of Aikijujutsu and the founder of Juko Ryu.

These systems have in many cases been influential in the development of many other martial arts systems and the proliferation of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu techniques. There is one other branch of martial arts, when taught in a combative way, can be seen to derive from Daito Ryu, though not from Sokaku Takeda, this is Kodokan Judo.

If one looks at the techniques of joint locks and the floating throws of Judo, it is easy to see the Daito Ryu influence in the original, non sport form of Kodokan Judo. It must be remembered that while Kodokan Judo was founded by Jigoro Kano, who was experienced in Tenshin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu, it was also influenced heavily by many systems, especially those of Sakujiro Yokoyama and Shiro Saigo.

Shiro Saigo

Saigo met and became very fond of Jigoro Kano, (whom he considered a great martial artist, teacher, and master), after training in Oshikiuchi under Tanomo Saigo. It was Saigo who established the strong fighting reputation of the Kodokan, taking on many challengers and defeating them with his Oshikiuchi skills. But it must also be remembered that Kano was capable of defeating Saigo in Randori, so the skill of Jigoro Kano himself was exemplary. Sakujiro Yokoyama brought his Yoshin Ryu and Ryoi Shinto Ryu training to the development of the Kodokan as well, which helped to develop the skills and reputation of the school as well.

However, most feel it was the force and skill of Shiro Saigo, as well as, his influence on Yokoyama, and of course Yokoyama’s influence on Kyuzo Mifune, the greatest of Judoka who lived through the 1960s, that truly make the Kodokan what it was in the early days.

Many of the Goshinjutsu, systems of self defense, which developed in the twentieth century, by Japanese and Occidental students of Kodokan Judo, own as much to the genius of Shiro Saigo, which came from Tanomo Saigo and the Daito Ryu lineage, as to Jigoro Kano himself. Today there are many schools of self defense, Judo, and Jujutsu, which have their origin in Kodokan Judo, and while some do not admit their connection, it is the accumulation of many ancient Ryu of Jujutsu, which were combined in the Kodokan, to which these schools should provide thanks.

Finally, in modern times there are still extant, at least according to some teachers, the Takeda Ryu, Saigo Ha Daito Ryu claiming to be descended from Shiro Saigo, as well as, several branches of the Daito Ryu originating from students of Sokaku Takeda.

Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu is truly one of the most influential systems of modern times. Students of Aikido, Judo, and many branches of Jujutsu, as well as, Karate which has an influence from the Motobu family, find a part of their heritage in the grand old system, preserved by Sokaku Takeda and passed on to us through the many students he trained in his lifetime. This then is the heritage of Daito Ryu.

"The Multiple Legacy of Daito Ryu" by William Durbin, Soke of Kiyojute Ryu

And you think Kosen Judo / Kano's Higher Jututsu has no bearing on what Maeda taught in Brazil????? That Maeda and other Kosen Judoka who were sent abroad taught _just_ the newaza that came from _Fusen Ryu _that was blended into kodokan _alone_?

Lol. Seriously.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Why should I care what Joe Rogan's opinion of Traditional Martial Arts is? Because to be honest I don't much care and an entire post dedicated to his opinion seems to give him some sort of relevance that he in fact does not have.


----------



## TSDTexan

Master Xue Sheng, 
There is no need to care, but this website is a place to have both shallow conversations (small talk) as like about the weather. And to have deep meaningful conversations. His relevance is very subjective. But there are many who are influenced by his words. And since silence is often considered to be agreement... I voice my disagreement with him, in hopes of having a dialog to offer rebuttal against his publically held view points.


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> Master Xue Sheng,
> There is no need to care, but this website is a place to have both shallow conversations (small talk) as like about the weather. And to have deep meaningful conversations. His relevance is very subjective. But there are many who are influenced by his words. And since silence is often considered to be agreement... I voice my disagreement with him, in hopes of having a dialog to offer rebuttal against his publically held view points.



I would always question his relevance on anything not BJJ(possibly anything not MT included here as well)

He competed in Kukki-TKD, but wasnt  a high level practitioner(state champ, national champ, etc as awarded by NGB). Nor are any videos or pictures of him doing TKD anything you cant find at kukki schools across the country. He also apparently couldnt keep his hands up when he started kickboxing (something various WTF'ers in MMA and kickboxing have had no issues with). So while you could consider him relevant to kukki-TKD, he isnt for all other TKD. Which fights very differently.

Honestly, I question his relevance (and right) to critique the fighters techs or decisions

He's like that friend who played madden and rec league football, and critiques and criticizes professional players. Sometimes I think he forgets theyre in a different league than himself, Dana too for that matter.

Just let it go, itll bother you a lot less when you do


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> Master Xue Sheng,



Since I am not a master of anything, just Xue will be fine,



TSDTexan said:


> There is no need to care, but this website is a place to have both shallow conversations (small talk) as like about the weather. And to have deep meaningful conversations. His relevance is very subjective. But there are many who are influenced by his words. And since silence is often considered to be agreement... I voice my disagreement with him, in hopes of having a dialog to offer rebuttal against his publically held view points.



That's fine, as for me, I still see no reason to care what Joe Rogan says...because "sometimes" silence is the best response since it gives them nothing to rail against and then...they go away


----------



## Chrisoro

Dissing other arts in order to emphasize how great the one(s) oneself is training, is probably as old as martial arts in itself. Joe Rogan is entiteled to his opinion, and if others base their choices on his opinions without doing their own research, it is their loss. In other words, nothing new to see here, moving on.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.



He didn't say it doesn't work. He says that the training methodology of many TMAs work against them, and he's right. Many TMAs don't even practice hard sparring, and as Steve mentioned, will retain outdated/outmoded techniques just for the sake of tradition. These techniques are never tested in a live format, and when the time comes for the student to use those techniques, they can't do it.

We've seen the results of this over and over again. Whether its the UFC, in the challenge matches from the 60s and 70s where boxers beat the crap out of karate guys, or in full contact street fights between TMA stylists where they sloppily slap each other until they both end up on the ground. Katas and legends of your master beating 20 ninjas means nothing. It's all about adopting modern training methods, and retaining what works and getting rid of what doesn't work.

Prime example; Bjj schools adopting wrestling takedowns and Sambo leg locks. At my school we teach double leg takedowns exactly the way wrestlers do them (because we learn them from wrestlers).

Why? Because they work.


----------



## Argus

Hanzou said:


> He didn't say it doesn't work. He says that the training methodology of many TMAs work against them, and he's right. Many TMAs don't even practice hard sparring, and as Steve mentioned, will retain outdated/outmoded techniques just for the sake of tradition. These techniques are never tested in a live format, and when the time comes for the student to use those techniques, they can't do it.



I'd say that's largely a modern phenomenon in TMA's, actually. Though, it does depend on the culture and context.

In, for example, a Chinese, Filipino, or Okinawan context, putting one's training to the test and re-evaluating it from those experiences was very common place. But, in more modern times where violence is less tolerated and held more legally accountable, there has ceased to become an outlet for this kind of combat, and most TMA's are not really suited for, or interested in training for a sportive context. As an interesting aside, I will say that some TMA practitioners get around this with unique formats, such as _The Dog Brothers_.

So, much of the pragmatic practice of traditional martial arts has given way to more of a hobbyist approach, simply carrying on the knowledge of the art without really gaining practical experience in applying it -- and with that, much understanding is lost over time as less experienced practitioners "reinvent" the art to fill in gaps in their experience and understanding.

If you look at TMA's that retain a lot of relevance in their modern day environments, and are less removed in time, you'll find that they're trained more pragmatically. Take many FMA systems, for example. While some are not trained so practical, many are quite down to earth and practiced very pragmatically. That's largely because they're still relevant to this day in many of the contexts where they're practiced, and are not very far removed from a time and place where knives, sticks, swords, and machetes were (and in some places, still are) very commonly used in crime, conflict, and duels. Give it a century or so, and I'm sure it will start to look much more like other traditional martial arts, with more focus on the "art" side of things than the "martial" side.

But, none of this is to say that most TMA's don't retain very good systems. It's just up to the practitioner to practice the art in a pragmatic way for the context in which they intend to use it, or for the context it was originally developed for.


----------



## Steve

Just to remind everyone, we still don't have any real context. A lot of conclusions being drawn about joe Rogan based on not a lot of information.


----------



## Hanzou

Argus said:


> I'd say that's largely a modern phenomenon in TMA's, actually. Though, it does depend on the culture and context.
> 
> In, for example, a Chinese, Filipino, or Okinawan context, putting one's training to the test and re-evaluating it from those experiences was very common place. But, in more modern times where violence is less tolerated and held more legally accountable, there has ceased to become an outlet for this kind of combat, and most TMA's are not really suited for, or interested in training for a sportive context. As an interesting aside, I will say that some TMA practitioners get around this with unique formats, such as _The Dog Brothers_.
> 
> So, much of the pragmatic practice of traditional martial arts has given way to more of a hobbyist approach, simply carrying on the knowledge of the art without really gaining practical experience in applying it -- and with that, much understanding is lost over time as less experienced practitioners "reinvent" the art to fill in gaps in their experience and understanding.
> 
> If you look at TMA's that retain a lot of relevance in their modern day environments, and are less removed in time, you'll find that they're trained more pragmatically. Take many FMA systems, for example. While some are not trained so practical, many are quite down to earth and practiced very pragmatically. That's largely because they're still relevant to this day in many of the contexts where they're practiced, and are not very far removed from a time and place where knives, sticks, swords, and machetes were (and in some places, still are) very commonly used in crime, conflict, and duels. Give it a century or so, and I'm sure it will start to look much more like other traditional martial arts, with more focus on the "art" side of things than the "martial" side.
> 
> But, none of this is to say that most TMA's don't retain very good systems. It's just up to the practitioner to practice the art in a pragmatic way for the context in which they intend to use it, or for the context it was originally developed for.



If you have to take a pragmatic approach outside of your style's approach in order to make it effective, your art isn't a good system. Your art should be pragmatic by nature.


----------



## Argus

Hanzou said:


> If you have to take a pragmatic approach outside of your style's approach in order to make it effective, your art isn't a good system. Your art should be pragmatic by nature.



I don't know about that. While training pragmatically from the get-go is the more constructive method, it's not as if other training can't be put to good use and set a foundation for your own development.

This is just a matter of how systems -- any system, is passed down in a more formalized manner. Take, for instance, programming courses that you might take in college. They're terribly abstract and don't really give you experience in writing any kind of realistic program that you might want to create. They just give you very formalized knowledge, and very formal methods and exercises, without really having you learn to apply them. It's not until you get out into the real world that you really learn to program not just as an abstract exercise, but in order to actually meet real-world demands, and that's an adjustment that most people have a hard time making, while a few are much more quick to make the transition.

The same goes for learning languages formally or informally, in my experience. And the same goes for martial arts. The difference between those who make the connection between learning and application is that the ones who are able to do so practice, play with, and pursue using and applying their target system outside of their formal education, giving them a full range of not only knowledge, but understanding and practical experience.

But, one cannot argue the value of more formal / traditional / abstract training. Programmers who have, for instance, taken such classes, generally have a more solid and well rounded grasp of good form and proper practices in programming, which may be found lacking in programmers who learned more haphazardly and are more _experienced_ than _educated. _I can attest to this personally, as I fit in the latter category, and often discover deficiencies that I wouldn't have if I'd had a more solid educational foundation in programming and computer science. Yet, I'm still a very productive and pragmatic programmer, in the sense that I get things done, even if I don't always do them in the best way. If I choose to further my education, I might have the best of both worlds.

I should clarify that I'm making up my own definition for "formal training" here. Please keep in mind that I am refering to systems that have been codified and are practiced in formal, abstract methods that can be classified as "traditional." I'm not suggesting that all formal training is removed from application, or that non-traditional methods cannot be classified as "formal."


----------



## JowGaWolf

hoshin1600 said:


> Failings? he was a really good TKD practitioner where is the failing in that?


His failings was not understanding TKD vs other fighting styles.  He even said so himself, that TKD practitioners kick with their hands down and that his hands were weak. I know that TKD has punches because it's in their forms. This means that he or his instructor just didn't put much value in punching. I don't think TKD lacks handskills. I just think many schools don't emphasize it. If these guys are punching then why not the other 













Stuff like this will get you killed





No matter the style that people use to fight, they have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the style that they are fighting against. If a person understands their style then they can adjust their style so that they are better able to deal with them. Joe can't blame his fighting style if he fail to make adjustments.
Raymond Daniels failing to keep his distance from a grappler.  The grappler understanding that his advantage isn't striking fakes a punch to close the gap.





Martial Arts alone is not silver bullet to success.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Xue Sheng said:


> Why should I care what Joe Rogan's opinion of Traditional Martial Arts is? Because to be honest I don't much care and an entire post dedicated to his opinion seems to give him some sort of relevance that he in fact does not have.


Joe himself isn't relevant.  It's his statement that is misleading and not true of all TMAs.   Being that this is a Martial Arts forum. People can either let bad information flourish and mislead everyone or people can bring insight.

I train in Jow Ga Kung Fu which is a TMA (but not the loose definition that goes with TMA).  I know for a fact that Jow Ga is fight tested and that anyone who trains to use it in an actual fight (not just practice the forms) will have no problem going against another style or even using it as a realistic self-defense.  As far as the posts go. I see more about martial arts than about Joe.


----------



## Xue Sheng

JowGaWolf said:


> Joe himself isn't relevant.  It's his statement that is misleading and not true of all TMAs.   Being that this is a Martial Arts forum. People can either let bad information flourish and mislead everyone or people can bring insight.
> 
> I train in Jow Ga Kung Fu which is a TMA (but not the loose definition that goes with TMA).  I know for a fact that Jow Ga is fight tested and that anyone who trains to use it in an actual fight (not just practice the forms) will have no problem going against another style or even using it as a realistic self-defense.  As far as the posts go. I see more about martial arts than about Joe.



Again that, is fine and you will get no argument from me... I just see little relevance in Joe Rogan as it applies to TMA and I guess I am way to old school CMA to care about the other arguments, I know what Xingyiquan and Taijiquan are capable of and that is good enough for me...like my sifu, I see little reason to be concerned with what others think.. and I am a long time TCMA guy (Xingyiquan, Taijiquan and looking at Yiquan)

I will however admit this attitude has taken time to get here..... it only appeared something after I passed the half century mark after close to 40 years in TMA (not all Chinese) and some non-TMA styles


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> Again that, is fine and you will get no argument from me... I just see little relevance in Joe Rogan as it applies to TMA and I guess I am way to old school CMA to care about the other arguments, I know what Xingyiquan and Taijiquan are capable of and that is good enough for me...like my sifu, I see little reason to be concerned with what others think.. and I am a long time TCMA guy (Xingyiquan, Taijiquan and looking at Yiquan)
> 
> I will however admit this attitude has taken time to get here..... it only appeared something after I passed the half century mark after close to 40 years in TMA (not all Chinese) and some non-TMA styles




Xue, I have a question for you... If a man has not developed faculty in using Dantien and cannot send chi to parts of his body, say.... A fist while punching... Then He is a hard stylist reduced to using only the power of muscle, tendeons and sinew and joints. Correct?

There is a Korean Shaolin artist who did a jumping double knife hand strike and broke a truck leaf spring (big flat piece of steel) at a demonstration at a tournament in the 1980s....
His body was pretty depleted of Chi, and a shard bounced back off the floor, and nicked his wrist.

The demo was incredibly demoralizing for students of other schools, and the Korean's students pretty much swept the tournament.

I know for a fact, chi is real... But why is it so rarely used in real world fighting? It it because it would cause techiques to kill or maim?

There are many who challenge the idea of a Martial Art that focuses training time on something that they perceive to be a deception perpetrated on the weak minded.

I have also seen chi manipulation done on a person that caused them to collapse. And that person absolutely did not believe it could be done, and volunteered to have it done... Trying to bust the Chi manipulater.

So why, is there no presence of anyone willing to fight in a challenge match, and prove the skeptical critics wrong?

I understand you prefer to answer the critics with silence.
Is it just because of the Eastern mindset? Remain calm, be at peace within and without? Therefore, dont argue with a fool because someone passing by will see two fools arguing?


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> Xue, I have a question for you... If a man has not developed faculty in using Dantien and cannot send chi to parts of his body, say.... A fist while punching... Then He is a hard stylist reduced to using only the power of muscle, tendeons and sinew and joints. Correct?
> 
> There is a Korean Shaolin artist who did a jumping double knife hand strike and broke a truck leaf spring (big flat piece of steel) at a demonstration at a tournament in the 1980s....
> His body was pretty depleted of Chi, and a shard bounced back off the floor, and nicked his wrist.
> 
> The demo was incredibly demoralizing for students of other schools, and the Korean's students pretty much swept the tournament.
> 
> I know for a fact, chi is real... But why is it so rarely used in real world fighting? It it because it would cause techiques to kill or maim?
> 
> There are many who challenge the idea of a Martial Art that focuses training time on something that they perceive to be a deception perpetrated on the weak minded.
> 
> I have also seen chi manipulation done on a person that caused them to collapse. And that person absolutely did not believe it could be done, and volunteered to have it done... Trying to bust the Chi manipulater.
> 
> So why, is there no presence of anyone willing to fight in a challenge match, and prove the skeptical critics wrong?
> 
> I understand you prefer to answer the critics with silence.
> Is it just because of the Eastern mindset? Remain calm, be at peace within and without? Therefore, dont argue with a fool because someone passing by will see two fools arguing?



As for the internal vs. external thing, to me it is a false category since, when done correctly, they end up in the same place. Old CMA saying, "internal goes to external and external goes to internal"

Done a lot of arguing in my time, and at times still do, but not as much as in my youth. I just don't see this as something to argue about, it will not change anyone's opinion, they likely agreed or disagreed with Mr. Rogan going into this and they will likely agree or disagree when it is done.

As for qi, I am a long time Internal martial artist, mostly taijiquan, and I have seen it used in a fight, but it does not mean it will kill someone, if one can only use qi to kill someone, then I would say they either are not really using qi or do not understand it.

As for the demoralization, I do not see, by your description, why they were demoralized at all. I got my butt kicked by a southern mantis guy many years ago and it was one of the coolest learning experiences I have had. A good friend of mine was very good at TKD and he taught me a lot by not kicking me in the head when he could have. As the old saying goes, invest in loss. Any demoralization that comes from that is ego, that is all IMHO


----------



## tigercrane

Xue Sheng said:


> As for the internal vs. external thing, to me it is a false category since, when done correctly, they end up in the same place. Old CMA saying, "internal goes to external and external goes to internal"



Very well said Xue. There are no external or internal arts, at least not in CMA. In the scape of TCMA I have yet to discover about one style that is not working with chi. In the past I thought southern styles were devoid of internal component up until I saw how this was part of many of them such as Pak Mei and Hung Ga to name some. 

Within the context of this thread, I'd be curious about your thoughts on Bagua if any. Thanks!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

tigercrane said:


> There are no external or internal arts, ...


Except when I see clip like this, it bothers me big time. Sometime I even feel embarrassing to tell people that I train Taiji too.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Since I am not a master of anything, just Xue will be fine,
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, as for me, I still see no reason to care what Joe Rogan says...because "sometimes" silence is the best response since it gives them nothing to rail against and then...they go away




I too am going to express how much I don't care and post about how silent I am being about the whole topic.







Here is a picture of Joe rogan so that I may better ignore him. And therefore deny him the attention he so obviously craves.





Joe rogan.


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> And I  don't believe for a second that the reason is always, always, always pragmatic and practical.   Maybe at one time.  Sure.  Or I wouldn't be traditional.



Honestly, Steve, you lost me there… can't quite follow the syntax of what you're saying. Maybe one what at a time? Or you wouldn't be traditional? Can you rephrase this, cause… I'm lost.

TSD Texan, on the other hand… gotta say, thanks! I haven't laughed like that for a while!

You do know that most of what you posted is complete tripe, and that you're referencing people with no credibility, yeah? Let's take a look… 



TSDTexan said:


> I will oblige you.



Okay… this'll be fun… 



TSDTexan said:


> (1) Kano studied Takeuchi Ryu.



No, he didn't. At all. In no line. 

Er… you do know that only one line of Takenouchi Ryu use the pronunciation "Takeuchi", yeah? Do you know which one…?



TSDTexan said:


> (1b) Takano, Yano, Kotaro Imei, and Hikasuburo Ohshima were all close colleagues of Kano, and participated in the construction of the Kodokan syllabus and kata.



No.

Look, for one thing, the order of the names is inconsistent… either use the Japanese form (family name, then personal), or the Western (given name, then family name). Here, it's all messed up… Yano's proper name (Japanese order) it Yano Takano… putting a comma between his first, then family name makes no sense for a Western publication. It's like naming me as "Chris, Parker", as opposed to "Parker, Chris" (which might make some sense). Imai (not Imei) is presented in a Western order (Japanese - Imai Kotaro), and Oshima's name again follows the Western order.

Next, these three gents were from two different Takenouchi lines… Oshima and Imai were from Takenouchi Ryu itself (Sodenke line, I believe), whereas Yano was from the Takenouchi Santo Ryu… which split very early on from the "main" Takenouchi line. And while they all certainly knew of each other, with Kano at the centre, to say that they participated in the construction of the Kodokan syllabus and kata is rather… well… wrong. Especially as there are no Takenouchi kata found in Judo at all (there are kata from other systems), nor does Takenouchi show any influence in any of Judo's syllabus at all. In fact, the most prominent association is that these men were at a number of functions and demonstrations for the Kodokan… but never as any part of the Kodokan itself, instead as demonstrators of their ryu-ha. At the same demonstrations were people representing the Kodokan itself, Sekiguchi Ryu, Yoshin Ryu, Sosuishitsu Ryu, Miura Ryu, Shiten Ryu, Fusen Ryu, and more. 

But the point is that no, these gentlemen were not involved in the formation and construction of the Kodokan syllabus anymore than any of the others (and less than some).



TSDTexan said:


> Takeuchi Ryu is a comprehensive combat art, but is particularly well-known for bokken (wooden sword), jo (staff), and osae (immobilization) techniques.



Oh, please don't tell me you're trying to tell me what Takenouchi (Takeuchi) Ryu is… I mean… it's "particularly well known" as the oldest jujutsu centric ryu-ha in Japan… and far less known for it's buki syllabus… to the point that many don't realise that it has one, let alone as wide a collection as it has (seriously… umbrellas and cooking pot lids… it's all there!).

In other words, no, that's not what Takenouchi Ryu is "particularly well known for".



TSDTexan said:


> Takeuchi Ryu was derived from the Daito Ryu line, and was founded in June of 1532.



Oh, you've got to be kidding me here… 

Look, there is absolutely no support for any claim of Daito Ryu predating Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century. None. There is no mention of it, there is no evidence of it, there is no record of it, and so on. The only thing to give any indication are the oral traditions of Daito Ryu itself… which came from Takeda. So the idea of a ryu-ha founded in 1532 being based in an art unheard of or not existing until they late 1800's is, well, questionable. 

Then we have the complete lack of any reference to Daito Ryu in Takenouchi Ryu history and lineage. And we finalise it with the fact that these two ryu-ha, according to their histories, were on opposing sides of Honshu, with Daito Ryu in the East (Kai Province, present day Yamanashi Prefecture, just West of Tokyo), and Takenouchi Ryu in the West (present day Okayama Prefecture, North of Shikoku, West of Osaka, nearly at Hiroshima). And no, travelling between these provinces at that time would not have been easy… we are well before the Edo Jidai and Musha Shugyo… this was the Sengoku Jidai.

In other words, this is possibly the most ridiculous thing said in this post. There is no connection between Daito Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu until the 20th Century.



TSDTexan said:


> Chumutaki Hisamori Diasuke Takeuchi was a prince who lived in Okayama, and studied Daito-Ryu. He met an ancient warrior named Takagi (in a dream) who emphasized certain principles that were to underlie Takeuchi-Ryu. The school became known as the "Hinoshito Torido Kaizan Ryu," or "school of the supreme and unsurpassed art of combat."



According to the histories of Daito Ryu, taken such as they are, even they have no mention of being in Okayama Prefecture… so… no. It could also be mentioned that Takenouchi Hisamori was not a prince… he was a warrior, not royalty. It could also be pointed out that that's not the correct pronunciation of Takenouchi's name… it's not "Chumutaki", it's Nakatsukasa Taifu. There is also no mention of the name of the "mountain priest" Hisamori met, other than Hisamori thinking that he looked so fierce, he must be an incarnation of the God Atago himself… the usage of the name "Takagi" is both questionable and rather telling. I have no idea where that bizarre name "HInoshito Torido (Toride?) Kaizan Ryu" comes from… I've never come across it before in any of my dealings with the history of the Ryu at all.



TSDTexan said:


> The techniques of Takeuchi Ryu are divided into five kyo (teachings or principles), related to Takeda's Five Principles-ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, and tokyo.



Uh… no, they aren't.



TSDTexan said:


> (2) Daito Ryu.
> Kano had deep connections with the Takeda family who would later lead the school.



Uh… no, not really. Takeda Tokimune has said that his father (Takeda Sokaku) and Kano Jigoro were on good personal terms… that they would often visit each other when they found each other in their area… however, Kano never mentioned Daito Ryu, Takeda and his approach was almost diametrically opposed to Kano's, and Takeda himself showed little interest in Judo, saying that it "wasn't real budo, more like budo dancing".



TSDTexan said:


> Shiro Saigo was an adopted son of Tonomo Saigo, soke of this school before Takeda.



Well, first off, his name was Saigo Tanomo, not Tonomo… and by the time he met Takeda Sokaku, he'd taken the name Hoshina Chikanori to signify his new life as a priest. As far as his role in Daito Ryu is concerned, Sokaku is claimed to have learnt the Ryu initially from his father (Takeda Sokichi), and learnt other matters from Hoshina… although it was after Hoshina presented Sokaku with a poem signifying the teachings of Hoshina that Sokaku began referring to what he taught as Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu… which would make it a synthesis of both Sokichi's and Hoshina's teachings. But no, Saigo Tanomo was not soke of Daito Ryu before Takeda Sokaku.  What he was, rather, was the holder of the Oshikiuchi methods which he taught to Sokaku.

Of course, there are problems. Namely that there are no records or indications of Hoshina being particularly schooled (or schooled at all, really) in martial arts… and, while we basically only have Sokaku's word that he learnt Oshikiuchi from Hoshina, there is no mention of it being martial methods. For the record, the evidence against Hoshina being a martial artist includes his own diary… 

One thing that's important to remember is that these stories are largely put forth by the so-called Saigo-ha… quasi-Daito Ryu groups that can't claim a connection to Takeda Sokaku… so they claim an unsubstantiated and questionable connection to Saigo Shiro… who, if we come to the understanding that his adopted father really wasn't anything to do with Daito Ryu, and couldn't have taught Shiro anything of it, had no connection to Daito Ryu either.



TSDTexan said:


> Shiro Saigo came to Tokyo at the age of 14 to seek Jujutsu instruction and pursued Kano because of his reputation. Later, he quit both the Kodokan and Daito Ryu when his conflicting obligations to the two masters led him to an impasse.



Well, that's the story put forth by the so-called Saigo-ha Daito Ryu practitioners… but the lack of any evidence that Shiro had any connection to Daito Ryu puts it in rather a lot of doubt. I'd also point out that the age is a bit out (he was 16 when he came to the Kodokan). 

What is known and accepted is that Shiro was experienced to a degree in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… a system that Kano was a Menkyo holder in, and which had apparently brought the two in contact a bit earlier. Shiro was one of the early "stars" of the Kodokan, helping Kano to establish the dominance of early Judo, being rather famous for the use of a technique not taught in Judo called Yama Arashi (mountain storm), which he was said to be the only one to be able to perform successfully. Shiro remained with the Kodokan until he was 25, however the reasons for his leaving are still a little unclear.

What is clear, however, is the position of the mainline Daito Ryu. The present head, Katsuyuki Kondo, has stated quite clearly: "Properly speaking, there is no connection whatsoever between Saigo-ha and Daito Ryu Schools. They should not call themselves Daito Ryu because there is no relationship at all between Daito Ryu and the version of history they are offering."



TSDTexan said:


> Kano, always concerned that some important knowledge might be lost, engineered an obligation of Sokaku Takeda, Tonomo Saigo's successor, so that Takeda had to teach and reveal the inner secrets (okuden) of the ryu to Mochizuki, an uchideshi of Kyuzo Mifune, so that these secrets could be brought back to the Kodokan.



Er… what? Mochizuki was sent to Ueshiba in 1930 after Kano was highly impressed by a demonstration Ueshiba put on, calling it "real judo!" (leading one of his students to ask, jokingly, if they'd been learning "fake judo" all this time…) But, gotta say, the bizarre characterisation of Kano's mentality is just… so wrong it's damn funny. It goes directly against Kano's established ideas, concepts, motivations, and so on… 

Absolutely godsdamn no. This, by the way, is the second funniest section of the post so far. I mean… are we forgetting that Tomiki Kenji had already been training with Ueshiba for over a decade at that point? But Mochizuki had to be sent to "bring back these inner secrets"?!?! Ha, damn, that's funny!



TSDTexan said:


> This angered Takeda who attempted to disparage the Kodokan at every opportunity. Takeda claimed he knew 3,000 techniques, probably because he always charged for instruction, and did so at a fixed price per technique.



Sure, Sokaku was an absolute capitalist… but that has nothing to do with his take on the Kodokan (and Kano's Judo)… and there's a fair bit of supposition and assumption going on… completely unsupported by anything on record, of course. Especially as Mochizuki was sent to Ueshiba, not Takeda (or his son) to "steal" these apparent secrets… ha!



TSDTexan said:


> Mochizuki eventually made Judan (10th dan) in this art. Later, Kenji Tomiki was sent to Morihei Ueshiba, who was obligated to accept the student, and eventually awarded him Kudan (9th dan). Ueshiba formed his art (Aikido) from Daito Ryu and Yagyu Ryu.



Er… that's a bit backwards… Tomiki had been training with both Kano and Ueshiba since 1906, Mochizuki since 1930. And, I'm sorry, Ueshiba was "obligated"?!? Why? And while Daito Ryu formed the largest influence on Ueshiba's new system (originally called Ueshiba Ryu Jujutsu, for the record…), Yagyu Ryu did not. Mainly as it was well and truly extinct by then. However Yagyu Shinkage Ryu (properly called just Shinkage Ryu) did have quite an influence… as did Kukishin Ryu, so you know.



TSDTexan said:


> Daito Ryu does have a large number of techniques, and includes sword, staff, and body arts. It is an Aiki Jujutsu, focusing on internal methods.



"AN" Aikijujutsu?

And seriously… there's no reason to try to educate me on what Daito Ryu is… especially from such a desperately flawed understanding as shown here.



TSDTexan said:


> by Steven R. Cunningham, Ph.D.
> 
> 6th dan Judo, 7th dan Jujutsu, 6th dan Karate
> Chief Instructor, Ju Nan Shin Academy Manchester, CT
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bluntly, I don't care if he has a PhD or not, Steven is a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. Let's recap:

Kano did not train in Takeuchi Ryu. Takeuchi Ryu is not "most known for it's weapons work". The named members of various Takenouchi Ryu branches did not provide for the syllabus and kata of the Kodokan. And, most importantly, there is absolutely no connection between Takenouchi Ryu and Daito Ryu… none. None at all. Just… no idea how he came up with that.

Kano's connection to the Takeda family wasn't that "deep", and did not have a martial aspect to it. The claim that Saigo Shiro came into the Kodokan as a Daito Ryu master is not supported by his history, his connections, or his age.

The connection between Ueshiba's group (formerly Ueshiba Ryu Jujutsu, later Aikido) and the Kodokan came later, and is separate from any direct connection to Daito Ryu. In fact, there is really little to no cross-over (other than some people practicing both) between the two systems.

Ready for the next one? Okay!



TSDTexan said:


> Reisi Nakamoto
> 
> Reisi Nakamoto was not only proficient in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, but also a master of Okinawan Kempo under Shigeru Nakamura. His most outstanding student was Dr. Rod Sacharnoski, who is world famous as a master of Aikijujutsu and the founder of Juko Ryu.



Okay, you've brought Rod "I can't prove I had a teacher in anything at all" Sacharnowski into it… ha!

Dude. You've just lost any credibility that might have been here. I mean… we're dealing with someone who has so little grasp of the culture and language he's dealing with that he accidentally named his school the "Sex House School"… as he couldn't read the kanji he'd chosen! There's only a few things you could do to sabotage your own argument… such as having a source be a self-appointed Western "Soke"… hang on… 

I'd also point out that Reisi Nakamoto only turns up in Rod's accounts of his own history… no-one else seems to have ever heard of the guy… 



TSDTexan said:


> These systems have in many cases been influential in the development of many other martial arts systems and the proliferation of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu techniques. There is one other branch of martial arts, when taught in a combative way, can be seen to derive from Daito Ryu, though not from Sokaku Takeda, this is Kodokan Judo.



Ha! No. There is no connection between Daito Ryu, Takeda Sokaku's teachings, and the Kodokan. 



TSDTexan said:


> If one looks at the techniques of joint locks and the floating throws of Judo, it is easy to see the Daito Ryu influence in the original, non sport form of Kodokan Judo. It must be remembered that while Kodokan Judo was founded by Jigoro Kano, who was experienced in Tenshin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu, it was also influenced heavily by many systems, especially those of Sakujiro Yokoyama and Shiro Saigo.



No, it's not "easy to see the Daito Ryu influence", as there isn't any. None. The method of applying locks in Daito Ryu is completely different to that found in Judo… which largely take their methods from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… and are pretty much identical to that. You know… the actual system Kano is documented to have trained in… as opposed to these unsubstantiated claims of Daito and Takenouchi Ryu… 

As far as Saigo Shiro and Yokoyama Sakujiro, we've dealt with Saigo, but Yokoyama is a slightly different case. While he did study Daito Ryu under Takeda Sokaku's dojo, it should be recognised that he was, firstly and foremost, a practitioner of Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu with Kano, then the Kodokan, only later adding Daito Ryu to his studies. Again, though, that doesn't put any Daito Ryu influence into Judo anymore than my Kyudo influences my Kenjutsu.



TSDTexan said:


> Shiro Saigo
> 
> Saigo met and became very fond of Jigoro Kano, (whom he considered a great martial artist, teacher, and master), after training in Oshikiuchi under Tanomo Saigo. It was Saigo who established the strong fighting reputation of the Kodokan, taking on many challengers and defeating them with his Oshikiuchi skills. But it must also be remembered that Kano was capable of defeating Saigo in Randori, so the skill of Jigoro Kano himself was exemplary. Sakujiro Yokoyama brought his Yoshin Ryu and Ryoi Shinto Ryu training to the development of the Kodokan as well, which helped to develop the skills and reputation of the school as well.



Yeah… we've covered most of this already… Kano met Shiro when Shiro was a young teen training in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… not anything to do with Daito Ryu. Shiro's "Oshikiuchi" skills were never part of anything claimed with his Judo success (especially when it's believed to mainly be an approach of etiquette, not anything to do with martial arts at all). And, yeah, Kano could be Shiro… he was his senior in the ryu they both came from, after all. Yokoyama was also a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu practitioner as well… he was not a Yoshin Ryu nor a Ryoi Shinto Ryu practitioner at all. Those were the systems of some of his more impressive early victories… so whoever wrote this got things rather mixed up… 



TSDTexan said:


> However, most feel it was the force and skill of Shiro Saigo, as well as, his influence on Yokoyama, and of course Yokoyama’s influence on Kyuzo Mifune, the greatest of Judoka who lived through the 1960s, that truly make the Kodokan what it was in the early days.



That's really just speculation and opinion… I'd argue against it, but eh, it's of no import.



TSDTexan said:


> Many of the Goshinjutsu, systems of self defense, which developed in the twentieth century, by Japanese and Occidental students of Kodokan Judo, own as much to the genius of Shiro Saigo, which came from Tanomo Saigo and the Daito Ryu lineage, as to Jigoro Kano himself. Today there are many schools of self defense, Judo, and Jujutsu, which have their origin in Kodokan Judo, and while some do not admit their connection, it is the accumulation of many ancient Ryu of Jujutsu, which were combined in the Kodokan, to which these schools should provide thanks.



And here we've gone off the rails again… 

No, Saigo's skills and influence is completely devoid of any connection with Daito Ryu. Oh, and the description of the foundation of Judo is rather odd… 



TSDTexan said:


> Finally, in modern times there are still extant, at least according to some teachers, the Takeda Ryu, Saigo Ha Daito Ryu claiming to be descended from Shiro Saigo, as well as, several branches of the Daito Ryu originating from students of Sokaku Takeda.



And, bluntly, only the Sokaku-line schools have any credibility… but only back to Sokaku himself. Not before.



TSDTexan said:


> Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu is truly one of the most influential systems of modern times. Students of Aikido, Judo, and many branches of Jujutsu, as well as, Karate which has an influence from the Motobu family, find a part of their heritage in the grand old system, preserved by Sokaku Takeda and passed on to us through the many students he trained in his lifetime. This then is the heritage of Daito Ryu.



Aikido, yeah. Hakko Ryu, sure. Judo? Nope. Many branches of jujutsu? Karate? Not at all.

Seriously, this is a completely ill-informed pile of tripe. Who wrote this garbage?



TSDTexan said:


> "The Multiple Legacy of Daito Ryu" by William Durbin, Soke of Kiyojute Ryu



HA, a freakin' Western Soke?!?!?! 

Nice… you just wanted to abandon all credibility to your argument, didn't you?



TSDTexan said:


> And you think Kosen Judo / Kano's Higher Jututsu has no bearing on what Maeda taught in Brazil????? That Maeda and other Kosen Judoka who were sent abroad taught _just_ the newaza that came from _Fusen Ryu _that was blended into kodokan _alone_?



Okay, you really out did yourself this time… you want to take this route? Okay… 

Kosen Judo is not, I repeat, NOT "Kano's Higher Jujutsu"… it's quite literally "High School" Judo. It's a minor ruleset designed to make practice safer for kids by focusing on ne waza rather than throws… and you think it's "higher jujutsu"?!?! HA! It's quite literally the kiddie version, dude!

Next, Kosen Judo developed AFTER Maeda left Japan. I'm going to repeat that as well… after Maeda left Japan. So… how did he teach something that he never experienced himself, huh?

And here's a real mind-scratcher for ya… Fusen Ryu has NO ne-waza. Seriously. There isn't any in the system at all. None. Thinking that there was any is to make yet another mistake in grasping what you're talking about. The development of ne-waza in judo was highly influenced by Tanabe Mataemon, who was the head of Fusen Ryu at the time… but the ne-waza was his own developed ideas, not from Fusen Ryu itself.



TSDTexan said:


> Lol. Seriously.



Agreed… seriously, dude. Wrong guy to try this on.

Oh, and Chisoro? TSD's post was not "informative"… as it was, frankly, so full of holes that finding something accurate in it was damn hard. Even most of the names were wrong…


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> I too am going to express how much I don't care and post about how silent I am being about the whole topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of Joe rogan so that I may better ignore him. And therefore deny him the attention he so obviously craves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe rogan.








You have absolutely no idea how unsurprised I am that you do not understand what is being discussed


----------



## TSDTexan

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Steve, you lost me there… can't quite follow the syntax of what you're saying. Maybe one what at a time? Or you wouldn't be traditional? Can you rephrase this, cause… I'm lost.
> 
> TSD Texan, on the other hand… gotta say, thanks! I haven't laughed like that for a while!
> 
> You do know that most of what you posted is complete tripe, and that you're referencing people with no credibility, yeah? Let's take a look…
> 
> 
> 
> Okay… this'll be fun…
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't. At all. In no line.
> 
> Er… you do know that only one line of Takenouchi Ryu use the pronunciation "Takeuchi", yeah? Do you know which one…?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Look, for one thing, the order of the names is inconsistent… either use the Japanese form (family name, then personal), or the Western (given name, then family name). Here, it's all messed up… Yano's proper name (Japanese order) it Yano Takano… putting a comma between his first, then family name makes no sense for a Western publication. It's like naming me as "Chris, Parker", as opposed to "Parker, Chris" (which might make some sense). Imai (not Imei) is presented in a Western order (Japanese - Imai Kotaro), and Oshima's name again follows the Western order.
> 
> Next, these three gents were from two different Takenouchi lines… Oshima and Imai were from Takenouchi Ryu itself (Sodenke line, I believe), whereas Yano was from the Takenouchi Santo Ryu… which split very early on from the "main" Takenouchi line. And while they all certainly knew of each other, with Kano at the centre, to say that they participated in the construction of the Kodokan syllabus and kata is rather… well… wrong. Especially as there are no Takenouchi kata found in Judo at all (there are kata from other systems), nor does Takenouchi show any influence in any of Judo's syllabus at all. In fact, the most prominent association is that these men were at a number of functions and demonstrations for the Kodokan… but never as any part of the Kodokan itself, instead as demonstrators of their ryu-ha. At the same demonstrations were people representing the Kodokan itself, Sekiguchi Ryu, Yoshin Ryu, Sosuishitsu Ryu, Miura Ryu, Shiten Ryu, Fusen Ryu, and more.
> 
> But the point is that no, these gentlemen were not involved in the formation and construction of the Kodokan syllabus anymore than any of the others (and less than some).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please don't tell me you're trying to tell me what Takenouchi (Takeuchi) Ryu is… I mean… it's "particularly well known" as the oldest jujutsu centric ryu-ha in Japan… and far less known for it's buki syllabus… to the point that many don't realise that it has one, let alone as wide a collection as it has (seriously… umbrellas and cooking pot lids… it's all there!).
> 
> In other words, no, that's not what Takenouchi Ryu is "particularly well known for".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you've got to be kidding me here…
> 
> Look, there is absolutely no support for any claim of Daito Ryu predating Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century. None. There is no mention of it, there is no evidence of it, there is no record of it, and so on. The only thing to give any indication are the oral traditions of Daito Ryu itself… which came from Takeda. So the idea of a ryu-ha founded in 1532 being based in an art unheard of or not existing until they late 1800's is, well, questionable.
> 
> Then we have the complete lack of any reference to Daito Ryu in Takenouchi Ryu history and lineage. And we finalise it with the fact that these two ryu-ha, according to their histories, were on opposing sides of Honshu, with Daito Ryu in the East (Kai Province, present day Yamanashi Prefecture, just West of Tokyo), and Takenouchi Ryu in the West (present day Okayama Prefecture, North of Shikoku, West of Osaka, nearly at Hiroshima). And no, travelling between these provinces at that time would not have been easy… we are well before the Edo Jidai and Musha Shugyo… this was the Sengoku Jidai.
> 
> In other words, this is possibly the most ridiculous thing said in this post. There is no connection between Daito Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu until the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the histories of Daito Ryu, taken such as they are, even they have no mention of being in Okayama Prefecture… so… no. It could also be mentioned that Takenouchi Hisamori was not a prince… he was a warrior, not royalty. It could also be pointed out that that's not the correct pronunciation of Takenouchi's name… it's not "Chumutaki", it's Nakatsukasa Taifu. There is also no mention of the name of the "mountain priest" Hisamori met, other than Hisamori thinking that he looked so fierce, he must be an incarnation of the God Atago himself… the usage of the name "Takagi" is both questionable and rather telling. I have no idea where that bizarre name "HInoshito Torido (Toride?) Kaizan Ryu" comes from… I've never come across it before in any of my dealings with the history of the Ryu at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh… no, they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh… no, not really. Takeda Tokimune has said that his father (Takeda Sokaku) and Kano Jigoro were on good personal terms… that they would often visit each other when they found each other in their area… however, Kano never mentioned Daito Ryu, Takeda and his approach was almost diametrically opposed to Kano's, and Takeda himself showed little interest in Judo, saying that it "wasn't real budo, more like budo dancing".
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first off, his name was Saigo Tanomo, not Tonomo… and by the time he met Takeda Sokaku, he'd taken the name Hoshina Chikanori to signify his new life as a priest. As far as his role in Daito Ryu is concerned, Sokaku is claimed to have learnt the Ryu initially from his father (Takeda Sokichi), and learnt other matters from Hoshina… although it was after Hoshina presented Sokaku with a poem signifying the teachings of Hoshina that Sokaku began referring to what he taught as Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu… which would make it a synthesis of both Sokichi's and Hoshina's teachings. But no, Saigo Tanomo was not soke of Daito Ryu before Takeda Sokaku.  What he was, rather, was the holder of the Oshikiuchi methods which he taught to Sokaku.
> 
> Of course, there are problems. Namely that there are no records or indications of Hoshina being particularly schooled (or schooled at all, really) in martial arts… and, while we basically only have Sokaku's word that he learnt Oshikiuchi from Hoshina, there is no mention of it being martial methods. For the record, the evidence against Hoshina being a martial artist includes his own diary…
> 
> One thing that's important to remember is that these stories are largely put forth by the so-called Saigo-ha… quasi-Daito Ryu groups that can't claim a connection to Takeda Sokaku… so they claim an unsubstantiated and questionable connection to Saigo Shiro… who, if we come to the understanding that his adopted father really wasn't anything to do with Daito Ryu, and couldn't have taught Shiro anything of it, had no connection to Daito Ryu either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's the story put forth by the so-called Saigo-ha Daito Ryu practitioners… but the lack of any evidence that Shiro had any connection to Daito Ryu puts it in rather a lot of doubt. I'd also point out that the age is a bit out (he was 16 when he came to the Kodokan).
> 
> What is known and accepted is that Shiro was experienced to a degree in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… a system that Kano was a Menkyo holder in, and which had apparently brought the two in contact a bit earlier. Shiro was one of the early "stars" of the Kodokan, helping Kano to establish the dominance of early Judo, being rather famous for the use of a technique not taught in Judo called Yama Arashi (mountain storm), which he was said to be the only one to be able to perform successfully. Shiro remained with the Kodokan until he was 25, however the reasons for his leaving are still a little unclear.
> 
> What is clear, however, is the position of the mainline Daito Ryu. The present head, Katsuyuki Kondo, has stated quite clearly: "Properly speaking, there is no connection whatsoever between Saigo-ha and Daito Ryu Schools. They should not call themselves Daito Ryu because there is no relationship at all between Daito Ryu and the version of history they are offering."
> 
> 
> 
> Er… what? Mochizuki was sent to Ueshiba in 1930 after Kano was highly impressed by a demonstration Ueshiba put on, calling it "real judo!" (leading one of his students to ask, jokingly, if they'd been learning "fake judo" all this time…) But, gotta say, the bizarre characterisation of Kano's mentality is just… so wrong it's damn funny. It goes directly against Kano's established ideas, concepts, motivations, and so on…
> 
> Absolutely godsdamn no. This, by the way, is the second funniest section of the post so far. I mean… are we forgetting that Tomiki Kenji had already been training with Ueshiba for over a decade at that point? But Mochizuki had to be sent to "bring back these inner secrets"?!?! Ha, damn, that's funny!
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Sokaku was an absolute capitalist… but that has nothing to do with his take on the Kodokan (and Kano's Judo)… and there's a fair bit of supposition and assumption going on… completely unsupported by anything on record, of course. Especially as Mochizuki was sent to Ueshiba, not Takeda (or his son) to "steal" these apparent secrets… ha!
> 
> 
> 
> Er… that's a bit backwards… Tomiki had been training with both Kano and Ueshiba since 1906, Mochizuki since 1930. And, I'm sorry, Ueshiba was "obligated"?!? Why? And while Daito Ryu formed the largest influence on Ueshiba's new system (originally called Ueshiba Ryu Jujutsu, for the record…), Yagyu Ryu did not. Mainly as it was well and truly extinct by then. However Yagyu Shinkage Ryu (properly called just Shinkage Ryu) did have quite an influence… as did Kukishin Ryu, so you know.
> 
> 
> 
> "AN" Aikijujutsu?
> 
> And seriously… there's no reason to try to educate me on what Daito Ryu is… especially from such a desperately flawed understanding as shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> Bluntly, I don't care if he has a PhD or not, Steven is a fool who has no idea what he's talking about. Let's recap:
> 
> Kano did not train in Takeuchi Ryu. Takeuchi Ryu is not "most known for it's weapons work". The named members of various Takenouchi Ryu branches did not provide for the syllabus and kata of the Kodokan. And, most importantly, there is absolutely no connection between Takenouchi Ryu and Daito Ryu… none. None at all. Just… no idea how he came up with that.
> 
> Kano's connection to the Takeda family wasn't that "deep", and did not have a martial aspect to it. The claim that Saigo Shiro came into the Kodokan as a Daito Ryu master is not supported by his history, his connections, or his age.
> 
> The connection between Ueshiba's group (formerly Ueshiba Ryu Jujutsu, later Aikido) and the Kodokan came later, and is separate from any direct connection to Daito Ryu. In fact, there is really little to no cross-over (other than some people practicing both) between the two systems.
> 
> Ready for the next one? Okay!
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you've brought Rod "I can't prove I had a teacher in anything at all" Sacharnowski into it… ha!
> 
> Dude. You've just lost any credibility that might have been here. I mean… we're dealing with someone who has so little grasp of the culture and language he's dealing with that he accidentally named his school the "Sex House School"… as he couldn't read the kanji he'd chosen! There's only a few things you could do to sabotage your own argument… such as having a source be a self-appointed Western "Soke"… hang on…
> 
> I'd also point out that Reisi Nakamoto only turns up in Rod's accounts of his own history… no-one else seems to have ever heard of the guy…
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! No. There is no connection between Daito Ryu, Takeda Sokaku's teachings, and the Kodokan.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not "easy to see the Daito Ryu influence", as there isn't any. None. The method of applying locks in Daito Ryu is completely different to that found in Judo… which largely take their methods from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… and are pretty much identical to that. You know… the actual system Kano is documented to have trained in… as opposed to these unsubstantiated claims of Daito and Takenouchi Ryu…
> 
> As far as Saigo Shiro and Yokoyama Sakujiro, we've dealt with Saigo, but Yokoyama is a slightly different case. While he did study Daito Ryu under Takeda Sokaku's dojo, it should be recognised that he was, firstly and foremost, a practitioner of Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu with Kano, then the Kodokan, only later adding Daito Ryu to his studies. Again, though, that doesn't put any Daito Ryu influence into Judo anymore than my Kyudo influences my Kenjutsu.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah… we've covered most of this already… Kano met Shiro when Shiro was a young teen training in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu… not anything to do with Daito Ryu. Shiro's "Oshikiuchi" skills were never part of anything claimed with his Judo success (especially when it's believed to mainly be an approach of etiquette, not anything to do with martial arts at all). And, yeah, Kano could be Shiro… he was his senior in the ryu they both came from, after all. Yokoyama was also a Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu practitioner as well… he was not a Yoshin Ryu nor a Ryoi Shinto Ryu practitioner at all. Those were the systems of some of his more impressive early victories… so whoever wrote this got things rather mixed up…
> 
> 
> 
> That's really just speculation and opinion… I'd argue against it, but eh, it's of no import.
> 
> 
> 
> And here we've gone off the rails again…
> 
> No, Saigo's skills and influence is completely devoid of any connection with Daito Ryu. Oh, and the description of the foundation of Judo is rather odd…
> 
> 
> 
> And, bluntly, only the Sokaku-line schools have any credibility… but only back to Sokaku himself. Not before.
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido, yeah. Hakko Ryu, sure. Judo? Nope. Many branches of jujutsu? Karate? Not at all.
> 
> Seriously, this is a completely ill-informed pile of tripe. Who wrote this garbage?
> 
> 
> 
> HA, a freakin' Western Soke?!?!?!
> 
> Nice… you just wanted to abandon all credibility to your argument, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you really out did yourself this time… you want to take this route? Okay…
> 
> Kosen Judo is not, I repeat, NOT "Kano's Higher Jujutsu"… it's quite literally "High School" Judo. It's a minor ruleset designed to make practice safer for kids by focusing on ne waza rather than throws… and you think it's "higher jujutsu"?!?! HA! It's quite literally the kiddie version, dude!
> 
> Next, Kosen Judo developed AFTER Maeda left Japan. I'm going to repeat that as well… after Maeda left Japan. So… how did he teach something that he never experienced himself, huh?
> 
> And here's a real mind-scratcher for ya… Fusen Ryu has NO ne-waza. Seriously. There isn't any in the system at all. None. Thinking that there was any is to make yet another mistake in grasping what you're talking about. The development of ne-waza in judo was highly influenced by Tanabe Mataemon, who was the head of Fusen Ryu at the time… but the ne-waza was his own developed ideas, not from Fusen Ryu itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed… seriously, dude. Wrong guy to try this on.
> 
> Oh, and Chisoro? TSD's post was not "informative"… as it was, frankly, so full of holes that finding something accurate in it was damn hard. Even most of the names were wrong…




OK dude. You win. You got all the answers.

Thank you for correcting all the misspellings, and surname/family names in the material I shared. Thanks, for leaving the impression that these were my errors.

If the material is quoted, then no corrections are to be made, when I post it. I am not an editor. If I post my source, and accurately quote I am not a plagerist, but a reporter.

Please, dont correct the messenger himself. Address the content. By all means.


Firstly,
Never mind the fact, that the artform that was later called Daito Ryu Akai Jujutsu actually predated the name by several hundred years. Minamoto. I dont need to say more. Of the oh...700 flavors of jujutsu running around, this seems to be the one that rose to the top... Like cream.

Secondly, fusen Ryu, as it is taught today no longer has ne-waza in it. Dont argue from silence, that this is how it always was. If instructors abbreviated their system techniques get dropped from transmission and in the future, folks like yourself, will say it never had any.

The headmaster of fusen Ryu was the Fourth Headmaster, and ground fighting was in the system by the time of the second headmaster.

But you already have your mind made up, so nothing I will post can change that.

You have established in your mind 1. Maeda was the only one who brought Jujutsu to Brazil, and 2. That he didn't learn Kozen Judo ( really meaning Higher not High School Kodokan Judo. )
More then rules for competition...it was a curriculum of techniques.

Please, Let your thinking in this matter be upheld, and facts be ignored.

Chris. You got it all figured out. Good luck with that.
/bow


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> You have absolutely no idea how unsurprised I am that you do not understand what is being discussed



Joe rogan.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Thank you for correcting all the misspellings, and surname/family names in the material I shared. Thanks, for leaving the impression that these were my errors.
> 
> If the material is quoted, then no corrections are to be made, when I post it. I am not an editor. If I post my source, and accurately quote I am not a plagerist, but a reporter.
> 
> Please, dont correct the messenger himself. Address the content. By all means.



Sorry, your post though didn't look as if you were quoting anyone, it looked for all the world as if it was your words. There was a name on one line but no quotation marks.  I read it and thought it was your words. Not that I know what's correct or not I hasten to add, not my subject.
 You need to 'signal' that a quotation is coming up and 'signal' which it is as well as naming the person it's from eg.... According to Chris Parker "_As far as Saigo Shiro and Yokoyama Sakujiro, we've dealt with Saigo, but Yokoyama is a slightly different case_." I'm sure you know other ways as well, sometimes you just have to dot the i's and cross the t's to make things easier to understand.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris and TSD's exchange reminds me of why I prefer practicing modern styles like Shotokan and Bjj. That lineage stuff is crazy.


----------



## Chris Parker

(Sigh). Dude. You really want to keep going?



TSDTexan said:


> OK dude. You win. You got all the answers.



Sure. Can't help but notice you're still trying to argue, though…



TSDTexan said:


> Thank you for correcting all the misspellings, and surname/family names in the material I shared. Thanks, for leaving the impression that these were my errors.



You presented them. They were given as your reasons for your beliefs. They were completely flawed from the ground up. The fact that you presented them as your stance (with the words of others… again) means that, yeah, I'm going to correct them as such.



TSDTexan said:


> If the material is quoted, then no corrections are to be made, when I post it. I am not an editor. If I post my source, and accurately quote I am not a plagerist, but a reporter.



A poor reporter who doesn't fact check properly, doesn't properly attribute citations as required (honestly, I think the amount you copy-paste without credit goes somewhat against the fair-use restrictions…) is just as worthy of correction as the person who first said it. 



TSDTexan said:


> Please, dont correct the messenger himself. Address the content. By all means.



I was correcting you. I was hoping you would realise that, after your sourced material was shown to be so incredibly lacking, you would come to the realisation that, frankly, you're out of your depth in these conversations. And, maybe, to come to some understanding of the topic before committing to such false claims.



TSDTexan said:


> Firstly,
> Never mind the fact, that the artform that was later called Daito Ryu Akai Jujutsu actually predated the name by several hundred years. Minamoto. I dont need to say more. Of the oh...700 flavors of jujutsu running around, this seems to be the one that rose to the top... Like cream.



HA! Dude… I'm going to spell it out to you, then.

Daito Ryu was created/founded/invented by Takeda Sokaku. It did not exist prior to the late 19th Century. It does not have a 700 year old history, it does not come from the Minamoto, and it most certainly did not "rise to the top… like cream". 

Seriously, stop now. You're just embarrassing yourself.



TSDTexan said:


> Secondly, fusen Ryu, as it is taught today no longer has ne-waza in it. Dont argue from silence, that this is how it always ways. If instructors abbreviated their system techniques get dropped from transmission and in the future, folks like yourself, will say it never had any.



No, mate. Fusen Ryu has never had a ne-waza syllabus. At all. Ever. I'm not arguing from silence, by the way, I'm arguing from the position of gaining information from practitioners of the ryu-ha itself.

For the record, this is Fusen Ryu:





Note that suwari gata and osae komi waza are not ne waza… 

This is also Fusen Ryu:





Again, no ne waza.



TSDTexan said:


> The headmaster of fusen Ryu was the Fourth Headmaster, and ground fighting was in the system by the time of the second headmaster.



No, it wasn't. If you can provide any evidence that there was, you will have done something that people searching for years haven't been able to find. There have been many claims, but no evidence whatsoever.

You do know that Tanabe's nickname of "Ne-waza Tanabe" was because he was smaller than most of the other students, and found that the best way to not be thrown was to already drop onto his backside underneath them, and fight from there… as part of his randori? It was his personal expression, not part of Fusen Ryu itself. Additionally, it was something he worked on personally at his personal dojo (the Handa dojo), which was not a Fusen Ryu dojo itself.



TSDTexan said:


> But you already have your mind made up, so nothing I will post can change that.



No, I haven't "already made up my mind"… I've been studying and researching this area (classical Japanese arts) for years now. And, bluntly, nothing you presented was even credible, let alone something that would get me to reconsider anything.



TSDTexan said:


> You have established in your mind 1. Maeda was the only one who brought Jujutsu to Brazil, and



And I said that where, exactly? You're the only one who brought Maeda into this… as your attempt to show some connection between Daito Ryu and BJJ… which doesn't exist.

Your idea was that Daito Ryu -> Takeuchi Ryu -> Judo -> Kosen Judo -> BJJ… except that Daito Ryu did not form any part of the basis of Takenouchi Ryu, as it didn't exist until some 350 years after Takenouchi Ryu was founded, Takenouchi Ryu was not part of the makeup of Judo, as, well, it simply wasn't, and Kosen Judo hadn't been created by the time the practitioners such as Maeda left Japan themselves.

In other words, your entire argument was flawed at each and every step.



TSDTexan said:


> 2. That he didn't learn Kozen Judo ( really meaning Higher not High School Kodokan Judo. )
> More then rules for competition...it was a curriculum of techniques.



Dude… Kosen Judo is High School Judo. It has always been High School Judo. That's what it means… "Kosen" (高専) is an abbreviation of essentially what are tech colleges ("*Ko*to *sen*mon gakko" 高等専門学校), for kids from about 15-20 years old. And there aren't really any techniques in Kosen Judo that aren't in "regular" Judo… as it really, really is just a different ruleset. It, like the rest of Judo, has evolved over it's time, from allowing leg locks to disallowing all joint locks except elbow locks (in line with "regular" Judo).



TSDTexan said:


> Please, Let your thinking in this matter be upheld, and facts be ignored.



Dude… "facts"?!?! 

Here's the thing. I mentioned your ideas to another practitioner familiar with these systems. His response? "For fecks sake…".

That about sums up the response from anyone who knows the first thing about this topic. Your "facts" aren't.



TSDTexan said:


> Chris. You got it all figured out. Good luck with that.
> /bow



No, mate, I'm just more aware of this area. You can either learn from this, or you can continue to get huffy.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kosen is actually a contraction of:

Koutogakko 高等学校 = High School

PLUS

Senmongakko 専門学校 = Technical or Professional College

EQUALS

Koutosenmongakko 高等専門学校 = High Schools & Universities i.e. "Scholastic," in this case referring to what we might label an Interscholastic Judo League.

_
“Kosen” is an abbreviation for koto senmongakko, which is, in turn, a compound of two words— “koto gakko” meaning “senior high-school” and “senmon gakko” meaning “professional or technical university.” Specifically, the term “Kosen” refers to a network of prestigious prep schools and universities. It is analogous to the American phrase “the ivy league.”

In the early 1900s, when rules for Judo competition weretaking form, the rules that came to be used for interscholastic contests in this “ivy league” tended to encourage and reward newaza more than rules used elsewhere. As a consequence, Kosen newaza tactics became highly developed and refined.

So Kosen judo is not something distinct and separate from Kodokan Judo; rather it is one of the many varieties of judo within the Kodokan tradition. As such Kosen judo could not defeat Kodokan Judo, because Kosen judois Kodokan Judo._


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Joe rogan.



Robert Picardo


----------



## ballen0351

Joe rogan the guy that made his money watching people eat bull testicles ?  Yeah his opinion should be held in high regard


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Chris and TSD's exchange reminds me of why I prefer practicing modern styles like Shotokan and Bjj. That lineage stuff is crazy.



You can see how that alters the reality of the martial artist moving away from functionality and into dogma based training. If Joe Rogan has a point against tma. That should have been it.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> You can see how that alters the reality of the martial artist moving away from functionality and into dogma based training. If Joe Rogan has a point against tma. That should have been it.



History is not the art, it is information about the art.

Even if there is debate about who did or did not do what and when... It is NOT the art itself.

In fact colored belts, and/or ranks on paper are not "the art" in and of itself. They are tools to help the process of transmission of things pertaining to the art in class.

A naked man can use his art if circumstances require, clothing, is not the art either.

Back to the point:
A dictionary entry about Haiku... Is not the art of Haiku.

In the same way... Discussions about history of a MA or collection of MAs is not the art.

You have offered a straw man argument, while comparing an apple with an orange.

So your point is bupkis.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> History is not the art, it is information about the art.
> 
> Even if there is debate about who did or did not do what and when... It is NOT the art itself.
> 
> In fact belts, and ranks are not "the art" in and of itself.
> 
> Back to the point:
> A dictionary entry about Haiku... Is not the art of Haiku.
> 
> In the same way... Discussions about history of a MA or collection of MAs is not the art.
> 
> You have offered a straw man argument.
> 
> So your point is bupkis.



Depends on your focus.

The art can be defined by its history or the history can be a fun fact.

Linage quite often validates technique. Seen that happen before.

This is not my first rodeo. I know where a linage conversation goes.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Depends on your focus.
> 
> The art can be defined by its history or the history can be a fun fact.
> 
> Linage quite often validates technique. Seen that happen before.
> 
> This is not my first rodeo. I know where a linage conversation goes.



Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
A real kido technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied. 

The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.

A bogus kido technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory.

Lineage has no bearing on validation with regards to this.

Again, Art is more than technique.


----------



## Argus

TSDTexan said:


> Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
> A real kido technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied.
> 
> The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.
> 
> A bogus kido technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory.
> 
> Lineage has no bearing on validation with regards to this.
> 
> Again, Art is more than technique.



Not sure if I'm following your line of logic here.

If a properly applied wrist-lock should always end in a broken wrist, it would seem that I've never learned how to do a proper wrist lock! I guess my Aikido teacher has been holding out on me! I would ask him to show me, but I don't want to get my wrist broken.


----------



## TSDTexan

Argus said:


> Not sure if I'm following your line of logic here.
> 
> If a properly applied wrist-lock should always end in a broken wrist, it would seem that I've never learned how to do a proper wrist lock! I guess my Aikido teacher has been holding out on me! I would ask him to show me, but I don't want to get my wrist broken.



Reading for context.
A real kido technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied.

Please allow me to help clarify what has been said.

This technique if applied correctly, will break a wrist.
However, I do not really want to break a wrist, so I will "incorrectly" perform the technique at reduced speed and power, while allowing my Uke to flip with the technique.

If someone would like to have their wrist broken, so everyone can see it done "correctly" please step forward, anand I will humor you. And you will fall months behind in your training.

Please also, dont quote me, and then refer to a word I didn't use. "Wrist-Lock" I am sure you know how to do a few.

Did your Sensei teach you a technique called a wrist lock? Then yes, you know how to do a wristlock.

Some day he might teach you something explicitly called a "wrist break".

You know there are a lot of high level techniques that are reserved for later in the journey, after one shows a lot of common sense and self control.

And yes, you can break a joint, such as a wrist using a lock.

If your Sensei says Aikido has no wrist breaks, thats kinda sad because I know a couple Hapkido Dans who know em.


----------



## Tez3

I do have a question... what is a "real *kido* technique". I can't find the word 'kido' anywhere to see what it's supposed to mean.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> I do have a question... what is a "real *kido* technique". I can't find the word 'kido' anywhere to see what it's supposed to mean.



Well your question is like what is  "real burger"?

For the purposes of the current thread, and in the context I used the phrase...

It is the way of doing any technique, from any TMA, shuch as Chin Na, Daito Ryu Aiki-jūjutsu, Hapkido/Hapkiyosool, Hapkido, Aikido, or Tapi-Tapi from FMA, that redirects motion or energy (but is not limited to) for the purposes of joint manipulation or destruction. Seizing Holding, or maiming even killing. Ala neck cranks....


----------



## Argus

TSDTexan said:


> Well your question is like what is  "real burger"?
> 
> For the purposes of the current thread, and in the context I used the phrase...
> 
> It is the way of doing any technique, from any TMA, shuch as Chin Na, Daito Ryu Aiki-jūjutsu, Hapkido/Hapkiyosool, Hapkido, Aikido, or Tapi-Tapi from FMA, that redirects motion or energy (but is not limited to) for the purposes of joint manipulation or destruction. Seizing Holding, or maiming even killing. Ala neck cranks....



I think Tez's question was in regards to your term "kido." I was wondering what you were referring to as well.

Without any reference, it looks like you were referring to Hapkido / Aikido? I've never heard of any art, or group of arts referred to as 気道 (ki-dou) in Japanese or Chinese, and if I were to read that word without any kind of context, I would guess it to be some kind of chi-gong method.

So, we were just wondering what this term refers to.


----------



## TSDTexan

Argus said:


> I think Tez's question was in regards to your term "kido." I was wondering what you were referring to as well.
> 
> Without any reference, it looks like you were referring to Hapkido / Aikido? I've never heard of any art, or group of arts referred to as 気道 (ki-dou) in Japanese or Chinese, and if I were to read that word without any kind of context, I would guess it to be some kind of chi-gong method.
> 
> So, we were just wondering what this term refers to.



Again, it is like the word "burger". There are different places that make burgers. You got McDonald's that people claim are burgers... Then you got In/Out Burger.... which is a really good burger... and in some places you got Carls Jr. Burgers... man can they make a burger.

I tend to spend more time with Korean MA folks then anyone else... say for example... Brazilians, or Japanese. I am admittedly influenced and I don't always want to specify Aikido_Hapkido_Hankido_DRAJJ_Chin-Na when just saying "kido" will work for my purposes. Just saying burger is general enough to let someone know thats what you wanna eat.

Hey, let's have Pizza guys... No, I want burgers!

Here is some usage of that word Kido. From admittedly KMA folks...

In 1951, Bok-Seob Seo designed the first symbol of the first Hapkido school's martial art, which was used to denote the art was the inverted arrowhead design featured in both the modern incarnation of the KiDo Association and by Myung Kwang-Sik's World Hapkido Federation.

There is also the U.S. Kido hae.

And then the Korea Kido Association

Also there is the World Kido Association
World Kido Federation

When folks hear the sound "Kido" when I ask them about martial arts... they often respond: "Wait... that's what Stephen Segal does right?"


----------



## Tez3

Ok, explanations aren't making sense so asked a young friend of mine this is what he came up with Kid - Bleach Wiki - Your guide to the Bleach manga and anime series
Methinks plain English would serve better because 'kido' _isn't_ working for your purposes.


----------



## Xue Sheng

40 year background in TMA with a little more of that in CMA so...... a Long time Chinese martial arts guy here, trained a fair share of Qinna to and I have to tell you I have never heard of the term "kido" applied to Qinna or anything else in TMA...that is unless I heard someone call someone else kiddo.....


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Ok, explanations aren't making sense so asked a young friend of mine this is what he came up with Kid - Bleach Wiki - Your guide to the Bleach manga and anime series
> Methinks plain English would serve better because 'kido' _isn't_ working for your purposes.



/sigh
Tez3...
Have you considered reading words Aikido, Hapkido, Hapkido and guessing what part of there name they have in common?

Can you understand using that as a generic term to refer to techniques from arts that use similar biomechanics?

Or do I really need to specify each and every applicable art's name and put hyphens between them.
If so... This would be what it might look like.
Back to the original statement:
_"Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
A real kido [as in Hapkido, Aiki-jūjutsu, Chin Na, Aikido, Hapkido] technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied. 

The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.

A bogus kido technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory."
_


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> /sigh
> Tez3...
> Have you considered reading words Aikido, Hapkido, Hapkido and guessing what part of there name they have in common?
> 
> Can you understand using that as a generic term to refer to techniques from arts that use similar biomechanics?
> 
> Or do I really need to specify each and every applicable art's name and put hyphens between them.
> If so... This would be what it might look like.
> Back to the original statement:
> _"Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
> A real kido [as in Hapkido, Aiki-jūjutsu, Chin Na, Aikido, Hapkido] technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied.
> 
> The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.
> 
> A bogus kido technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory."_




Just write English that will be fine.

PS they aren't hyphens they are commas.


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> /sigh
> Tez3...
> Have you considered reading words Aikido, Hapkido, Hapkido and guessing what part of there name they have in common?
> 
> Can you understand using that as a generic term to refer to techniques from arts that use similar biomechanics?
> 
> Or do I really need to specify each and every applicable art's name and put hyphens between them.
> If so... This would be what it might look like.
> Back to the original statement:
> _"Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
> A real kido [as in Hapkido, Aiki-jūjutsu, Chin Na, Aikido, Hapkido] technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied.
> 
> The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.
> 
> A bogus kido technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory."_



For the record Qinna; not all "real" qinna applications break things....qinna is joint locking, bone breaking and muscle and tendon tearing, But it is not necessary to break anything to be real "non-bogus" qinna.

And wouldn't it been a whole lot easier to simply say kido was a slang term you, and possibly other you know, use right off the bat, thereby avoiding all this to begin with.


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> 40 year background in TMA with a little more of that in CMA so...... a Long time Chinese martial arts guy here, trained a fair share of Qinna to and I have to tell you I have never heard of the term "kido" applied to Qinna or anything else in TMA...that is unless I heard someone call someone else kiddo.....



OK, That is reasonable. I never said that Chin Na, or Qinna by your spelling contained that "term".
This is missing the point.
The fact, is I used a generic term. This term is fairly common in KMAs that are subject matter related. Partly because Hapkido is known by many names and it is also blended into other KMAs. 

There is a very large spectrum... So a generic term called "Kido" was employed by a federation/association when the Korean government ordered that all Hapkido types fall into a common organization to interact with the government.

In much the same way, I have refered to a technique that is meant to break a wrist using mechanics as found in these various CMA/FMA/JMA/KMAs using a "catch-all" term.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thanks

actually the spelling of Qinna is 擒拿 

"Chin na" is Wade-Giles spelling which was developed by the British, "Qinna" is pinyin which was developed by the Chinese, I tend towards the pinyin, but both are correct for our purposes here


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> For the record Qinna; not all "real" qinna applications break things....qinna is joint locking, bone breaking and muscle and tendon tearing, But it is not necessary to break anything to be real "non-bogus" qinna.
> 
> And wouldn't it been a whole lot easier to simply say kido was a slang term you, and possibly other you know, use right off the bat, thereby avoiding all this to begin with.




Hey... I never said or implied Qinna broke everything. I am sure, if it did, it would cease being taught.

In fact, I was very specific in my statement, without nameing any individual MA.

At this rate with all the nitpicking and qualifications that seem to be required... I might just not say anything further (down the road).

_Technique validates itself. Either it works or it doesn't.
A real technique for breaking a wrist will always break a wrist. If.. It is correctly applied. 

The wrist only can move so many degrees in one direction before it breaks.

A bogus technique is one that if applied "correctly" and does not break the wrist, and/or it cannot be applied outside of theory._

But now... This statement is so general as to meaning... What kind of wrist breaking technique? A striking one? We don't know because it doesn't say.


----------



## Xue Sheng

my apologies, If I misread your original post that spoke of wrist breaking and qinna.


----------



## Tez3

Urban Dictionary Kido

Not that well known as a generic term then if this is all that could be found. 

Your amended statement is no worse than your original as that made little sense. It's not 'nitpicking' nor would it need qualifying if you were to write things people could understand without the use of words only you use or phrases that are distinctly ambiguous.


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> For the record Qinna; not all "real" qinna applications break things....qinna is joint locking, bone breaking and muscle and tendon tearing, But it is not necessary to break anything to be real "non-bogus" qinna.
> 
> And wouldn't it been a whole lot easier to simply say kido was a slang term you, and possibly other you know, use right off the bat, thereby avoiding all this to begin with.




Slang is informal.

The word Kido actually is a formal term.

The problem in Korea is the Chinese ideograms that spell Aikido and Hapkido are the same... And they are pronounced different in Korean and in Japanese.

Also, even though they use the exact same Chinese characters, the arts are not the same.

The only official confirmation from the Japanese is that the Korean founder of Hapkido took a one or two (10 day) seminars from the founder of modern Daito Ryu Aiki-jūjutsu.

The Korean founder has a very different story on how much training he received, but it was significant enough that the art form has very strong influence by DRAJJ. DRAJJ is also the parent art of Aikido.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Urban Dictionary Kido
> 
> Not that well known as a generic term then if this is all that could be found.
> 
> Your amended statement is no worse than your original as that made little sense. It's not 'nitpicking' nor would it need qualifying if you were to write things people could understand without the use of words only you use or phrases that are distinctly ambiguous.



google "Kido Hae"

It is well enough known in Korean MA leadership, and many MA schools are involved with them.

Just so you know... Hae means association, fellowship or federation.


----------



## Tez3

The fact that you have to explain all this shows that it is not common knowledge. The OP says '....smacking TMAs like Kung Fu' so it stands to reason that people from many different styles are reading and responding aren't going to necessarily understand a term or reference from one specific style therefore one has to write for the majority. Just so you know I also practice a Korean art as well as a Japanese one and MMA.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> google "Kido Hae"
> Just so you know... Hae means association, fellowship or federation.





Tez3 said:


> Urban Dictionary Kido
> 
> Not that well known as a generic term then if this is all that could be found.
> 
> Your amended statement is no worse than your original as that made little sense. It's not 'nitpicking' nor would it need qualifying if you were to write things people could understand without the use of words only you use or phrases that are distinctly ambiguous.



Others were able to instantly understand my comment.

And then make comment their Sensei was teaching them wrong. 

They perfectly understood what I was saying when I used the word Kido.

But they attached the word "wrist lock" to wrist breaking. Which was beyond what I said.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Others were able instantly understand my comment.
> And then comment their Sensei was teaching them wrong.
> They perfectly understood what I was saying when I used the word Kido.




Yes dear of course _everyone_ did.....

I won't remind you that another poster also said they didn't know what it meant. Oh and exactly who said their instructor was teaching them wrongly? I read Chris parker's comments taking your argument to pieces but I haven't read anyone agreeing with your comments yet.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> The fact that you have to explain all this shows that it is not common knowledge. The OP says '....smacking TMAs like Kung Fu' so it stands to reason that people from many different styles are reading and responding aren't going to necessarily understand a term or reference from one specific style therefore one has to write for the majority. Just so you know I also practice a Korean art as well as a Japanese one and MMA.


Not common knowledge to who?


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Not common knowledge to who?



Well..._you said_ it was a Hapkido term so it's not going to be a term commonly understood by non Hapkido people is it?
I suppose it's too much to ask if we can go back to the OP because really this has nothing to do with Joe Rogan and his interesting habit of opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Yes dear of course _everyone_ did.....
> 
> I won't remind you that another poster also said they didn't know what it meant. Oh and exactly who said their instructor was teaching them wrongly? I read Chris parker's comments taking your argument to pieces but I haven't read anyone agreeing with your comments yet.



I see that you read "others" and realize some get what I am saying, but you dont. 

Dont confuse being wrong with conceding. I conceded the point, at that time. I am doing research, and may rebut Chris Parker when I have sufficient evidence to make my case.

Your sarcasm is pretty open, and approaching disrespect. I would like to remain on friendly terms, but I have no problem freezing you out of my online existence, should you continue.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> I see that you read "others" and realize some get what I am saying, but you dont.
> 
> Dont confuse being wrong with conceding. I conceded the point, at that time. I am doing research, and may rebut Chris Parker when I have sufficient evidence to make my case.
> 
> Your sarcasm is pretty open, and approaching disrespect. I would like to remain on friendly terms, but I have no problem freezing you out of my online existence, should you continue.




You think that is sarcasm? It's not. *I asked an honest question because I did not know what you meant when you used a word,* I looked it up and couldn't find any meaning other than the one I posted. You are making an issue of it. Your patronising answer was disrespectful but I chose to ignore that aspect and explained further,* you* went on the defensive.

What I had to say has nothing to do with what Chris has said. I merely said I had read what he had written but hadn't read anyone saying their Senseis were teaching them incorrectly. If I missed that post you could have reposted it.
You have taken this thread so far off topic that it's got pretty pointless, as for the threat to put me on ignore, crack on. I shall try not to cry..........with laughter.
Do not have a go at me because you think I'm an easier target than Chris Parker.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Well..._you said_ it was a Hapkido term so it's not going to be a term commonly understood by non Hapkido people is it?
> I suppose it's too much to ask if we can go back to the OP because really this has nothing to do with Joe Rogan and his interesting habit of opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble.



Actually Joe has bashed on "Kido".... The funny thing is while throwing out the "Well if it was real why dont we see it in ufc"... Meanwhile UFC rules ban small joint manipulation.

I Guess if a lot of fighters got broken wrists or fingers it would hurt the Organization position before the Lawmakers would would BAN ufc if they could...


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> You think that is sarcasm? It's not. *I asked an honest question because I did not know what you meant when you used a word,* I looked it up and couldn't find any meaning other than the one I posted. You are making an issue of it. Your patronising answer was disrespectful but I chose to ignore that aspect and explained further,* you* went on the defensive.
> 
> What I had to say has nothing to do with what Chris has said. I merely said I had read what he had written but hadn't read anyone saying their Senseis were teaching them incorrectly. If I missed that post you could have reposted it.
> You have taken this thread so far off topic that it's got pretty pointless, as for the threat to put me on ignore, crack on. I shall try not to cry..........with laughter.



As you like. I guess you didn't read the post by argus yesterday where he said quote:


If a properly applied wrist-lock should always end in a broken wrist, it would seem that I've never learned how to do a proper wrist lock! I guess my Aikido teacher has been holding out on me! I would ask him to show me, but I don't want to get my wrist broken.

He understood the informal use of the word Kido... From a Japanese art view. 

And he said his Sensei was holding out on him....a joke... 

My quibble with him is I never used the word wristlock. I used the word break. Two different intents.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> You think that is sarcasm? It's not. *I asked an honest question because I did not know what you meant when you used a word,* I looked it up and couldn't find any meaning other than the one I posted. You are making an issue of it. Your patronising answer was disrespectful but I chose to ignore that aspect and explained further,* you* went on the defensive.
> 
> What I had to say has nothing to do with what Chris has said. I merely said I had read what he had written but hadn't read anyone saying their Senseis were teaching them incorrectly. If I missed that post you could have reposted it.
> You have taken this thread so far off topic that it's got pretty pointless, as for the threat to put me on ignore, crack on. I shall try not to cry..........with laughter.
> Do not have a go at me because you think I'm an easier target than Chris Parker.



You assign intent when you say patronizing. You know nothing of my heart or motive.

I never targeted you, or Chris. Please refrain from such insinuating statements.

You started a line of questions and we were having a talk.
I pointed out someone understood me, when you didn't.

You pushed the scope to absolute with the word "everyone"

When I pish-poshed that noise...

Your response was "Yes dear of course _everyone_ did....."

This is sarcasm. Or it can be easily interpreted as such. As such, its what I called you on. Not your *Honest Question*

Frankly, I haven't been on the defensive until your response to me saying nitpicking.

Which clearly you are, and have been. You dont care for my writing style or methods. You would rather I was plain spoken.

You dont like that I am calling you on it.. Tough.

You dont like words that you can't Google for a quick study... Tough. There is an option...Learn contextual reading.
As for you telling me how to write...
Poop! That's what I say to that notion.

As you said "just write English that will be fine".

I would like to extend benefit of the doubt... And believe that you are not testing and pseudo-provoking me. I will act as such. Perhaps you are not.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> You assign intent when you say patronizing. You know nothing of my heart or motive.
> 
> I never targeted you, or Chris. Please refrain from such insinuating statements.
> 
> You started a line of questions and we were having a talk.
> I pointed out someone understood me, when you didn't.
> 
> You pushed the scope to absolute with the word "everyone"
> 
> When I pish-poshed that noise...
> 
> Your response was "Yes dear of course _everyone_ did....."
> 
> This is sarcasm. Or it can be easily interpreted as such. As such, its what I called you on. Not your *Honest Question*
> 
> Frankly, I haven't been on the defensive until your response to me saying nitpicking.
> 
> Which clearly you are, and have been. You dont care for my writing style or methods. You would rather I was plain spoken.
> 
> You dont like that I am calling you on it.. Tough.
> 
> You dont like words that you can't Google for a quick study... Tough. There is an option...Learn contextual reading.
> As for you telling me how to write...
> Poop! That's what I say to that notion.
> 
> As you said "just write English that will be fine"




Methinks you doth protest too much.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Actually Joe has bashed on "Kido".... The funny thing is while throwing out the "Well if it was real why dont we see it in ufc"... Meanwhile UFC rules ban small joint manipulation.
> 
> I Guess if a lot of fighters got broken wrists or fingers it would hurt the Organization position before the Lawmakers would would BAN ufc if they could...


Just a few things.  First, I wish all of you guys would let this "kido" thing go.  Is it really this big of a deal?  I have no idea what kido is, but I could understand it well enough from context.  I didn't feel like I had to google it or anything like that.  It's up there with a slew of other borrowed words used, and made enough sense to me.

But at the same time, if people who have trained in KMA, CMA or JMA for years don't understand it, just explain it and move on.  Who gives a rat's *** if it's common knowledge or not?  It's gotten to the point where you guys are just taking pot shots at each other.

Second, wrist locks are not small joint manipulation, and are perfectly legal in MMA.  Small joints would include fingers and toes.  Ankles, wrists, knees, elbows and shoulders are all perfectly acceptable targets under the MMA unified ruleset.  That said, fingers and toes get broken often enough that I'm pretty sure the lawmakers aren't going to fret overly much about them.  I can completely understand why the UFC and other MMA promotions would discourage the intentional breaking of them.  My little toe is like a Vienna sausage it's been broken so many times.  

Third, have you ever clarified exactly what Joe Rogan statement you're referring to in the OP?  This is a long discussion about what amounts to unsubstantiated hearsay.  Could you please provide more context so that the actual statements by Joe Rogan could be addressed?  Otherwise, I'm going to conclude that this is a bunch of TMA guys being insecure about what they think the big, bad MMA guys are saying behind their backs.  So far, this thread reads like the comments section on one of my teenager's facebook pages.



> "Can you, like, believe that Joe Rogan totally dissed TMA?"
> "I know.  He's so totes rude."
> "Why's he gotta front on us?  You do you.  Amiright???"
> "I know.  :Like, OMG.  Right?  What's he know about kido?"
> "WTF is kido?"
> "Dude, you don't know?"


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Just a few things.  First, I wish all of you guys would let this "kido" thing go.  Is it really this big of a deal?  I have no idea what kido is, but I could understand it well enough from context.  I didn't feel like I had to google it or anything like that.  It's up there with a slew of other borrowed words used, and made enough sense to me.
> 
> But at the same time, if people who have trained in KMA, CMA or JMA for years don't understand it, just explain it and move on.  Who gives a rat's *** if it's common knowledge or not?  It's gotten to the point where you guys are just taking pot shots at each other.
> 
> Second, wrist locks are not small joint manipulation, and are perfectly legal in MMA.  Small joints would include fingers and toes.  Ankles, wrists, knees, elbows and shoulders are all perfectly acceptable targets under the MMA unified ruleset.  That said, fingers and toes get broken often enough that I'm pretty sure the lawmakers aren't going to fret overly much about them.  I can completely understand why the UFC and other MMA promotions would discourage the intentional breaking of them.  My little toe is like a Vienna sausage it's been broken so many times.
> 
> Third, have you ever clarified exactly what Joe Rogan statement you're referring to in the OP?  This is a long discussion about what amounts to unsubstantiated hearsay.  Could you please provide more context so that the actual statements by Joe Rogan could be addressed?  Otherwise, I'm going to conclude that this is a bunch of TMA guys being insecure about what they think the big, bad MMA guys are saying behind their backs.  So far, this thread reads like the comments section on one of my teenager's facebook pages.




You made me smile. Thank you.

Insert meme: Morgan Freeman "He's right you know"


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> You made me smile. Thank you.
> 
> Insert meme: Morgan Freeman "He's right you know"




Who's right?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Who's right?


TSDTexan, every once in awhile, @Tez3 likes to make it clear that she has me on her ignore list.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> TSDTexan, every once in awhile, @Tez3 likes to make it clear that she has me on her ignore list.




Wait... What?
She...Her...?

Are you saying that because He can't read your comments or.... She...

Frankly...

Rule 16/Rule 30 of the interwebs Brah,
Tez3 is a dude, totes.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Wait... What?
> She...Her...?
> 
> Are you saying that because He can't read your comments or.... She...
> 
> Frankly...
> 
> Rule 16/Rule 30 of the interwebs Brah,
> Tez3 is a dude, totes.




Weird post. Are you alright?


----------



## TSDTexan

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1720428, member: 17506]
Third, have you ever clarified exactly what Joe Rogan statement you're referring to in the OP?  This is a long discussion about what amounts to unsubstantiated hearsay.  Could you please provide more context so that the actual statements by Joe Rogan could be addressed? 

Otherwise, I'm going to conclude that this is a bunch of TMA guys being insecure about what they think the big, bad MMA guys are saying behind their backs.  So far, this thread reads like the comments section on one of my teenager's facebook pages.[/QUOTE]

Well. I have repeatedly said MMA is valid martial form of art.
So its not insecurity.. I just feel that some of his comments are off base.

I don't have time right not to chase down each and every YouTube video where he disses many TMAs and calls them fantasy martial arts and groups them with nonsense fake arts. Perhaps later I will get a chance to.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Weird post. Are you alright?



Sorry, you gave up your right to hear part of the conversation we are having about you, when you put a certain person on your ignore list.

So he is talking about you, and I am responding to him about you. 

You are only allowed to see what I am saying.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Wait... What?
> She...Her...?
> 
> Are you saying that because He can't read your comments or.... She...
> 
> Frankly...
> 
> Rule 16/Rule 30 of the interwebs Brah,
> Tez3 is a dude, totes.


LOL.  Okay, it may be true that there are no women on the internet, I'm pretty sure Tez3 is female.  She's pretty knowledgeable, too and has a lot of good insight.  She just gets mad sometimes.  She isn't very fond of me, but I like her particular brand of curmudgeon.   

But, being serious, I think it would really help the conversation if you could be more specific about which statement by Joe Rogan you're referring to.  I think Chris Parker and a few others have asked for the same.  If you can help me out there, I think the conversation would be more constructive.



Tez3 said:


> Weird post. Are you alright?


Shhh... it's okay.  Just relax.  Pretending you aren't reading my posts just makes your own posts more enjoyable.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> LOL.  Okay, it may be true that there are no women on the internet, I'm pretty sure Tez3 is female.  She's pretty knowledgeable, too and has a lot of good insight.  She just gets mad sometimes.  She isn't very fond of me, but I like her particular brand of curmudgeon.
> 
> But, being serious, I think it would really help the conversation if you could be more specific about which statement by Joe Rogan you're referring to.  I think Chris Parker and a few others have asked for the same.  If you can help me out there, I think the conversation would be more constructive.
> 
> Shhh... it's okay.  Just relax.  Pretending you aren't reading my posts just makes your own posts more enjoyable.


----------



## Tez3

_"Another thing that can be of benefit to young kids is learning traditional martial arts. I wouldn't recommend many forms of traditional martial arts as a primary skillset for someone that's an adult that wants to fight soon, but for little kids the discipline and philosophy you get from a really good traditional school can really come in handy in life. There's lots of lessons that people learn inherently from pushing themselves in hard training, but I think one of the things that many folks that only participate in MMA training miss is the tools that really solid traditional martial arts styles teach for managing the mind.

There's also a benefit in taking traditional styles early (like Tae Kwon Do) because you develop flexibility and kicking dexterity before your body matures. To this day I'm really flexible and I have to think that a lot of that can be attributed to starting Tae Kwon Do and stretching right when I was going through puberty."  _*Joe Rogan *from here Interviewly -Joe Rogan November 2014 - reddit AMA


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> View attachment 19451




But the real question is he, ahem, "_*She*_" really a dude, or a dame. Bruce I mean Caitlyn Jenner... Is a girl... But I feel like...


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> _"Another thing that can be of benefit to young kids is learning traditional martial arts. I wouldn't recommend many forms of traditional martial arts as a primary skillset for someone that's an adult that wants to fight soon, but for little kids the discipline and philosophy you get from a really good traditional school can really come in handy in life. There's lots of lessons that people learn inherently from pushing themselves in hard training, but I think one of the things that many folks that only participate in MMA training miss is the tools that really solid traditional martial arts styles teach for managing the mind.
> 
> There's also a benefit in taking traditional styles early (like Tae Kwon Do) because you develop flexibility and kicking dexterity before your body matures. To this day I'm really flexible and I have to think that a lot of that can be attributed to starting Tae Kwon Do and stretching right when I was going through puberty."  _*Joe Rogan *from here Interviewly -Joe Rogan November 2014 - reddit AMA



Clearly he doesn't consider, by implication, TKD capable of giving an artist tools to protect ones self in a fight.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Sorry, you gave up your right to hear part of the conversation we are having about you, when you put a certain person on your ignore list.
> 
> So he is talking about you, and I am responding to him about you.
> 
> You are only allowed to see what I am saying.




Whichever one it is on my ignore list that suits me, you should realise though that when you put someone on ignore you see nothing at all, not  the name or even that someone has posted there is no post at all so to me your post came straight after mine looking like I made you laugh and that I was right which if course I am roflmao.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Clearly he doesn't consider, by implication, TKD capable of giving an artist tools to protect ones self in a fight.



Who knows, only he seems to know what he means, I wouldn't argue for or against him, not my type of person.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tez3 said:


> Whichever one it is on my ignore list that suits me, you should realise though that when you put someone on ignore you see nothing at all, not  the name or even that someone has posted there is no post at all so to me your post came straight after mine looking like I made you laugh and that I was right which if course I am roflmao.




I am already aware of how ignore works. Its not a new feature. It existed in the days of dial up bulletin boards circa '90s.

And.. No I didn't laugh... I smiled. Which is a rare thing. I am a very serious person, and perhaps, if I wasn't carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders, and saving all life as we know it, every few minutes... I could laugh.

Smiling is usually as good as it gets.

Every day I wake up, and I feel like the tenth doctor, after Rose is walled away, from his universe.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Folks, this thread is not about how commonly used the word "kido" is. It's not about Tez3, who has who in their ignore list, or any of the other off-topic wanderings that are being posted. 
Please, return to the topic. If you'd like to discuss the word "kido", or the contents of your ignore list, or the color of your socks, please start a thread for that topic and stop derailing this one.
Off-topic posts are a violation of the TOS, in case people have forgotten.
This is what we call a "nudge". Please don't make us get all Official.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> I am already aware of how ignore works. Its not a new feature. It existed in the days of dial up bulletin boards circa '90s.




Actually the details changed on this site, it's relatively new that here everything is wiped off, before that we saw the person had posted something but not what. We used to have a few things here such as rep, a thank you button and more interesting emoticons but it changed sadly but there you go.
I was trying to get back to Joe Rogan by posting his interview.


----------



## Tez3

*"The Way of the Rogan*
_“In my 20 years of martial arts experience, I have never seen anyone throw a turning-side kick harder than Joe Rogan.” —Eddie Bravo

There’s not a more excited man than Joe Rogan when a wheel kick is thrown inside the Octagon. It’s a little homage to his Taekwondo upbringing—Rogan was a four-time state champion in Massachusetts and taught the art at Boston University. As MMA has evolved, he’s had a front row seat to the innovations that fighters are bringing into the UFC, and he’s the first to call out a setup for an acrobatic kick.

“Parts of it really does translate over,” Rogan told HDNet. “The timing, the footwork—there’s some kicks that work from Taekwondo, like the spinning-back kicks and wheel kicks. They would work in MMA.”

Rogan has even provided a blueprint for fighters. UFC Welterweight Champ Georges St-Pierre once said the comedian had the best spinningback kick he’s ever seen.

“I wanted to know if the mechanics of my spinning-back kick were right,” St-Pierre said. “So he corrected me, and he really helped me out.”

Rogan, of course, doesn’t say that pure Taekwondo fighters are anything more than cannon fodder for trained mixed martial artists. However, in small ways, and with a few screams, he carries the TKD flag."_

From here The Way of the Hand and Foot FIGHT Magazine

The thing is no one style will succeed in MMA, that's why self evidently it's called mixed martial arts. I think Rogan says what he thinks at the time he says it like many show business personalities, whether he means it or not I don't know but he gets talked about and that's the life blood of people like him. kepps him inbusiness.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, this thread is not about how commonly used the word "kido" is. It's not about Tez3, who has who in their ignore list, or any of the other off-topic wanderings that are being posted.
> Please, return to the topic. If you'd like to discuss the word "kido", or the contents of your ignore list, or the color of your socks, please start a thread for that topic and stop derailing this one.
> Off-topic posts are a violation of the TOS, in case people have forgotten.
> This is what we call a "nudge". Please don't make us get all Official.



Acknowledged.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Clearly he doesn't consider, by implication, TKD capable of giving an artist tools to protect ones self in a fight.



Training methodology is at work here. I am of the same belief. That if you are training to fight the end result should actually be a fight. Or you get a bit weird.

Tkders who go at it full contact fight OK. Those that don't well nobody knows one way or the other.

Joe rogan says his experience of being man handled by a boxer and suggests tkd does not train as effectively for fighting. I would agree that if you could not jump in a ring and survive an encounter with a boxer then you need to reevaluate your training.

So say you wind up like this guy.





Then the obvious advice is do some boxing,get better hand skills. And never fight that guy again.


----------



## paitingman

I listen to Joe Rogan's podcast a lot. He's pretty clear when he plays devils advocate and doesn't seem to be the type to make statements just to stir the pot and promote mma over all else. He values being real and genuine and pretty down to earth, so if he makes a statement about tma or anything, I generally believe that is how he truly feels.  

All that aside I don't think he's statement is based on his "personal failings" 
that's just people trying to discredit or cut him down because they disagree.

I think his stance comes from his years and years involved in martial arts training and commentating. He has seen plenty of times when guys from different backgrounds come into the bjj gym or mma gym and not have all the tools they needed to be prepared for that environment. Not just the one time thai fighters were knocking his block off. I give him credibility as a guy who has been involved with martial arts for many years and has witnessed and experienced as much as just about anyone on the forum.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Training methodology is at work here. I am of the same belief. That if you are training to fight the end result should actually be a fight. Or you get a bit weird.
> 
> Tkders who go at it full contact fight OK. Those that don't well nobody knows one way or the other.
> 
> Joe rogan says his experience of being man handled by a boxer and suggests tkd does not train as effectively for fighting. I would agree that if you could not jump in a ring and survive an encounter with a boxer then you need to reevaluate your training.
> 
> So say you wind up like this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the obvious advice is do some boxing,get better hand skills. And never fight that guy again.


Nice video.  It's clear to see that the guy may have done quite a bit of point sparring just from the number kicks that were thrown without punch combos attached to a kick.  He also had his hands down a lot from habit.


----------



## Chris Parker

TSDTexan said:


> Kosen is actually a contraction of:
> 
> Koutogakko 高等学校 = High School
> 
> PLUS
> 
> Senmongakko 専門学校 = Technical or Professional College
> 
> EQUALS
> 
> Koutosenmongakko 高等専門学校 = High Schools & Universities i.e. "Scholastic," in this case referring to what we might label an Interscholastic Judo League.
> 
> _
> “Kosen” is an abbreviation for koto senmongakko, which is, in turn, a compound of two words— “koto gakko” meaning “senior high-school” and “senmon gakko” meaning “professional or technical university.” Specifically, the term “Kosen” refers to a network of prestigious prep schools and universities. It is analogous to the American phrase “the ivy league.”
> 
> In the early 1900s, when rules for Judo competition weretaking form, the rules that came to be used for interscholastic contests in this “ivy league” tended to encourage and reward newaza more than rules used elsewhere. As a consequence, Kosen newaza tactics became highly developed and refined.
> 
> So Kosen judo is not something distinct and separate from Kodokan Judo; rather it is one of the many varieties of judo within the Kodokan tradition. As such Kosen judo could not defeat Kodokan Judo, because Kosen judois Kodokan Judo._



And… this is different from what I said how, exactly? I will say, though, that no, Kosen schools are not "analogous to the Ivy League"… it refers to a type of school, being a technical high school/college, for kids between 15 and 20 years old, and encompasses over 60 schools, many of which are national schools (set up by the government). The Ivy League, on the other hand, is an elite group of Colleges/Universities in the US… which is very different.

Most importantly, though, this looks like yet another of your unattributed copy-paste quotes… with no reference to where it came from, and with the lack of understanding shown (the idea that Kosen Judo was in competition with "Kodokan Judo" for one thing), I find it hard to take it seriously as a good source.



TSDTexan said:


> Slang is informal.
> 
> The word Kido actually is a formal term.
> 
> The problem in Korea is the Chinese ideograms that spell Aikido and Hapkido are the same... And they are pronounced different in Korean and in Japanese.
> 
> Also, even though they use the exact same Chinese characters, the arts are not the same.
> 
> The only official confirmation from the Japanese is that the Korean founder of Hapkido took a one or two (10 day) seminars from the founder of modern Daito Ryu Aiki-jūjutsu.
> 
> The Korean founder has a very different story on how much training he received, but it was significant enough that the art form has very strong influence by DRAJJ. DRAJJ is also the parent art of Aikido.



Actually, no… the closest we've had to any confirmation of Choi training in Daito Ryu is Kisshomaru Ueshiba's recollection of his fathers (Morihei's) comments about "a Korean man who came to one or two training sessions"… not Daito Ryu under Takeda, it must be noted. In fact, there has been no evidence from Japan of Choi's training at all.



TSDTexan said:


> google "Kido Hae"
> 
> It is well enough known in Korean MA leadership, and many MA schools are involved with them.
> 
> Just so you know... Hae means association, fellowship or federation.



So… it's an associations name? That hardly makes it common, or slang… nor even a "formal" term as you suggested previously. Seriously… I don't think these words mean what you think they mean… 



TSDTexan said:


> Dont confuse being wrong with conceding. I conceded the point, at that time.



Admitting your wrong is conceding… I mean… admitting your wrong, but not conceding is sheer lunacy, frankly… you already know you're wrong… but won't give up the argument?



TSDTexan said:


> I am doing research, and may rebut Chris Parker when I have sufficient evidence to make my case.



Ha! All the best with that… 



TSDTexan said:


> Your sarcasm is pretty open, and approaching disrespect. I would like to remain on friendly terms, but I have no problem freezing you out of my online existence, should you continue.



Yeah… these powerless threats won't endear you to any here, you know…


----------



## donald1

Im not good with the  abbreviations is TMA = traditional martial arts? And this guy thinks its ineffective? If so  Im guessing he dosnt know what bunkai-kumite is. I know ive been thrown on my back and put in joint locks enough times to know it is

By the way. Who is joe rogan?


----------



## Hanzou

donald1 said:


> Im not good with the  abbreviations is TMA = traditional martial arts? And this guy thinks its ineffective? If so  Im guessing he dosnt know what bunkai-kumite is. I know ive been thrown on my back and put in joint locks enough times to know it is
> 
> By the way. Who is joe rogan?



Rogan is coming from the perspective of what's being used in MMA. For the most part, traditional arts aren't used in MMA. This is especially the case with kung fu, which is the source of much of his rant.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Rogan is coming from the perspective of what's being used in MMA. For the most part, traditional arts aren't used in MMA. This is especially the case with kung fu, which is the source of much of his rant.




And it is not correct. Martial arts are separated into either good or crap.

If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap. If you can defend against the best in the country you are probably good.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> And it is not correct. Martial arts are separated into either good or crap.
> 
> If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap. If you can defend against the best in the country you are probably good.



Kung fu that steps up is OK. Look at sanda.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Kung fu that steps up is OK. Look at sanda.



Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?


----------



## donald1

drop bear said:


> If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap.


Thats why you train, provided you know a good instructor


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?



Yes. Incorporating other systems does not invalidate the style. 

(Cough cough bjj.)


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yes. Incorporating other systems does not invalidate the style.
> 
> (Cough cough bjj.)



Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works. Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition. Hence why had all that anti-grappling fun in the other thread. The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.



Hardly true is it. As I have said before Wado Ryu karate has grappling techniques in and quite openly as well because the founder put them there. As a Juijitsu Master before taking up karate I suspect he was quite good at the grappling and ground stuff.

As you have never studied bunkai I'm surprised you think you can pass comment on it and think you are correct.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Hardly true is it. As I have said before Wado Ryu karate has grappling techniques in and quite openly as well because the founder put them there. As a Juijitsu Master before taking up karate I suspect he was quite good at the grappling and ground stuff.
> 
> As you have never studied bunkai I'm surprised you think you can pass comment on it and think you are correct.



Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Wado Ryu wasn't the focus of those anti-grappling threads.

I'd also hesitate to call a style founded in 1934 "traditional".


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works. Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition. Hence why had all that anti-grappling fun in the other thread. The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.



I hear all the time how TMA's tend to be close minded on cross training

but none of the Korean GM's Ive met have ever had an issue with it. Assuming you're not up and in their face about it, I mean would you brag about you wouldnt brag about how much better the gift your son got you was than the gift your daughter got you would you?

We have quite a few instructors who teach things they learned elsewhere, heck when I was 17 my instructors had me teach proper sprawling technique in out SD class. 



drop bear said:


> Training methodology is at work here. I am of the same belief. That if you are training to fight the end result should actually be a fight. Or you get a bit weird.
> 
> Tkders who go at it full contact fight OK. Those that don't well nobody knows one way or the other.
> 
> Joe rogan says his experience of being man handled by a boxer and suggests tkd does not train as effectively for fighting. I would agree that if you could not jump in a ring and survive an encounter with a boxer then you need to reevaluate your training.
> 
> So say you wind up like this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the obvious advice is do some boxing,get better hand skills. And never fight that guy again.




The issue with Joes story was that his specifc training WASNT in any sense realistic

He competed in what are now kukki-style events (hands down, overly bouncy, etc.) The other 2 major groups of TKD, dont spar like that at all.

The most likely thing that happened (based on the WTFers who've done the same thing in the ring) if he went in fighting the kukki way, I mean I believe he said at one point he didnt know how to use his hands...Im not the greatest boxer, but I get the TKD style straight punches (i.e. jabs and straights) in with relative ease on the other amateur boxers at the gym. Joe also should have known how to control distance better on boxers, it isnt some terribly hard thing to do. Especially when they arent used to kicks, the MMA class at my gym started asking me to spar with them for that reason exactly. To make sure they were used to guys who could kick more than the outside of a thigh.

As for defense, I really dont care what style/system youre from if you cant keep your guard up when you know its full contact you deserve to get Ko'ed.


 For getting in the ring, to be fair even putting MMA and Muay Thay guys in a boxing match would get them hurt, and vice versa. They could be great at what they do, but they wont be as good as folks doing something else.

Toney v Couture

The MT guys who fought in Hi-kick Kickboxing got manhandled cause they couldnt use their win condition

The WTF-ers who thought they could fight in kickboxing like they did at Olympic events

But I agree that to fight hard, you have to train physically hard. Light- no contact sparring isnt gonna cut it in kickboxing or MMA. But medium-hard will.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> I hear all the time how TMA's tend to be close minded on cross training
> 
> but none of the Korean GM's Ive met have ever had an issue with it. Assuming you're not up and in their face about it, I mean would you brag about you wouldnt brag about how much better the gift your son got you was than the gift your daughter got you would you?
> 
> We have quite a few instructors who teach things they learned elsewhere, heck when I was 17 my instructors had me teach proper sprawling technique in out SD class.



Which isn't surprising since nearly all modern Korean martial arts date back to the late 1940s, and pull from a variety of styles. 

Korean MA tends to be eclectic by design.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> The most likely thing that happened (based on the WTFers who've done the same thing in the ring) if he went in fighting the kukki way, I mean I believe he said at one point he didnt know how to use his hands...Im not the greatest boxer, but I get the TKD style straight punches (i.e. jabs and straights) in with relative ease on the other amateur boxers at the gym. Joe also should have known how to control distance better on boxers, it isnt some terribly hard thing to do. Especially when they arent used to kicks, the MMA class at my gym started asking me to spar with them for that reason exactly. To make sure they were used to guys who could kick more than the outside of a thigh.



You have different levels of this thing though. There are a couple of Tkders I know of who mix it up kick boxing. So can handle themselves. And there are those who never go outside the class room. And would get owned by anybody with half a clue.

This training in a traditional sense that does not allow outside influences and seems to be for the poupose of stroking the ego of the instructor.

Ameridote satires this school very well.

Otherwise what we have found with the karate guys that train with us is they can't fight us like karate guys. So even if you are not learning new technique you still have to go outside your school and mix it up with other guys to understand your own system better.

Joe could have very easily experienced one or both of these situations. It is not uncommon to find. And can be very deceptive and seductive. I mean who does not want to do a style where you win without effort? 

And so this idea that if you never fight you are somehow a better martial artist. And we don't have to put you up against an actual boxer. We can just get Barry to pretend to be one and show how we are really superior without any risk at all.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> For getting in the ring, to be fair even putting MMA and Muay Thay guys in a boxing match would get them hurt, and vice versa. They could be great at what they do, but they wont be as good as folks doing something else.



Mma guys box because they understand that they need to risk loss to acquire skills.

And to do that you can't train in this insular sense.

Gsp sparring with one of the best Thai fighters in the world.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works. Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition.



This isn't really true in my experience, I can't quote solid statistics but as a guesstimate most Chinese grandmasters will have trained to a high level in at least three martial arts. Many 'traditional' martial arts were born from cross training, this is partly why there are literally hundreds of Chinese martial arts. The truth is the same the world over, to be good at martial arts you need to be versatile. We incorporate five 'traditional' Chinese arts together with groundwork from BJJ and Sambo at the club where I train. It isn't a problem, it shouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand I could quote several famous Gracies who have frowned on cross training at points where 'GJJ alone' was shown to be inadequate in MMA. There is an unfortunate legacy of weaving a story of being 'the best martial art' so closely into a martial history. This legacy kinda lives on in Joe Rogan.



Hanzou said:


> Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?



Do you have a source for this please?

Thanks


----------



## Drose427

renc said:


> This isn't really true in my experience, I can't quote solid statistics but as a guesstimate most Chinese grandmasters will have trained to a high level in at least three martial arts. Many 'traditional' martial arts were born from cross training, this is partly why there are literally hundreds of Chinese martial arts. The truth is the same the world over, to be good at martial arts you need to be versatile. We incorporate five 'traditional' Chinese arts together with groundwork from BJJ and Sambo at the club where I train. It isn't a problem, it shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> On the other hand I could quote several famous Gracies who have frowned on cross training at points where 'GJJ alone' was shown to be inadequate in MMA. There is an unfortunate legacy of weaving a story of being 'the best martial art' so closely into a martial history. This legacy kinda lives on in Joe Rogan.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for this please?
> 
> Thanks



Hanzou has a habit of attributing anything that doesnt fit his perception of a Martial Art as being that way because of cross training in what he feels are superior styles


----------



## TSDTexan

Chris Parker said:


> And… this is different from what I said how, exactly? I will say, though, that no, Kosen schools are not "analogous to the Ivy League"… it refers to a type of school, being a technical high school/college, for kids between 15 and 20 years old, and encompasses over 60 schools, many of which are national schools (set up by the government). The Ivy League, on the other hand, is an elite group of Colleges/Universities in the US… which is very different.
> 
> Most importantly, though, this looks like yet another of your unattributed copy-paste quotes… with no reference to where it came from, and with the lack of understanding shown (the idea that Kosen Judo was in competition with "Kodokan Judo" for one thing), I find it hard to take it seriously as a good source.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no… the closest we've had to any confirmation of Choi training in Daito Ryu is Kisshomaru Ueshiba's recollection of his fathers (Morihei's) comments about "a Korean man who came to one or two training sessions"… not Daito Ryu under Takeda, it must be noted. In fact, there has been no evidence from Japan of Choi's training at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So… it's an associations name? That hardly makes it common, or slang… nor even a "formal" term as you suggested previously. Seriously… I don't think these words mean what you think they mean…
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting your wrong is conceding… I mean… admitting your wrong, but not conceding is sheer lunacy, frankly… you already know you're wrong… but won't give up the argument?
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! All the best with that…
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah… these powerless threats won't endear you to any here, you know…



Well Chris, I am a kinda guy you either love or hate. Hating me is easy. I provide plenty of things to take swings at.
In the end, I am just as human as anyone else.

Brash, cocky, very incorrect on a number of matters, totally spot on in others, willing to fight and die, or just as willing to throw in a towel and walk away.

I upset people, without trying to. I used to think it was me, but then I realized not everyone had a problem with me. And some people loved what others hated about me.

I am a mouth, with strong opinions, and not afraid to say what I think. And yes, this doesn't endear some folks to me.

I would rather have people who can look beyond the troubled surface waters, and make a friendship with such people.

As for admitting I am wrong... Nothing of the sort. I have deferred until such time as I have material to make a stronger case. Or until I am fully won over to your position.

Right at this moment, I am neutral or agnostic about the DRAJJ to BJJ issue. I am not presently in a position to argue the case with new information yet. As have you have not presented me with anything other than your viewpoint backed by your own testimony against Dr. Cunningham's assertion.

I remain internally In favor of my notion, while not taking the field against your counter position.

You might be right, or you might be wrong but think your position is correct. I don't know. I remain undecided at present. But I do not think my case is a hopeless one, just lacking strong support.

There are different types of concession. Some are, your won this engagement (round, day etc).... But the debate discussion is far from over.

Others are, unequivocally pure surrender.

My concession is of a temporary nature. It may remain as such for a while.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Hating me is easy.



You are quite mistaken there you know. No one least of all Chris hates you, I think you may be taking what he has written too personally. As I told you before this place is perhaps more academic than many martial arts places, Chris is very scholarly about his research and his knowledge, he perhaps writes more seriously than many do on forums. What you may think is harsh if you take it personally isn't I can assure you. I think too that you will find Chris is correct in what he writes when he writes about his art. He has done far more studying that anyone I know, if he's wrong and you have evidence present it in the same manner as Chris does. You may be surprised at it's reception.
Whether there's 'troubled waters' or not is not something we think about here, your words are what we reply to, we don't second guess people's personal life, it really hasn't anything to do with us and we don't pry. The reason I offer advice is not to be unfriendly but more that I have far more years than you and have a learnt quite a bit in those years. If you don't wish for advice, feel free to ignore but don't be surprised when you do find out I'm right


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> This isn't really true in my experience, I can't quote solid statistics but as a guesstimate most Chinese grandmasters will have trained to a high level in at least three martial arts. Many 'traditional' martial arts were born from cross training, this is partly why there are literally hundreds of Chinese martial arts. The truth is the same the world over, to be good at martial arts you need to be versatile. We incorporate five 'traditional' Chinese arts together with groundwork from BJJ and Sambo at the club where I train. It isn't a problem, it shouldn't be a problem.



That would be quite a guesstimate, since we have verifiable examples of CMAs refusing to cross train to the detriment of their style. Perhaps you could give us some more concrete examples? 

I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training". Judo is a hybrid of several classical JJ styles, but I would consider practicing judo alone to be cross training by default.



> On the other hand I could quote several famous Gracies who have frowned on cross training at points where 'GJJ alone' was shown to be inadequate in MMA. There is an unfortunate legacy of weaving a story of being 'the best martial art' so closely into a martial history. This legacy kinda lives on in Joe Rogan.



You mean like the story of Relson Gracie supposedly cutting off his brother Royce because he cross-trained in Muay Thai before his fight with Matt Hughes? Meanwhile almost every Relson Gracie school in the country has a second or third martial art available to train in, Relson himself is quite fond of boxing and Judo, and the two brothers have been seen talking to each other several times.

Actions speak louder than words. Don't believe everything coming out of the mouths of the Gracies.




> Do you have a source for this please?
> 
> Thanks



You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Hanzou has a habit of attributing anything that doesnt fit his perception of a Martial Art as being that way because of cross training in what he feels are superior styles



I have no problem believing that Sanda utilizes traditional kung fu, but almost every source I've read on the sport says very clearly that they also utilize boxing, wrestling, along with various kung fu styles. That would qualify it as a mixed martial art.

Interestingly, the sport doesn't have ground fighting. That's quite unfortunate, since I think the throws are quite impressive and would benefit from a ground component.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?



And which version of Sanda are you talking about? Or better yet how are you defining Sanda?



Hanzou said:


> That would be quite a guesstimate, since we have verifiable examples of CMAs refusing to cross train to the detriment of their style. Perhaps you could give us some more concrete examples?



Please supply those verifiable examples.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You are quite mistaken there you know. No one least of all Chris hates you, I think you may be taking what he has written too personally. As I told you before this place is perhaps more academic than many martial arts places, Chris is very scholarly about his research and his knowledge, he perhaps writes more seriously than many do on forums. What you may think is harsh if you take it personally isn't I can assure you. I think too that you will find Chris is correct in what he writes when he writes about his art. He has done far more studying that anyone I know, if he's wrong and you have evidence present it in the same manner as Chris does. You may be surprised at it's reception.
> Whether there's 'troubled waters' or not is not something we think about here, your words are what we reply to, we don't second guess people's personal life, it really hasn't anything to do with us and we don't pry. The reason I offer advice is not to be unfriendly but more that I have far more years than you and have a learnt quite a bit in those years. If you don't wish for advice, feel free to ignore but don't be surprised when you do find out I'm right



He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Interestingly, the sport doesn't have ground fighting


  It doesn't have any ground fighting because it's not a ground fighting sport.  I think I heard from somewhere that Sanda was how traditional martial artists were able to fight and improve fighting skills without risking serious injury.  It set the rules to prevent lethal strikes and strikes that cause permanent damage such as intentional pokes to the eye.  From what I've heard Sanda has always been made of Chinese traditional martial arts

Here is some information that I found about the origins of Sanda and what it consists of. It also explains why there is no ground fighting.  It's a good read
Source:  The origins of Sanda and why it doesn't have ground fighting

This is a quote from the source above. "Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible."

This is the mentality of most traditional Chinese Martial Arts.  So it only makes sense that from the perspective of the ground fight there is no need for a ground and pound after being slammed.

Things like this happen when you are slammed on concrete: Notice that not only did the kid get slammed his leg also hit the a small concrete structure. If the throws and slams are this dangerous when kids do it, then imagine how dangerous it when adults who are trained do the same thing. This goes for all fighting systems that have slams.
Example 1: Kid slam

Example 2: Kid slam


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.




Well that's your _opinion_, did you present your evidence or did you just have a whinge because all you are doing is making accusations.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't have any ground fighting because it's not a ground fighting sport.  I think I heard from somewhere that Sanda was how traditional martial artists were able to fight and improve fighting skills without risking serious injury.  It set the rules to prevent lethal strikes and strikes that cause permanent damage such as intentional pokes to the eye.  From what I've heard Sanda has always been made of Chinese traditional martial arts



Considering that its origins date back to the 1920s, and was originally developed for the military with wrestling and western boxing, I seriously doubt there's much tradition involved.



> Here is some information that I found about the origins of Sanda and what it consists of. It also explains why there is no ground fighting.  It's a good read
> Source:  The origins of Sanda and why it doesn't have ground fighting



Yeah, sounds like an excuse for having a massive hole in their style. I would love to see more Sanda guys transition to MMA, but the lack of ground fighting skills really hold them back.



> This is a quote from the source above. "Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible."



Again, an excuse for having a big hole in the style. There's plenty of wrestling throws where you end up on the ground as well, some of them are even in Sanda itself. As I said before, I like Sanda. I think its a wonderful evolution of traditional Chinese MA, and I look forward to seeing its future evolution. However, statements like the one above are simply nonsense. Just say that its not in the ruleset so you don't practice it. Don't come up with dumb reasons to exclude an entire range of fighting.



> This is the mentality of most traditional Chinese Martial Arts.  So it only makes sense that from the perspective of the ground fight there is no need for a ground and pound after being slammed.



Unless you're the one begin slammed.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> And it is not correct. Martial arts are separated into either good or crap.
> 
> If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap. If you can defend against the best in the country you are probably good.



Well, that's a load of garbage… 

For one thing, it's got nothing at all to do with whether martial arts are "good" or "crap"… it's to do with your personal perception of how they fit with your preconceived values… and, in that fashion, ignoring the huge variety of other contexts and values found in many, many, many arts. Secondly, the idea that "martial arts are separated into either good of crap" is such a small-minded statement that it's a sheer denial of reality. 

As for your litmus test… come along to my school. Pit your MMA/BJJ methods against what I do… er… your sword defence is good in your MMA, yeah? I mean… your art must be crap if you can't defend against mine, right?

Can you see how far off your idea is yet? No martial art is designed for every context, and being applicable in one context means nothing when you're taken somewhere you're not geared up for. In that sense, all arts can be seen as "crap" by your reckoning… just by taking them somewhere where they don't operate.



Hanzou said:


> Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?



Er… you do know what "kung fu" means, yeah? And, seconding Xue, how are you defining sanda?



Hanzou said:


> Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works.



Hmm… and how are you defining "eclectic"? Mainly as, well, BJJ doesn't really fit the definition as commonly applied… 



Hanzou said:


> Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition.



Sure… and that's why so many of them spawn new arts… resulting from people cross training… and creating their own form… 

My point is that this statement may be correct to a degree for some arts (Kashima Shinryu come to mind as an extreme example), but it's not only not correct for many, it's not correct for the vast majority. Of course, it helps to understand the mentality and reasons for limiting outside influence when that does occur… 



Hanzou said:


> Hence why had all that anti-grappling fun in the other thread. The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.



You really do have an interesting reality you live in… have you ever considered that what they did was to express the principles and methods they have (already) in a new context (the ground)? The applicability of such is another matter, but I really doubt it was a case of them not being able to bring in outside methods… more likely that outside methods may have conflicted with their existing approach, and therefore not fit with what they did.



drop bear said:


> You have different levels of this thing though. There are a couple of Tkders I know of who mix it up kick boxing. So can handle themselves. And there are those who never go outside the class room. And would get owned by anybody with half a clue.



And there are people who cross-train who would get "owned"… and those who do just one thing that wouldn't. 



drop bear said:


> This training in a traditional sense that does not allow outside influences and seems to be for the poupose of stroking the ego of the instructor.



Seems to you, perhaps. Of course, your perception and reality can be very, very different things… 



drop bear said:


> Ameridote satires this school very well.



Er… no. Ameridote is far more a satire of the opposite, you realise… it is not presented as "traditional"… in fact, it's presented as a modern, Western, eclectic Kempo-based system (and therefore is satirising that concept). You know their slogan, yeah? "Best of all, worst of none"? Tell me how that doesn't imply outside methodologies being incorporated… besides which, you have the many, many videos of "X-art is BS"… which makes much the same argument as you try to.

In other words, what Ameri-do-te satirises is most closely represented here by yourself and Hanzou in terms of the way you present yourself. Not traditional arts at all.

Hmm... it occurs to me, as I write this, that you could be referring to the "X-art is BS" clips… in which case, you might want to look up what "satirising" actually is… 



drop bear said:


> Otherwise what we have found with the karate guys that train with us is they can't fight us like karate guys. So even if you are not learning new technique you still have to go outside your school and mix it up with other guys to understand your own system better.



No, learning what the effect of applying your art in a different context can benefit from such… but that's about as far as I'd go.



drop bear said:


> Joe could have very easily experienced one or both of these situations. It is not uncommon to find. And can be very deceptive and seductive. I mean who does not want to do a style where you win without effort?
> 
> And so this idea that if you never fight you are somehow a better martial artist. And we don't have to put you up against an actual boxer. We can just get Barry to pretend to be one and show how we are really superior without any risk at all.



What? Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about here… 



Hanzou said:


> I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training".



So… you're putting a time restriction on what you consider cross-training? Let's test this… 

The Takagi Ryu (which currently exists as a number of different forms, including the Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu, the Takagi Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, the Moto-ha Yoshin Ryu, etc) was founded in approximately 1660 by Takagi Oriemon Shigenobu… Takagi Oriemon had trained in Ito Kenko Ryu (sojutsu, naginata, bo, kodachi, ken, hanbo), and Kyochi Ryu (sojutsu) before creating his own system of Takagi Ryu. At this point, it was largely weapon work, with a very rough form of jujutsu based in sumo and hade (crude grappling - not meaning ground work, as, well, why would they?). It's important to note that a big influence on how Takagi Ryu was formed came from having an encounter (match, or , more realistically, a couple of matches) with Yagyu Tajima no Kami, of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu… with swords.

He passed his art onto his adopted son, Takagi Ummanosuke, who had an encounter with the head of Takenouchi Ryu, Takenouchi Hisamori. Takenouchi beat Takagi quite emphatically (despite Takagi being much younger, taller, stronger, and overall bigger), after which Takagi asked to become Takenouchi's student. Takenouchi agreed, and the Takenouchi Ryu (which had a large weapon syllabus, but was most well known for it's jujutsu) became a huge influence on the further development of Takagi Ryu… to the point that the Jujutsu side got refined to a great degree, taking a more prominent place in the syllabus.

The third generation head of Takagi Ryu, Takagi Gennoshin Higeshige, struck up a friendship with the fourth head of Kukishin Ryu, Ohkuni Kihei. Over the time of their friendship, the two had a number of matches to determine who had the "better" system… through which, it was decided that Takagi Ryu was superior to Kukishin Ryu in Jujutsu, whereas the weaponry arts of Kukishin Ryu, particularly it's use of bo, were the better. From then on, the two taught together in a joint dojo, with the Jujutsu coming from Takagi Ryu, and the weapon usage from Kukishin Ryu. When Takagi became sick, he appointed Ohkuni to be his successor, and the fourth head of Takagi Ryu. From that point on, Takagi Ryu and Kukishin Ryu were taught as one system, with many modern forms of Takagi Ryu still containing Kukishin Ryu weapon arts.

But let's skip forward… 

Since then, the art has created a number of branches, a number of bunpa ryu (descendant schools), and has continued to develop itself. One line, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, was created when Ishitani Masatsugu (the 14th head of the Ryu, according to some lineages - others have him as the 15th, depending on when you start counting…), who had already restructured the school based on his own experiences both in and outside of the ryu itself, passed the school down to his son, then to Kakuno Happeita. Kakuno set about restructuring the school himself (teaching it as a separate form, aside from the "mainline" Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu), creating new kata sets, and so on. He passed his art onto his successor, Minaki Masanori, who continued to refine the art and complete the restructure that Kakuno began.

He then passed the art onto Inoue Tsuyoshi Munetoshi, a rather accomplished practitioner of a number of arts, including Toyama Ryu Iai, Seitei Iai, Seitei Jo, Kyudo, Judo, and a range of other arts. Among his many accomplishments as Soke of this ryu, Inoue sensei revived some aspects of the weapon teachings of the art, such as the Iai, by drawing on his training outside of the Ryu itself. In fact, for a while, it wasn't Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai that was taught to most students, but a line of Toyama Ryu… with the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai being held for senior students only. In more recent times, Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai has been opened to all students of the Ryu. 

So, here we have an art that came from cross-training, developed through meeting other martial artists, continued to have it's heads train in other systems, continued to develop, and continued to influence it's own practice through to the present day. Inoue sensei mentioned above was the previous generation soke… and the developments mentioned occurred in the late '80's/early 90's.

Does this count as cross-training? I mean… it was created centuries ago, as a result of someone training in multiple systems and methods… Speaking personally, training in any one system isn't cross-training… but cross-training in different systems is what has helped define what this system is… so I don't consider Hontai Yoshin Ryu as cross training, but the result of such.



Hanzou said:


> Judo is a hybrid of several classical JJ styles, but I would consider practicing judo alone to be cross training by default.



I'd actually argue the idea that Judo is a hybrid of several classical styles… to my mind, it's not. It's Judo. It's a single system, which is informed by a number of other systems… but the fact is that Judo is a particular system, based in a training methodology and philosophy. I do have to ask, though, did you mean you would consider practicing Judo alone to be cross-training, or that you wouldn't? If the former… why? If the latter… okay, cool. You missed some letters, then.



Hanzou said:


> You mean like the story of Relson Gracie supposedly cutting off his brother Royce because he cross-trained in Muay Thai before his fight with Matt Hughes? Meanwhile almost every Relson Gracie school in the country has a second or third martial art available to train in, Relson himself is quite fond of boxing and Judo, and the two brothers have been seen talking to each other several times.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words. Don't believe everything coming out of the mouths of the Gracies.



Speaking for myself, I'd say more like Royce saying that "MMA means you can't do any one thing well, so you have to do bits of everything… it means you're not good enough at what you do. BJJ is good enough to not need anything else" (training seminar with Ground Zero BJJ, Melbourne, Feb 2008). Might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it when he was asked "What do you think of MMA?" in the Q&A at the end of the day… 



Hanzou said:


> You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?



Not to speak for Renc, but yes. Other than that. An actual source.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Well that's your _opinion_, did you present your evidence or did you just have a whinge because all you are doing is making accusations.



That was just my opinion. As you expressed yours. I give evidence where I can find it generally. 

Not a winge just an opposing view.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> That was just my opinion. As you expressed yours. I give evidence where I can find it generally.
> 
> Not a winge just an opposing view.




Actually it was an accusation not an opinion wasn't it? I was being polite when I said a whinge.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Er… you do know what "kung fu" means, yeah? And, seconding Xue, how are you defining sanda?



I know exactly what kung fu means. However, there's a clear difference between traditional Kung fu with weapons and forms, and Sanda with kickboxing and wrestling.



> Hmm… and how are you defining "eclectic"? Mainly as, well, BJJ doesn't really fit the definition as commonly applied…



The dictionary definition.

For decades Bjj has absorbed techniques from Catch Wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Luta Livre, street fighting, Judo, and other sources and still considered all of it Bjj. That would be the definition of eclectic.



> Sure… and that's why so many of them spawn new arts… resulting from people cross training… and creating their own form…



Yes, spawn new arts, not retain the original art with new techniques added.



> You really do have an interesting reality you live in… have you ever considered that what they did was to express the principles and methods they have (already) in a new context (the ground)? The applicability of such is another matter, but I really doubt it was a case of them not being able to bring in outside methods… more likely that outside methods may have conflicted with their existing approach, and therefore not fit with what they did.



Well if that's the case, why not simply bring in outside methods? When Gracie JJ got stomped by Fadda Bjj via leglocks, they didn't come up with nonsensical counters to leglocks, they simply learned Fadda leglocks. The same occurred when Judo was defeated by a ground fighter. Judo simply made the guy they lost to an instructor in the Kodakan and absorbed his tactics.

That's the better route to take.



> I'd actually argue the idea that Judo is a hybrid of several classical styles… to my mind, it's not. It's Judo. It's a single system, which is informed by a number of other systems… but the fact is that Judo is a particular system, based in a training methodology and philosophy. I do have to ask, though, did you mean you would consider practicing Judo alone to be cross-training, or that you wouldn't? If the former… why? If the latter… okay, cool. You missed some letters, then.



Yeah, it was the latter. I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of would.



> Speaking for myself, I'd say more like Royce saying that "MMA means you can't do any one thing well, so you have to do bits of everything… it means you're not good enough at what you do. BJJ is good enough to not need anything else" (training seminar with Ground Zero BJJ, Melbourne, Feb 2008). Might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it when he was asked "What do you think of MMA?" in the Q&A at the end of the day..



Yeah, again you can't trust everything that comes out of the mouth of a Gracie. They're just people, not gods. While their fighting skills are impressive, they're bravdo and machoism can often times get the best of them.



> Not to speak for Renc, but yes. Other than that. An actual source.



So are we really going to pretend that Sanda is a traditional Chinese martial art, and not a modern hybrid sport style?


----------



## Chris Parker

I'm going to separate this one out… 



TSDTexan said:


> Well Chris, I am a kinda guy you either love or hate. Hating me is easy. I provide plenty of things to take swings at.
> In the end, I am just as human as anyone else.
> 
> Brash, cocky, very incorrect on a number of matters, totally spot on in others, willing to fight and die, or just as willing to throw in a towel and walk away.
> 
> I upset people, without trying to. I used to think it was me, but then I realized not everyone had a problem with me. And some people loved what others hated about me.
> 
> I am a mouth, with strong opinions, and not afraid to say what I think. And yes, this doesn't endear some folks to me.
> 
> I would rather have people who can look beyond the troubled surface waters, and make a friendship with such people.



Look, there's a lot I could say here… but I'm going to try to keep it simple.

Nothing you said here means anything at all, other than showing a real lack of ability to recognise what people are saying to you, or (more importantly) how you're saying things to them. And, to be clear, I don't hate you. Frankly, I don't give a damn about you one way or the other. What I do care about is when blatantly bad information is presented as being accurate, correct, or anything else, and is being accepted as true. That, I have a problem with.



TSDTexan said:


> As for admitting I am wrong... Nothing of the sort. I have deferred until such time as I have material to make a stronger case. Or until I am fully won over to your position.



Let me save you some time. You cannot build a stronger case for such a flagrantly incorrect premise, as it'd be like trying to build a case for the sun coming up in the West.



TSDTexan said:


> Right at this moment, I am neutral or agnostic about the DRAJJ to BJJ issue. I am not presently in a position to argue the case with new information yet. As have you have not presented me with anything other than your viewpoint backed by your own testimony against Dr. Cunningham's assertion.



The standard approach if you don't know the truth is to go with the more credible of the two views you're presented with. Cunningham has a phd… in nothing related at all. His listed credentials are… well… questionable at the least. His "Takagi Ryu" seems to be unassociated with any known Takagi Ryu, his teachers are largely unheard of (almost impossible in Koryu terms…), he claims his Judo history facts are "kuden" from the Kodokan… when no-one at the Kodokan seems to know of him… his ranking in Judo is unverified beyond a Shodan (he claims rokudan), and so on.

Me? I'm a practitioner of classical Japanese traditions with a vested interest in them, and friends who live in Japan, train in Takeuchi Ryu, Daito Ryu, and so on. I have pointed out the issues and discrepancies with Mr Cunningham's views (including that, even if we accept Daito Ryu's historical claims, both Daito Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu were on opposite sides of the country when Takenouchi Ryu was founded, and therefore was impossible to have come from Daito Ryu in any case), as well as the fact that there is no support for the idea that Kano even trained in Takenouchi Ryu himself at any point.

Your choice who to believe… 



TSDTexan said:


> I remain internally In favor of my notion, while not taking the field against your counter position.



Er… fine… 



TSDTexan said:


> You might be right, or you might be wrong but think your position is correct. I don't know. I remain undecided at present. But I do not think my case is a hopeless one, just lacking strong support.



It lacks any credible support.



TSDTexan said:


> There are different types of concession. Some are, your won this engagement (round, day etc).... But the debate discussion is far from over.
> 
> Others are, unequivocally pure surrender.
> 
> My concession is of a temporary nature. It may remain as such for a while.



You've been given better information, I'll leave it to you to take it from there.



drop bear said:


> He dosent present evidence. I have caught him out posing opinion as fact before.



Honestly, you simply ignored the way that evidence works. We've done this a number of times, and I haven't been alone in pointing this out to you.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> I know exactly what kung fu means. However, there's a clear difference between traditional Kung fu with weapons and forms, and Sanda with kickboxing and wrestling.



Er… again, are you sure you know what "kung fu" means…?



Hanzou said:


> The dictionary definition.
> 
> For decades Bjj has absorbed techniques from Catch Wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Luta Livre, street fighting, Judo, and other sources and still considered all of it Bjj. That would be the definition of eclectic.



Hmm… no, not really. I can see where you're coming from, but it's not that simple.

I'll put it this way… an eclectic martial art would be something like Cuong Nhu… or many of the modern "Jujitsu" systems (which are often more bastardised versions of karate, combined with judo throws, FMA stick/knife work, and, commonly, invented "traditional" weaponry). BJJ, on the other hand, while absorbing techniques, has consistently remained BJJ. Now, if it was to suddenly incorporate sword, TKD-style kicking, FMA methods, then we'd be looking at an eclectic approach.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, spawn new arts, not retain the original art with new techniques added.



Depends on the art...



Hanzou said:


> Well if that's the case, why not simply bring in outside methods? When Gracie JJ got stomped by Fadda Bjj via leglocks, they didn't come up with nonsensical counters to leglocks, they simply learned Fadda leglocks. The same occurred when Judo was defeated by a ground fighter. Judo simply made the guy they lost to an instructor in the Kodakan and absorbed his tactics.
> 
> That's the better route to take.



From your perspective. You have to remember, you're operating from a single value point, looking at one context only, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit within that.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, it was the latter. I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of would.



Thought so. Cool.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, again you can't trust everything that comes out of the mouth of a Gracie. They're just people, not gods. While their fighting skills are impressive, they're bravdo and machoism can often times get the best of them.



Renc's point was that they espouse the view that cross-training isn't required, and referenced quotes from them. I provided one. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you can trust what they say or not, it matters that they said it. That was the point.



Hanzou said:


> So are we really going to pretend that Sanda is a traditional Chinese martial art, and not a modern hybrid sport style?



No-one said anything about it being a traditional Chinese art, you asked if it was fair to call it "kung fu". The answer was "yes". You referenced it being "a mix of several different (non Chinese) martial arts", and were asked for sources stating this. Your response was to ask "you mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles…", which was not actually providing any source or reference at all, simply stating your own observation (accurate or not).


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, you simply ignored the way that evidence works. We've done this a number of times, and I haven't been alone in pointing this out to you.



That somehow you are your own evidence because you say you are.

Yeah I am going to consider that opinion. And suggest evidence would come from an external source.


----------



## Chris Parker

It did, initially. But, after accumulating enough knowledge, you become the source yourself. That is something you didn't get. And, apparently, still don't.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Actually it was an accusation not an opinion wasn't it? I was being polite when I said a whinge.



You accused Chris of being credible. I disagreed. Two opinions.

Not sure what the issue is.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> It did, initially. But, after accumulating enough knowledge, you become the source yourself. That is something you didn't get. And, apparently, still don't.



Look I think it is an increadably strange standpoint to make an argument from. But I have given the idea over to a philosopher friend of mine. Mabye he can understand it.


----------



## Chris Parker

I'll put it this way… if I ask what you do in your gym, are you your own source there, or do I have to demand a website and a whole bunch of videos of you doing exactly what you say before I can accept it? If I ask you what your favourite meal is, are you your own source, or do I have to see photos of you eating it on multiple occasions before I can take it as read?

That's what is meant. If you can't follow that… honestly, I have no hope of your "philosopher friend" being able to help… as, well, it's not philosophy… it's the nature of evidence (first hand, second hand, tertiary, eye-witness, fallibility, and so on…).


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> As for your litmus test… come along to my school. Pit your MMA/BJJ methods against what I do… er… your sword defence is good in your MMA, yeah? I mean… your art must be crap if you can't defend against mine, right?



My sword defence is crap. That would be a perfect example.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, sounds like an excuse for having a massive hole in their style. I would love to see more Sanda guys transition to MMA, but the lack of ground fighting skills really hold them back



It didn't hold Cung Le back


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way… if I ask what you do in your gym, are you your own source there, or do I have to demand a website and a whole bunch of videos of you doing exactly what you say before I can accept it? If I ask you what your favourite meal is, are you your own source, or do I have to see photos of you eating it on multiple occasions before I can take it as read?
> 
> That's what is meant. If you can't follow that… honestly, I have no hope of your "philosopher friend" being able to help… as, well, it's not philosophy… it's the nature of evidence (first hand, second hand, tertiary, eye-witness, fallibility, and so on…).



Not sure I have asked what you do at your gym or your favourite meal. But in those two instances you would probably be correct.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> My sword defence is crap. That would be a perfect example.



A perfect example of what? That your martial art is crap? Or that your martial art, while good, is simply not suited to, or designed for a particular context (sword defence)? If the latter, then it denies your concept of "all martial arts are either good or crap"… depending on who they can "work" against. If the former… then all martial arts will be found to be "crap" in your head.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Not sure I have asked what you do at your gym or your favourite meal. But in those two instances you would probably be correct.



That's the form of argument, though. That's what you've failed to recognise in the previous discussions.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> A perfect example of what? That your martial art is crap? Or that your martial art, while good, is simply not suited to, or designed for a particular context (sword defence)? If the latter, then it denies your concept of "all martial arts are either good or crap"… depending on who they can "work" against. If the former… then all martial arts will be found to be "crap" in your head.



If you want to put it that way. You could say the martial art has merit but if you are bashed by a boxer it is not designed for a particular context (being punched)

Seems like a bit of a mouthful though.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> That's the form of argument, though. That's what you've failed to recognise in the previous discussions.



No still pretty sure those topics didn't really come up.


----------



## Chris Parker

Here, I'll give you a simple way to remember it: Everything in it's context. Boxing is great for boxing, but rather useless in a judo tournament. Judo is great, but doesn't help your Iai. Iai's fun, but doesn't have much to do with your BJJ.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> No still pretty sure those topics didn't really come up.



Dude, it's not about the topics, it's about how the nature of evidence works… honestly, I was trying to dumb it down to the point that you could follow it… you weren't meant to take the topics literally… they were simple examples. Kay?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Dude, it's not about the topics, it's about how the nature of evidence works… honestly, I was trying to dumb it down to the point that you could follow it… you weren't meant to take the topics literally… they were simple examples. Kay?



I thought you were discussing the history of bjj or something. Hardly anything you have experienced first hand.


----------



## Chris Parker

It was largely to do with the training methodologies of traditional arts… arts that I train in… and training methods that I engage in. Similar to the hypothetical of asking about your training in your gym. That, of course, is still besides the point… the point is the nature of evidence… as I've said, what, 4 times now?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> It was largely to do with the training methodologies of traditional arts… arts that I train in… and training methods that I engage in. Similar to the hypothetical of asking about your training in your gym. That, of course, is still besides the point… the point is the nature of evidence… as I've said, what, 4 times now?



So the you were commenting on how you train?


----------



## Chris Parker

On the training methodologies of traditional Japanese arts, and similar. On methods that don't fit into the preconceived views you held (and continue to hold).


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> On the training methodologies of traditional Japanese arts, and similar. On methods that don't fit into the preconceived views you held (and continue to hold).



So not at all like how you train or what you had for lunch. But in more general terms.


----------



## Chris Parker

Are you seriously wanting to revisit (yet again) the actual, exact topics where you were unable to grasp the nature of evidence (which I note you're still doing in the "efficacy of kata" thread)?!?

Yes, how I train. How traditional arts train. From my own experience. That was the damn point then, it's the point now, and having to repeat it half a dozen times is really getting boring. The topics weren't the issue. I heartily suggest you let this go, as you're simply not getting it.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Are you seriously wanting to revisit (yet again) the actual, exact topics where you were unable to grasp the nature of evidence (which I note you're still doing in the "efficacy of kata" thread)?!?
> 
> Yes, how I train. How traditional arts train. From my own experience. That was the damn point then, it's the point now, and having to repeat it half a dozen times is really getting boring. The topics weren't the issue. I heartily suggest you let this go, as you're simply not getting it.



Just had a read back and it looked like you were discussing one big boring history lesson. Which I assume you were not part of.

So as I have stated many times. Nothing like you describing what you had for lunch. Or how you train. 

Which is fine what you post is opinion.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> *You accused Chris of being credible.* I disagreed. Two opinions.
> 
> Not sure what the issue is.




I *accused* him?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I know exactly what kung fu means. However, there's a clear difference between traditional Kung fu with weapons and forms, and Sanda with kickboxing and wrestling.
> 
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition.
> 
> For decades Bjj has absorbed techniques from Catch Wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Luta Livre, street fighting, Judo, and other sources and still considered all of it Bjj. That would be the definition of eclectic.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, spawn new arts, not retain the original art with new techniques added.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if that's the case, why not simply bring in outside methods? When Gracie JJ got stomped by Fadda Bjj via leglocks, they didn't come up with nonsensical counters to leglocks, they simply learned Fadda leglocks. The same occurred when Judo was defeated by a ground fighter. Judo simply made the guy they lost to an instructor in the Kodakan and absorbed his tactics.
> 
> That's the better route to take.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the latter. I meant to type "wouldn't" instead of would.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again you can't trust everything that comes out of the mouth of a Gracie. They're just people, not gods. While their fighting skills are impressive, they're bravdo and machoism can often times get the best of them.
> 
> 
> 
> So are we really going to pretend that Sanda is a traditional Chinese martial art, and not a modern hybrid sport style?



But by your usual logic

If one big name in a style i.e. Royce, doesnt believe in cross training, despises it, we can assume all BJJ instructors are like that.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> But by your usual logic
> 
> If one big name in a style i.e. Royce, doesnt believe in cross training, despises it, we can assume all BJJ instructors are like that.



Why would you believe that when he has actively cross trained in the past, and his schools offer training in martial arts outside of Bjj?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It didn't hold Cung Le back



Actually it did. If you watch him fight in the UFC vs him fighting in Kickboxing matches, he couldn't do his takedowns the same because it would have opened up for a variety of ground submissions.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember Cung Le winning any championships in the UFC.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Why would you believe that when he has actively cross trained in the past, and his schools offer training in martial arts outside of Bjj?



Why would you believe TMA's tend to frown upon cross training when hundreds if not THOUSANDS of schools across the world encourage cross training and bring in instructors from other styles to work with their students?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Actually it did. If you watch him fight in the UFC vs him fighting in Kickboxing matches, he couldn't do his takedowns the same because it would have opened up for a variety of ground submissions.
> 
> Also, unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember Cung Le winning any championships in the UFC.



He rarely ever tried for takedowns,

Frankly his grappling wasnt great, and he knew that. So why would he even try to take people down?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Why would you believe TMA's tend to frown upon cross training when hundreds if not THOUSANDS of schools across the world encourage cross training and bring in instructors from other styles to work with their students?



Because that's what they tend to do.

While they may allow cross-training, those new techniques almost never become part of the style. If that practitioner wishes to incorporate something new, he has to create an entirely "new" style of MA.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> He rarely ever tried for takedowns,
> 
> Frankly his grappling wasnt great, and he knew that. So why would he even try to take people down?



I do believe your argument was that Cung Le's sanda background didn't hinder his UFC career. I do believe that you just disproved your own argument. His grappling wasn't great because of his Sanda background, which in turn hindered his UFC career.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> I do believe your argument was that Cung Le's sanda background didn't hinder his UFC career. I do believe that you just disproved your own argument. His grappling wasn't great because of his Sanda background, which in turn hindered his UFC career.


Probably the main reason Le didn't accomplish more than he did in the UFC was that he was nearing retirement age by the time he was signed to that promotion. Given that he has defeated two former UFC champions (Shamrock and Franklin) who are about his same age, it is entirely plausible that he might have won a UFC championship if he had started in the UFC earlier. As it is, he was a Strikeforce champion before being signed to the UFC, which is no small accomplishment.

BTW, I would say that Le's grappling skills are solid. I don't know if his _submission_ skills are particularly advanced or not, but his takedowns are excellent. Grappling isn't just ground fighting after all.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Also, unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember Cung Le winning any championships in the UFC.


As I recall there are tons of other fighters who haven't won a championship in the UFC either, even though they knew ground fighting and could do take downs.  He had 12 fights with 9 wins which is a winning record.
He was able to avoid 67% of the Strikes thrown at him and 89% of the take down attempts.

He is the only fighter that I know of that has broken another fighters arm with a kick. 

Nothing about those stats says he's limited.

Looking for his full fight stats


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't know if his _submission_ skills are particularly advanced or not, but his takedowns are excellent. Grappling isn't just ground fighting after all.


  He avoided 89% of the takedowns attempts that were thrown at him, that either means he's really good with understanding grappling enough to avoid it or grappling sucks.  If the second assumption is wrong then that only leaves that 1st assumption.  He won 9 matches out of 12 without relying on wrestling someone to the ground to put them in a submission.   Anyone getting in the ring with him with the assumption that they had the upper hand because Cung Le didn't have superior BJJ skills or ground fighting skills probably learned the hard way that know of that matters when someone can avoid 89% of the takedowns attempts you throw at him. His record says everything.

These are all of the title records he has had
2008 Strikeforce Middleweight MMA Title,
2005 Strikeforce Light Heavyweight San Shou Champion,
2004 ISKA Light Heavyweight K-1 Super Fight Champion, Las Vegas, NV,
2001 IKF Light Heavyweight World Champion San Jose, CA,
2000 ISKA North American Light Heavyweight Champion San Jose, CA,
2000 ISKA Light Heavyweight K-1 Super fight Champion Las Vegas, NV,
1999 Art of War Light Heavyweight Champion (China vs. USA) Honolulu, HI,
1999 ISKA Light Heavyweight Sanshou Champion San Jose, CA,
1998 ISKA Light Cruzer weight Champion San Jose, CA,
1998 Shidokan Team USA Champion Chicago, IL (Tournament Champion)

Unbeaten in kickboxing – 17-0 with 12 KOs


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Cung Le was really good!  That is pretty evident and Tony's assessment is spot on.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Probably the main reason Le didn't accomplish more than he did in the UFC was that he was nearing retirement age by the time he was signed to that promotion. Given that he has defeated two former UFC champions (Shamrock and Franklin) who are about his same age, it is entirely plausible that he might have won a UFC championship if he had started in the UFC earlier. As it is, he was a Strikeforce champion before being signed to the UFC, which is no small accomplishment.
> 
> BTW, I would say that Le's grappling skills are solid. I don't know if his _submission_ skills are particularly advanced or not, but his takedowns are excellent. Grappling isn't just ground fighting after all.



Fair point. I was I mostly pointing out that much of Cung Le's takedowns were shut down because of the grappling (ground fighting) threat that is present in MMA, yet not present in Sanda.

I was also pointing out that the argument against ground fighting from that Sanda school is mostly nonsense.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> As I recall there are tons of other fighters who haven't won a championship in the UFC either, even though they knew ground fighting and could do take downs.  He had 12 fights with 9 wins which is a winning record.
> He was able to avoid 67% of the Strikes thrown at him and 89% of the take down attempts.
> 
> He is the only fighter that I know of that has broken another fighters arm with a kick.
> 
> Nothing about those stats says he's limited.
> 
> Looking for his full fight stats



Um, no one is saying that Cung Le was a terrible fighter. However, clearly the lack of ground fighting skills limited his success in MMA. You cannot be successful in MMA without strong ground fighting skills. That is simply the facts.

According to his background, he eventually became a blue belt in Bjj at some point in his transition into MMA. So that kind of proves that he realized he needed to learn ground fighting to properly transition to MMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So that kind of proves that he realized he needed to learn ground fighting to properly transition to MMA.



That doesn't prove that he needed to learn ground fighting to properly transition to MMA, it just proves that he took BJJ.  Just like people who take BJJ and don't do MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> That doesn't prove that he needed to learn ground fighting to properly transition to MMA, it just proves that he took BJJ.  Just like people who take BJJ and don't do MMA.



It does, because no one enters MMA without knowledge of ground fighting.

Also he had a Bjj coach (Javier Gonzales) during his MMA career.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cung Le did highschool and college wrestling.

California Junior State Champion (158 lbs) and AAU Freestyle and Greco Roman National Champion (163 lbs). Also, California State High School Wrestling

This is his wrestling experience

*California Community College Athletic Association*
CCCAA State Championship (1990)
CCCAA All-State (1990)
West Valley College wrestling team captain (1990, 1991)


*California Interscholastic Federation*
CIF All-State (1989)


*Amateur Athletic Union*
AAU Espoir Freestyle National Championship (1989)
AAU Espoir Greco-Roman National Championship (1989)


----------



## JowGaWolf

And as for his Blue belt in Bjj.  what ranking is that?  Is that right after white belt?  I don't know about anyone else but a Blue belt going against a black belt isn't what I would call Transitional.

Hanzou
You are going on my list of people who think that there is nothing better than BJJ, except for water and air, and that's only if you are using those 2 things in process of using BJJ.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> And as for his Blue belt in Bjj.  what ranking is that?  Is that right after white belt?  I don't know about anyone else but a Blue belt going against a black belt isn't what I would call Transitional.
> 
> Hanzou
> You are going on my list of people who think that there is nothing better than BJJ, except for water and air, and that's only if you are using those 2 things in process of using BJJ.



There are blue belts and blue belts.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> That would be quite a guesstimate, since we have verifiable examples of CMAs refusing to cross train to the detriment of their style. Perhaps you could give us some more concrete examples?



It's an overall impression of Chinese martial culture and history formed from a reasonable number of years spent training and studying -- this is not something I can prove by showing a handful of examples in a few minutes, nor can it similarly be refuted. If you'd still like examples, I've given you my own, Chris Parker has given a nice example of Japanese martial arts, and this thread started off with a discussion of Jow Gar of which a brief history can be found here, which is as good as any for a representative example of openness to cross training.

When you write...



Hanzou said:


> Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition.



You are claiming that, contrary to most history that I have read, personal experience and awareness of how others train, there is a widespread fetishism for training in one style and only one style. Individual martial artists and clubs may decide not to cross train in a particular art, but that does not generalize to antipathy to cross training as a general principle nor to maintaining an art in a permanently frozen state.



Hanzou said:


> I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training".



I did not say that it was, my point was that their combination resulted from cross training and thereby cross training made a significant impact on the development of Chinese martial arts. Agreed that the rest is debatable semantics.



Hanzou said:


> Actions speak louder than words.



True. But words are also actions.



Hanzou said:


> You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?



In discussion with others you seem to have changed the question from whether Sanda is Kung Fu...



Hanzou said:


> Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?



....to how closely Sanda resembles some 'traditional' Kung Fu arts. Others have made good points e.g. the multiplicity of Sanda. I'll only add with reference to the original question that I think it would be hard to make a case for the majority of ingredients being of non-Chinese origin. Then a case would have to be made that the mixing and baking being done by Chinese in China is insignificant to classification, at which point we may well be removing the 'Brazilian' from Jiu Jitsu and ripping other martial arts from their countries. I guess it's an interesting question.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> And as for his Blue belt in Bjj.  what ranking is that?  Is that right after white belt?  I don't know about anyone else but a Blue belt going against a black belt isn't what I would call Transitional.



It takes 1-2 years to reach a blue belt in most Bjj gyms, so its equivalent to an intermediate rank in most other MAs.



> Hanzou
> You are going on my list of people who think that there is nothing better than BJJ, except for water and air, and that's only if you are using those 2 things in process of using BJJ.



You're welcome to that opinion, but that's pretty far from my personal beliefs.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I don't know how many Cung Le fights you saw Hanzou but he utilized takedowns quite often and unconventional ones at that.  What made him very, very good though was that his style of fighting is very different from Muay Thai and BJJ, etc.  That is what allowed him to win so many fights in Strike Force, etc.  He came into the UFC later in his career so you cannot really hold that against him.  Still he headlined a few cards so he was really good!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I would also ad that because of his wrestling background people had a hard time taking him down and his takedown defense was very, very good!


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> It's an overall impression of Chinese martial culture and history formed from a reasonable number of years spent training and studying -- this is not something I can prove by showing a handful of examples in a few minutes, nor can it similarly be refuted. If you'd still like examples, I've given you my own, Chris Parker has given a nice example of Japanese martial arts, and this thread started off with a discussion of Jow Gar of which a brief history can be found here, which is as good as any for a representative example of openness to cross training.
> 
> When you write...
> 
> You are claiming that, contrary to most history that I have read, personal experience and awareness of how others train, there is a widespread fetishism for training in one style and only one style. Individual martial artists and clubs may decide not to cross train in a particular art, but that does not generalize to antipathy to cross training as a general principle nor to maintaining an art in a permanently frozen state.
> 
> I did not say that it was, my point was that their combination resulted from cross training and thereby cross training made a significant impact on the development of Chinese martial arts. Agreed that the rest is debatable semantics.
> 
> True. But words are also actions.
> 
> In discussion with others you seem to have changed the question from whether Sanda is Kung Fu...
> 
> ....to how closely Sanda resembles some 'traditional' Kung Fu arts. Others have made good points e.g. the multiplicity of Sanda. I'll only add with reference to the original question that I think it would be hard to make a case for the majority of ingredients being of non-Chinese origin. Then a case would have to be made that the mixing and baking being done by Chinese in China is insignificant to classification, at which point we may well be removing the 'Brazilian' from Jiu Jitsu and ripping other martial arts from their countries. I guess it's an interesting question.



I haven't changed the conversation of Sanda, I'm simply researching its origins at the present moment and intend to post the results shortly. As of now I've found a few sources that state that Sanda's hand techniques come from boxing.  There's also here-say that some of it is influenced by Judo and Russian wrestling along with Chinese jacket wrestling (Shaui Jiao), but I haven't found any sourced information for that yet. When I do (because I'm sure I will) I'll post the information. 

The point is, you can't really consider a fighting style that uses western boxing, along with (possibly) domestic and foreign forms of grappling to be the same as traditional Chinese Kung Fu.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I don't know how many Cung Le fights you saw Hanzou but he utilized takedowns quite often and unconventional ones at that.  What made him very, very good though was that his style of fighting is very different from Muay Thai and BJJ, etc.  That is what allowed him to win so many fights in Strike Force, etc.  He came into the UFC later in his career so you cannot really hold that against him.  Still he headlined a few cards so he was really good!



I'm not the one who said that Cung Le's grappling "wasn't great".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would also ad that because of his wrestling background people had a hard time taking him down and his takedown defense was very, very good!


He definitely had more experience with wrestling than BJJ so I find it difficult to believe that "1-2 years" of BJJ as Hanzou quoted, is worth more than the total sum of years that he did competitive wrestling to the point that BJJ was a transitional force. And you are right, his takedown defense was very, very good to the point where I thought the UFC was only giving him strikers to fight against. lol.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> He definitely had more experience with wrestling than BJJ so I find it difficult to believe that "1-2 years" of BJJ as Hanzou quoted, is worth more than the total sum of years that he did competitive wrestling to the point that BJJ was a transitional force. And you are right, his takedown defense was very, very good to the point where I thought the UFC was only giving him strikers to fight against. lol.



Where did I say that his Bjj training was worth more than the total sum of his years as a competitive wrestler? What I said is that no one enters MMA seriously without training in Bjj or another form of submission grappling. Cung Le is no exception, which is why he had a Bjj coach during his MMA years. Further, while he was still a good fighter, some of his tools were taken away due to the presence of the ground submission threat.

Also keep in mind, just because it takes 1-2 years to reach blue belt, doesn't mean that Cung Le only spent 1-2 years learning Bjj. He could have been the equivalent of a 3-4 stripe blue.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yet, if you watched his fights you would have seen that people failed to take him down do to his wrestling and sanda skill sets.  He had far more success than failures in the cage or ring for that matter!


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Again, an excuse for having a big hole in the style.



I don't think they're making excuses [for a lack of groundwork in their art], they're just describing why things developed the way they did. It's not a hole if your motivation is to compete in Muay Thai or Western Boxing, it is if you want to compete in MMA. It might be a hole on the streets of a Western city in 2015 and might not in Guangzhou in 1895. This quote relates the experiences of a British traveler published in 1874...



> Talking about the nature of the Chinese people he notes, unlike the British, they don’t seem to view street fights (as opposed to challenge matches on a raised stage) as a type of popular entertainment.  When someone is insulted at the docks, rather than a fight breaking out (which is really a form of cheap entertainment for the workers back in the UK) Chinese employees will just keep on working.  And if, after continued goading and abuse, a fight does break out, rather than the sort of orderly amateur boxing that he sees in Europe, the contestants are much more likely to pick up poles, bricks or other weapons in an attempt to actually kill one another.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet, if you watched his fights you would have seen that people failed to take him down do to his wrestling and sanda skill sets.



And yet he still hired a coach and learned Bjj.....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Really, almost everyone in MMA has a BJJ coach, Muay Thai or boxing coach, wrestling coach, etc.  In other words they have a lot of coaches.  Because, in the end it is a combative sport called MMA not Muay Thai, not BJJ, not Boxing, not wrestling, not Sanda, etc.  Still with all of that being said Cung Le was decidedly a Sanda practitioner in the ring and it showed in the ring with his unorthodox approach compared to Muay Thai striking.  There was little if any BJJ in his fights.  Most of the time it was Sanda style striking with wrestling takedown defense!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Really, almost everyone in MMA has a BJJ coach, Muay Thai or boxing coach, wrestling coach, etc.  In other words they have a lot of coaches.  Because, in the end it is a combative sport called MMA not Muay Thai, not BJJ, not Boxing, not wrestling, not Sanda, etc.  Still with all of that being said Cung Le was decidedly a Sanda practitioner in the ring and it showed in the ring with his unorthodox approach compared to Muay Thai striking.  There was little if any BJJ in his fights.  Most of the time it was Sanda style striking with wrestling takedown defense!



I believe Cung Le was pretty well versed at Shuajiao too, it is in Sanda, just like every other CMA style.

Also I had a rather long conversation with an MMA guy about taijiquan. He was, at that time, training qigong. Basically he would find out or train anything he felt would help him win.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Really, almost everyone in MMA has a BJJ coach...



That's kind of my point Brian.



> In other words they have a lot of coaches.  Because, in the end it is a combative sport called MMA not Muay Thai, not BJJ, not Boxing, not wrestling, not Sanda, etc.  Still with all of that being said Cung Le was decidedly a Sanda practitioner in the ring and it showed in the ring with his unorthodox approach compared to Muay Thai striking.  There was little if any BJJ in his fights.  Most of the time it was Sanda style striking with wrestling takedown defense!



So you're saying that his Bjj training was a waste of time?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> There's also here-say that some of it is influenced by Judo and Russian wrestling along with Chinese jacket wrestling (Shaui Jiao), but I haven't found any sourced information for that yet


Here's a Shaui Jiao source for you


----------



## Hanzou

This is a good article that goes along perfectly with what Joe Rogan was talking about;

Kung Fu’s Identity Crisis - Roads & Kingdoms


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drose427 said:


> He rarely ever tried for takedowns,
> 
> Frankly his grappling wasnt great, and he knew that. So why would he even try to take people down?


Thank you.. Someone who understands.  Why ground fight when you know that ground fighting isn't your strength? That's just stupid.  It's easy to see in many of Cung Le's matches that he lets his opponents get back up. All of his fights have been won by striking.  He's got record of 0 submissions.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Really, almost everyone in MMA has a BJJ coach, Muay Thai or boxing coach, wrestling coach, etc.  In other words they have a lot of coaches.  Because, in the end it is a combative sport called MMA not Muay Thai, not BJJ, not Boxing, not wrestling, not Sanda, etc.  Still with all of that being said Cung Le was decidedly a Sanda practitioner in the ring and it showed in the ring with his unorthodox approach compared to Muay Thai striking.  There was little if any BJJ in his fights.  Most of the time it was Sanda style striking with wrestling takedown defense!



Which works if you are open to interacting with other systems. If you don't then you are just not going to be as good.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Thank you.. Someone who understands.  Why ground fight when you know that ground fighting isn't your strength? That's just stupid.  It's easy to see in many of Cung Le's matches that he lets his opponents get back up. All of his fights have been won by striking.  He's got record of 0 submissions.



If you went to cung lees gym. You would train ground work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> This is a good article that goes along perfectly with what Joe Rogan was talking about;
> 
> Kung Fu’s Identity Crisis - Roads & Kingdoms



I didn't see Jow Ga mentioned in it. So that article is empty to me.  As for the real reason for "Kung Fu's Identity Crisis"  The articles below are more realistic reasons.

MMA vs Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China

Here's another one.  The financial benefit of doing MMA,  this is the same route boxing took in the U.S. where poor inner city kids were looking for a way to fame and fortune.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't see Jow Ga mentioned in it. So that article is empty to me.  As for the real reason for "Kung Fu's Identity Crisis"  The articles below are more realistic reasons.
> 
> MMA vs Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China
> 
> Here's another one.  The financial benefit of doing MMA,  this is the same route boxing took in the U.S. where poor inner city kids were looking for a way to fame and fortune.



Uh, you do know that all three articles pretty much said the same thing. Mine just happened to be a bit more detailed.

In short, modern martial arts like Bjj, MMA, and Sanda are slowly eating away at traditional Chinese martial arts for a variety of reasons. A big part of it (while certainly not the only reason) is that the younger generation of Chinese view the old styles as ineffective.

Just like Joe Rogan.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If you went to cung lees gym. You would train ground work.


If I went to Cung Le's gym then I'll probably see some other business there.  Cung Le's gyms is no longer in business.  I think he moved in with Smash Gym
Smash Gym does all of the popular martial arts, BJJ, Judo, Kickboxing, Karate, and they also have wrestling.  That's really a good mixture from a business point of view.  They also have fitness classes as well.  All they would need is a weight room and they would have covered all of their bases.  But back to Cung Le's gyms, a gym is a business and if you want to make a lot of money opening a training gym, then you better have kickboxing, a martial art that has a belt, and MMA.  Those 3 things are big business.  Cung Le was a wrestler and depending on where you are in the U.S. wrestling is a big business.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that his Bjj training was a waste of time?



No just that it was never a primary focus of his particular fighting style!  Now, after his career in the ring it may become more of a focus as far as making money teaching.  I don't know as I am not following his career after the ring.  Yet, in the cage/ring when he fought BJJ was not utilized much.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Uh, you do know that all three articles pretty much said the same thing. Mine just happened to be a bit more detailed.
> 
> In short, modern martial arts like Bjj, MMA, and Sanda are slowly eating away at traditional Chinese martial arts for a variety of reasons. A big part of it (while certainly not the only reason) is that the younger generation of Chinese view the old styles as ineffective.
> 
> Just like Joe Rogan.


Wrong again.  A big part of it is that MMA gets the money.  Read the articles.  This is from a Chinese MMA fighter :
"If I didn't have MMA, I'd probably be doing some small business, construction or working as a cook," he added. "Or installing air conditioners."
Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize

This is what a non-MMA fighter said
"Yuan Kaifu, a businessman who had traveled from Beijing to Zhoukou said: "I like MMA because it's real. Not fake like some other fighting contests."
Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize

I find it funny that the Non-MMA fighter is the one that sees kung fu as fake. 

"The UFC is like every other sports league in the world -- they see enormous financial possibility in China,"
Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize

"Nearly all of us MMA fighters are farmers," said bearded He Nannan, 22, gulping down cabbage soup. "People from cities have money and don't want to fight."
Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize

Like other emerging Chinese mixed martial arts fighters -– beating his way out of rural poverty.
Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize

None of those statement come from Joe Rogan's mouth, except the one from a businessman that doesn't do MMA


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Wrong again.  A big part of it is that MMA gets the money.  Read the articles.  This is from a Chinese MMA fighter :
> "If I didn't have MMA, I'd probably be doing some small business, construction or working as a cook," he added. "Or installing air conditioners."
> Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize
> 
> This is what a non-MMA fighter said
> "Yuan Kaifu, a businessman who had traveled from Beijing to Zhoukou said: "I like MMA because it's real. Not fake like some other fighting contests."
> Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize
> 
> I find it funny that the Non-MMA fighter is the one that sees kung fu as fake.
> 
> "The UFC is like every other sports league in the world -- they see enormous financial possibility in China,"
> Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize
> 
> "Nearly all of us MMA fighters are farmers," said bearded He Nannan, 22, gulping down cabbage soup. "People from cities have money and don't want to fight."
> Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize
> 
> Like other emerging Chinese mixed martial arts fighters -– beating his way out of rural poverty.
> Read more: Mixed Martial Arts Is Becoming Popular In Rural China And UFC Is Looking to Capitalize
> 
> None of those statement come from Joe Rogan's mouth, except the one from a businessman that doesn't do MMA



This quote came from an article *you* posted;



> _Traditional kung fu, incorporating different styles such as Wing Chun, Shaolin and tai chi , though still popular, has been in decline for decades, because of a one-two to the head, first from Maoism and now from commercialism. Youths with smartphones and short attention spans have no time for breathing exercises and meditation. *The MMA crowd also accuses kung fu of being useless in an actual fight, and believe even Jet Li and Jackie Chan, two fighting film stars, are more like dancers than real toughs.*_


_
_
MMA vs. Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China


Here's some more from the article I posted;



> Today, after repeated purges by the central government and decades of commercial exploitation, traditional Chinese kung fu is a gutted hulk of its former self. *While masters struggle to market their increasingly diluted styles, prospective students are being lured away by mixed martial arts (MMA), a combat sport that is exploding in popularity across the world. As a result, few fighters think of kung fu as a legitimate martial art.*




Kung Fu’s Identity Crisis - Roads & Kingdoms

Again, Joe Rogan's thoughts exactly.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> According to his background, he eventually became a blue belt in Bjj at some point in his transition into MMA. So that kind of proves that he realized he needed to learn ground fighting to properly transition to MMA.


This is what you said.



Hanzou said:


> What I said is that no one enters MMA seriously without training in Bjj or another form of submission grappling


This is what you say now. 

These 2 statements are not the same. Cung Le has no victories from submissions so submission are irrelevant to helping him win. BJJ experience was considerably smaller than those he fought against.  Based on your calculations for the time that it takes to get a blue belt (1-2 years), and the experience gap between a blue belt and black belt. His BJJ skills would not have been enough to deal with those who have more experience in BJJ, which is probably why he didn't use any.  However his other martial arts skills and years of wrestling would have make him really good at avoiding take downs.  His percentage of takedown avoidance is higher than the BJJ fighters


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> This quote came from an article *you* posted;
> 
> _
> _
> MMA vs. Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China
> 
> 
> Here's some more from the article I posted;
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu’s Identity Crisis - Roads & Kingdoms
> 
> Again, Joe Rogan's thoughts exactly.





Hanzou said:


> This quote came from an article *you* posted;
> 
> _
> _
> MMA vs. Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China
> 
> 
> Here's some more from the article I posted;
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu’s Identity Crisis - Roads & Kingdoms
> 
> Again, Joe Rogan's thoughts exactly.


You can't get  your own statements right, so I know you can't get Joe Rogans statement correct.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> And yet he still hired a coach and learned Bjj.....


And he used none of the BJJ


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what you said.
> 
> 
> This is what you say now.
> 
> These 2 statements are not the same.



Actually, they are the same. You edited out the part in the second quote where I said that Cung Le is no exception. In short, what I'm saying in both cases is that Bjj is kind of required for MMA. Cung Le clearly thought that as well, *which is why he hired a Bjj coach*.

The *fact* of the matter is that Cung Le hired a Bjj coach to teach him. That fact alone counters all of the nonsense you're typing here. Clearly Le disagreed with your belief that he didn't need Bjj to be successful in MMA. If he believed that, he wouldn't have learned Bjj in the first place. Coaches aren't cheap.



JowGaWolf said:


> And he used none of the BJJ



So you've memorized every second of every Cung Le MMA bout and know for a fact that he never used his BJJ training in any of his MMA fights?

That's quite a talent you have there.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No just that it was never a primary focus of his particular fighting style!  Now, after his career in the ring it may become more of a focus as far as making money teaching.  I don't know as I am not following his career after the ring.  Yet, in the cage/ring when he fought BJJ was not utilized much.



If you're talking Cung Le, he appears to be pursuing a career in acting in Hong Kong. Or at least that is part of what he is pursuing


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So you've memorized every second of every Cung Le MMA bout and know for a fact that he never used his BJJ training in any of his MMA fights?


No need to memorize, just watch the fights.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> the younger generation of Chinese view the old styles as ineffective. Just like Joe Rogan.



Joe Rogan is not an informed or reliable source when it comes to 'traditional' Chinese arts:



> "When you start sparring, that's when techniques really get weeded out, and that's when you understand what is the most effective use of energy and force, what techniques work the best, what techniques are applicable and what techniques are really kinda frivolous and what techniques are a waste of time and there's better alternatives. Well, Kung Fu never did all that, they didn't have all the sparring."



This level of ignorance stands on its own.



> "It's not that Kung Fu doesn't work, it's just that it's definitely not the best way to go, it's that simple. There's a lot of stuff that works. Y'know if you back-fist someone in the face it's not gonna feel good, it's not gonna feel good to get back-fisted in the face, but it's not as good as if you [expletive] overhand right somebody."



When would a back-fist be used.
When would a jab be used. Is a jab not as good as an overhand right? Is this nonsensical?
When you're breaking down a (standup) guard.
When someone at your back grabs your shoulder and spins you round, there's no time for an overhand right.
Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
When you're striking low to the groin then high to the face.
Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
When you're using the other arm to press and control an opponents arm.
When it's an option, when your hands are in a particular position at a particular point in time.
When you're looking for that change in angle and shape which causes a 'wtf' moment for a few milliseconds in your opponents' mind, which is often enough to land the opening.
This is what you learn in free sparring. In 'traditional' Kung Fu arts.
Has Joe Rogan trained in 'Kung Fu'?
Has he searched out good 'Kung Fu' instructors and asked why they teach what they teach?
Has he tried sparring with them?

People learn what they learn due to interest and motivation. Their ability as martial artists is determined by their ability to adapt what they know to a situation. Blanket statements about effectiveness are a load of hooey. Techniques are made effective by individuals. Context. Adaptation. Sparring in a 'traditional' self defense manner will not work well in a competitive sport environment, the Rogans of the world understand this. The differences in timing, distance, motivation, target areas and protective equipment are too great. But if all you know is a 'traditional' art, then you must adapt it, you have no other choice. From time to time I adapt techniques, strategies and stances from 'traditional' training to Sanda sparring, mostly for fun and y'know that few millisecond wtf moment, and I can make it work. But if all you're interested in is competing in Sanda, then just train in Sanda.

The Rogans of this world don't understand the corollary, that fighting in a competitive sport manner does not work well in a self defense context against someone who is using that context to their full advantage. For the same reasons; timing, distance, motivation, target areas and protective gear. So if all you know is a competitive sport, you have to adapt it to the context, then you can make it work.

We're martial artists; we adapt, it's what we do.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> I don't think they're making excuses [for a lack of groundwork in their art], they're just describing why things developed the way they did. It's not a hole if your motivation is to compete in Muay Thai or Western Boxing, it is if you want to compete in MMA. It might be a hole on the streets of a Western city in 2015 and might not in Guangzhou in 1895. This quote relates the experiences of a British traveler published in 1874...



Sanda was developed in the 1920s, and continued to develop throughout the 20th century. In that time, both Bjj and Sambo developed pretty strong ground fighting tactics. So while the British traveler's account is interesting, it doesn't really apply.

Also both Bjj and MMA are growing rapidly in China.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Joe Rogan is not an informed or reliable source when it comes to 'traditional' Chinese arts:
> 
> 
> 
> This level of ignorance stands on its own.



I disagree. There are Kung Fu styles that don't spar, or have competitions. In both of those methods you would weed out stuff that is ineffective and inefficient. Bjj (which Rogan has practiced for decades) has MMA, Sport Bjj, and a heavy tradition of sparring to keep it on its toes.



> When would a back-fist be used.
> When would a jab be used. Is a jab not as good as an overhand right? Is this nonsensical?
> When you're breaking down a (standup) guard.
> When someone at your back grabs your shoulder and spins you round, there's no time for an overhand right.
> Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
> When you're striking low to the groin then high to the face.
> Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
> When you're using the other arm to press and control an opponents arm.
> When it's an option, when your hands are in a particular position at a particular point in time.
> When you're looking for that change in angle and shape which causes a 'wtf' moment for a few milliseconds in your opponents' mind, which is often enough to land the opening.
> This is what you learn in free sparring. In 'traditional' Kung Fu arts.
> Has Joe Rogan trained in 'Kung Fu'?
> Has he searched out good 'Kung Fu' instructors and asked why they teach what they teach?
> Has he tried sparring with them?



Rogan's point in that regard is backed both by the feelings of the Chinese themselves in the articles posted by myself and Jow, and the fact that Sanda uses boxing hand techniques instead of Kung Fu based hand techniques.



> People learn what they learn due to interest and motivation. Their ability as martial artists is determined by their ability to adapt what they know to a situation. Blanket statements about effectiveness are a load of hooey. Techniques are made effective by individuals. Context. Adaptation. Sparring in a 'traditional' self defense manner will not work well in a competitive sport environment, the Rogans of the world understand this. The differences in timing, distance, motivation, target areas and protective equipment are too great. But if all you know is a 'traditional' art, then you must adapt it, you have no other choice. From time to time I adapt techniques, strategies and stances from 'traditional' training to Sanda sparring, mostly for fun and y'know that few millisecond wtf moment, and I can make it work. But if all you're interested in is competing in Sanda, then just train in Sanda.
> 
> The Rogans of this world don't understand the corollary, that fighting in a competitive sport manner does not work well in a self defense context against someone who is using that context to their full advantage. For the same reasons; timing, distance, motivation, target areas and protective gear. So if all you know is a competitive sport, you have to adapt it to the context, then you can make it work.
> 
> We're martial artists; we adapt, it's what we do.



I think the success of competitive sport methods in various self defense situations doesn't support your argument. Even when we have examples of styles vs styles, the competitive sport style tends to dominate the traditional style. Boxing is probably one of the most barebones styles technique wise, and there's been plenty of boxers using their skills in self defense situations.

You're free to disagree with Rogan's perspective, but it is a perspective that's carrying the day, even among the Chinese.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Sanda was developed in the 1920s, and continued to develop throughout the 20th century. In that time, both Bjj and Sambo developed pretty strong ground fighting tactics. So while the British traveler's account is interesting, it doesn't really apply.



The traveler is describing a general culture of violence, the situations and manners in which it was employed, which persisted -- perhaps -- until around the mid 20th century, maybe later, in China and other parts of SE Asia. This culture effected the development of martial arts, their history, their martial culture, the manner in which martial arts were considered. It is the martial context in which Sanda was born and is therefore highly relevant, BJJ and Sambo not so much.

It may be funnier to suggest that Western Boxers 'should' incorporate groundwork, but trying to turn everything into a clone of UFC ain't gonna happen. People enjoy their arts for what they are. If that is their motivation, they have no need to excuse themselves and there is no 'hole'.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Ac
> So you've memorized every second of every Cung Le MMA bout and know for a fact that he never used his BJJ training in any of his MMA fights?
> 
> That's quite a talent you have there.



No need for that talent. Just look at the stats:

89% of takedown attempts against him were avoided.
He's done a single guard pass.
Most of his wins are from knockouts.
Cung Le
With the exception of the guard pass (which might as easily been *judo*) not much BJJ there.....


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> The traveler is describing a general culture of violence, the situations and manners in which it was employed, which persisted -- perhaps -- until around the mid 20th century, maybe later, in China and other parts of SE Asia. This culture effected the development of martial arts, their history, their martial culture, the manner in which martial arts were considered. It is the martial context in which Sanda was born and is therefore highly relevant, BJJ and Sambo not so much.



That general culture of the 1870s wouldn't have persisted into the 1920s when Sanda was formed. You're talking about a 50 year time period there, and a lot happened in China during that period.

The main point though is that the reasons given from that Sanda organization about why they don't do ground fighting is mostly nonsense.




> It may be funnier to suggest that Western Boxers 'should' incorporate groundwork, but trying to turn everything into a clone of UFC ain't gonna happen. People enjoy their arts for what they are. If that is their motivation, they have no need to excuse themselves and there is no 'hole'.



Boxing predates Bjj and Judo newaza. They also don't have a silly excuse as to why they don't incorporate it into their sport.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> No need for that talent. Just look at the stats:
> 
> 89% of takedown attempts against him were avoided.
> He's done a single guard pass.
> Most of his wins are from knockouts.
> Cung Le
> With the exception of the guard pass (which might as easily been *judo*) not much BJJ there.....



The argument was that Cung Le never used Bjj in any of his fights.

Thanks for proving me right.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> The argument was that Cung Le never used Bjj in any of his fights.
> 
> Thanks for proving me right.


Well, no, not really. A guard pass does not BJJ make....just ask Greg Jackson.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Well, no, not really. A guard pass does not BJJ make....just ask Greg Jackson.



Greg Jackson trained in Bjj.

Btw, no one trains in Judo to learn how to pass a guard.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Greg Jackson trained in Bjj.



Greg Jackson is one of the first people I met in martial arts upon moving to New Mexico.

He never "trained" in BJJ. He studied video. He's a wrestler, and kickboxer. AFAIK, there was no one in NM teaching BJJ anywhere, prior to Alberto Crane opening his school in Santa Fe, some time after 200o...maybe some Machado afffiliates, but Greg Jackson doesn't claim any BJJ study...other than "tapes."



Hanzou said:


> Btw, no one trains in Judo to learn how to pass a guard.



Sadly, there's really not much reason to, now, in most judo schools....but they still do in some, believe what you like.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Also both Bjj and MMA are growing rapidly in China.



Everything is growing rapidly in China, as more money ( not withstanding the stock market drop this week) is being spread areound the Chinese are buying into a more 'Western' lifestyle and that includes martial arts styles, it says less about BJJ and MMA and more about China's 'westernisation'. They aren't training BJJ and MMA because it's more effective they are training it because it's western and to them fashionable. The Influence of the West on China | eChinacities.com


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Greg Jackson is one of the first people I met in martial arts upon moving to New Mexico.
> 
> He never "trained" in BJJ. He studied video. He's a wrestler, and kickboxer. There was no one in NM teaching BJJ anywhere, prior to Alberto Crane opening his school in Santa Fe, some time after 200.



Yeah, he had extensive training in wrestling and Judo, and added Bjj. With a base like that you can adapt Bjj tactics pretty easily. To say that he uses zero Bjj in his training is nonsense. Additionally, I'm sure he's cross trained with several high level Bjj guys over the years. It kind of comes with the territory. 



> Sadly, there's really not much reason to, now, in most judo schools....but they still do in some, believe what you like.



Even Rhonda Rousey went to the Gracies to learn ground fighting. That's just how it is.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Also both Bjj and MMA are growing rapidly in China


This is because MMA makes money and BJJ is popular within MMA competitions as a ground competitive ground fighting system which is what they do a lot of in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Everything is growing rapidly in China, as more money ( not withstanding the stock market drop this week) is being spread areound the Chinese are buying into a more 'Western' lifestyle and that includes martial arts styles, it says less about BJJ and MMA and more about China's 'westernisation'. They aren't training BJJ and MMA because it's more effective they are training it because it's western and to them fashionable. The Influence of the West on China | eChinacities.com



I've already posted articles where the authors have said that the Chinese view Bjj and MMA (and other ring styles like Sanda and Muay Thai) as being more effective than traditional Kung Fu styles. We really shouldn't pretend that that's not a factor here.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> I've already posted articles where the authors have said that the Chinese view Bjj and MMA (and other ring styles like Sanda and Muay Thai) as being more effective than traditional Kung Fu styles. We really shouldn't pretend that that's not a factor here.




I can post articles by authors who say that aliens are walking among us, it doesn't make it so just because someone writes it. Effectiveness is down to the practitioner after all. I know people that are dreadful at boxing but no one thinks boxing is ineffective because they can't do it. I know people who can't do BJJ either..... I can't do Capoiera, does that mean it's an ineffective style because I can't do it?


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I can post articles by authors who say that aliens are walking among us, it doesn't make it so just because someone writes it. Effectiveness is down to the practitioner after all. I know people that are dreadful at boxing but no one thinks boxing is ineffective because they can't do it. I know people who can't do BJJ either..... I can't do Capoiera, does that mean it's an ineffective style because I can't do it?



And if you trotted out an actual alien that walked among us then it would make it so. The authors took the words directly from the mouth of the Chinese.

Effectiveness is based on perception. Right now we have traditional guys getting slapped all over the place by MMA guys and kick boxers. So of course the perception is that MMAers and kick boxers are more effective than a guy who does White Crane. If a White Crane guy suddenly started demolishing MMA fighters the perception would change.

As it stands now, you can't blame Joe Rogan, or the Chinese for having the perception that traditional MAs are less effective.

As for Capoeira, even Capoeira guys say it's not a fighting style.


----------



## Tez3

Oh well if millions of Chinese think it's effective it must be lol. They did speak to millions right?
Effective is based on perception? nothing to do with being KO'd, taken down, etc then. Just what it looks like, okay.

Like many people you seem to forget that MMA is mixed martial *arts, you know, more than one art/style. *It's a nonsense to talk about a fighter with one style taking on an MMA fighter, a boxer can't do it, a Judoka can't do it yet you base the effectiveness of one style on the fact they can't do it. I don't know why you would need reminding but you do, an MMA fighter has more than one style as his disposal, single style fighters are always going to be at a disadvantage. Oh and the fact that MMA is made up of TMAs, guess you forgot that too.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Oh well if millions of Chinese think it's effective it must be lol. They did speak to millions right?



Feel free to e-mail the authors. I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you how they reached their conclusions.



> Effective is based on perception? nothing to do with being KO'd, taken down, etc then. Just what it looks like, okay.



If you see group A never beating anyone up in a public venue, and you have group B who consistently beat people up in a public venue (including people from group A), you tend to draw the conclusion that people in group B are better at beating people up.



> Like many people you seem to forget that MMA is mixed martial *arts, you know, more than one art/style. *It's a nonsense to talk about a fighter with one style taking on an MMA fighter, a boxer can't do it, a Judoka can't do it yet you base the effectiveness of one style on the fact they can't do it. I don't know why you would need reminding but you do, an MMA fighter has more than one style as his disposal, single style fighters are always going to be at a disadvantage. Oh and the fact that MMA is made up of TMAs, guess you forgot that too.



Yet you see aspects of boxing and Judo in MMA, so that helps with their perception of effectiveness. Again, if you saw a MMA fighter start performing crazy White Crane stuff in the octagon and he was successful with it, that would help with the perception of that style's effectiveness, as well as traditional kung fu as a whole.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> If you see group A never beating anyone up in a public venue, and you have group B who consistently beat people up in a public venue (including people from group A), you tend to draw the conclusion that people in group B are better at beating people up.



Well that would depend on who was fighting wouldn't it, if you'd seen as many (live and thousands) fights as I have you'd probably realise that it's down to the fighter. Also if you haven't trained a style how would you know what aspects of it you'd see in a fight? Really you make so much of this BJJ is wonderful and all encompassing thing that I really think you haven't seen the fights where a BJJer is pants, not because BJJ is pants but because the fighter is. I think you don't know as much about MMA as you think you do and your agenda is purely to be right, sadly that ain't so but don't worry I'm sure we don't mind.

And please do pass on those email addresses because if you think I wouldn't email and ask you are wrong ...again.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I've already posted articles where the authors have said that the Chinese view Bjj and MMA (and other ring styles like Sanda and Muay Thai) as being more effective than traditional Kung Fu styles. We really shouldn't pretend that that's not a factor here.



You do realize that the term effective is only relative to the sport MMA and not Self-Defense. Here's an example: Look how open the BJJ guy is.  Had the guy he was fighting with had another friend then the BJJ guy would have easily been injured.





This video shows what happens when the person you are grappling has his friends with him.





If you are going to grapple, then do it this way.  It's safer for you than laying on your back and being vulnerable


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, he had extensive training in wrestling and Judo, and added Bjj. With a base like that you can adapt Bjj tactics pretty easily. To say that he uses zero Bjj in his training is nonsense. Additionally, I'm sure he's cross trained with several high level Bjj guys over the years. It kind of comes with the territory.



Yeah, he's had some high-level BJJ guys in his school......to train under him. Some cross-pollination is natural, but to say that he needed BJJ is what's nonsense.





Hanzou said:


> Even Rhonda Rousey went to the Gracies to learn ground fighting. That's just how it is.



Ronda went to some BJJ schools to learn how to defeat it, not to "learn gorundfighting." If you know her history, you know she respects BJJ as another form of judo, and didn't really need much beyond "feeling" it. That's just how it is.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Well that would depend on who was fighting wouldn't it, if you'd seen as many (live and thousands) fights as I have you'd probably realise that it's down to the fighter. Also if you haven't trained a style how would you know what aspects of it you'd see in a fight?



Of course it depends on the fighter, but what type of fighters are we seeing? Do you ever see anyone from Praying Mantis kung fu using the hooked hands in a MMA fight? Do you ever see a Wing Chun opponent chain punching their way to victory?

No you don't, hence the perception. Judo wasn't highly regarded in MMA until you had prominent MMA fighters begin to use it.

Additionally, boxing is pretty easy to spot, even if you've never trained in it.



> Really you make so much of this BJJ is wonderful and all encompassing thing that I really think you haven't seen the fights where a BJJer is pants, not because BJJ is pants but because the fighter is. I think you don't know as much about MMA as you think you do and your agenda is purely to be right, sadly that ain't so but don't worry I'm sure we don't mind.



Interesting that you bring Bjj into this discussion where I didn't mention it at all in the previous response. We were talking about boxing and Judo.



> And please do pass on those email addresses because if you think I wouldn't email and ask you are wrong ...again.



SASCHA MATUSZAK is the author of the first article. His twitter is here;
Sascha Matuszak (@SaschaMatuszak) | Twitter

He's based in China.

The other is Tristen Crutchfield. His article is here, and it contains the link to his twitter account;

MMA vs. Kung Fu Debate Gains Momentum in China


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If you see group A never beating anyone up in a public venue, and you have group B who consistently beat people up in a public venue (including people from group A), you tend to draw the conclusion that people in group B are better at beating people up.


This is not true. The context that you are stating this is from the perspective of sporting events.  Sports have certain rules in which the the athlete follows.  We could watch a wrestler  beat people all day, but it doesn't mean that he would be able to step into a ring and beat a boxer any more than a boxer would be able to get on the mat with an olympic wrestler.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Yeah, he's had some high-level BJJ guys in his school......to train under him. Some cross-pollination is natural, but to say that he needed BJJ is what's nonsense.



Where did I say that he needed Bjj? I said that he's absorbed Bjj tactics, and that absorption was probably easier for him because of his background in Judo and Wrestling. At the time of the first UFC, he was actually working on a system that combined wrestling and Judo, which is exactly the same background as Bjj, so yeah.



> Ronda went to some BJJ schools to learn how to defeat it, not to "learn gorundfighting." If you know her history, you know she respects BJJ as another form of judo, and didn't really need much beyond "feeling" it. That's just how it is.



Are those her words or yours?

I find it odd that someone would spend time and money to train in something they supposedly already know. Especially considering that Rener and Ryron aren't MMA champs or anything.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that he needed Bjj? I said that he's absorbed Bjj tactics, and that absorption was probably easier for him because of his background in Judo and Wrestling. At the time of the first UFC, he was actually working on a system that combined wrestling and Judo, which is exactly the same background as Bjj, so yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> Are those her words or yours?
> 
> I find it odd that someone would spend time and money to train in something they supposedly already know. Especially considering that Rener and Ryron aren't MMA champs or anything.



Her words:

Anty takers? Ronda Rousey says she can beat any girl in BJJ today | GRACIEMAG
"
Rousey said: “_One thing I couldn’t stand when I was only coming into MMA from judo is all this people saying that the Jiu-Jitsu people would beat the judo fighters on the ground. It was such a stereotype. I still think that I can beat any BJJ girl in the world, gi or no gi, any weight division, black belt *all the way in any rule setting.*”_

Ronda explained her statement: “_People think that most judo fighters have no ground skills, but *the truth is that we have so little time to get a submission on the ground that it takes so much more skill to do it*. I remember olympic bronze medalist from Brazil, Flavio Canto, who was said to have one of the best ground games in judo. I felt that he could win a world championship in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I feel that judo fighters that are good on the ground never really got the respect they deserved.”_

To be fair, she's  an elite judoka, an Olympian-a world class athlete. She's yet to face a woman BJJ practitioner at her level, because there likely isn't one.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You do realize that the term effective is only relative to the sport MMA and not Self-Defense. Here's an example: Look how open the BJJ guy is.  Had the guy he was fighting with had another friend then the BJJ guy would have easily been injured.



Look how the Bjj guy had absolute control over the other guy despite being interrupted several times.



> This video shows what happens when the person you are grappling has his friends with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to grapple, then do it this way.  It's safer for you than laying on your back and being vulnerable



Isn't that common sense? That doesn't reduce the effectiveness of Bjj, it just means that you need to know when and where to use your skills. That applies to any martial art.

Oh, and Bjj guys do learn throws too.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Her words:
> 
> Anty takers? Ronda Rousey says she can beat any girl in BJJ today | GRACIEMAG
> "
> Rousey said: “_One thing I couldn’t stand when I was only coming into MMA from judo is all this people saying that the Jiu-Jitsu people would beat the judo fighters on the ground. It was such a stereotype. I still think that I can beat any BJJ girl in the world, gi or no gi, any weight division, black belt *all the way in any rule setting.*”_
> 
> Ronda explained her statement: “_People think that most judo fighters have no ground skills, but *the truth is that we have so little time to get a submission on the ground that it takes so much more skill to do it*. I remember olympic bronze medalist from Brazil, Flavio Canto, who was said to have one of the best ground games in judo. I felt that he could win a world championship in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I feel that judo fighters that are good on the ground never really got the respect they deserved.”_
> 
> To be fair, she's  an elite judoka, an Olympian-a world class athlete. She's yet to face a woman BJJ practitioner at her level, because there likely isn't one.



Yeah, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about your statement that she just went to the Gracies to get a "feel" for it, instead of going to the Gracies to pick up some tactics.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about your statement that she just went to the Gracies to get a "feel" for it, instead of going to the Gracies to pick up some tactics.


Poe-tay-toe. Puh-tah-toe.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Poe-tay-toe. Puh-tah-toe.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Effectiveness is based on perception.


This is true, which is why I train the way that I do.  I get tired of seeing Chinese Martial Artists who don't train to actually fight using their skills getting in front of a camera, only to abandon their style during the fight resulting in people thinking what they did was kung fu when it really wasn't.   Crap like this irritates me more than you irritate me Hanzou.  People will say he was doing kung fu, and have the perception that this is what kung fu looks like. I have tapes of me sparring and none of what I do looks anything like that mess.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Poe-tay-toe. Puh-tah-toe.




Neither, it's tattie.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is true, which is why I train the way that I do.



Well, it's good that we can agree on _something_.



> Crap like this irritates me more than you irritate me Hanzou.







> People will say he was doing kung fu, and have the perception that this is what kung fu looks like. I have tapes of me sparring and none of what I do looks anything like that mess.



Well that's true, and yes the only people you can blame for the spread of this perception are the practitioners of traditional Kung Fu themselves.

At least Sanda is pretty awesome.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Look how the Bjj guy had absolute control over the other guy despite being interrupted several times.


 He had control only of the guy that he was fighting.  The other people around him could have easily attacked him with no problem and he should be thankful that they didn't.  Even the Gracies did a break down of this fight and they said the same thing about the guy doing BJJ.  Sometimes when you are in a fight, it's not the person that you are fighting that is the main concern.  Sometimes it's is friends that are around you.

I can tell you without a doubt, that if I was in the position that the guy in the red shirt was in. My friends would have pulled on the BJJ arms as they were in the video and then they would have stomped his face in.



Hanzou said:


> That doesn't reduce the effectiveness of Bjj, it just means that you need to know when and where to use your skills. That applies to any martial art.


  If that fight remained 1 on 1 then he may have won which means what he was doing was effective.  It became ineffective when his the other guys friends jumped in and started hitting him.  As far as common sense goes if all a person know is BJJ to fight with then that's what they are going to fall back on and use in a fight.  When it comes to a fight people use what they have in their skill set.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Well, it's good that we can agree on _something_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's true, and yes the only people you can blame for the spread of this perception are the practitioners of traditional Kung Fu themselves.
> At least Sanda is pretty awesome.



I only blame the ones who don't train to fight using the techniques of traditional Kung Fu and assume that just because they can do the form that they can apply it in a real fight. The other reasons kung fu gets a bad name is because people look at bad martial arts and assume that they are looking at a good representation of martial arts.  No one takes video from an awful display of boxing talent and use it to claim that all boxing sucks.  But people are more willing to do that to Kung Fu, maybe all of those Kung Fu movies from the 70's caused some damage too.

Yes Sanda is awesome and it is a good representation of basic kung fu, meaning that many of the things that are found in Sanda can be found in other CMAs, but those moves don't define the style.  I'm hoping to be able to enter a Lei Tai fight next year so that I can be a good representative of Jow Ga kung fu in a sparring competition.  My goal is not only to win, but to fight in a way that clearly uses Jow Ga techniques. I want people to be able to look at my fighting and be able to spot the style of kung fu.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> He had control only of the guy that he was fighting.  The other people around him could have easily attacked him with no problem and he should be thankful that they didn't.  Even the Gracies did a break down of this fight and they said the same thing about the guy doing BJJ.  Sometimes when you are in a fight, it's not the person that you are fighting that is the main concern.  Sometimes it's is friends that are around you.
> 
> I can tell you without a doubt, that if I was in the position that the guy in the red shirt was in. My friends would have pulled on the BJJ arms as they were in the video and then they would have stomped his face in.
> 
> If that fight remained 1 on 1 then he may have won which means what he was doing was effective.  It became ineffective when his the other guys friends jumped in and started hitting him.  As far as common sense goes if all a person know is BJJ to fight with then that's what they are going to fall back on and use in a fight.  When it comes to a fight people use what they have in their skill set.



Honestly, the topic of the street effectiveness of Bjj is better reserved for a different thread. Feel free to copy and paste this in a new thread, and I'll be more than happy to respond.

Until then....



JowGaWolf said:


> I only blame the ones who don't train to fight using the techniques of traditional Kung Fu and assume that just because they can do the form that they can apply it in a real fight. The other reasons kung fu gets a bad name is because people look at bad martial arts and assume that they are looking at a good representation of martial arts.  No one takes video from an awful display of boxing talent and use it to claim that all boxing sucks.  But people are more willing to do that to Kung Fu, maybe all of those Kung Fu movies from the 70's caused some damage too.
> 
> Yes Sanda is awesome and it is a good representation of basic kung fu, meaning that many of the things that are found in Sanda can be found in other CMAs, but those moves don't define the style.



So which Kung Fu Style uses boxing?



> Im hoping to be able to enter a Lei Tai fight next year so that I can be a good representative of Jow Ga kung fu in a sparring competition.  My goal is not only to win, but to fight in a way that clearly uses Jow Ga techniques. I want people to be able to look at my fighting and be able to spot the style of kung fu.



You should do amateur MMA. People would love to see a traditional Kung Fu guy using traditional techniques. If you win, you'd be quite famous. If you lose, you'll be another TMA guy on the Bullshido highlight reel.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So which Kung Fu Style uses boxing?


Non-uses boxing (that I know of) because the boxing stances don't allow for kicking or rooting after a punch is thrown.  Jow Ga throws hooks, jabs, uppercuts, and crosses but we throw them from a different stances, like horse, cross, and bow stances.



Hanzou said:


> You should do amateur MMA.


 I have thought of this as well. Even at the age of 43 I think I still can hang in with some of the younger guys.  The only way I'll do amateur MMA is if I can put the necessary training and conditioning in.  Right now I'm in no condition to physically to compete at that level.  I'm also still learning how to use various Jow Ga techniques in an actual fight.  I'm not worried about the grappling, my biggest weakness would be muay thai kicks to the legs.  If I were to start today, I would need about a year or 2 just to increase my bone density in my legs and arms.

Some of the MMA guys that I spar with tell me that they never have fought someone from my style of fighting and that they didn't know how to deal with the types of attacks that I use because no one has attack them using real kung fu before.  Will it's possible that I could be on the list of failures, it's my job to seriously train in my style for the purpose of actually using my kung fu to hurt someone, and because I would take it that seriously, I don't think I would be a disappointment.

If I win then I won't be famous, people will call it a fluke, or claim that I had a background in something that I don't. The fights would be less about who is going to beat me, but who is going to try to make me look bad so that they can talk down on kung fu and raise MMA.  So if I were to do this at my age then I'll be playing for keeps.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You should do amateur MMA. People would love to see a traditional Kung Fu guy using traditional techniques. If you win, you'd be quite famous. If you lose, you'll be another TMA guy on the Bullshido highlight reel.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> If I win then I won't be famous, people will call it a fluke, or claim that I had a background in something that I don't. The fights would be less about who is going to beat me, but who is going to try to make me look bad so that they can talk down on kung fu and raise MMA. So if I were to do this at my age then I'll be playing for keeps.



Tma,s and their egos. If you do it. Then you have done it. That is all you get and it is enough.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> You do realize that the term effective is only relative to the sport MMA and not Self-Defense. Here's an example: Look how open the BJJ guy is.  Had the guy he was fighting with had another friend then the BJJ guy would have easily been injured.



You do realize that all of the throws you find in judo (that you referenced later in the same post) are in BJJ too right? I've seen that video before. This guy made the mistake of going right to the ground but he handled it very well once he went down. Your argument of "if he had friends" goes the exact same as if he kept the fight standing up. People argue left and right how it's a fail of grappling of not being able to defend yourself from multiple opponents but the same thing goes for a street fight with strikes. This isn't TKD (or any other TMA) class with people taking turns sparring with you; this is one person throwing punches at you with another person rushing up from behind and either striking you too or tackling you to the ground. A person should always train grappling if they want to be able to defend themselves properly.

I've mentioned here numerous times that I'm a military guy. I've taught a couple of grappling sessions to my coworkers. These are all relatively fit guys, some of them 20+ lbs heavier than me, but I still submit them all in under 30 seconds whether I take them down or I let them take me down first. I'm not even that good at BJJ. Is my first instinct going to drop onto my back if I get into a fight with someone? No, but if someone tackles me to the ground then you can bet your *** that I'm glad that I know what the hell I'm doing there.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> That general culture of the 1870s wouldn't have persisted into the 1920s



Based on what?
Someone in this thread mentioned the well known 'Sugong' by Nick Hurst, it's a good read and corroborates the travelers' account over the time period you're interested in.



Hanzou said:


> The main point though is that the reasons given from that Sanda organization about why they don't do ground fighting is mostly nonsense.



'Nonsense' is an empty assertion. They've painted a credible theory which is supported by some evidence. Calling it 'nonsense' or a 'silly excuse' is not persuasive.



Hanzou said:


> Boxing predates Bjj and Judo newaza. They also don't have a silly excuse as to why they don't incorporate it into their sport.



So what is their 'excuse'? Should Western Boxing incorporate groundwork?


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> So what is their 'excuse'? Should Western Boxing incorporate groundwork?



They don't have an excuse. That is the difference. Their solution to ground work is do bjj.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> They don't have an excuse. That is the difference. Their solution to ground work is do bjj.



Or train Judo with Neil Adams.....Fighting at Forty: Neil Adams No Gi Seminar - A Review


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> I disagree. There are Kung Fu styles that don't spar, or have competitions. In both of those methods you would weed out stuff that is ineffective and inefficient. Bjj (which Rogan has practiced for decades) has MMA, Sport Bjj, and a heavy tradition of sparring to keep it on its toes.



Joe Rogan claimed that 'Kung Fu' doesn't have sparring.
That statement is easily demonstrated to be ignorant.
That is a fact.
Changing that statement to 'there are some Kung Fu arts which don't spar' does not change that fact.
All the Chinese martial arts I've encountered incorporate sparring. If there are arts which do not do sparring, ever, they are unrepresentative of CMA as a whole. With that in mind, which Chinese martial arts do not incorporate sparring?



Hanzou said:


> Rogan's point in that regard is backed both by the feelings of the Chinese themselves in the articles posted by myself and Jow, and the fact that Sanda uses boxing hand techniques instead of Kung Fu based hand techniques.



I demonstrated that Rogan is ignorant of how 'traditional' Chinese martial arts are applied.
That is a fact.
I demonstrated that Joe Rogan's statements are not logical from a purely martial, completely style agnostic point of view.
That is a fact.
That one martial art incorporates certain punches does not change those facts.
That some Chinese feel that traditional styles are ineffective does not change those facts. I said 'some', when you say 'the feelings of the Chinese' and 'the younger generation of Chinese view' you're overgeneralizing. 'Some' Chinese train in 'traditional' arts, 'some' buy into MMA marketing tropes, 'some' believe conspiracy theories etc.



Hanzou said:


> I think the success of competitive sport methods in various self defense situations doesn't support your argument.



Then you're not understanding my argument. I did not say that sport martial arts cannot be applied effectively in self defense, I wrote the opposite.
I'm saying that if someone applies a sport martial art in the same manner as they would in a competition, against opponent(s) who are competent at fighting in a street fighting context, then that person is liable to lose. Distance, timing, shot selection, chaining, motivation, target areas, angles, are all different. I am saying that sports fighting *competitions* are not a reliable metric for effectiveness in self defense.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Based on what?



Based on the Sino-Japanese war, intensified western imperialism in the region after the boxer rebellion, the birth of nationalist and communist  movements, the fall of the Qing dynasty, the westernization of Chinese society and its military, and China becoming a modern nationalist state.

All of that occurred in that period you're talking about.



> Someone in this thread mentioned the well known 'Sugong' by Nick Hurst, it's a good read and corroborates the travelers' account over the time period you're interested in.



The period I'm interested in is the 1920s, not the 1870s. That is two very different periods in Chinese history.



> 'Nonsense' is an empty assertion. They've painted a credible theory which is supported by some evidence. Calling it 'nonsense' or a 'silly excuse' is not persuasive.



Saying that your style doesn't have ground fighting because landing on the ground, and being on the ground is dangerous (yet the style in question has takedowns and throws where you end up on the ground anyway), is nonsense.



> So what is their 'excuse'?



Their excuse:


> Ground fighting was never introduced at this time as they believed that most self defense situations are initiated from a standing position. Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible.



It is better to just say that ground fighting is outside your sport's rules.



> Should Western Boxing incorporate groundwork?



No, because Boxing says that grappling isn't part of their ruleset. They don't make up excuses to try to say that ground fighting is an ineffective range of fighting.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Based on the Sino-Japanese war, intensified western imperialism in the region after the boxer rebellion, the birth of nationalist and communist  movements, the fall of the Qing dynasty, the westernization of Chinese society and its military, and China becoming a modern nationalist state.
> 
> All of that occurred in that period you're talking about.
> 
> The period I'm interested in is the 1920s, not the 1870s. That is two very different periods in Chinese history.



Please, I would be interested in what you are referring to when you are saying "different periods in Chinese history"

And as far as martial arts in that period, since you mentioned the " Sino-Japanese war" do you know what martial arts the Chinese trained their military with during that period?


and exactly what are you referring to in renc's post as being form 1870?


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Please, I would be interested in what you are referring to when you are saying "different periods in Chinese history"



1870s China is different from 1920s China. Why is that so difficult to understand? The same would apply to every country on the planet.



> And as far as martial arts in that period, since you mentioned the " Sino-Japanese war" do you know what martial arts the Chinese trained their military with during that period?



I'm talking about the first Sino-Japanese war (1894-1895), so I don't see how what martial art the military practiced would be relevant. There were also martial artists involved in the boxer rebellion. That fact is also irrelevant to the present conversation. We're talking about the lack of ground fighting in Sanda.



> and exactly what are you referring to in renc's post as being form 1870?



Renc quoted a traveler's account of life in 1870s China and tried to use it as a possible reason as to why Sanda didn't contain ground fighting. Sanda wasn't developed for another half century after those accounts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> 1870s China is different from 1920s China. Why is that so difficult to understand? The same would apply to every country on the planet.



Not hard at all to understand, also real easy to say, with no actual knowledge of the subject required. I am trying to asses what your actual knowledge on the topic is, since you mentioned it, that makes it relevant to the conversation



Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about the first Sino-Japanese war (1894-1895), so I don't see how what martial art the military practiced would be relevant. There were also martial artists involved in the boxer rebellion. That fact is also irrelevant to the present conversation. We're talking about the lack of ground fighting in Sanda.



Your they one that brought it into the conversation, again trying to see if you actually know what you are talking about. You made it relevant by your post and this was not an answer to my the question.

You also never answered my questions way back in post #145



Hanzou said:


> Renc quoted a traveler's account of life in 1870s China and tried to use it as a possible excuse as to why Sanda didn't contain ground fighting. Sandra wasn't developed for another half century.



OK, that is an asnswer and a justification for your post, thank you for this one


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Joe Rogan claimed that 'Kung Fu' doesn't have sparring.
> That statement is easily demonstrated to be ignorant.
> That is a fact.
> Changing that statement to 'there are some Kung Fu arts which don't spar' does not change that fact.
> All the Chinese martial arts I've encountered incorporate sparring. If there are arts which do not do sparring, ever, they are unrepresentative of CMA as a whole. With that in mind, which Chinese martial arts do not incorporate sparring?



First you need to show me the comment in question, then we can better understand the context in question.

And yes, we both know that there are TMAs that don't spar. There's no need for me to go through the web and link you to various TMA schools that don't practice it, we both know that that is a true statement.



> I demonstrated that Rogan is ignorant of how 'traditional' Chinese martial arts are applied.
> That is a fact.
> I demonstrated that Joe Rogan's statements are not logical from a purely martial, completely style agnostic point of view.
> That is a fact.



It's logical from his viewpoint which is based on MMA and combat sports. From his vantage point it is strange that Kung Fu styles haven't made a bigger impact in MMA, whereas other styles have. Further, his PoV is supported by what's currently occurring within China itself.



> That one martial art incorporates certain punches does not change those facts.



You miss the point here; Instead of incorporating traditional kung fu hand techniques, Sanda incorporated western boxing. Why would they do that? Why were the concepts of diverse KF styles like Choy Li Fut, Praying Mantis, Wing Chun, and various other popular styles not good enough to be a part of Sanda?



> That some Chinese feel that traditional styles are ineffective does not change those facts. I said 'some', when you say 'the feelings of the Chinese' and 'the younger generation of Chinese view' you're overgeneralizing. 'Some' Chinese train in 'traditional' arts, 'some' buy into MMA marketing tropes, 'some' believe conspiracy theories etc.



I'm simply repeating the reports from articles in China that are talking about the situation there. If a reporter in China is interviewing Kung Fu instructors and the Chinese youth and both are saying the same thing, who am I to argue?



> Then you're not understanding my argument. I did not say that sport martial arts cannot be applied effectively in self defense, I wrote the opposite.
> I'm saying that if someone applies a sport martial art in the same manner as they would in a competition, against opponent(s) who are competent at fighting in a street fighting context, then that person is liable to lose. Distance, timing, shot selection, chaining, motivation, target areas, angles, are all different. I am saying that sports fighting *competitions* are not a reliable metric for effectiveness in self defense.



Again I disagree. There's been plenty of cases where boxers applied their MA in a self defense situation just like they would in the ring. In fact, I would argue that the skills developed in a competitive/sport context better prepare you for a dangerous situation than doing a bunch of pointless forms and katas. After all who do you think would be more proficient at using their skill set; Mike Tyson in his prime, or some fat slob Kung Fu instructor who does pretty forms in silk pajamas?


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Not hard at all to understand, also real easy to say, with no actual knowledge of the subject required. I am trying to asses what your actual knowledge on the topic is, since you mentioned it, that makes it relevant to the conversation



I did that to illustrate the amount of upheaval that took place in a 50 year block because the person I was quoting seemed incapable of recognizing that he was talking about two very different points in Chinese history.



> Your they one that brought it into the conversation, again trying to see if you actually know what you are talking about. You made it relevant by your post and this was not an answer to my the question.



Trying to test my knowledge of the (first) Sino-Japanese war because you have an axe to grind isn't relevant to the topic.



> You also never answered my questions way back in post #145



I didn't view it as worth responding to, since several others were asking pretty much the same question.

No offense.



> OK, that is an asnswer and a justification for your post, thank you for this one



You're welcome, but you could have put that statement at the beginning of the post.


----------



## Tez3

because boxing is doing sooo well these days Mayweather-Pacquiao is over and boxing is dead, again


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Then you're not understanding my argument. I did not say that sport martial arts cannot be applied effectively in self defense, I wrote the opposite.
> I'm saying that if someone applies a sport martial art in the same manner as they would in a competition, against opponent(s) who are competent at fighting in a street fighting context, then that person is liable to lose. Distance, timing, shot selection, chaining, motivation, target areas, angles, are all different. I am saying that sports fighting *competitions* are not a reliable metric for effectiveness in self defense.



a competent boxer with just boxing including gloves on he could still hold off your average attacker using street tactics.

You can knock someone unconscious using just the methods allowed in competition. Which is enough to deter most attackers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> if he kept the fight standing up


  If he had kept the fight standing up then he would have been able to keep distance by moving



kuniggety said:


> People argue left and right how it's a fail of grappling of not being able to defend yourself from multiple opponents but the same thing goes for a street fight with strikes.


There are many more videos out there. Strikers fighting multiple people in a street fight
Not a street fight but a professional one. 2 vs 1 MMA fight.  When the 1 grapple at the end or choose to stay on his feet





Kid 5 vs 1





1 guy knocks out 4 guys





Team Fight







kuniggety said:


> This isn't TKD (or any other TMA) class with people taking turns sparring with you; this is one person throwing punches at you with another person rushing up from behind and either striking you too or tackling you to the ground.


A lot of traditional art schools have 1 vs multiple attackers scenarios, unscripted. I know my school has it and I've seen other school do it.  The purpose of the drill is survive, avoid being taken down, avoid being cornered, avoid being hit from solid attacks and strike when the opportunity presents itself.

The drills aren't full force because it becomes dangerous for the attackers once the defender reaches a certain skill ability because then it becomes dangerous.  By this I mean that the attacker could be attacking one person and then suddenly launch an attack at someone who is behind them, which catches the attacker off guard.  We had to actually tone down our scenarios because of this safety issue.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> because boxing is doing sooo well these days Mayweather-Pacquiao is over and boxing is dead, again


Boxing has been dead for a while. my guess is that's part of the reason MMA came out.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> A lot of traditional art schools have 1 vs multiple attackers scenarios, unscripted. I know my school has it and I've seen other school do it. The purpose of the drill is survive, avoid being taken down, avoid being cornered, avoid being hit from solid attacks and strike when the opportunity presents itself.



This is something we do and something I've seen in a lot of places in various styles including TKD and JKD.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> because boxing is doing sooo well these days Mayweather-Pacquiao is over and boxing is dead, again



We weren't talking about popularity or entertainment value, we were talking about applying it to a street fight.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> We weren't talking about popularity or entertainment value, we were talking about applying it to a street fight.




Mmm well no, you were telling us how boxers were so much fitter etc than fat Chinese stylists, well that's obviously not true when we have overweight, unfit and not very good pro boxers! probably best just not to generalise and to refrain from slagging off people you know nothing about really.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Mmm well no, you were telling us how boxers were so much fitter etc than fat Chinese stylists, well that's obviously not true when we have overweight, unfit and not very good pro boxers! probably best just not to generalise and to refrain from slagging off people you know nothing about really.



Uh, I was comparing Mike Tyson, a sport competitor , to your average traditional martial arts instructor who teaches "self defense", in which there are plenty of examples.

But yeah, if you want to play that game, I'm willing to bet that a pro boxer is going to be far more fit and athletic than the owner/instructor of a McDojo, and far more capable of handling themselves in a fight.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Trying to test my knowledge of the (first) Sino-Japanese war because you have an axe to grind isn't relevant to the topic.



No axe to grind, Unless you feel one has an axe to grind in trying to get to the truth of a matter. You brought it up so I asked a legitimate question. if you cannot answer it then I can only assume you do not actually know.

And the question was not actually about the first Sino-Japanese war was it, I did not specify 1st or 2nd, you threw 1st into the fray, although by years you used, one can assume that you are talking about the 1st. But in reality it was related to it in the form of "Do you know what martial art the Chinese soliders were trained in during the Sino-Japanese war? Pretty specific question actually

If you know then post it, if you don't than a simple no will do as well.



Hanzou said:


> I didn't view it as worth responding to, since several others were asking pretty much the same question.



Were those questions answered by you, if they were asked of you and not answered then they are relevant

And "pretty much" means what?

I asked rather specific questions about Sanda

Again, not answering I can only assume that you do not actually know.

Pretty easy, and relevant to the discussion, questions to answer, if you know then why not just answer, if you do not then admit it, that seems rather simple to me



Hanzou said:


> No offense.



No offense taken, just trying to asses if what is being said comes from actual knowledge or if it is just off the cuff to sound like you do to stop the questions



Hanzou said:


> You're welcome, but you could have put that statement at the beginning of the post.



Why? It was the last part of your post so I took them in order, and I was not going to thank you for the first two sections since you did not answer any questions.


----------



## JowGaWolf

You can't compare fighting sports to self-defense.  The mindset of self-defense is so different.  For example, fighting sports have rules that protect the fighters safety.  Self-defense throws all of those rules out the window.  Someone with a self-defense mentality will do any thing to beat the attacker, poke eyes, hit groins, bite, break fingers, pick up a weapon, bring a weapon, push a guy into moving traffic (I was in a real life conflict where I made this my option of possible things to do to that guy).

Self-defense training takes into account 100+ different thing things that a sports competitor doesn't have to worry about. As much as I dislike McDojos because they give people the false impression that they can actually fight.  I wouldn't risk assuming that the instructor has McDojo skills just because his takes advantage of his students and gives them McDojo skills.  The instructor may actually be legit and just a crooked person with no morals or genuine concern for his students. Bad people know how to fight too.

I'm not bring this up as a debate, but as something that everyone should keep in the back of their mind.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I said this along time ago, the main difference between sport and non-spot MA is that one trains to fight and expects to fight a person they very likely may see again, because it is expected to happen and the other trains to fight, but hopes not to fight, a person then hope to never see again. Add to that Sports MA training is not necessarily training for weapons defense or use, but some are and some are quite capable of dealing with it. And some traditional MA are in the same exact boat.

To be honest I never get these discussions, one is no better than the other if trained correctly. It is just their focus is slightly different.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You can't compare fighting sports to self-defense.  The mindset of self-defense is so different.  For example, fighting sports have rules that protect the fighters safety.  Self-defense throws all of those rules out the window.  Someone with a self-defense mentality will do any thing to beat the attacker, poke eyes, hit groins, bite, break fingers, pick up a weapon, bring a weapon, push a guy into moving traffic (I was in a real life conflict where I made this my option of possible things to do to that guy).



This viewpoint has been settled multiple times. Judo did it at the turn of the century, and Gracie JJ did it in the 1990s. You can practice all the deadly techniques you want, but you're not able to apply them when the chips are down, which makes their practice fairly pointless.

Why? Because you can't poke out your partner's eyes in practice. You can't keep kicking them in the nuts. You can't bite them over and over again. In short, its difficult (if not impossible) to practice those techniques and make them reactionary. On the other hand, you can throw someone, you can choke someone, you can arm bar someone, etc. as many times as necessary in order to perfect your technique.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> No axe to grind, Unless you feel one has an axe to grind in trying to get to the truth of a matter. You brought it up so I asked a legitimate question. if you cannot answer it then I can only assume you do not actually know.



Uh, I brought it up in a list of changes that happened to China between 1870 and 1920, showcasing why those two points in Chinese history are different. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the martial arts practiced by the Chinese "military" in 1894 (or I guess 1931) is relevant to a discussion about Sanda ground fighting.



> And the question was not actually about the first Sino-Japanese war was it, I did not specify 1st or 2nd, you threw 1st into the fray, although by years you used, one can assume that you are talking about the 1st. But in reality it was related to it in the form of "Do you know what martial art the Chinese soliders were trained in during the Sino-Japanese war? Pretty specific question actually
> 
> If you know then post it, if you don't than a simple no will do as well.



Again, which war are you talking about, and how is this relevant to the topic?



> Were those questions answered by you, if they were asked of you and not answered then they are relevant
> 
> And "pretty much" means what?
> 
> I asked rather specific questions about Sanda
> 
> Again, not answering I can only assume that you do not actually know.



I'm sure that I already stated that western boxing was incorporated into Sanda. I'm sure I can find some western influence in the throwing aspects too if I decide to care enough to dig deeper.



> Why? It was the last part of your post so I took them in order, and I was not going to thank you for the first two sections since you did not answer any questions.



Oh brother...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Why? Because you can't poke out your partner's eyes in practice. You can't keep kicking them in the nuts. You can't bite them over and over again. In short, its difficult


  These attacks are very easy to do so there's no "perfect training required" Fighters get hit in the nuts all the time which is why they wear cups.


----------



## JowGaWolf

This is a self-defense technique shown in MMA. No practice required.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> These attacks are very easy to do so there's no "perfect training required" Fighters get hit in the nuts all the time which is why they wear cups.



Yeah, and they're not difference makers either. Biting someone who has you pinned on the ground is a great way to get your face smashed. Further, a throw from a Judoka can kill you. A punch from a boxer can kill you. A choke from a Bjj practitioner can kill you. 

Kicking someone in the nuts or poking someone in the eye just pisses people off.


----------



## JowGaWolf

All of these shots are legal in self-defense. Especially hits behind the head. No training required.  May you never fight a guy that actually trains in doing these illegal shots and who is more than happy to do it.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You can't compare fighting sports to self-defense. The mindset of self-defense is so different. For example, fighting sports have rules that protect the fighters safety. Self-defense throws all of those rules out the window. Someone with a self-defense mentality will do any thing to beat the attacker, poke eyes, hit groins, bite, break fingers, pick up a weapon, bring a weapon, push a guy into moving traffic (I was in a real life conflict where I made this my option of possible things to do to that guy).



You know you really can compare them. The second a competitive fighter is allowed to bite or scratch or pull hair they are going to. 

There are pacing differences. But they are generally not rules driven. 






So you can have these running battles where some moves become higher percentage and the tactics change. But the basic mindset really dosent. 

You wouldn't own the field just because you can eyegouge.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> All of these shots are legal in self-defense. Especially hits behind the head. No training required.  May you never fight a guy that actually trains in doing these illegal shots and who is more than happy to do it.




All of those shots that were thrown in competition you mean? And that as a fighter you would have to be aware of.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> To be honest I never get these discussions, one is no better than the other if trained correctly. It is just their focus is slightly different.



Why couldn't another system not just be better?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Kicking someone in the nuts or poking someone in the eye just pisses people off.



Hanzou are you female?  I'm just asking because any male that has ever been kick in the nuts knows that it doesn't piss them off, it just hurts really bad.  The only time a guy gets mad about being kicked in the groin is when the kick fails to make contact with the nuts.  In those videos it didn't make a difference because it was done in a sporting context where there was someone to stop the fight.  In a self-defense situation on the street, when the guy gets kicked in the nuts, he just gets pounded, while he's in pain on the ground. That's the difference.

The fact that the fights are stopped for the safety of the guy who was kicked in the groin or poked in the eye is proof that it makes it different.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Hanzou are you female?  I'm just asking because any male that has ever been kick in the nuts knows that it doesn't piss them off, it just hurts really bad.  The only time a guy gets mad about being kicked in the groin is when the kick fails to make contact with the nuts.  In those videos it didn't make a difference because it was done in a sporting context where there was someone to stop the fight.  In a self-defense situation on the street, when the guy gets kicked in the nuts, he just gets pounded, while he's in pain on the ground. That's the difference.
> 
> The fact that the fights are stopped for the safety of the guy who was kicked in the groin or poked in the eye is proof that it makes it different.



Those are competitive sport fights, not life or death fights. In life or death fights, someone isn't going to stop attacking you because of a nut shot. You may stun them for a second, but then they're going to come at you harder than before.

If nut shots were as effective as you say they are, we would have entire martial arts revolving around groin shots. The fact that we don't kind of shows you that they don't end confrontations. I'm not saying that they're useless, what I'm saying is that you can't depend on a nut shot to stop a guy from trying to kill you.

And yes I'm male, and yes i've been hit in the nuts on a variety of occasions.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> ......... I'm just asking because any male that has ever been kick in the nuts knows that it doesn't piss them off, it just hurts really bad.



What a fuss over such a little thing......................


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> What a fuss over such a little thing......................


yep.  lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If nut shots were as effective as you say they are, we would have entire martial arts revolving around groin shots


Funny that you should say this.  The style of kung fu that I studdy has a kick that is specifically designed for hitting the grown, we also have a hand strike that aims at the same thing, an uppercut, and a jab that I can think of right off the top of my head, not that I think of it, we have another punch that is like a long uppercut that we do.  We have a big punch that has a primary target in front and the secondary target groin height. So yeah .. nut shots are that effective.  We actually have so many in our style that we are constantly joking, "just punch/kick them in the peaches"  

There are nine attacks in this form that can be utilized as groin attacks





There are 5 groin attacks in this form


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You know you really can compare them. The second a competitive fighter is allowed to bite or scratch or pull hair they are going to.
> 
> There are pacing differences. But they are generally not rules driven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can have these running battles where some moves become higher percentage and the tactics change. But the basic mindset really dosent.
> 
> You wouldn't own the field just because you can eyegouge.


ha ha ha.. I stand corrected. Those Russian fighters always messing up somebody's argument.  I saw that video when I was looking for the MMA team fight video.  Russian always has some crazy fight videos.  That competition is about as close as you can get without anyone dying. lol  no one has died doing it right?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> All of those shots that were thrown in competition you mean? And that as a fighter you would have to be aware of.


 Oh yeah in a street fight you definitely have to be aware of stuff like that. Someone like me would at some point in the fight target the groin if I see an opportunity to be successful in landing a snap kick to the groin.  Me person would never assume that someone won't kick me in the nuts.

I actually do something stupid from time to time such as spar without a cup and not having that cup makes me totally aware lol.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> I actually do something stupid from time to time such as spar without a cup and not having that cup makes me totally aware lol



Teach a children's martial arts class, you will learn very quickly to defend yourself form the most unexpected shots and especially groin shots, one kid took out one of our assistant instructors, the kid 'headbutted' him in the groin just by running at him and being the right height lol.  Of course, I laughed.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You know you really can compare them. The second a competitive fighter is allowed to bite or scratch or pull hair they are going to.
> 
> There are pacing differences. But they are generally not rules driven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can have these running battles where some moves become higher percentage and the tactics change. But the basic mindset really dosent.
> 
> You wouldn't own the field just because you can eyegouge.


  No one is going to allow intentional eye gouging in a competitive fight. Eye gouging is serious a people have gone blind in their eye because of it.  There would be a bunch of one eyed fighters walking around if eye gouging was legal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Teach a children's martial arts class, you will learn very quickly to defend yourself form the most unexpected shots and especially groin shots, one kid took out one of our assistant instructors, the kid 'headbutted' him in the groin just by running at him and being the right height lol.  Of course, I laughed.


ha ha ha.. so true. I remember when I thought I could just spar with a kid and just take it easy on them.  It's not like they had the strength to hurt me.  That mentality lasted all of 15 seconds.  I turned my head to glace at something and the next thing I knew that kid kick me in my groin.  The kids thought it was funny.. Every since then I'm on guard big time when sparring with kids.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I wasted all of my time posting here and I should have just posted this and called it a day.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. so true. I remember when I thought I could just spar with a kid and just take it easy on them.  It's not like they had the strength to hurt me.  That mentality lasted all of 15 seconds.  I turned my head to glace at something and the next thing I knew that kid kick me in my groin.  The kids thought it was funny.. Every since then I'm on guard big time when sparring with kids.




Muay Thai shin blocks are great when kids try to kick you especially when their parents are watching, it just looks as if you have lifted you leg a little but the pain caused to said child is satisfying ( it's always *that* child who tries to kick you) but the parent can't say anything because you didn't appear to do anything wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I wasted all of my time posting here and I should have just posted this and called it a day.



I certainly hope you're not saying that you agree with that video. The guy's argument in there is pretty silly.

Not only did he cut up Rogan's comments and took them out of context, but the prop up of Wing Chun as a complete system over MMA is pretty laughable in of itself.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Uh, I brought it up in a list of changes that happened to China between 1870 and 1920, showcasing why those two points in Chinese history are different. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the martial arts practiced by the Chinese "military" in 1894 (or I guess 1931) is relevant to a discussion about Sanda ground fighting.



You brought it into the discussion so you must have felt it relevant at the time, I am simply trying to find out if the statement of yours was actually based in knowledge or just thrown out to make you sound like you had knowledge. At this point, based on your refusal to answer I am pretty sure you were just trying to appear that you had knowledge that you do not actually have.

I am satisfied with this, thank you.



Hanzou said:


> which war are you talking about, and how is this relevant to the topic?



So you are now saying you do not remember your own post that specifically said which war as well as showing you did not comprehend my last post that clearly stated which war and why it could understood which war based on your choice of years. And it is relevant because again, you threw it out there and if you understand the history you should be at least taken seriously. However since it appears you do not then there is no reason to take any part of your posts in this third seriously because it appears you really do not know what you are saying on this point




Hanzou said:


> I'm sure that I already stated that western boxing was incorporated into Sanda. I'm sure I can find some western influence in the throwing aspects too if I decide to care enough to dig deeper.



That is not to the versions of Sanda that is to what is found in it. You are talking about things incorporated into sanda here, not the different types of Sanda. Again you seem to not really know what you are talking about as it applies to Sanda since there are distinct versions of it. And if you do not care enough to dig deeper then you don't care enough to understand the statements you are throwing out there about it and also do not really know what you are talking about as it applies to Sanda




Hanzou said:


> Oh brother...



Again, you are the one that made an issue of it so I do not understand why quoting Whinny the pooh applies at all. I was simply posting in order and you are the one that took issue with the order things were posted in so I explained and apparently you took issue with that as well... so be it

Based on your refusal to answer and take ownership for the things you posted, bottomline  here is that you do not appear to know anything about the topic as it applies to Sanda and even less about anything Chinese history or the martial arts of China.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Why couldn't another system not just be better?



Why am I not surprised you don't get it


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Why am I not surprised you don't get it



Because you know I would not accept a statement at face value.

And would assume that if you looked at different methods and compared them. It is more likley there would be a difference in effectiveness rather than all the methods working the same.

This would be consistent for any method of doing anything.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Because you know I would not accept a statement at face value.



Nah, not even close, but if it helps your self esteem to think that then you go for it


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I wasted all of my time posting here and I should have just posted this and called it a day.



The issue you have is that if your components don't add up then the whole system falls down. Joe didn't get this either. So if you do mma and can't box then if you get into a situation where you either have to box or defend boxing then you are going to be bashed.

This is why boxing is part of mma.

So the argument flows on that if you have all the dirty tricks in the world but can't box or defend boxing on the street if you get in that situation you will get bashed.

So the question you would ask then is how does wing chun compare in those basic ranges of fighting?


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Nah, not even close, but if it helps your self esteem to think that then you go for it



No really. If I said all methods of eating ice cream are the same. Then it would be looked at sceptically.

I mean we could be comparing eating it with a spoon to flinging it at a wall and licking it off.

There will be methods that are consistantly more effective and efficient.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The issue you have is that if your components don't add up then the whole system falls down. Joe didn't get this either. So if you do mma and can't box then if you get into a situation where you either have to box or defend boxing then you are going to be bashed.
> 
> This is why boxing is part of mma.
> 
> So the argument flows on that if you have all the dirty tricks in the world but can't box or defend boxing on the street if you get in that situation you will get bashed.
> 
> So the question you would ask then is how does wing chun compare in those basic ranges of fighting?


I couldn't answer that question because I don't do Wing Chun lol. But using your argument, If a boxer steps on the street and can't kick or defend against kicking then the wing chun guy may end up beating boxer.  Not knowing boxing doesn't guarantee a win for the boxer. If I had to fight a boxer then I would definitely fight the boxer where he is weak, for most boxers that's the legs.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I couldn't answer that question because I don't do Wing Chun lol. But using your argument, If a boxer steps on the street and can't kick or defend against kicking then the wing chun guy may end up beating boxer.  Not knowing boxing doesn't guarantee a win for the boxer. If I had to fight a boxer then I would definitely fight the boxer where he is weak, for most boxers that's the legs.



Correct. the aim would be to finish the fight without engaging in a punching exchange. And on the street with no gloves no rules this would be a case of if you got caught in a loosing punching battle you would be done in seconds. Two or three uncontested strikes and you will have trouble defending yourself.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> This is why boxing is part of mma.



Well that's why stand up is part of MMA, doesn't have to be 'boxing' (stance is wrong for MMA for a start) per se. people watch MMA see punching and striking while standing and assume it's 'boxing'.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I've already posted articles where the authors have said that the Chinese view Bjj and MMA (and other ring styles like Sanda and Muay Thai) as being more effective than traditional Kung Fu styles.


That is what drop bear would call 'anecdotal evidence'.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> If he had kept the fight standing up then he would have been able to keep distance by moving
> 
> There are many more videos out there. Strikers fighting multiple people in a street fight
> Not a street fight but a professional one. 2 vs 1 MMA fight.  When the 1 grapple at the end or choose to stay on his feet
> 
> A lot of traditional art schools have 1 vs multiple attackers scenarios, unscripted. I know my school has it and I've seen other school do it.  The purpose of the drill is survive, avoid being taken down, avoid being cornered, avoid being hit from solid attacks and strike when the opportunity presents itself.
> 
> The drills aren't full force because it becomes dangerous for the attackers once the defender reaches a certain skill ability because then it becomes dangerous.  By this I mean that the attacker could be attacking one person and then suddenly launch an attack at someone who is behind them, which catches the attacker off guard.  We had to actually tone down our scenarios because of this safety issue.



Vid 1: He got a lucky KO on the first guy. That's what was cool about the fight. Minus that KO, the fight would've went quite different.

Vid 2: The kids didn't circle the kid nor did any of them try to tackle him. They all pretty much ran in and let themselves get punched out by the kid. It was kind of funny to watch.

Vid 3: This one I thought was actually pretty cool. The guy obviously had some mad boxing skills. Kudos to him. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he couldn't run backwards though. He ran backwards which allowed him to fight one on one.

I am definitely not advocating a person not train striking. However, grappling should be in a person's arsenal. I don't care how well you think you can control the distance... you're eventually going to get cornered, you're going to get hit by the guy you didn't see, you're going to trip, etc and down you're going to go and you're going to need to know what to do. Also, if your intent is to subdue or control a single person, then striking isn't always the best method for doing so. Grappling will allow you to do that. You have to know when and where to use each style.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Well that's why stand up is part of MMA, doesn't have to be 'boxing' (stance is wrong for MMA for a start) per se. people watch MMA see punching and striking while standing and assume it's 'boxing'.



Well here we can get technical and suggest whose boxing stance. To whose mma. 

Kosta tszyu had a nice mma ish style.





But yeah it dosent have to be boxing. It depends where your strengths are.


----------



## RTKDCMB

renc said:


> "Y'know if you back-fist someone in the face it's not gonna feel good, it's not gonna feel good to get back-fisted in the face, but it's not as good as if you [expletive] overhand right somebody."
> 
> When would a back-fist be used.
> When would a jab be used. Is a jab not as good as an overhand right? Is this nonsensical?
> When you're breaking down a (standup) guard.
> When someone at your back grabs your shoulder and spins you round, there's no time for an overhand right.
> Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
> When you're striking low to the groin then high to the face.
> Not that you'll learn this from UFC.
> When you're using the other arm to press and control an opponents arm.
> When it's an option, when your hands are in a particular position at a particular point in time.
> When you're looking for that change in angle and shape which causes a 'wtf' moment for a few milliseconds in your opponents' mind, which is often enough to land the opening.
> This is what you learn in free sparring. In 'traditional' Kung Fu arts.
> Has Joe Rogan trained in 'Kung Fu'?
> Has he searched out good 'Kung Fu' instructors and asked why they teach what they teach?
> Has he tried sparring with them?



When would a back-fist be used? - When you want to break someone's face. Joe Rogan seriously underestimates the effectiveness of a good back fist.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Because you can't poke out your partner's eyes in practice. You can't keep kicking them in the nuts. You can't bite them over and over again. In short, its difficult (if not impossible) to practice those techniques and make them reactionary.


How much practice do you think you need biting and poking people in the eyes? For groin kicking you just need to practice your kicks to be powerful and accurate, you don't need to actually kick someone in the groin to practice it.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> When would a back-fist be used? - When you want to break someone's face. Joe Rogan seriously underestimates the effectiveness of a good back fist.



I love a good backfist, it's a very effective strike.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> When would a back-fist be used? - When you want to break someone's face. Joe Rogan seriously underestimates the effectiveness of a good back fist.



It leaves you open to a counter. If you backfist with say. Your right hand and I have my guard up the backfist will do nothing.

But this leaves the right side of your head open to a counter with my free hand. 

A hook or a cross does not do this. Because you can cover your head with your free hand.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. I stand corrected. Those Russian fighters always messing up somebody's argument.  I saw that video when I was looking for the MMA team fight video.  Russian always has some crazy fight videos.  That competition is about as close as you can get without anyone dying. lol  no one has died doing it right?



Don't think so. But the point is there that the mechanics change in a different manner than just a kick boxing match that has eyegouges instead of punching. The dynamics change.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> How much practice do you think you need biting and poking people in the eyes? For groin kicking you just need to practice your kicks to be powerful and accurate, you don't need to actually kick someone in the groin to practice it.



Yes. The inner leg kick is good enough to get the timing for a groin kick.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> How much practice do you think you need biting and poking people in the eyes? For groin kicking you just need to practice your kicks to be powerful and accurate, you don't need to actually kick someone in the groin to practice it.



Against someone trained, or someone on top of you bashing your face in, or a combination of both?

Quite a bit.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It leaves you open to a counter. If you backfist with say. Your right hand and I have my guard up the backfist will do nothing.
> 
> But this leaves the right side of your head open to a counter with my free hand.



It does not make any sense to strike, using any strike, to a target that is well covered. You can use a back fist to an open target, you can also open up a target by trapping or knocking away a hand in a guarding position first.



drop bear said:


> IA hook or a cross does not do this. Because you can cover your head with your free hand.



A hook or cross can be easily deflected from the outside without much impact on your arm, whist a back fist can only be blocked head on. There is no reason why you can not cover your head with your free hand whist doing a back fist and straight after the back fist your hand is basically in a guard position which does not happen with a hook or a cross where you have to retract it to the guard position.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> t does not make any sense to strike, using any strike, to a target that is well covered. You can use a back fist to an open target, you can also open up a target by trapping or knocking away a hand in a guarding position first.



You are not going to just get clean shots into someone's head unless they are crap. So I am working on this idea that they are going to be either well covered will counter my attacks or will be firing shots back. Reducing the amount of free shots that I get and increasing the risk of throwing each shot in the first place. 

I really want to fire my attacks with the possibility that they will get blocked.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> A hook or cross can be easily deflected from the outside without much impact on your arm, whist a back fist can only be blocked head on. There is no reason why you can not cover your head with your free hand whist doing a back fist and straight after the back fist your hand is basically in a guard position which does not happen with a hook or a cross where you have to retract it to the guard position.









See how the right hand side is open to counter. This is the same side as that free hand that is not involved in blocking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RTKDCMB said:


> When would a back-fist be used? - When you want to break someone's face. Joe Rogan seriously underestimates the effectiveness of a good back fist.


 We have other ways to throw a backfist other than just the standard trap/ backfist that most people see. Here are some variations of a Jow Ga backfist. Anyone that trains in a martial arts should understand that there are multiple ways to throw fist around. 
I'll let others decide if any of these would be effective.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I really want to fire my attacks with the possibility that they will get blocked.


  You can always feint or throw combinations, to get punches in.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> I don't care how well you think you can control the distance... you're eventually going to get cornered, you're going to get hit by the guy you didn't see, you're going to trip, etc and down you're going to go and you're going to need to know what to do.


 There's no guarantee that any of that will happen. No one in the videos that posted tripped, even if you do trip it doesn't mean you are going down, people recover from stumbling all the time.



kuniggety said:


> I wonder what the outcome would have been if he couldn't run backwards though. He ran backwards which allowed him to fight one on one.


  This is the likely outcome if you go to the ground when fighting multiple people.  One guy tries to hold you down while his pals come over to beat you in the face.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You can always feint or throw combinations, to get punches in.



Yep.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> There's no guarantee that any of that will happen. No one in the videos that posted tripped, even if you do trip it doesn't mean you are going down, people recover from stumbling all the time.



No, there isn't a guarantee. I was pointing out you should train for the worst and not the optimal.



> This is the likely outcome if you go to the ground when fighting multiple people.  One guy tries to hold you down while his pals come over to beat you in the face.



I agree. You seem bent on trying trying to pick out points of my posts to try to argue when, in reality, I'm mostly agreeing with you. Grappling is not good for multiple opponents. I think everyone should train striking. I just think it wise to also train grappling. Whether you're a boxer, JowGa practitioner, TKD master, etc, that striking expertise goes out the window as soon as you hit the ground.

 I went into grappling as a person who has only ever done stand up style martial arts. I never even wrestled as a kid... I didn't know my head from my *** on the ground. I know lots of stand up martial artists who I've trained with that would kick my *** but I also know that, on the ground, they'd be as clueless as me. That's not the case anymore after studying BJJ after a couple of years. I won't sing the praises of BJJ; people should study catch wrestling, sambo, etc instead of leaving a gaping whole in their self-defense.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> No really. If I said all methods of eating ice cream are the same. Then it would be looked at sceptically.
> 
> I mean we could be comparing eating it with a spoon to flinging it at a wall and licking it off.
> 
> There will be methods that are consistantly more effective and efficient.




But we're not talking about that are we..... and the obvious hygiene issues aside.... the comparison is ludicrous....


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> people should study catch wrestling, sambo, etc instead of leaving a gaping whole in their self-defense


 I agree with this completely from a self-defense point. I know that some TKD skools do a lot of point sparring and pickup up some really bad habits as a result of only focusing on point sparring Training for point sparring is fine just as long as the instructors make it known that's where they specialize in, instead of making the sales pitch that they do self-defense.

I  was recently teaching a new student (from china) about how the shoot works and what to understand about defending against it.  He immediately stated with confidence "why would anyone shoot on another person, because you can just knee them in the head or punch them in the head"  He was totally unaware of just how quick and dangerous a shoot can be. The biggest problem he has is the mentality that there is no need to know how to deal with it because "you can just punch them in the face." I guess all of kung fu action movies gave birth to this.  If a person is doing self-defense then they have to close the gap.  If they are fighting for sport then it's not necessary to close the gap because the rules of the sport will have limits on what can be done and what can't be done.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It leaves you open to a counter. If you backfist with say. Your right hand and I have my guard up the backfist will do nothing.
> 
> But this leaves the right side of your head open to a counter with my free hand.
> 
> A hook or a cross does not do this. Because you can cover your head with your free hand.



The backfist is no different to  a hook or a cross, of course you can cover your head with your free hand. Not sure what you think it is. Your pic is not how we do it, we never leave an arm down, ever, and a spinning back fist is magic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> The backfist is no different to  a hook or a cross, of course you can cover your head with your free hand. Not sure what you think it is. Your pic is not how we do it, we never leave an arm down, ever, and a spinning back fist is magic.


Oh yes.. the spinning backfist.  How could I forget that one. That's the most famous one of all  See mark (0:37)





Even at 62 years old, the spinning back fist is deadly.


----------



## Steve

I'm pretty sure that we've seen some pretty effective use of spinning techniques in the UFC, including the spinning backfist. 

Are we discussing things in context?  I ask because, warts and all, I don't see Joe Rogan bashing specific techniques, particularly ones we've seen used with some success at a high level within MMA.


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> Training methodology is at work here. I am of the same belief. That if you are training to fight the end result should actually be a fight. Or you get a bit weird.
> 
> Tkders who go at it full contact fight OK. Those that don't well nobody knows one way or the other.
> 
> Joe rogan says his experience of being man handled by a boxer and suggests tkd does not train as effectively for fighting. I would agree that if you could not jump in a ring and survive an encounter with a boxer then you need to reevaluate your training.
> 
> So say you wind up like this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the obvious advice is do some boxing,get better hand skills. And never fight that guy again.


|
I've been listening to the banter here, as the forum regulars demonstrate their English skills, including a repository of definitions I've never encountered.  The Joe Rogan commentary is another that gets recycled & recycled &recycled.  Joe Rogan, IMO, is and was a top sport karate (TKD style) fighter.  Because Rogan is / was a top sport karate competitor, doesn't mean his competence translates into true TMA.  Rogan's creditials are a sport karate competitor & instructor.  That's it.
|
We see that with the comment here.  You have a TKD stylist against a boxer.  The TKD stylist is doing all the silly stuff TKD sport competitors typically do.  Spring in with a kick, that has point fighting effect.... yet no measurable impact in a full contact venue.  Obviously incompetent.  The TKD stylist does the typical, trite move in and kick then bounce away.  Oh & dance, er prance around (hint: instead of engage & destroy) There is absolutely no continuity or reason to his tactics.  Pathetic, yet representative of sport karate (TKD) practice.
|
The poster mentions the kick emphasis.  Here's the simple applied definition of TKD: Foot / Fist Way.  Yes, in application, TKD is supposed to be, traditionally that is, balanced by use of hands & feet.  Not to mention some tactical intelligence in the applications of same.
|
Practitioners who train for sport, who don't train traditional, then fail or find failing in the 'traditional marital art' they have never actually understood or trained.  That, my friends is JOE ROGAN, simply defined....
|
BTW: I got the TKD definition from a googled WTKD website.  "What is TKD..." 'nuff said.


----------



## Tez3

Shotonoob, style bashing is against the rules here, if you can't say anything constructive and just want to stir things up then this isn't the place for it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


>


From that picture it is difficult to tell if the strike the guy on the right is throwing is a back fist or a vertical punch that the guy on the left has just slipped by.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> From that picture it is difficult to tell if the strike the guy on the right is throwing is a back fist or a vertical punch that the guy on the left has just slipped by.




I agree, it's hard to tell what it actually is,


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> From that picture it is difficult to tell if the strike the guy on the right is throwing is a back fist or a vertical punch that the guy on the left has just slipped by.



What difference would it make?

Let's say it is a backfist and we can deal with slipping a vertical punch another day.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> What difference would it make?
> 
> Let's say it is a backfist and we can deal with slipping a vertical punch another day.




Really? why say it's a backfist if it's not? It certainly doesn't resemble one we'd do for a start, how about showing a roundhouse kick and we'll call it a takedown?


----------



## ShotoNoob

Tez3 said:


> Shotonoob, style bashing is against the rules here, if you can't say anything constructive and just want to stir things up then this isn't the place for it.


|
And it's against the rules to put words in my mouth....  so don't do so....


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> What difference would it make?



In this instance, not a lot however putting it in context, I was stating that a good back fist is a very effective technique, then you said the following:



drop bear said:


> It leaves you open to a counter. If you backfist with say. Your right hand and I have my guard up the backfist will do nothing.
> 
> But this leaves the right side of your head open to a counter with my free hand.



I then stated that the back fist leaves you no more open to counter attack than a hook or cross and that it makes no sense to strike to where your guard is without moving it or making you move it, or words to that effect. Then you said the following:



drop bear said:


> A hook or a cross does not do this. Because you can cover your head with your free hand.



I then said that you can also cover your head with your free hand when doing a back fist and when you are doing a right hook or a cross you can still be vulnerable to attack from the right side. You then posted the photo to illustrate your point;



drop bear said:


> See how the right hand side is open to counter. This is the same side as that free hand that is not involved in blocking.


 
The picture could either be a back fist or a punch (straight punch or cross) and you will have the exact same problem with being open to counter attack.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Really? why say it's a backfist if it's not? It certainly doesn't resemble one we'd do for a start, how about showing a roundhouse kick and we'll call it a takedown?



Because we are discussing a back fist.

Quite simply a back fist will either come from the side and land pretty much like in that photo or it is going to come straight over the top and land vertically. Which is a manky way to throw a back fist.

Now it does not matter if your backfist looks any different provided it lands about in the same place leaving pretty much the same opportunity to counter it because when you throw a backfist the whole right side of your head is open.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I then said that you can also cover your head with your free hand when doing a back fist and when you are doing a right hook or a cross you can still be vulnerable to attack from the right side. You then posted the photo to illustrate your point;



Your cover hand would have to come right across the front of your face.

Or duck the shot or cover with your shoulder. All of which is risky.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> The picture could either be a back fist or a punch (straight punch or cross) and you will have the exact same problem with being open to counter attack.




If it was a straight punch you would have to move to slip and then throw a round punch before that hand goes back to their head.

You can do it but you are trying to beat 1 movement with several movement which is really hard.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I then stated that the back fist leaves you no more open to counter attack than a hook or cross and that it makes no sense to strike to where your guard is without moving it or making you move it, or words to that effect. Then you said the following:



If you throw more than one punch in combination then you are working on the principle that some of those strikes will be thrown into the of oponants guard.






Left hook into the guard right uppercut into the head.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Here's a video of me throwing a vertical backfist during sparring without my right side being open to attack
About the video:  Watch it while you can. It won't be up for long.
1. This was during live sparring, with no prearranged attacks. The guy I'm sparring against is quick but the combo threw him off.
2. I was practicing with attacking at angles and this was my first real success. Notice at how my sparring partner tries to kick me, not realizing that I was no longer in front of him.
3. The back fist was about as text book as you'll probably see for a trap then backfist strike.
4. It took me a little more than 2 seconds to throw 4 attacks and that's was because I was holding back
5. I actually pulled the backfist so it wouldn't land hard.
6. I also intentionally threw him behind my back because I didn't put enough power in the backfist to stun him.  If the backfist was thrown at full force then the throw wouldn't have been necessary.
7. The right side of my head is out of his range.
8. The video won't be up long.

Martial Artist should be throwing combos and multiple attacks.  Save the Bruce Lee one punch, one kick stuff for the movies.  Throwing combinations keeps your opponent occupied and creates openings that otherwise wouldn't be there.  Backfists are difficult to counter unless you see it coming. My backfist lands with no resistance from his guard.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Quite simply a back fist will either come from the side and land pretty much like in that photo or it is going to come straight over the top and land vertically. Which is a manky way to throw a back fist.


In the style of kung fu that I practice the direction of the backfist depends on what target we are trying to hit. The vertical back fists can is awesome for stunning the opponent with the objective of setting up another attack.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's a video of me throwing a vertical backfist during sparring without my right side being open to attack



Your right side is completely open to attack. Every attack creates openings for a counter attack.
The right side of your head was exposed. Your ribs and abdomen were exposed. Your right leg is exposed.



 

Your partner could have slipped his left hand above your arm and attacked your head, especially if he'd kept his right hand up to protect his head. That kick could have been a roundhouse to the solar plexus or side kick to the ribs. Or to the back/side or your right knee. Given that pretty much 100% of your weight in on your right leg, an attack to the knee could have been crippling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Your right side is completely open to attack. Every attack creates openings for a counter attack. Quite simply a back fist will either come from the side and land pretty much like in that photo or it is going to come straight over the top and land vertically. Which is a manky way to throw a back fist.


 My right side isn't open to a counter attack because of the angle that I'm at. If you notice in the video he actually tries to kick me and his foot goes past me. The reason his foot goes past me is because I'm no longer standing where I was when his brain told him to kick.  The exposure that your are talking about only exist if I'm standing in front of him. 



Dirty Dog said:


> Your partner could have slipped his left hand above your arm and attacked your head, especially if he'd kept his right hand up to protect his head


  He couldn't have slipped his left hand above my arm because you can't do a heel kick and an effective left cross at the same time especially if you are leaning to the left as a result of trying to avoid the backfist. (don't take my word for it, try it and you'll see how awkward it is.).  Had I hit him with full force he would have been knocked off balance. He also couldn't have used his right hand to block because I used a trap to pull down his right hand. You can see this right before I throw the backfist. 



Dirty Dog said:


> That kick could have been a roundhouse to the solar plexus or side kick to the ribs. Or to the back/side or your right knee. Given that pretty much 100% of your weight in on your right leg, an attack to the knee could have been crippling.


  wrong again. Watch the video agian, look at his legs and you'll see that he was in no position to throw a roundhouse. A side kick would have only been possible if he knew I was going to take that angle, which he didn't and is the reason why none of what you said happen.


----------



## JowGaWolf

It took me a little more than 2 seconds to throw my combo (keep in mind that I'm holding back and not going full speed).  That means that he has less than 2 seconds to assume that I would be off to the side of him and not in front of him.  From the time that I was in front of him and landed the kick right below his knee he had exactly less than 0:00;15 of a second to know that I would trap his punch to my face.  From the time that I trapped his punch, (at an angle) he only has less than 0:00;10 of a second to take advantage of any openings that may be there as a result of me doing my backfist to his head.  

The picture below clearly shows that his body twisted. You can look at his front leg and torso and easily tell that he can't do a round house or a side kick from that position.  You'll also notice the way that I start my backfist protects my head. And yes it's from the same video.  Yes my lower body looks open which is why he probably took the front heel kick as his choice, but because I was at an angle, that front kick wasn't going to land.





Here you can see that his kick misses me completely.  Look at the position of his foot, and his torso in relation to my lead foot and rear foot. Also take note that he's actually leaning to his left as if he's trying to punch around my backfist.  That lean is actually cause by the backfist being on his face. I added a red line so that it's easier to see the angle.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Your right side is completely open to attack. Every attack creates openings for a counter attack.
> The right side of your head was exposed. Your ribs and abdomen were exposed. Your right leg is exposed.
> 
> View attachment 19479
> 
> Your partner could have slipped his left hand above your arm and attacked your head, especially if he'd kept his right hand up to protect his head. That kick could have been a roundhouse to the solar plexus or side kick to the ribs. Or to the back/side or your right knee. Given that pretty much 100% of your weight in on your right leg, an attack to the knee could have been crippling.



He parries the backfist giving away the advantage of controlling that side.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The pictures below come from a real sparring session we were practicing technique.  There were no prearranged movements and neither one of us knew what technique the other was working on.

This is a trap with a backfist thrown at an angle. My left hand is responsible for keeping punches out of my face.  My backfist will serve as attack and defense.  A hook will land if I stand still. I'm actually too high in my stance so a shoot on me while I'm in this a high stance would be successful.  The shoot isn't an issue because we practice on a concrete floor.  The point is the backfist is thrown at an angle.





This is a lead backfist. Similar to the Jow Ga video with instructor in a blue shirt. I think this backfist is worst than the spinning backfist.





This is the proper way to throw the backfist shown in the first picture (above) where I was standing too high. My stance is lower and wider, my head is protected from any attack from that left hand that's on my waist. My left hand is controlling his left arm.  A punch to my gut is out of the question. The reason my backfist isn't blurred on this one is because I actually stopped it from making contact.  I forgot what my partner was trying to do, in this image, I just remember that the backfist caught him by surprise and he knew as well as I did that he was done for.  At this point he's basically just bracing for the impact.


----------



## Tez3

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> And it's against the rules to put words in my mouth....  so don't do so....



So, you've come back here to stir arguments up.....


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Because we are discussing a back fist.
> 
> Quite simply a back fist will either come from the side and land pretty much like in that photo or it is going to come straight over the top and land vertically. Which is a manky way to throw a back fist.
> 
> Now it does not matter if your backfist looks any different provided it lands about in the same place leaving pretty much the same opportunity to counter it because when you throw a backfist the whole right side of your head is open.



I think you are getting muddled up to be honest, when we use back fist we make sure we are covered up and it's easy to do this, how you do the backfist matters a lot, we don't do it as shown in the pics above, ours is elbow up first then back fist and can come off either arm, we twist as we do it to give more power. At no time are you left open. I've never seen a back fist come over the top. In JKD I know the back fist is done first then the elbow comes up, I've tried to do it that way when I trained with them but it's ingrained in me that the elbow comes up first then the back fist, it works well because it's not a 'one' strike you follow it up quickly with another strike often an elbow strike.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I think you are getting muddled up to be honest, when we use back fist we make sure we are covered up and it's easy to do this, how you do the backfist matters a lot, we don't do it as shown in the pics above, ours is elbow up first then back fist and can come off either arm, we twist as we do it to give more power. At no time are you left open. I've never seen a back fist come over the top. In JKD I know the back fist is done first then the elbow comes up, I've tried to do it that way when I trained with them but it's ingrained in me that the elbow comes up first then the back fist, it works well because it's not a 'one' strike you follow it up quickly with another strike often an elbow strike.



That elbow is not going to cover the whole side of your body. It is going to land on the side of your head with the arm out stretched.

And why would you back up a ranged strike with a short strike?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> That elbow is not going to cover the whole side of your body. It is going to land on the side of your head with the arm out stretched.
> 
> And why would you back up a ranged strike with a short strike?




It doesn't have to be a ranged strike and the elbow isn't there to cover, I didn't say it was, that's what your other arm is for.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> My right side isn't open to a counter attack because of the angle that I'm at. If you notice in the video he actually tries to kick me and his foot goes past me. The reason his foot goes past me is because I'm no longer standing where I was when his brain told him to kick.  The exposure that your are talking about only exist if I'm standing in front of him.



The reason his foot went past you is because he chose the wrong kick. You would have moved into a roundhouse.



JowGaWolf said:


> He couldn't have slipped his left hand above my arm because you can't do a heel kick and an effective left cross at the same time especially if you are leaning to the left as a result of trying to avoid the backfist.



Who said anything about "at the same time?"
Leaning to the left to avoid the backfist would have aided a roundhouse kick. And if you don't think you're exposed to a roundhouse in that photo, you're lying to yourself.



JowGaWolf said:


> wrong again. Watch the video agian, look at his legs and you'll see that he was in no position to throw a roundhouse. A side kick would have only been possible if he knew I was going to take that angle, which he didn't and is the reason why none of what you said happen.



Or maybe he's just not a good kicker...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> The reason his foot went past you is because he chose the wrong kick. You would have moved into a roundhouse.


  This statement is like telling someone who ducks a jab that the reason he didn't get hit was because the guy throwing the jab threw the wrong punch and should have thrown an uppercut.
The benefit of attacking at angles is that it makes your opponent attack where you were instead of where you are going to be.  If he was in a position to do a roundhouse then I would have factored it and would have done something other than a back fist as a way to address a possible roundhouse.  Had he not punched which would have resulted in me doing an empty trap then I would have not continued with the backfist because his right hand would still be free and not controlled.

I actually have a video where I do an empty trap because my opponent didn't throw the punch combo that I thought he would. I abandoned my original plans of attack with an expectation that he would do a round house kick.  Here are clips from that video
Here you can see that I do an empty trap because my opponent didn't move in as I thought he would.  Notice that he's in a good position to launch a round house and being that he used to do TKD.  I take his roundhouse serious, he's our strongest kicker for the roundhouse kick and could easily break ribs.  I'm saying this so you understand that he knows how to throw a good roundhouse.  At this point I know I'm in danger.







There are 2 rules that I have for a roundhouse kick. 1. The power comes at the end of this type of kick.  2. When I see it or think it's coming then move forward so that I don't get hit with 100% of the force of the kick.  This is what I did in this video:
1. I moved forward and at the same time I grab his guard with my right hand to prevent the right hand from being able to hit me.  If I get hit, the the kick won't land at full force.
2. If someone kicks then it means that they are rooted on one leg.  If I can disrupt or destroy the root then it will reduce the power of at a roundhouse kick. This is what you are seeing in the picture below.  The reason he's leaning back is because I'm too close and he's trying to adjust. Take a look at the location of my left foot in the picture above and compare it to where it is located now.
3. My left hand is free to deal with that roundhouse kick coming in.  I know that I will be ok with blocking it with my left hand because I'm not on the power end of the kick






In this picture you can see that my foot destroys his root.  This is the disruption that a "tap" to his root causes.  He would have gone airborne if I kicked him with my full force.  Take notice of how my left arm is blocking the kick coming in. Take a look at how well I'm rooted.  The only reason this happened is because my initial trap was a big fail.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Leaning to the left to avoid the backfist would have aided a roundhouse kick.


 He did lean to the left and the backfist still landed.  Had the backfist been full strength then it would have knocked him off balance because of the way we throw our backfist (which I won't be giving the technique up). 

He is also not a weak kicker.


----------



## JowGaWolf

You can't accurately analyze a video by only assuming what one person could have or would have done to stop an attack.  There are two people fighting so you have to analyze both.  Starting with a process like this.
1. How would my opponent need to have his body set up in order to do a successful roundhouse to my stomach, chest, or face.?
2. If my opponent sets up this way then what events are most likely not to occur.  In the case of the backfist video, had my opponent had a stance that is better suited for a roundhouse then he would have never thrown the punch that I trapped, resulting in an empty trap.
3. If I do an empty trap then will I continue with the plan to do a backfist or will I change my plan?
4. If I continue my plan then will the roundhouse be succesful?
5. If I change my plan then what will the outcomes be based on my possible choices.?

This is how you analyze a video.  You can't change one person's actions without changing another person's actions.  The assumption that some people are making is that I wouldn't change my course of action even if he was in a proper stance to throw a roundhouse kick.  This how many TMAs get into trouble when they make plans on how to defend against a shoot.  Some people just assume that they are guaranteed to punch or kick their way out of it, and because of that logic, they fail to adjust when plan A changes fails

Had I did an empty trap or had my partner been in a position to do a roundhouse in that video, then  I would have never done that type of backhand and therefore would have never been in the position.  

Also just because someone looks open doesn't mean that they are actually open.  Fighters will often give the appearance that they are open in order to draw in a certain attack or certain reaction.


----------



## Dirty Dog

OK, you're invulnerable. Got it. Have fun with that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, you're invulnerable. Got it. Have fun with that.


Yeah you are right.  I'm invulnerable, that's why I have over plenty of pictures like this to prove that to myself that I'm invulnerable.






All of the assumptions that you make about what could have been done are made because you know that my last shot will be a backfist.  Had I stopped the video before the trap, no one in this room would have known what my next attack would have been, or if I would have been attacking at an angle, retreating, or attacking head-on. You wouldn't know if what type of punch or kick was coming next.  And that's the situation that my sparring partner was in. And that's the reality of a fight, no one has the luxury to get a do over in the middle or at the end of a combo.  

If anyone could have predicted what would have happened next if I had stopped the video before the parry then they are only fooling themselves, and are probably the same people who think they can punch their way out of a grappling shoot.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> He did lean to the left and the backfist still landed.  Had the backfist been full strength then it would have knocked him off balance because of the way we throw our backfist (which I won't be giving the technique up).
> 
> He is also not a weak kicker.



He is a bit of a gumby though.I wasn't going to mention it but if you want to raise it I will comment.

He seems to be creating more opportunitys than you are.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> He is a bit of a gumby though.I wasn't going to mention it but if you want to raise it I will comment.
> 
> He seems to be creating more opportunitys than you are.


 I don't know what you mean when you say "he's a bit of a gumby" and which guy are you talking about? Me (the red headgear) or the one in the black head gear?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know what you mean when you say "he's a bit of a gumby" and which guy are you talking about? Me (the red headgear) or the one in the black head gear?



Gumby is a big green plasticine guy.






You are getting unopposed opportunity's to strike because he is making some errors that could be avoided.
Unbalanced and overcommitted striking,chasing hands. Hands lower than his waist.flinching? Not sure I will have another look.

But yeah under those conditions a back fist will work fine

Edit.

(Not so flinchy)


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Gumby is a big green plasticine guy.


A grappler's worst nightmare.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Gumby is a big green plasticine guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting unopposed opportunity's to strike because he is making some errors that could be avoided.
> Unbalanced and overcommitted striking,chasing hands. Hands lower than his waist.flinching? Not sure I will have another look.
> 
> But yeah under those conditions a back fist will work fine
> 
> Edit.
> 
> (Not so flinchy)


ha ha ha.. I know who gumby is just didn't wasn't sure about the expression.. That's for taking the time to explain because I definitely had the wrong meaning in mind, thinking more along the lines of uncoordinated similar to the way gumby walks. 

As far as my sparring partner goes, good eyes. I've only seen him unbalanced when he's over excited or when something new comes at him. In the video his reactions are because I through something extremely new and different at him so he didn't know what to quite do with it.  I'm not saying I'm some hotshot, I'm just saying that it's not norm for me to attack or move like that in sparring.  As a matter of fact it was the first time that I tried that combo in sparring so it was even new for me. 90% of my sparring is done as a counter fighter.  I spend more time trying to learn my opponents movement than I do in trying to attack and sometimes that gets me into trouble because I'm so focus on trying to understand my opponents movement that I don't react in time, resulting in me getting rocked in the head or punched in the gut.

I couldn't tell you what was going on with his hands lower than his waist. Your guess is good as mine. I think he flinched because he might have been expecting me to do one of our big punches.  If that's what the flinch is from then it's an expectation of how hard the impact of the punch would be, but then again I could be wrong.  I'll have to ask him about it to see what the deal was.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. I know who gumby is just didn't wasn't sure about the expression.. That's for taking the time to explain because I definitely had the wrong meaning in mind, thinking more along the lines of uncoordinated similar to the way gumby walks.
> 
> As far as my sparring partner goes, good eyes. I've only seen him unbalanced when he's over excited or when something new comes at him. In the video his reactions are because I through something extremely new and different at him so he didn't know what to quite do with it.  I'm not saying I'm some hotshot, I'm just saying that it's not norm for me to attack or move like that in sparring.  As a matter of fact it was the first time that I tried that combo in sparring so it was even new for me. 90% of my sparring is done as a counter fighter.  I spend more time trying to learn my opponents movement than I do in trying to attack and sometimes that gets me into trouble because I'm so focus on trying to understand my opponents movement that I don't react in time, resulting in me getting rocked in the head or punched in the gut.
> 
> I couldn't tell you what was going on with his hands lower than his waist. Your guess is good as mine. I think he flinched because he might have been expecting me to do one of our big punches.  If that's what the flinch is from then it's an expectation of how hard the impact of the punch would be, but then again I could be wrong.  I'll have to ask him about it to see what the deal was.



He chases hands so he is trying to keep up with your attacks by reaching out for your arms all the time. This drags his hands further and further away from his body and puts him in a continually worse position. And then because what he is trying to do is impossible he then leans to give himself more reach. Making his situation worse.

We have a saying in wresting called Tyrannosaurus arms. Which are little arms tucked in. Even for a hand trapping style you can't get to crazy with what your hands do.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> If it was a straight punch you would have to move to slip and then throw a round punch before that hand goes back to their head.
> 
> You can do it but you are trying to beat 1 movement with several movement which is really hard.



Or you could slip and do a reverse knife hand (ridge hand) to the diaphragm (one movement) or slip, block and punch with the free hand or you could slip and use a turning knee strike or you can slip and side kick the knee or you could .....There are far too many options to say you have to do anything.



drop bear said:


> If you throw more than one punch in combination then you are working on the principle that some of those strikes will be thrown into the of oponants guard.



Throwing more than one punch in a combination and there are several principles you can be working on. You could use one punch to create an opening for subsequent punches to distract or make them cover up one area to expose another or you can strike to two or more areas that are unguarded, the boxing combination you showed is only one option not a whole principle.

Do me a favor and post a video (from anyone) of how you think a back fist (not a spinning back fist) should be thrown so I can get an idea of where you are coming from.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Do me a favor and post a video (from anyone) of how you think a back fist (not a spinning back fist) should be thrown so I can get an idea of where you are coming from



It almost shouldn't be. Unless you are baiting someone or tricking someone. Otherwise there is almost always something better.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It almost shouldn't be. Unless you are baiting someone or tricking someone. Otherwise there is almost always something better.




I don't think that's the answer to the question asked?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> A grappler's worst nightmare.



Only if Gumby is also a grappler.

If not, he's an easy choke.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Just an observation, but if you throw a left hand back fist to the left side of your opponent's head, your opponent can block with his own left hand and your left side will be open to a strike. Your right hand may be up but it won't be covering the left side of your head. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Jaeimseu said:


> Just an observation, but if you throw a left hand back fist to the left side of your opponent's head, your opponent can block with his own left hand and your left side will be open to a strike. Your right hand may be up but it won't be covering the left side of your head.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If the left hand is the back hand then the right hand can cover the left hand side of your head. It would be the right hand side of your head that wouldn't be covered so you would bring your arm up so the elbow protects. Though we would tend to move as Wado is more of a 'body movement to get out of the way' sort of style. That's my words lol not the official description of Wado Ryu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> He chases hands so he is trying to keep up with your attacks by reaching out for your arms all the time. This drags his hands further and further away from his body and puts him in a continually worse position. And then because what he is trying to do is impossible he then leans to give himself more reach. Making his situation worse.
> 
> We have a saying in wresting called Tyrannosaurus arms. Which are little arms tucked in. Even for a hand trapping style you can't get to crazy with what your hands do.


Good analysis and good advice "you can't get to crazy with what your hands"  This goes both for attacking and defense. I would highly recommend any martial art school to video record their sparring sessions so that they can use the videos as teaching tools.  I built a website for our school and we have a video library of us sparring and it's very useful in learning where we make mistakes.  We also use it to help us to read fighters better by picking up bad habits and instincts that can be exploited.


----------



## Tez3

We have videos of us sparring and also a huge record of MMA fights for our fighters to see potential opponents, it always makes me laugh when we watch them and our instructor says 'watch X, he doesn't like being punched in the face' as if that's weird. Or it's 'watch Y, he doesn't like being kicked on the legs', no really? You can see some really crazy things sometimes on fight videos, things you think would never work or would never teach turn out to be master pieces.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RTKDCMB said:


> Do me a favor and post a video (from anyone) of how you think a back fist (not a spinning back fist) should be thrown so I can get an idea of where you are coming from.


  I would like to see this too, mainly because I'm lost and I don't know what style of martial art this is referring to.  I know different styles throw back fists in different ways.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> I know different styles throw back fists in different ways.



I have to agree with you. Various styles do a lot of techniques differently which makes arguing that TMA's are 'useless' a redundant argument, there's simply too many differences to generalise in that way. As I posted before I know for certain that JKD and Wado Ryu do backfist very differently because after doing the latter for so long I can't actually do JKD backfists though both are equally good strikes when done properly.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> I have to agree with you. Various styles do a lot of techniques differently which makes arguing that TMA's are 'useless' a redundant argument, there's simply too many differences to generalise in that way. As I posted before I know for certain that JKD and Wado Ryu do backfist very differently because after doing the latter for so long I can't actually do JKD backfists though both are equally good strikes when done properly.



exactly. JKD, Chen Taiji, Yang Taiji, Xingyi and Bagua all do a back fist...and they are not all the same


----------



## Hanzou

Jaeimseu said:


> Just an observation, but if you throw a left hand back fist to the left side of your opponent's head, your opponent can block with his own left hand and your left side will be open to a strike. Your right hand may be up but it won't be covering the left side of your head.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Frankly, its a good idea for anyone serious about striking to take up western boxing at some point. Western boxing teaches you not only how to properly defend from direct strikes, but probably has one of the best defensive systems around. People were amazed when Anderson Silva started slipping through strikes in MMA, but SIlva has nothing on the masters of it like Tyson and Ali.

Observe:


----------



## drop bear

Jaeimseu said:


> Just an observation, but if you throw a left hand back fist to the left side of your opponent's head, your opponent can block with his own left hand and your left side will be open to a strike. Your right hand may be up but it won't be covering the left side of your head.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That. 

And I can't see a good way around it.

I am going to tee up a video.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I don't think that's the answer to the question asked?



Oh OK. Because you think there will be some minor variation that does not give up the whole side of your body when you throw one.


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> Oh OK. Because you think there will be some minor variation that does not give up the whole side of your body when you throw one.


Is that not the same with any punch that is slipped or blocked though? Momentarily you are leaving which ever side you've thrown the punch from, wide open. Granted, the left backfist to opponent's left side has more distance to travel back to the guard after being blocked, but any punch should be thrown fast and then retreat back to guard as soon as possible - provided you're not following through to clinch or some other technique where the punching arm can manouvre from full extension. Thinking of an example, I'm not sure there is that much of a distance between the blocked positions of say, a left jab and a left backfist to the opponent's right, that means a quick right hook counter couldn't quite easily get in following either strike...

There is a difference, but it seems fairly minimal to me; yet nobody is arguing against the effectiveness of the jab.


----------



## JowGaWolf

is this what your


Hanzou said:


> Frankly, its a good idea for anyone serious about striking to take up western boxing at some point. Western boxing teaches you not only how to properly defend from direct strikes, but probably has one of the best defensive systems around. People were amazed when Anderson Silva started slipping through strikes in MMA, but SIlva has nothing on the masters of it like Tyson and Ali.
> 
> Observe:


I'm assuming that by striking you are only referring to punches?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Oh OK. Because you think there will be some minor variation that does not give up the whole side of your body when you throw one.




Are you answering questions out of order because that's not the question I asked is it?  You were asked to post a video, you answered that with something unrelated as you have here. Are you losing track of posts?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Is that not the same with any punch that is slipped or blocked though? Momentarily you are leaving which ever side you've thrown the punch from, wide open. Granted, the left backfist to opponent's left side has more distance to travel back to the guard after being blocked, but any punch should be thrown fast and then retreat back to guard as soon as possible - provided you're not following through to clinch or some other technique where the punching arm can manouvre from full extension. Thinking of an example, I'm not sure there is that much of a distance between the blocked positions of say, a left jab and a left backfist to the opponent's right, that means a quick right hook counter couldn't quite easily get in following either strike...
> 
> There is a difference, but it seems fairly minimal to me; yet nobody is arguing against the effectiveness of the jab.


You guys need to take pictures of what you are talking about lol.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> You guys need to take pictures of what you are talking about lol.


Yea, it took a bit of working out in my head to get the scenario straight myself before posting....so I understand where you're coming from! 

Fighter 1 is standing in a left fighting stance, Fighter 2 is standing in a left fighting stance, directly opposite Fighter 1 - mirroring each other. 

Fighter 1 throws lead hand (left) backfist to Fighter 2's left side of face - the backfist I do, if thrown to this target, is generally whipped out from the guard position with the fist held vertically....and then back to guard (in front of my face). I find it to be really quick technique, due to the whip-like motion. Fighter 2 does however have a small window of opportunity where Fighter 1's left side is open, whilst the backfist is extended; a right hook from Fighter 2 is what I said in my example. 

Does that help? 

I would really struggle posing and taking these pictures simultaneously!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Yea, it took a bit of working out in my head to get the scenario straight myself before posting....so I understand where you're coming from!
> 
> Fighter 1 is standing in a left fighting stance, Fighter 2 is standing in a left fighting stance, directly opposite Fighter 1 - mirroring each other.
> 
> Fighter 1 throws lead hand (left) backfist to Fighter 2's left side of face - the backfist I do, if thrown to this target, is generally whipped out from the guard position with the fist held vertically....and then back to guard (in front of my face). I find it to be really quick technique, due to the whip-like motion. Fighter 2 does however have a small window of opportunity where Fighter 1's left side is open, whilst the backfist is extended; a right hook from Fighter 2 is what I said in my example.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> I would really struggle posing and taking these pictures simultaneously!


Yes this helps. 
Scenarios:
#1 If fighter 1 throws a back hand without a trap then fighter 1 is in danger of being of hit by the right or left hand of fighter 2
#2 If fighter 1 traps fighter's 2 lead hand while standing directly in front of fighter 2, then fighter 1 is at risk of being hit with the fighter's 2 free hand.
#3 If fighter 1 traps fighter's 2 lead hand while moving at an angle to the left of fighter 2 then fighter 1 has minimized the risk of being hit with fighter's 2 free hand as that hadn would have to punch across the trapped hand.
#4 If fighter 1 has a failed trap attempt then fighter 2 can strike with the right hand or left hand.

A good situation would be that fighter 2 commits to a punch with his lead hand, which fighter 1 can either parry or trap while moving to the outside of the punch and landing a backfist. This would force 1 to try to punch over his outstretched arm.  In this scenario fighter 2 should focus efforts on placing the free hand between the backfist and his face in order to reduce the blow from the backfist.  If fighter 2 is fast enough and strong enough then fighter 2 should be able to stop the backfist from pushing the his blocking hand into his face.

Do the scenarios sound accurate based on the information that you gave about fighter 1 and fighter 2?


----------



## Tez3

One of the problems about discussing strikes, kicks etc is that we talk about them in isolation. We don't just do the one strike step back and then do the next one, we follow on with others so while the head may be uncovered momentarily it doesn't stay like the photograph...static. There's so many combinations of strikes and kicks we can do that if we tried to list them all we'd still be here till the New year and probably beyond.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> is this what your
> 
> I'm assuming that by striking you are only referring to punches?



Actually I'm talking about every aspect of striking except for kicking.

And honestly boxing would help that too.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> One of the problems about discussing strikes, kicks etc is that we talk about them in isolation. We don't just do the one strike step back and then do the next one, we follow on with others so while the head may be uncovered momentarily it doesn't stay like the photograph...static. There's so many combinations of strikes and kicks we can do that if we tried to list them all we'd still be here till the New year and probably beyond.


  That's why I'm lost, when I think of attacks I also take movement, stances, and angles into consideration because all of that has an effect on how efficient and effective a strike will be.  
Familiarity also plays a role.

I think one of the draw backs to TKD is that they are such good kickers that everyone knows this.  The first thing that comes to my mind if I'm sparring someone that does TKD is that there are going to be some high fast kicks so I build my strategy on the fact that people who do TKD are excellent kickers and really like to kick.  Watch a tkd point sparring match and you'll see that their kicks out number the punches thrown.  When someone is familiar with how you fight then they can have a general idea of what game plan you'll use.  It's the same with Wing Chun.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Actually I'm talking about every aspect of striking except for kicking.
> 
> And honestly boxing would help that too.


Unfortunately boxing and slipping punches wouldn't help me because it doesn't go well with my fighting system.  Me slipping punches will mean that I couldn't throw my kung fu techniques.  The way that boxers generate power makes the slipping effective for them.  There's no way I could slip a punch like a boxer and then follow up with a big hungar punch.  My style uses punch slips but they aren't the same as boxing and we use them with a parry.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Are you answering questions out of order because that's not the question I asked is it?  You were asked to post a video, you answered that with something unrelated as you have here. Are you losing track of posts?



Oh this is another tez semantic thing then. The question was out of context. So there is no answer for that question.

So I guess I will ask.

Why does it make a difference what sort of back fist you throw?


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Yea, it took a bit of working out in my head to get the scenario straight myself before posting....so I understand where you're coming from!
> 
> Fighter 1 is standing in a left fighting stance, Fighter 2 is standing in a left fighting stance, directly opposite Fighter 1 - mirroring each other.
> 
> Fighter 1 throws lead hand (left) backfist to Fighter 2's left side of face - the backfist I do, if thrown to this target, is generally whipped out from the guard position with the fist held vertically....and then back to guard (in front of my face). I find it to be really quick technique, due to the whip-like motion. Fighter 2 does however have a small window of opportunity where Fighter 1's left side is open, whilst the backfist is extended; a right hook from Fighter 2 is what I said in my example.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> I would really struggle posing and taking these pictures simultaneously!



More importantly. 
His left hand is occupied doing the backfist.
My left hand is occupied blocking the punch. 

My right hand is free and he is open
his right hand is free but he can't do anything with it. 

Hi


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Is that not the same with any punch that is slipped or blocked though? Momentarily you are leaving which ever side you've thrown the punch from, wide open. Granted, the left backfist to opponent's left side has more distance to travel back to the guard after being blocked, but any punch should be thrown fast and then retreat back to guard as soon as possible - provided you're not following through to clinch or some other technique where the punching arm can manouvre from full extension. Thinking of an example, I'm not sure there is that much of a distance between the blocked positions of say, a left jab and a left backfist to the opponent's right, that means a quick right hook counter couldn't quite easily get in following either strike...
> 
> There is a difference, but it seems fairly minimal to me; yet nobody is arguing against the effectiveness of the jab.



Timing.
I have to slip and then return shot in the time his arm comes back.

I don't have to slip a backfist to gain an open shot at his head.he just walks into it.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It almost shouldn't be. Unless you are baiting someone or tricking someone. Otherwise there is almost always something better.



This was the answer you gave when someone asked you to post a video of what you think a backfist is.


It's not semantics at all, your answer doesn't make sense. It almost shouldn't be what?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Oh OK. Because you think there will be some minor variation that does not give up the whole side of your body when you throw one.



I asked you if that was the answer to the question and this is what you replied, so again not semantics just confusion.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes this helps.
> Scenarios:
> #1 If fighter 1 throws a back hand without a trap then fighter 1 is in danger of being of hit by the right or left hand of fighter 2
> #2 If fighter 1 traps fighter's 2 lead hand while standing directly in front of fighter 2, then fighter 1 is at risk of being hit with the fighter's 2 free hand.
> #3 If fighter 1 traps fighter's 2 lead hand while moving at an angle to the left of fighter 2 then fighter 1 has minimized the risk of being hit with fighter's 2 free hand as that hadn would have to punch across the trapped hand.
> #4 If fighter 1 has a failed trap attempt then fighter 2 can strike with the right hand or left hand.
> 
> A good situation would be that fighter 2 commits to a punch with his lead hand, which fighter 1 can either parry or trap while moving to the outside of the punch and landing a backfist. This would force 1 to try to punch over his outstretched arm.  In this scenario fighter 2 should focus efforts on placing the free hand between the backfist and his face in order to reduce the blow from the backfist.  If fighter 2 is fast enough and strong enough then fighter 2 should be able to stop the backfist from pushing the his blocking hand into his face.
> 
> Do the scenarios sound accurate based on the information that you gave about fighter 1 and fighter 2?



The scenarios are more or less, what i had in mind when considering my first response....although, now I'm confused. Were you arguing before 'for' or 'against' the use of the backfist, because your reply seems reasonable to me in that it identifies the main circumstantial advantages and disadvantages that the backfist has. I thought you were arguing against its use....


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> More importantly.
> His left hand is occupied doing the backfist.
> My left hand is occupied blocking the punch.
> 
> My right hand is free and he is open
> his right hand is free but he can't do anything with it.
> 
> Hi


If Fighter 2 had blocked a backfist to the head then his left side (body) would be open. Fighter 1's hip would be loaded perfectly to land a powerful body shot. 

I'm not seeing how these hypotheticals do anything more than demonstrate that most strikes will at some stage leave you open to a counter. 



drop bear said:


> Timing.
> I have to slip and then return shot in the time his arm comes back.
> 
> I don't have to slip a backfist to gain an open shot at his head.he just walks into it.



You could cover and slip right, leaving your opponent's left cross in a similar position to walk straight into a right hook....but, I appreciate that this involves an extra movement. That said, off the lead my backfist is much quicker than my cross - so depending on my postion I believe the tradeoffs pay-off...much like any other strike.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It almost shouldn't be. Unless you are baiting someone or tricking someone. Otherwise there is almost always something better.


I am not tricking or baiting anyone I am simply asking for clarification, a video would be the easiest, most direct way to do that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> The scenarios are more or less, what i had in mind when considering my first response....although, now I'm confused. Were you arguing before 'for' or 'against' the use of the backfist, because your reply seems reasonable to me in that it identifies the main circumstantial advantages and disadvantages that the backfist has. I thought you were arguing against its use....


I didn't have any arguments about the backfist.  There's a discussion about a left back fist hitting the left side of the defenders head that was confusing me, since the stances and positions of the fighters were unclear to me.

The only argument that I had was related to the backfist I did in my video, where some people said that I was open, but it only looks that when in reality I wasn't as open as it appears because I was attacking at an angle . If a person does a backfist directly in front of a person then yes they will be open, but if done correctly and at an angle then they aren't as open as it appears.  People were looking at my video in slow motion and thought my sparring partner could attack me where I appeared to be open.  In short the reason he couldn't was because of the angle that I was attacking from.  Ironically the same sparring partner whooped up on me tonight. He threw a lot of Jow Ga at me and I just couldn't handle it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> He is a bit of a gumby though.I wasn't going to mention it but if you want to raise it I will comment.


Tonight I sparred against him and he was on his game tonight.  He used a lot of Jow Ga techniques on me tonight and I ate about 90% of what he threw. I can still tell where his punches hit me in the head.  Tonight he took some techniques out of my play book and it was like I was fighting myself and losing.  The good thing is that now I'll get better by sparring against him


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I asked you if that was the answer to the question and this is what you replied, so again not semantics just confusion.



You haven't answered my question what difference would a different backfist technique actually make?

I mean if we can figure that out mabye we can get somewhere.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I am not tricking or baiting anyone I am simply asking for clarification, a video would be the easiest, most direct way to do that.



Baiting someone with the back fist. Using a low percentage technique based on the idea that nobody expects it.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> If Fighter 2 had blocked a backfist to the head then his left side (body) would be open. Fighter 1's hip would be loaded perfectly to land a powerful body shot.
> 
> I'm not seeing how these hypotheticals do anything more than demonstrate that most strikes will at some stage leave you open to a counter.
> 
> 
> 
> You could cover and slip right, leaving your opponent's left cross in a similar position to walk straight into a right hook....but, I appreciate that this involves an extra movement. That said, off the lead my backfist is much quicker than my cross - so depending on my postion I believe the tradeoffs pay-off...much like any other strike.



OK I have one hand blocking and one hand free to strike. You have one hand striking and one hand useless.

Normally as in a straight punch i am trying to achieve that by slipping or doing counters but you are giving me that position on a platter.

Why are you helping me find these openings? I mean if a backfist was a monster ko strike I could see where you would throw a shot to risk a counter. (Spinning backfist) but a backfist is not a hard strike


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Based on the Sino-Japanese war, intensified western imperialism in the region after the boxer rebellion, the birth of nationalist and communist  movements, the fall of the Qing dynasty, the westernization of Chinese society and its military, and China becoming a modern nationalist state.
> 
> All of that occurred in that period you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> The period I'm interested in is the 1920s, not the 1870s. That is two very different periods in Chinese history.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that your style doesn't have ground fighting because landing on the ground, and being on the ground is dangerous (yet the style in question has takedowns and throws where you end up on the ground anyway), is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Their excuse:
> 
> 
> It is better to just say that ground fighting is outside your sport's rules.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because Boxing says that grappling isn't part of their ruleset. They don't make up excuses to try to say that ground fighting is an ineffective range of fighting.



Not to mention losing the opium wars, and Hong Kong to the British, Indochina to the French, Taiwan to the Japanese... And Korea shifting away from vassal state... (Only to be subjugated by Japan) and Ming loyalists trying to topple the Qing Manchu dynasty, and return China to a Ming restored dynasty. It is no wonder the boy Emperor renounced his throne. He had no teeth to rule a nation with.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, its a good idea for anyone serious about striking to take up western boxing at some point. Western boxing teaches you not only how to properly defend from direct strikes, but probably has one of the best defensive systems around. People were amazed when Anderson Silva started slipping through strikes in MMA, but SIlva has nothing on the masters of it like Tyson and Ali.
> 
> Observe:




Yes, but a swarmer (Tyson) has to be able to take really good hits, and if so... he is good for anybody but the brawler. Ali... Was not a swarmer... Not only did he have amazing timing, and leanback defense... He was built like a sherman tank when it came to hits. Factor in footwork, and head movement.... Was amazing. But what saved Ali in the ring was his time spent using Foreman as a sparing partner and vice versa. When I look at Ali today... I see massive brain damage from sparing with Foreman and others but mostly big George.

There is a good reason Tyson never stepped into the ring with Foreman.

Defenses can be complely overwhelmed by the right type of boxer. The best defense is avoidance, followed by redirection. Full on blocking is a lost moment better spent counterattacking. One of the best aspects of Western boxing defense is learning angles and body conditioning to take the hits.
One thing I learned from Motobu Choki is you dont need to block everything, especially from someone with low power strikes. As he said learn how to tell how much striking power some one has in a first glance. Visual assessment.

This is stuff you don't usually hear taught cause its an aquired skill in the background of your head informed by large amounts of sparing against many body types.


----------



## Tez3

I'm not sure how one compares a back fist to Chinese history though. Sorry, Drop Bear the subject seems to have veered away suddenly in what _seems_ an attempt to derail the thread.

I think as with all these discussions we are looking at one strike in isolation when in fact when sparring fighting we use a lot of strikes instinctively and in combinations, I'm absolutely no use ( I've said this before) at describing sparring and techniques, I can show but not write it. We don't stand there face on to our opponents/attackers doing one strike at a time, we *move *(especially in Wado, we move out of the way a lot) we make instinctive strikes, as I said combinations. Backfist is part of that, I use it a lot, it does have power when used right, it's like lots of strikes, there's pluses and minuses. To discuss it in isolation is pointless because it's part of an armoury, it's not the only weapon we have.


----------



## drop bear

OK. I can't upload a video.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> OK. I can't upload a video.


You can just post a link to a video on the internet.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Using a low percentage technique based on the idea that nobody expects it.


What low percentage technique?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I mean if a backfist was a monster ko strike I could see where you would throw a shot to risk a counter. (Spinning backfist) but a backfist is not a hard strike



I see Joe Rogan is not the only one seriously underestimating a good back fist strike.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Why are you helping me find these openings? I mean if a backfist was a monster ko strike I could see where you would throw a shot to risk a counter. (Spinning backfist) but a backfist is not a hard strike



your funny...not all back fist strikes are created equal and most are not spinning back fists either


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> What low percentage technique?





Xue Sheng said:


> your funny...not all back fist strikes are created equal and most are not spinning back fists either




I read the old Okinawan Chun fa/Kenpo Tou-Te guys... And they had a very special target for the back fist namely that pressure point between the upper lip and the nose.
Fired from a vertical exentention, over a trapped hand.

Instead of striking with the back of the fist they struck with the root knuckles, of index and middle fingers, with a very relaxed wrist.

A very different animal than the point tourney fighter's leaping horizontal extended backfist to anywhere on the head present in many of today's TKDish kick boxing and Karate schools teaching.

So ya... I totally agree.. Many unequal backfists, same name.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> that pressure point between the upper lip



It's called the Philtrum and it is not something you want to aim for when someone is sitting on top of you unless you want them bleeding all over you. 



TSDTexan said:


> Instead of striking with the back of the fist they struck with the root knuckles, of index and middle fingers, with a very relaxed wrist.



That is a bit like saying they have a punch but instead of striking with the fore knuckles they strike with the palm.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hard hit from hard non-spinning backfist similar to the ones found in hung gar and Jow Ga kung fu.
He actually lands 2 hard backfists (3:54 and at 5:32)





Most people assume that a backfist has no power or that it's not a strong strike.  Here's an interesting article on the backfist that references this fight. 
My guess is that most people would think a backfist is not a strong attack because they have not learned how to properly connect the body to generate the necessary power. As a result people have a weak backfist.   Here are 2 videos showing a weak backfist.  Notice how they try to generate all of the power from their arms.

He even says that the backfist lacks power and then tries to use his waist to generate more power and the impact still sounds the same. This tells me that he hasn't learned to connect the body to his backfist properly that how he explained how to increase.  Another sign that he doesn't know how to connect his body to his backfist is by looking at how his waist is twisting.   Even though his backfist is weak he does understand that using the waist helps to add power, he just doesn't know how to do it.





This will get you knocked out in a real fight or even a sparing fight where people throw combos.





If a student learns from instructors like the 2 videos above then that studentss perception of a backfist is going to be that it's not a strong attack with little or no power.
If a student learns how to do a backfist from someone like the guy was was stunning his opponent with the backfist, then that student's perception is going to be that a backfist can be dangerous.

If you have an instructor that teaches you like the 2 martial artist instructors then I would recommend that you find another instructor that can teach that back fist properly.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> I read the old Okinawan Chun fa/Kenpo Tou-Te guys... And they had a very special target for the back fist namely that pressure point between the upper lip and the nose.
> Fired from a vertical exentention, over a trapped hand.
> 
> Instead of striking with the back of the fist they struck with the root knuckles, of index and middle fingers, with a very relaxed wrist.
> 
> A very different animal than the point tourney fighter's leaping horizontal extended backfist to anywhere on the head present in many of today's TKDish kick boxing and Karate schools teaching.
> 
> So ya... I totally agree.. Many unequal backfists, same name.



Point sparring backfists are totally useless and they should not even count that trash as a hit.  Point sparring is just advanced tag.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> your funny...not all back fist strikes are created equal and most are not spinning back fists either



So people keep saying. I say they pretty much are in this case. So please outline the difference.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how one compares a back fist to Chinese history though. Sorry, Drop Bear the subject seems to have veered away suddenly in what _seems_ an attempt to derail the thread.
> 
> I think as with all these discussions we are looking at one strike in isolation when in fact when sparring fighting we use a lot of strikes instinctively and in combinations, I'm absolutely no use ( I've said this before) at describing sparring and techniques, I can show but not write it. We don't stand there face on to our opponents/attackers doing one strike at a time, we *move *(especially in Wado, we move out of the way a lot) we make instinctive strikes, as I said combinations. Backfist is part of that, I use it a lot, it does have power when used right, it's like lots of strikes, there's pluses and minuses. To discuss it in isolation is pointless because it's part of an armoury, it's not the only weapon we have.



Nobody has discussed it as part of an armory. No real set ups no combinations. Just it is a really good strike ignoring its isgiven.

And now there are different back fists that land differently?

I think these would need to be explained.

I have given step by step explanations and have received. Pretty vague responses.


----------



## drop bear

Anyway. Mabye this will work.

VID 20150904 184950


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> Hard hit from hard non-spinning backfist similar to the ones found in hung gar and Jow Ga kung fu.
> He actually lands 2 hard backfists (3:54 and at 5:32)



There were some halfway decent back fists there.I don't know if I would go so far as to call them hard 



JowGaWolf said:


> Most people assume that a backfist has no power or that it's not a strong strike.



Until i started reading this thread I have never heard anyone say that.



JowGaWolf said:


> Here's an interesting article on the backfist that references this fight.


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/5/2...st-boxing-knockout-ko-gif-analysis-highlights

The article suggests that the back fist in MMA is undeveloped.just like the front snap kick was until a few years ago.



JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is that most people would think a backfist is not a strong attack because they have not learned how to properly connect the body to generate the necessary power. As a result people have a weak backfist.   Here are 2 videos showing a weak backfist.  Notice how they try to generate all of the power from their arms.
> 
> He even says that the backfist lacks power and then tries to use his waist to generate more power and the impact still sounds the same. This tells me that he hasn't learned to connect the body to his backfist properly that how he explained how to increase.  Another sign that he doesn't know how to connect his body to his backfist is by looking at how his waist is twisting.   Even though his backfist is weak he does understand that using the waist helps to add power, he just doesn't know how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will get you knocked out in a real fight or even a sparing fight where people throw combos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a student learns from instructors like the 2 videos above then that studentss perception of a backfist is going to be that it's not a strong attack with little or no power.
> 
> If you have an instructor that teaches you like the 2 martial artist instructors then I would recommend that you find another instructor that can teach that back fist properly.



Personally I have never found the instructor in the first back fist video to be particularly impressive. The back fist video second video basicall shows a jabbing version of the back fist, which still requires more hip involvement that was shown there. There was very little power shown in either video.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> So people keep saying. I say they pretty much are in this case. So please outline the difference.



Seriously.... you claim to train martial arts...and you only believe there is a spinning back fist strike..no others....is this a joke, are you deliberately being disagreeable, or do you seriously not know?


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't have any arguments about the backfist.  There's a discussion about a left back fist hitting the left side of the defenders head that was confusing me, since the stances and positions of the fighters were unclear to me.
> 
> The only argument that I had was related to the backfist I did in my video, where some people said that I was open, but it only looks that when in reality I wasn't as open as it appears because I was attacking at an angle . If a person does a backfist directly in front of a person then yes they will be open, but if done correctly and at an angle then they aren't as open as it appears.  People were looking at my video in slow motion and thought my sparring partner could attack me where I appeared to be open.  In short the reason he couldn't was because of the angle that I was attacking from.  Ironically the same sparring partner whooped up on me tonight. He threw a lot of Jow Ga at me and I just couldn't handle it.


Sorry, I've been getting confused after joining in the discussion late. 

Having rewatched your video, I agree with your stance on not being open during that backfist. The angle is very favourable, so unless your sparring partner was anticipating it, and ready to unload a spinning heel or something, you're in a good position.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Seriously.... you claim to train martial arts...and you only believe there is a spinning back fist strike..no others....is this a joke, are you deliberately being disagreeable, or do you seriously not know?



OK. So we will work on the idea that there is no difference that makes any real difference to this discussion then.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Sorry, I've been getting confused after joining in the discussion late.
> 
> Having rewatched your video, I agree with your stance on not being open during that backfist. The angle is very favourable, so unless your sparring partner was anticipating it, and ready to unload a spinning heel or something, you're in a good position.



Yeah a trick or a bait. And you could make it work. Apparently coming back from a massive overhand.(although I still think there are safer options)

But as a basic part of your combinations it is high risk.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> OK. So we will work on the idea that there is no difference that makes any real difference to this discussion then.



No we work with the idea that you are clueless about the topic as it applies to a back fist. No shame in admitting you don't know or might be wrong here.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Anyway. Maybe this will work.
> 
> VID 20150904 184950


Thanks for the video.  I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely dont throw a backfist like that.    Whoever made the video,  don't jab after blocking that backfist,  Just step forward and throw a hook either to the head or ribs.  That step forward would put you at a better angle to generate strength for a punch.

For people who throw backfists, put this in your library of how not to throw a backfist.


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> OK I have one hand blocking and one hand free to strike. You have one hand striking and one hand useless.
> 
> Normally as in a straight punch i am trying to achieve that by slipping or doing counters but you are giving me that position on a platter.
> 
> Why are you helping me find these openings? I mean if a backfist was a monster ko strike I could see where you would throw a shot to risk a counter. (Spinning backfist) but a backfist is not a hard strike



I am giving you that opening on a platter, but that opening is only available for a very, very short period of time. It isn't a 'monster ko strike' but it is much quicker, and less telegraphed than a spinning backfist. I use it quite a lot against sparring partners who are (predominantly) boxers, that have some kickboxing experience too, and it is quite successful. Being aware of the obvious counter helps too, because if the strike is blocked or slipped I know that almost always they're going to throw something at my left side...


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> The article suggests that the back fist in MMA is undeveloped.just like the front snap kick was until a few years ago.



Well it dosent. It suggests that it is a tool for a specific fighter.


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> Yeah a trick or a bait. And you could make it work. Apparently coming back from a massive overhand.(although I still think there are safer options)
> 
> But as a basic part of your combinations it is high risk.


I don't disagree - faint low-backfist high is a technique I use probably too much.....yet it keeps landing. 

If you throw it right off the bat then there are risks...but if you throw a baclhand hook straight from guard then unless you've timed it well, you're going to be lucky not to get a knee or a roundhouse into that open side


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Anyway. Mabye this will work.
> 
> VID 20150904 184950




So who throws a backfist and stands there with his arm outstretched like that ?


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> I am giving you that opening on a platter, but that opening is only available for a very, very short period of time. It isn't a 'monster ko strike' but it is much quicker, and less telegraphed than a spinning backfist. I use it quite a lot against sparring partners who are (predominantly) boxers, that have some kickboxing experience too, and it is quite successful. Being aware of the obvious counter helps too, because if the strike is blocked or slipped I know that almost always they're going to throw something at my left side...



All of boxing is openings only open for a very short amount of time. And is generally the sort of thing you try to clean up.
If I dropped my hands throwing a punch a very short period of time it wouldn't fly.

See I would risk an opening if I had a good chance of hitting the other guy hard. I would not risk an opening for a distracting backfist.

Look people do these things to be unorthodox. Slipping inside. Lead crosses all sorts of things. 

But so far there has been little mention of it as an unorthodox move. Just this solid for basic.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> So who throws a backfist and stands there with his arm outstretched like that ?



Krav?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Krav?



Good grief. Even the kids don't do that when they are sparring and they are funny to watch when they first start out. They face each other and politely take it in turns to punch or kick each other, quite sweet but you can only get away with that when you are a seven year old white belt.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> I don't disagree - faint low-backfist high is a technique I use probably too much.....yet it keeps landing.
> 
> If you throw it right off the bat then there are risks...but if you throw a baclhand hook straight from guard then unless you've timed it well, you're going to be lucky not to get a knee or a roundhouse into that open side



There are no right hooks in boxing.

(Sort of)
The right hook? - Boxing Forum


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Good grief. Even the kids don't do that when they are sparring and they are funny to watch when they first start out. They face each other and politely take it in turns to punch or kick each other, quite sweet but you can only get away with that when you are a seven year old white belt.



It was a quick demo to explain my point so I didn't have to keep using insert left hand A into block B. Which was doing my head in.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for the video.  I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely dont throw a backfist like that.    Whoever made the video,  don't jab after blocking that backfist,  Just step forward and throw a hook either to the head or ribs.  That step forward would put you at a better angle to generate strength for a punch.
> 
> For people who throw backfists, put this in your library of how not to throw a backfist.



OK. I am saying you give up control to one whole side of your body. Cutting an angle won't really help


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Anyway. Mabye this will work.
> 
> VID 20150904 184950



It worked, thanks. I can now see where your misconception lies (although it wasn't the one I thought it was). Your arm (I am assuming that is you, correct me if I am wrong) is too straight. The only time your arm should be that straight would be if you are doing a lunging motion and it would have less power. The following video I just uploaded shows the correct hand position, where the arm is roughly bent 90 degrees as in the block of the first movement.:






You would be more vulnerable to counter attack with your arm straight like that as a punch than you would be with your arm bent properly for a back fist. With the arm bent that back fist easily becomes the block I mentioned to block that first punch that was thrown. Also because my nonstriking hand (left in this case) will be in a guard position I can also block using an inward palm block over my right shoulder. Although my ribs would still be exposed I can easily drop my elbow to cover up or leave my nonstriking hand in the guarding position. and use a low section block (with my elbow staying stationary and pivoting my forearm down) Also trying to block with your arm on your head like that and that back fist will go right through that but with slightly less impact.

So yeah it does make a difference how the back fist is performed.


----------



## Tez3

We don't stand back and throw a backfist that way either, and no I can't explain as I explained before why I can't explain.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> We don't stand back and throw a backfist that way either, and no I can't explain as I explained before why I can't explain.



Well then. Your turn to do a video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RTKDCMB said:


> Until i started reading this thread I have never heard anyone say that.


 Sorry about being clearer.  The spinning backfist is known to be hard, but the one that snaps back is the one that people assume will have no power.  If you look at how some instructors teach it, then it's clear to see that there's no power in it.  When you look at the movies, people like Jackie Chan or Jet Li will do a backfist that is more like a fast strike with a pop.  And that's where the assumption comes from.



RTKDCMB said:


> The article suggests that the back fist in MMA is undeveloped.just like the front snap kick was until a few years ago.


 It may have been undeveloped in MMA but in traditional martial arts the back fist and snap kick and the heel kick have always been developed.  What people are seeing in MMA are fighters using traditional martial art strikes in a real fight situation.  This is something that TMA schools should have been doing instead of the point sparring that is so common.  Traditional Martial art schools will demo you to death and they make the martial art style look like Hollywood martial arts.  When this happens the student is neglecting the training that involves real fight sparring and real martial art fight application.  When you find a Traditional Martial Art school that focuses on real fight application then the students will see first hand that the front kicks, snap kicks and the techniques in general are well developed.  MMA also has the "spotlight" so anything that works there is almost always considered "new development." When in reality it's just the fighter learning how to apply a TMA technique.




RTKDCMB said:


> Personally I have never found the instructor in the first back fist video to be particularly impressive. The back fist video second video basicall shows a jabbing version of the back fist, which still requires more hip involvement that was shown there. There was very little power shown in either video.


  Sorry I couldn't have done better with the backfist videos, It's hard to find good backfist videos.  Most of the backfist videos I found were stupid walk-through demos, which I really hate. I never understood why they don't throw a serious backfist first and then do a walk through.  Show the actual technique in practice and then give the walk-through.  Now I'm irritated lol. thanks TMA instructors.  

I should have just made a video of me doing various types of backfists to show what it looks like when the body generates the power for a backfist vs a backfist that is powered only by the arms.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Well then. Your turn to do a video.




Not on your Nellie! I am photophobic plus it's against the Official Secrets Act for me to be seen on video or photographs! And I'm too old 

I'm far too vain to want to be seen on video, I'm still waiting with trepidation for my daughter's wedding photos and video, just know I'm going to hate me!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> So who throws a backfist and stands there with his arm outstretched like that ?


This guy does lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It was a quick demo to explain my point so I didn't have to keep using insert left hand A into block B. Which was doing my head in.


I appreciate the video.  It was excellent in showing what you were talking about.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> This guy does lol



Good job the other guy is (h)armless!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Good job the other guy is (h)armless!


Nice: 
That guy is an hyper-extension accident waiting to happen. If I had to guess then I would say that he did hurt himself.  When he's facing the camera he's got that messed up form that twists the power away from the fist.  Then when he turns his back to the camera the movement used to throw the backfist is different than what he was doing before.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> It's called the Philtrum and it is not something you want to aim for when someone is sitting on top of you unless you want them bleeding all over you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bit like saying they have a punch but instead of striking with the fore knuckles they strike with the palm.



To be more precise... Just as some perform a kick... Striking the target with the bones of the instep... The point fighters strike with the metacarpus bones while keeping the wrist in line with knuckles all the way to the elbow..instead of the first knuckle joints striking with the wrist turned in.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> To be more precise... Just as some perform a kick... Striking the target with the bones of the instep... The point fighters strike with the metacarpus bones while keeping the wrist in line with knuckles all the way to the elbow..instead of the first knuckle joints striking with the wrist turned in.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Based on the Sino-Japanese war, intensified western imperialism in the region after the boxer rebellion, the birth of nationalist and communist  movements, the fall of the Qing dynasty, the westernization of Chinese society and its military, and China becoming a modern nationalist state.



Those statements of fact are not of themselves evidence that the nature of violence changed relative to the 1870s in a manner which would... encourage... the learning of ground fighting for self defense.



Hanzou said:


> The period I'm interested in is the 1920s, not the 1870s.



... which is why I also gave you the book reference 'Sugong'.



Hanzou said:


> Saying that your style doesn't have ground fighting because landing on the ground, and being on the ground is dangerous (yet the style in question has takedowns and throws where you end up on the ground anyway), is nonsense.



'Nonsense' is still an empty assertion.
Ending up on the ground does not imply continuing on the ground.



Hanzou said:


> It is better to just say that ground fighting is outside your sport's rules.



Why is it better?



Hanzou said:


> They don't make up excuses to try to say that ground fighting is an ineffective range of fighting.



'make up' implies fabricate. I don't think that is something you can easily demonstrate.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Dirty Dog said:


> Your right side is completely open to attack. Every attack creates openings for a counter attack....


|
Truer words were never spoken.  This also speaks to why boxers are very vulnerable to disciplined karateka.... very.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's a video of me throwing a vertical backfist during sparring without my right side being open to attack
> About the video:  Watch it while you can. It won't be up for long....
> [edit]
> Martial Artist should be throwing combos and multiple attacks.  Save the Bruce Lee one punch, one kick stuff for the movies.  Throwing combinations keeps your opponent occupied and creates openings that otherwise wouldn't be there.  Backfists are difficult to counter unless you see it coming. My backfist lands with no resistance from his guard.


|
Ha, Ha.... the UFC wants you... needs you....  Especially Holly Holm... she's got just a couple months until death-by-Rousey.
|
Enjoyed & appreciated your vid.  Great demo... my concern is it's just that...  Nice layout of the principles you aspire to.  Particularly the strategic positioning & re-positioning....  and back fists, a staple of traditional karate, are way under-rated and way under-utilized... so bully for you....
|
Point of disagreement.  One-strike "kill" is viable.  Multiple strike "kill" is viable.  They are both legitimate.  Different means to the same end....  I believe Joe Ro is with you on combos.... but it doesn't always play out that why in his sandbox.  A single, strong counter often portends the end of MMA fights.... sometimes a single offensive shot does it....
|
You have a demo vid that's packed with content & easy to watch & review....


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> 'Nonsense' is still an empty assertion.
> Ending up on the ground does not imply continuing on the ground.



Actually it does. If you end up on the ground you don't magically end up back on your feet again. You need the skill to get back to your feet quickly if the guy just knocked you down and didn't capitalize on your disadvantage. You need the skill to fight back if he knocked you down and decided to capitalize on your disadvantage.

Of course if you're properly trained, that disadvantage can quickly turn into an advantage.

To not train for either scenario is foolhardy.



> Why is it better?



Because it's honest.



> 'make up' implies fabricate. I don't think that is something you can easily demonstrate.



Look at their reasoning again;



> Ground fighting was never introduced at this time as they believed that most self defense situations are initiated from a standing position. Furthermore, being on the ground for long periods makes you more venerable to attack and the surface itself could present numerous dangers especially when falling. Therefore Sanshou was developed to avoid confrontation on the ground focusing on skills in striking, kicking, wrestling, throwing and takedowns as well as joint locking and seizing. The idea was to stay on your feet the most effective way possible.



1. Most self defense situation are initiated from standing position. Which means that you're simply screwed if someone decides to attack you from a non standing position.

2. Not learning ground fighting because of the "dangers of the surface" is nonsensical and a silly. If you get knocked to the ground you'll be privy to the dangers of said surface anyway.

3. Falling? That's why you learn how to break fall.

4. Staying on your feet the most effective way possible is by being able to fight back when you get knocked off your feet.

In the end, its pretty much every excuse you can think of to not learn ground fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

renc said:


> Ending up on the ground does not imply continuing on the ground


 And this is the difference between Grappling fighting systems and non-grappling fighting systems.    Grappling fighting systems focus on fighting on the ground not on the feet.  Many Traditional Martial Arts are focused on fighting on their feet and not the ground.  This doesn't mean that Grappling fighting systems don't have striking or that some Traditional Martial Arts, for example kung fu, doesn't have grappling.  It's just that one system is about fighting on the ground and the other is about fighting off the ground (standing up.)  In Jow Ga Kung fu, if I throw my enemy on the ground then I won't get on the ground to fight fight him.  Instead my efforts will be focused on making sure he can't get back to his feet. It's to my advantage to remain standing where I have more mobility than my enemy who is on the ground in a defensive position on their back or butt.  I know my opponent can't effectively attack me if they are on the ground like that.  My enemy also can't flee while he's in that position.   

In Grappling fighting systems, using the same scenario above.  If I throw my enemy on the ground, my next move is to quickly get on my enemy and defeat him on the ground.  A grappler's move may be to throw the enemy on the ground and as soon as that enemy hits the ground, get on him and choke him. The grappling in Kung Fu isn't for wrestling or fighting on the ground, it's for putting your enemy on the ground so that you can strike them

Notice how the throws in this Shuai Jiao thows the opponent on the ground in a way that would allow them to either punch or kick them in the face or body.  This grappling has a different purpose than the grappling done in BJJ.  In BJJ the purpose of getting them on the ground is not so you can strike them, but defeat them through grappling.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> It took me a little more than 2 seconds to throw my combo (keep in mind that I'm holding back and not going full speed).  That means that he has less than 2 seconds to assume that I would be off to the side of him and not in front of him.  From the time that I was in front of him and landed the kick right below his knee he had exactly less than 0:00;15 of a second to know that I would trap his punch to my face.  From the time that I trapped his punch, (at an angle) he only has less than 0:00;10 of a second to take advantage of any openings that may be there as a result of me doing my backfist to his head.
> 
> The picture below clearly shows that his body twisted. You can look at his front leg and torso and easily tell that he can't do a round house or a side kick from that position.  You'll also notice the way that I start my backfist protects my head. And yes it's from the same video.  Yes my lower body looks open which is why he probably took the front heel kick as his choice, but because I was at an angle, that front kick wasn't going to land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you can see that his kick misses me completely.  Look at the position of his foot, and his torso in relation to my lead foot and rear foot. Also take note that he's actually leaning to his left as if he's trying to punch around my backfist.  That lean is actually cause by the backfist being on his face. I added a red line so that it's easier to see the angle.


|
Since you stated you were pulling the vid soon, I took the liberty of commenting now....  I'll refer to the vid re time stamp.
|
All your tactics work.  OTOH, I can quickly name two traditional karate kumite counters to your advance.
|
#1: Drop Height, Shift Stance & Counter Punch.The first was apparent to me @ 0:03, the full speed portion.  Here, a simple level change and step-in counter strike to the mid-section... a very standard Shotokan competition counter tactic. Front lunge or reverse punch I'll leave each alternative open...
|
#2: 1-Step on the Outside-Block (or guard) & Counter Punch.  You move to the angle away in order to launch the right backfist actually sets up the 1st step in the 1-step.  You are right in position @ TS 0:16 slow-motion portion--for the 1-step counter-tactic.  The defender has no need to step to the outside.  The right hand blocks or guards against the backfist; Left hand counters.  Middle or High, as perhaps Dirty Dog, others have remarked....
|
Your opponent makes a classic 'sport karate' mistake of trying to kick when you are springing / too close.  Shorter range weapons are in order.  Leg technique too little too late...
|
Great set up for illustration / demo of kung fu (or karate) attack & defense utilization....


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Notice how the throws in this Shuai Jiao thows the opponent on the ground in a way that would allow them to either punch or kick them in the face or body.  This grappling has a different purpose than the grappling done in BJJ.  In BJJ the purpose of getting them on the ground is not so you can strike them, but defeat them through grappling.



There's throws and takedowns in Bjj as well;






just like Judo or Shuai Jiao you can end the fight with one of them. However, if you're not able to end the fight in that fashion, or you don't want to seriously injury your opponent, you can opt for the ground option. The ground option is also in place in the event that the person you're trying to throw is better than you are at throwing.

In the end, the intent is to not purposely go to the ground all the time. The intent is to be a well-rounded, and be capable of ending a confrontation on your terms.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> And yes, we both know that there are TMAs that don't spar.



I don't know of 'traditional' Chinese martial arts which don't incorporate sparring. Seriously.



Hanzou said:


> There's no need for me to go through the web and link you to various TMA schools that don't practice it, we both know that that is a true statement.



Please try to keep the claims consistent.
Rogan claimed that Chinese martial arts do not incorporate sparring...


> "When you start sparring, that's when techniques really get weeded out, and that's when you understand what is the most effective use of energy and force, what techniques work the best, what techniques are applicable and what techniques are really kinda frivolous and what techniques are a waste of time and there's better alternatives. Well, Kung Fu never did all that, they didn't have all the sparring."


When I pulled this up, you changed his claim to...


> There are Kung Fu styles that don't spar


When I asked for references to Kung Fu styles that don't spar, you changed the claim to...


> various TMA schools


I know that there are some 'TMA' schools which don't spar. That doesn't make Rogan's over-generalization any less ignorant.



Hanzou said:


> It's logical from his viewpoint which is based on MMA and combat sports. From his vantage point it is strange that Kung Fu styles haven't made a bigger impact in MMA, whereas other styles have. Further, his PoV is supported by what's currently occurring within China itself.



Claims about the popularity of MMA in China, and claims about the popularity of certain styles in MMA, do not make Rogan's comments about back-fists vs overhand rights any less illogical, and does not stop me from wondering why some consider him to be a reliable source... on the arts that I practise.



Hanzou said:


> You miss the point here; Instead of incorporating traditional kung fu hand techniques, Sanda incorporated western boxing. Why would they do that?



Not being snarky, but you'd have to ask 'them'... if it were possible, or find some historical sources.



Hanzou said:


> I'm simply repeating the reports from articles in China that are talking about the situation there.



You're quoting opinions as if they change certain facts.



Hanzou said:


> If a reporter in China is interviewing Kung Fu instructors and the Chinese youth and both are saying the same thing, who am I to argue?



'the Chinese youth' is still an over-generalization and opinions still don't change reality, at least not retrospectively 



Hanzou said:


> There's been plenty of cases where boxers applied their MA in a self defense situation just like they would in the ring.



Of course, if the context allows, the point is to not be prescriptive, the point is to adapt.



Hanzou said:


> I would argue that the skills developed in a competitive/sport context better prepare you for a dangerous situation than doing a bunch of pointless forms and katas.



That is to assume what you're trying to prove.



Hanzou said:


> After all who do you think would be more proficient at using their skill set; Mike Tyson in his prime, or some fat slob Kung Fu instructor who does pretty forms in silk pajamas?



And that is a strawman.

That is goodnight.


----------



## Steve

Where did rogan claim that Chinese martial arts don't incorporate sparring?  Can you post a link?


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> Point of disagreement. One-strike "kill" is viable


  When I made that statement about the one-strike, I was thinking of fighters and martial art practitioners who throw that one punch and leave the arm extended in a "Van Dam blood sport pose" thinking that one punch is enough to do the job.  The people that tend to have this habit are those who do point sparring, where the fighting stops after a foot or a fist makes contact.  Notice how the guy raises his hand after scoring.  This will eventually become habit and his weakness if he ever gets into a real fight or if he does something like Lei Tai







ShotoNoob said:


> You have a demo vid that's packed with content & easy to watch & review


 If you are talking about the video with me in it, then it wasn't a demo. It was actual sparring and trying to use Jow Ga kung fu techniques so we have a large collection of our kung fu sparring successes and fails. This is a video from one of the images that I posted with me failing with a trap attempt.  Nothing in this video was choreographed including the roll that my sparring partner did at the end.



ShotoNoob said:


> All your tactics work. OTOH, I can quickly name two traditional karate kumite counters to your advance.


Hopefully one day I'll be able to spar against someone that does traditional karate.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> Notice how the throws in this Shuai Jiao thows the opponent on the ground in a way that would allow them to either punch or kick them in the face or body.  This grappling has a different purpose than the grappling done in BJJ.  In BJJ the purpose of getting them on the ground is not so you can strike them, but defeat them through grappling.



No. The purpose of getting them onto the ground is so you can control them. Once control is established, then you have choices. I can pound their face in, I choke them out, I can break a limb, or I can simply hold them until the situation diffuses.

I wouldn't claim to say what JowGa is about so don't take it wrong when I say that you don't seem to know what BJJ is about. It's the applications of leverage to throw, sweep, control, break, and choke a person out. It can be used standing or on the ground. The purpose of taking a striker to the ground purposefully is that you effectively negate their fighting style. That's not to say that BJJ can't be used standing up. It just has the clear advantage on the ground.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Hopefully one day I'll be able to spar against someone that does traditional karate.



If you are ever in north qld I will tee you up with Mr thighsy our resident karate guy.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> When he's facing the camera he's got that messed up form that twists the power away from the fist. Then when he turns his back to the camera the movement used to throw the backfist is different than what he was doing before.


Now my mouth has fewer words in it, because you took them.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> And this is the difference between Grappling fighting systems and non-grappling fighting systems. Grappling fighting systems focus on fighting on the ground not on the feet. Many Traditional Martial Arts are focused on fighting on their feet and not the ground. This doesn't mean that Grappling fighting systems don't have striking or that some Traditional Martial Arts, for example kung fu, doesn't have grappling. It's just that one system is about fighting on the ground and the other is about fighting off the ground (standing up.) In Jow Ga Kung fu, if I throw my enemy on the ground then I won't get on the ground to fight fight him. Instead my efforts will be focused on making sure he can't get back to his feet. It's to my advantage to remain standing where I have more mobility than my enemy who is on the ground in a defensive position on their back or butt. I know my opponent can't effectively attack me if they are on the ground like that. My enemy also can't flee while he's in that position.




You need to do both well. If you want to be properly well rounded. That way you get to choose whether you go to ground or not. 

The issue you will have having no top ground skill is that you give up a dominant position to risk a 50/50. This means a fight that could have ended keeps going subjecting you to more risk.

On a side note one of our guys might be looking at one fc.





Which will add a new dimension to ground fighting.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Kung Fu instructor who does pretty forms in silk pajamas?


As opposed to the silk shorts the Thai fighters wear?


----------



## Hanzou

This is relevant to the thread. They do a great deal of smack talk in that vid.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> This is relevant to the thread. They do a great deal of smack talk in that vid.


I like how they spend several minutes talking smack about other martial arts and then state how they have control over their egos.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> No. The purpose of getting them onto the ground is so you can control them. Once control is established, then you have choices. I can pound their face in, I choke them out, I can break a limb, or I can simply hold them until the situation diffuses.


  I don't see how this is different from this "In BJJ the purpose of getting them on the ground is not so you can strike them, but defeat them through grappling."  All of what you said is done through grappling. Pound thier face in, grappling is involved to make sure they can't get up while you are pounding, choking is grappling, break a limb is done through grabbling, holding them until the situation is diffuses is done through grappling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> It's the applications of leverage to throw, sweep, control, break, and choke a person out.


  All of these are done while holding onto the person.



kuniggety said:


> The purpose of taking a striker to the ground purposefully is that you effectively negate their fighting style. That's not to say that BJJ can't be used standing up. It just has the clear advantage on the ground.


 All of this is done through being on the ground.  Why would a grappler fight outside of their advantage?  For a grappler the main goal isn't to fight standing up it's to fight on the ground where they have as  you say "It's just has the clear advantage on the ground." . For a lot of traditional martial arts the goal is to fight standing up.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see how this is different from this "*In BJJ the purpose of getting them on the ground is not so you can strike them, but defeat them through grappling."*  All of what you said is done through grappling. Pound thier face in, grappling is involved to make sure they can't get up while you are pounding, choking is grappling, break a limb is done through grabbling, holding them until the situation is diffuses is done through grappling.



That isn't the purpose. View the video of throws I linked earlier. Many of those throws could disable someone as soon as they hit the concrete. The purpose is to protect yourself. Bjj gives you the ability to fight from the ground because you may have to fight from that range in a confrontation.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I like how they spend several minutes talking smack about other martial arts and then state how they have control over their egos.



What I find interesting are modern Kung Fu and TMA practitioners who shy away from things like MMA when many of their arts celebrate practitioners and founders who participated in, and dominated NHB competitions in the past.

It's quite an interesting development.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> This is relevant to the thread. They do a great deal of smack talk in that vid.


This is one of the videos that led to my op.
Joe really is disrespectful towards eastern culture as well as martial art that he views as ineffective.

Bashes on bowing.

They took the time to bash on titles of Sabanim and a few others. This is a western world view crapping on an eastern one.

If BJJ ground fighting had developed in Korea instead of Brazil... They wouldn't be calling themselves "Coach".

I find it interesting that Joe definitely does* not *bash Judo.
Even though judo has Kata... And striking (weak, underdeveloped and almost lost to Judo as no one spars with striking, therefore it is not taught in sport judo curriculum unlike the pre WW2 Kodokan Judo teaching of Atemi Waza *)

And if he went to Korea, and went to a "Yudo" martial art school, the Yudoin would use titles like Sabanim, or Kwan jangim etc. And He would see bowing and scraping, to flags and people.

Of course, each school is as unique as its owner/head instructor. Some instructors are extremely informal, and at the other end of the spectrum others are so formal it is painful to even watch.

But in the end, Joe chooses to channel a Howard Stern over Howard Cosell commentator style because it seems that controversy and shock sell and push a product better.

* as articulated in literature like " my method of self defense " by Mikonosuke Kawaishi who seemed to have split with the Kodokan in the 50s.


----------



## renc

JowGaWolf,

Thanks for promoting an interesting discussion on back-fists and providing references. Since Rogan made his comparison based on power, I was thinking of a vertical forearm, bent elbow type which is less powerful than an overhand right. Regarding comments about counters, the elbow is kept tucked in, perhaps a bit less protection than a jab where the shoulder covers the jaw.

Yeah, spinning back-fists on the other hand, different context different application. There's a lot of exposure and power, similar to a spinning side kick or spinning heel kick. So we train to look before releasing, and it comes down to observation and timing as with most everything.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> many of their arts celebrate practitioners and founders who participated in, and dominated NHB competitions in the past.


That is not something that is done in my school but I am sure there are some that do it.If the founders participated in, and dominated NHB competitions in the past.then maybe they are too old for MMA competitions now.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> This is relevant to the thread. They do a great deal of smack talk in that vid.



*A lot of smack talking.*  Pretty much, hey look at us we are the best, we are better than these other people.  Yet, we are so humble.
That video is rather pathetic on their part.  Now, I do agree with some things that were said just not in how they said it.  I agree that people should not get a rank, title, etc. and not push themselves.  That does happen and it is unfortunate.  I also agree that people should be humble.  *Just practice, train, get better, help other people and live life.*  Your just a person even if you have been doing this a long time or have a title, etc. 

*Just train, get better and do your best to be a good person!*


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That is not something that is done in my school but I am sure there are some that do it.If the founders participated in, and dominated NHB competitions in the past.then maybe they are too old for MMA competitions now.



Yeah, but wouldn't that competitive trait be passed on to the newer generation of practitioners? It's an odd conundrum where you have these legendary competitors from various TMA styles who are celebrated for their achievements in competitive fighting, then you have practitioners from those styles turn around and say that their art isn't made for competition.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Those are competitive sport fights, not life or death fights. In life or death fights, someone isn't going to stop attacking you because of a nut shot. You may stun them for a second, but then they're going to come at you harder than before.



Not all self defense situations are viewed as life-or-death from the perspective of the aggressor, most probably aren't. Strikes to the groin can and have finished street fights. Other considerations are psychological, pain distracts and can demoralize. It depends on the particular aggressor and the particular context, which is why generalizations aren't useful.



Hanzou said:


> You may stun them for a second, but then they're going to come at you harder than before.



A second is an aeon in standup. Enough time to land four or five strikes. One if you're slow.








Hanzou said:


> I'm not saying that they're useless, what I'm saying is that you can't depend on a nut shot to stop a guy from trying to kill you.



You can't depend on any technique to stop someone. As you wrote, you gotta be flexible...



Hanzou said:


> There's throws and takedowns in Bjj as well [...] you can end the fight with one of them. However, if you're not able to end the fight in that fashion [...] you can opt for



Only when discussing some arts you seem to revert to inflexible generalizations/rules...



Hanzou said:


> Kicking someone in the nuts or poking someone in the eye just pisses people off.





Hanzou said:


> And yes I'm male, and yes i've been hit in the nuts on a variety of occasions.



We got that much in common.

For giggles...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That isn't the purpose. View the video of throws I linked earlier. Many of those throws could disable someone as soon as they hit the concrete. The purpose is to protect yourself. Bjj gives you the ability to fight from the ground because you may have to fight from that range in a confrontation.


 You keep telling me that BJJ isn't about the ground but everytime someone mentions BJJ. The first topic they talk about is ground fighting.  For example, in your statement you say " Bjj gives you the ability to fight from the ground"  No one take BJJ to learn how to fight off the ground.


----------



## JowGaWolf

renc said:


> JowGaWolf,
> 
> Thanks for promoting an interesting discussion on back-fists and providing references. Since Rogan made his comparison based on power, I was thinking of a vertical forearm, bent elbow type which is less powerful than an overhand right. Regarding comments about counters, the elbow is kept tucked in, perhaps a bit less protection than a jab where the shoulder covers the jaw.
> 
> Yeah, spinning back-fists on the other hand, different context different application. There's a lot of exposure and power, similar to a spinning side kick or spinning heel kick. So we train to look before releasing, and it comes down to observation and timing as with most everything.


You are correct.  "Look before releasing and it comes down to observation and timing as with most everything" This is a very true and honest statement and the only way to really learn these things is through sparring.  Today in class we did a "non-hitting" sparring exercise to help make the the students more are of movement. Being able to observe is key.  The video that I put up showing me failing at a trap is a perfect example of observation.  In the video, I realized that my trap had fail and by observation, I stopped my plan A instead of trying to continue with some kind of hand attack.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You keep telling me that BJJ isn't about the ground but everytime someone mentions BJJ. The first topic they talk about is ground fighting.  For example, in your statement you say " Bjj gives you the ability to fight from the ground"  No one take BJJ to learn how to fight off the ground.



I never said that Bjj isn't about ground fighting, I said that everything we do doesn't have the sole purpose of putting you on the ground and strangling you. 

The reason so many people talk about Bjj ground fighting is because so many other arts ignore it completely.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> What I find interesting are modern Kung Fu and TMA practitioners who shy away from things like MMA when many of their arts celebrate practitioners and founders who participated in, and dominated NHB competitions in the past.
> 
> It's quite an interesting development.


What I get tired of is some MMA fan telling a TMA practitioner to come to play at their house.  If you want to go fight a TMA practitioner then go a TMA school and challenge them within their own school.  If you don't want to do that then just go to a Lei Tai tournament and win it all.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I never said that Bjj isn't about ground fighting, I said that everything we do doesn't have the sole purpose of putting you on the ground and strangling you.


  If this is true then talk about the other aspects of BJJ that doesn't involve being on the ground.  From now on, talk about the BJJ stand up game and tactics


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but wouldn't that competitive trait be passed on to the newer generation of practitioners? It's an odd conundrum where you have these legendary competitors from various TMA styles who are celebrated for their achievements in competitive fighting, then you have practitioners from those styles turn around and say that their art isn't made for competition.


Jow Ga isn't made for competition, but it doesn't means nothing to me.  I still want to and will use it to compete with.  If I cause damage to my opponents joints or ligaments while doing Jow Ga then that's fine with me.  I'm not saying that is my goal. I'm just saying if a Jow Ga technique causes it then I'm fine with my opponent having that injury.  I rather be true to my style than for me to continue to hear people like Hanzou yap on about how useless TMA is even though MMA actually takes pieces of TMA techniques in use them in fighting.    

If someone gets hurt because you use your TMA in a competition then just say Joe Rogan sent you.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Not all self defense situations are viewed as life-or-death from the perspective of the aggressor, most probably aren't. Strikes to the groin can and have finished street fights. Other considerations are psychological, pain distracts and can demoralize. It depends on the particular aggressor and the particular context, which is why generalizations aren't useful.



Considering that a person can kill you simply by knocking you to the ground, every SD situation should be seen as life or death until you get the situation under control.




> A second is an aeon in standup. Enough time to land four or five strikes. One if you're slow.



That depends completely on the person striking, and the person getting struck. In that case above, the person doing the striking has a pretty significant size advantage over the person getting struck.




> You can't depend on any technique to stop someone. As you wrote, you gotta be flexible...



Choke. No matter how strong you are, you need air.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If this is true then talk about the other aspects of BJJ that doesn't involve being on the ground.  From now on, talk about the BJJ stand up game and tactics



Did you miss post #462?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Did you miss post #462?


Nope,  I didn't miss it.  All I saw was a video of throws and take downs.  And this comment.
"However, if you're not able to end the fight in that fashion, or you don't want to seriously injury your opponent, you can opt for the *ground* option. The *ground* option is also in place in the event that the person you're trying to throw is better than you are at throwing."

You mentioned ground twice in this topic about BJJ. so what is your point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That depends completely on the person striking, and the person getting struck. In that case above, the person doing the striking has a pretty significant size advantage over the person getting struck.


  I don't buy that size advantage mess.  A bigger person just means I can't fight him the same way I fight a person my size.  I actually find it easier to fight someone bigger or taller than be because then my advantages actually increased. A hit to the face is a hit to the face.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope,  I didn't miss it.  All I saw was a video of throws and take downs.  And this comment.
> "However, if you're not able to end the fight in that fashion, or you don't want to seriously injury your opponent, you can opt for the *ground* option. The *ground* option is also in place in the event that the person you're trying to throw is better than you are at throwing."



I said that if you don't want to throw them to the ground, you can choose to do a takedown instead. Throws can cripple or kill a person depending on how they land. You may not want to put your drunk uncle Into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that jiujitsu works.

On the other hand, you may be fighting against someone who is better at throws/takedowns than you are, and you're forced to fight from the ground. Again, knowing ground fighting is a good skill to have.



> You mentioned ground twice in this topic about BJJ. so what is your point.



The point is that fighting on the ground is an option (and at times your best option), not the goal of everything we do.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You may not want to put your drunk uncle Into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that jiujitsu works.


 This statement is ironic because when a TMA practitioner says the same thing, then it's crap.. but when you say the exact same thing in reference to Jiujitsu then it's valid.

"You may not want to put your drunk uncle into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that jiujitsu works"   Valid
"You may not want to put your drunk uncle into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that kung fu works"  Not Valid

I'll make another sticker to go with my Joe Rogan sticker.   Hanzou sent me.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I like how they spend several minutes talking smack about other martial arts and then state how they have control over their egos.



Considering something as being terrible does not have to be ego driven.

It depends if you consider individuals schools or styles of training to be essentially equal. And from my experience they are not.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *A lot of smack talking.*  Pretty much, hey look at us we are the best, we are better than these other people.  Yet, we are so humble.
> That video is rather pathetic on their part.  Now, I do agree with some things that were said just not in how they said it.  I agree that people should not get a rank, title, etc. and not push themselves.  That does happen and it is unfortunate.  I also agree that people should be humble.  *Just practice, train, get better, help other people and live life.*  Your just a person even if you have been doing this a long time or have a title, etc.
> 
> *Just train, get better and do your best to be a good person!*



It is about training with honesty and not training with honesty. If I made myself a black belt and invented a style that was rubbish. Then ego or not you can have an opinion on that.

Smack talk isn't always ego driven. Smack talk is not taking yourself seriously. Especially not being able to take smack.

This you must respect my black belt in drop bear jitsu and I will treat your actually worked hard for legitimate black belt in the same manner? That is increadably ego driven.

If I am a crap full of rubbish martial artist then it dosent kill me to find out.

People who spar and test find that out constantly. It is not a curse. It is a gift.

We had a guy come in once and try to teach our boxing coach boxing. So the coach put him in the cage and beat him up.

Now this guy walked out all excuses,he was rusty,had a bad day and so on. And the coach had to sit him down and tell him he wasn't very good. This gives the guy two choices. He can not listen to the advice make excuses and remain not good. Or be humble realise he had been trained wrong and get good.

Many martial artists moving from a martial art without a solid foundation to one that does goes through that and makes that choice. It is not just a tma thing. But is often generalised as a tma thing.

So I will use this video of kicboxing.





They are not very good. That is not an ego issue on my part. They just are not. To say they need to go to a bjj school try that get flogged learn to be better is not my ego. That was just the way I learned.

That was the way Joe rogan learned


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Not all self defense situations are viewed as life-or-death from the perspective of the aggressor, most probably aren't. Strikes to the groin can and have finished street fights. Other considerations are psychological, pain distracts and can demoralize. It depends on the particular aggressor and the particular context, which is why generalizations aren't useful.
> 
> A second is an aeon in standup. Enough time to land four or five strikes. One if you're slow



I don't think that is Joe rogan theme though. You can throw nut shots.

But the shot isn't the focus. It is being good enough to fire any shot avoid their shot and then escape.

Bjj has this saying. Position before submissions. Because they fall into the same trap. It can be easy to think that the new super technical armbar you have learned will defeat his arm bar. But you have to set it up. That is where the magic is.

Martial artists who talk about the strike and not the set up and escape don't understand the technique.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This statement is ironic because when a TMA practitioner says the same thing, then it's crap.. but when you say the exact same thing in reference to Jiujitsu then it's valid.
> 
> "You may not want to put your drunk uncle into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that jiujitsu works"   Valid
> "You may not want to put your drunk uncle into a wheelchair for the rest of his life just because you wanted to show him that kung fu works"  Not Valid
> 
> I'll make another sticker to go with my Joe Rogan sticker.   Hanzou sent me.



I really don't know what any of that has to do with Kung Fu. The topic of our little back and forth was Bjj beyond ground fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I really don't know what any of that has to do with Kung Fu. The topic of our little back and forth was Bjj beyond ground fighting.


BJJ beyond ground fighting is your topic.  I already know the deal about BJJ and it's focus. If you want to prove that BJJ has a stand up game then that's for you to prove. Showing me a demo video of BJJ practitioners doing throws doesn't mean squat to me when the UFC matches with BJJ guys makes it clear what the focus of BJJ is.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> BJJ beyond ground fighting is your topic.  I already know the deal about BJJ and it's focus. If you want to prove that BJJ has a stand up game then that's for you to prove. Showing me a demo video of BJJ practitioners doing throws doesn't mean squat to me when the UFC matches with BJJ guys makes it clear what the focus of BJJ is.



Getting thrown onto a canvas is different than getting thrown onto concrete.

Just saying....


----------



## JowGaWolf

That kickboxing video hurts my soul.  I had to go check their other videos to see what was going on.
They don't care about self-defense nor are they a Martial arts school. People like that exploit martial and then markets their business as if it's a real martial arts place.  People who don't research join these places thinking that they are learning the real thing.  This is why I get so much back talk about Kung Fu because of people like this.
Here is what you'll find on their website:
"Martial Arts based Kickboxing"  
"4th Dan Black Belt in Kickboxing" (Is there such a thing?)
"Lau Gar kung fu"  (I've never head of it but this is what it looks like)





Please understand that this stuff isn't kung fu, it's people who are taking advantage of others and making them think that they can fight with this mess.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Getting thrown onto a canvas is different than getting thrown onto concrete.
> 
> Just saying....


We practice and train on concrete so we have a good understanding of the damage it can do.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> That kickboxing video hurts my soul.  I had to go check their other videos to see what was going on.
> They don't care about self-defense nor are they a Martial arts school. People like that exploit martial and then markets their business as if it's a real martial arts place.  People who don't research join these places thinking that they are learning the real thing.  This is why I get so much back talk about Kung Fu because of people like this.
> Here is what you'll find on their website:
> "Martial Arts based Kickboxing"
> "4th Dan Black Belt in Kickboxing" (Is there such a thing?)
> "Lau Gar kung fu"  (I've never head of it but this is what it looks like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand that this stuff isn't kung fu, it's people who are taking advantage of others and making them think that they can fight with this mess.



It is what appeals to most people. Easy answers.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> It is about training with honesty and not training with honesty. If I made myself a black belt and invented a style that was rubbish. Then ego or not you can have an opinion on that.
> 
> Smack talk isn't always ego driven. Smack talk is not taking yourself seriously. Especially not being able to take smack.
> 
> This you must respect my black belt in drop bear jitsu and I will treat your actually worked hard for legitimate black belt in the same manner? That is increadably ego driven.
> 
> If I am a crap full of rubbish martial artist then it dosent kill me to find out.
> 
> People who spar and test find that out constantly. It is not a curse. It is a gift.
> 
> We had a guy come in once and try to teach our boxing coach boxing. So the coach put him in the cage and beat him up.
> 
> Now this guy walked out all excuses,he was rusty,had a bad day and so on. And the coach had to sit him down and tell him he wasn't very good. This gives the guy two choices. He can not listen to the advice make excuses and remain not good. Or be humble realise he had been trained wrong and get good.
> 
> Many martial artists moving from a martial art without a solid foundation to one that does goes through that and makes that choice. It is not just a tma thing. But is often generalised as a tma thing.
> 
> So I will use this video of kicboxing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not very good. That is not an ego issue on my part. They just are not. To say they need to go to a bjj school try that get flogged learn to be better is not my ego. That was just the way I learned.
> 
> That was the way Joe rogan learned



Hey I got nothing wrong with training hard, earning it on the mat, being coached and alive training, pressure testing.  I and many others do this every day.  What I do have a problem with is bad mouthing people, talking down other people, etc.  That is what I heard out of Rogan.  Regardless of what is or isn't keep your mouth shut and train.  You can do that without bad mouthing other people.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It is what appeals to most people. Easy answers.



I'm not so sure that it's easy answers that appeal more that these people appear confident, knowledgeable and competent, not to us but imagine how they look to people with totally no knowledge of martial arts and no way of checking to see if these people are the 'real thing'.   People who don't know martial arts also don't know what is 'easy answers' or not, to beginners it's all hard, they don't realise what they are learning is rubbish. We know we've been training for years but for beginner's not so much.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> He can not listen to the advice make excuses and remain not good. Or be humble realise he had been trained wrong and get good.
> 
> Many martial artists moving from a martial art without a solid foundation to one that does goes through that and makes that choice. It is not just a tma thing. But is often generalised as a tma thing.



We occasionally get students (some times even black belts) who have trained for a while in other martial arts join our classes that were not very good and you just have to wonder 'what  have they been learning there?'.



drop bear said:


> So I will use this video of kicboxing.
> 
> 
> They are not very good. That is not an ego issue on my part. They just are not.



Maybe they were just tired, they were going for three hours.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> We occasionally get students (some times even black belts) who have trained for a while in other martial arts join our classes that were not very good and you just have to wonder 'what have they been learning there?'.



It's only when they train somewhere else that they realise that perhaps what they've been taught isn't 'all that'. Sometimes though even when their training is really good people don't realise that  another may suit them better just because of the differences in style, my instructor always said Shotokan suited bigger people and Wado smaller, just because of the way the stances and some of the techniques are, not because one is better than another.


----------



## JowGaWolf

This is what Lau Gar looks like from the head person for Lau Gar in I guess the UK.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> That kickboxing video hurts my soul.  I had to go check their other videos to see what was going on.
> They don't care about self-defense nor are they a Martial arts school. People like that exploit martial and then markets their business as if it's a real martial arts place.  People who don't research join these places thinking that they are learning the real thing.  This is why I get so much back talk about Kung Fu because of people like this.
> Here is what you'll find on their website:
> "Martial Arts based Kickboxing"
> "4th Dan Black Belt in Kickboxing" (Is there such a thing?)
> "Lau Gar kung fu"  (I've never head of it but this is what it looks like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand that this stuff isn't kung fu, it's people who are taking advantage of others and making them think that they can fight with this mess.



Owwe my eyes.

I especially liked the blue flag weapon Kata/parade, at the very beginning. Very inspired.
*claps furiously "

It went downhill from there


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> Please understand that this stuff isn't kung fu, it's people who are taking advantage of others and making them think that they can fight with this mess.



Look at it with a complete beginner's eyes, someone who has never been into a martial arts club/gym/dojo whatever before and it looks 'doable', it says 'look you can do this' it has everything a martial arts class supposedly should contain so it's no wonder these people think what they are doing is great. I'm betting the people on the video had never done anything physical since they left school so they think they have come along in huge leaps and bounds, I suppose they have in a way, they got off their bums and went to train martial arts but it's such a shame they ended up doing that.

I do dislike it when people laugh and make fun of those in the videos, it's not funny, it's sad and rather dangerous if those people think they can defend themselves. They are doing their best and they have been let down very badly by those who are teaching them. I wish we could show them there's a better way but perhaps they will find it themselves one day.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> laugar kung fu 2014 demo









I'm sorry, but that's just a sad joke.



Tez3 said:


> I do dislike it when people laugh and make fun of those in the videos, it's not funny, it's sad and rather dangerous if those people think they can defend themselves. They are doing their best and they have been let down very badly by those who are teaching them. I wish we could show them there's a better way but perhaps they will find it themselves one day.



In the age of mass communication, there's no excuse for being oblivious to what's real and what's nonsense. You can lead a horse to water, but that doesn't mean they're going to take a drink.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what Lau Gar looks like from the head person for Lau Gar in I guess the UK.



Beautiful forms.

If only we could see him use those techniques on some non-compliant partners.....


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Look at it with a complete beginner's eyes, someone who has never been into a martial arts club/gym/dojo whatever before and it looks 'doable', it says 'look you can do this' it has everything a martial arts class supposedly should contain so it's no wonder these people think what they are doing is great. I'm betting the people on the video had never done anything physical since they left school so they think they have come along in huge leaps and bounds, I suppose they have in a way, they got off their bums and went to train martial arts but it's such a shame they ended up doing that.


I do look at it from a complete beginner's eyes. I just think many beginners who take a martial art don't want to learn how to fight and it shows. If a person joins a martial art with the focus of improving self-confidence, getting stronger, being fit, looking cook, or improving discipline then any martial arts program out there will do that, including the horrible schools. The "Mcdojos" are great at doing this and their customers are happy because they are not there to learn how to fight or how to defend themselves.  I think we would have fewer videos of bad Kung fu if more people actually took it to learn how to fight.  If people don't want to learn how to use it for fighting then they should be told that they are doing a "kung fu fitness" and explain the difference between doing kung fu for fitness and doing it to fighting.  They shouldn't mislead those people and give them impression that they can use "kung fu fitness" to defend themselves.


Tez3 said:


> I do dislike it when people laugh and make fun of those in the videos, it's not funny, it's sad and rather dangerous if those people think they can defend themselves.


  I don't dislike the people who laugh and make fun of those videos because they know the reality of it and are willing to point it out.  I dislike the people who teach incorrectly and mislead people to think that they can defend themselves when the students are clearly not doing the necessary conditioning and training to be able to do so. Like that 3 hour black belt testing video and then make the claim that they don't give out black belts, when if fact based on that training they are doing worst by making people think that those are realistic attacks. Those are the people who I dislike.  Like you say, its "dangerous if those people think they can defend themselves." When the time comes to actually defend themselves, those people are going to fight when they should be running.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I do look at it from a complete beginner's eyes. I just think many beginners who take a martial art don't want to learn how to fight and it shows. If a person joins a martial art with the focus of improving self-confidence, getting stronger, being fit, looking cook, or improving discipline then any martial arts program out there will do that, including the horrible schools. The "Mcdojos" are great at doing this and their customers are happy because they are not there to learn how to fight or how to defend themselves.  I think we would have fewer videos of bad Kung fu if more people actually took it to learn how to fight.  If people don't want to learn how to use it for fighting then they should be told that they are doing a "kung fu fitness" and explain the difference between doing kung fu for fitness and doing it to fighting.  They shouldn't mislead those people and give them impression that they can use "kung fu fitness" to defend themselves.
> I don't dislike the people who laugh and make fun of those videos because they know the reality of it and are willing to point it out.  I dislike the people who teach incorrectly and mislead people to think that they can defend themselves when the students are clearly not doing the necessary conditioning and training to be able to do so. Like that 3 hour black belt testing video and then make the claim that they don't give out black belts, when if fact based on that training they are doing worst by making people think that those are realistic attacks. Those are the people who I dislike.  Like you say, its "dangerous if those people think they can defend themselves." When the time comes to actually defend themselves, those people are going to fight when they should be running.



I think you're on to something here. In Bjj we have a pretty high turnover rate because people don't like to fight. More specifically, people don't like to *lose*.

It can be pretty soul-crushing to get tapped out or choked out by a 18 year old punk when you're a 30 year old man who wrestled and played football back in the day. However, the simple reality is that 18 year old punk who's been doing Bjj since he was 5 could kill you because the most you've done in almost a decade is push potato chips into your mouth. That is the reality of the situation, and some people just can't handle reality.

That's what the Mcdojos are for. They're a sanctuary where you can perform dazzling forms and pretend to be able to fight like a guy from a martial arts film.

It's the perfect fantasy.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> .
> I don't dislike the people who laugh and make fun of those videos because they know the reality of it and are willing to point it out. .



Not what I said though, I said I dislike the ones who laugh at the people in the videos, they don't know any better and shouldn't be laughed at. The ones who made the videos, that's different but not the students.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I think you're on to something here. In Bjj we have a pretty high turnover rate because people don't like to fight. More specifically, people don't like to *lose*.
> 
> It can be pretty soul-crushing to get tapped out or choked out by a 18 year old punk when you're a 30 year old man who wrestled and played football back in the day. However, the simple reality is that 18 year old punk who's been doing Bjj since he was 5 could kill you because the most you've done in almost a decade is push potato chips into your mouth. That is the reality of the situation, and some people just can't handle reality.
> 
> That's what the Mcdojos are for. They're a sanctuary where you can perform dazzling forms and pretend to be able to fight like a guy from a martial arts film.
> 
> It's the perfect fantasy.


We had a child student join us, then leave within the first week.  I'm thinking the father thought our training was too tough. But she goes away and her father drops in 2 years later to say hello to us and to let us know that his daughter is now one step away from her black belt test.  So he asked her to demo her black belt form for us  (as any proud father would probably do).  When she showed us the form, we were shocked at how horrible it was. I'll put it this way, one wouldn't need to know how to fight to beat it.  The father then began to explain the type of "martial art system" she was doing.  He said their master told them that their style is gentle on the joints and that they don't get the impact like people do when they punch a pad.  We just couldn't believe what we heard.  But parents who think like that or who would even want to go to places like that aren't doing martial arts for self-defense at all. The father just saw the black belt for his daughter as a trophy accomplishment, and he couldn't care less if she learned real martial arts.  He just wants to be able to say she has a black belt and studied under some well known master.

Parents like that are worst than the instructors who mislead.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> Not what I said though, I said I dislike the ones who laugh at the people in the videos, they don't know any better and shouldn't be laughed at. The ones who made the videos, that's different but not the students.


  Oh ok. I understand what you mean now.  That's the same principle that my school has.  We aren't allowed to laugh, smirk, or put down another students capabilities.  If a student has bad form then we work with them to correct it.  If a student doesn't care about their form then we either correct that attitude of not caring or we ask them to leave.  We rarely ask people to leave because we are willing to take as long as needed to correct the attitude of not caring.

We don't tolerate behavior that could be toxic to the other students who are giving their best and struggling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Beautiful forms.
> 
> If only we could see him use those techniques on some non-compliant partners.....



Sorry I don't have any videos of me doing Lau Gar.  lol.. This is the best that I could find as far for what you are requesting.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> We had a child student join us, then leave within the first week.  I'm thinking the father thought our training was too tough. But she goes away and her father drops in 2 years later to say hello to us and to let us know that his daughter is now one step away from her black belt test.  So he asked her to demo her black belt form for us  (as any proud father would probably do).  When she showed us the form, we were shocked at how horrible it was. I'll put it this way, one wouldn't need to know how to fight to beat it.  The father then began to explain the type of "martial art system" she was doing.  He said their master told them that their style is gentle on the joints and that they don't get the impact like people do when they punch a pad.  We just couldn't believe what we heard.  But parents who think like that or who would even want to go to places like that aren't doing martial arts for self-defense at all. The father just saw the black belt for his daughter as a trophy accomplishment, and he couldn't care less if she learned real martial arts.  He just wants to be able to say she has a black belt and studied under some well known master.
> 
> Parents like that are worst than the instructors who mislead.



Ah but she has 'discipline'!  I've met parents like this in all sorts of circumstances, we had a father almost stalking us to buy my daughters pony because he thought it was faster than his daughters, offered us all sorts of money we turned down. He really wanted his daughter to win at local gymkhanas and one day events, to be honest she never seemed that keen but I guess wanted to please dad. He couldn't understand it wasn't the pony it was my daughter that was fast, she trains racehorses now for arguably the top race yard in the country. Some parents never understand sadly.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> We occasionally get students (some times even black belts) who have trained for a while in other martial arts join our classes that were not very good and you just have to wonder 'what  have they been learning there?'.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they were just tired, they were going for three hours.



They didn't look very tired.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry I don't have any videos of me doing Lau Gar.  lol.. This is the best that I could find as far for what you are requesting.



Yeah, that's choreographed. I want to see a Lau Gar guy fighting someone who is legitimately trying to punch them in the face.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Look at it with a complete beginner's eyes, someone who has never been into a martial arts club/gym/dojo whatever before and it looks 'doable', it says 'look you can do this' it has everything a martial arts class supposedly should contain so it's no wonder these people think what they are doing is great. I'm betting the people on the video had never done anything physical since they left school so they think they have come along in huge leaps and bounds, I suppose they have in a way, they got off their bums and went to train martial arts but it's such a shame they ended up doing that.



If we look at the kicboxing one it is dooable. They just defended mount like 500 times. A whole section of martial artists convinced this works. And it just keeps being reinforced in their heads.

It is not far removed from the arts that throw hardooken at each other.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> ...So he asked her to demo her black belt form for us  (as any proud father would probably do).  When she showed us the form, we were shocked at how horrible it was... The father just saw the black belt for his daughter as a trophy accomplishment... Parents like that are worst than the instructors who mislead.



This would be an accurate description of my step-brother who pushed his son to get a black-belt in TKD by age eleven and a second degree by the time he was twelve or thirteen. Then him switched him to "real sports" before entering high school. The kid had no idea about dealing with _real violence_ but he could do a nice martial dance and even break boards. At a family gathering, he asserted that he could dis-arm a knife wielding attacker. I grabbed a rubber spatula and showed him the dangerous error of his thinking. Unfortunately my wife witnessed my well meant "lesson" and _sent me outside to learn how to behave_. Sheesh! 

I remember asking my stepbrother (with whom I have very little contact) how he got his kid to advance so rapidly, since my own son, who has been in TKD twice as long and actually spars, has a much lower rank. He responded that if the teacher didn't advance his son fast enough, he would take him to another, "better" school where he would advance faster!  




JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry I don't have any videos of me doing Lau Gar.  lol.. This is the best that I could find as far for what you are requesting.



Looks like a fun routine, a lot like stage-fighting, and it _would _help with fitness. Definitely looks more fun than yoga, but maybe that's just me. I have no problem with this kind of stuff as long as the participants know that it isn't applicable to real fighting. Heck a lot of what I do isn't directly applicable to real fighting. And in fact, for the last 30 years or so, I've been very successful at avoiding real fights. The problem is when this stuff becomes self deception.


----------



## Dinkydoo

I did Lau Gar for a couple of years and it isn't great. I very much doubt it is a TCMA although it's certainly marketed as such. The training syllabus contains a lot of linework and one step drills and a little bit of light sparring and weapons. There are a small number of forms (when compared with other systems) which isn't a bad thing, but you have to look pretty hard to find a lot of the applications. There's also literally zero partner drills with the focus of improving sensitivity and there doesn't appear to be a lot of consistency between the techniques contained within the syllabus - which is strange, because I can't think of another TCMA like that. I'd go as far as saying that some bits of forms have been blatantly taken from other styles, which again, I amn't precious about, but without an understanding of what these techniques are trying to achieve it's a bit of a fruitless exercise - unless you like learning a funny looking dance.

I achieved a yellow sash (3 away from black) and I considered myself really quite good at the syllabus, but my fears about my training were all but confirmed when I gave 7 Star Praying Mantis a shot...it hadn't entirely been a waste of time, however I decided that from then on out I wanted to train smart in something that was going to make me into a good fighter. For me, Lau Gar was never going to do that.


----------



## Tez3

With the popularity of MMA we are beginning to see exactly the same thing with it, 'gyms' that aren't turning out proper fighters. This is becoming obvious when they try to take fights on shows, they either don't turn up or fight very poorly. It's a sad fact of life that there will always be those for whom money is the greater consideration and who will make that money from the innocent.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> With the popularity of MMA we are beginning to see exactly the same thing with it, 'gyms' that aren't turning out proper fighters. This is becoming obvious when they try to take fights on shows, they either don't turn up or fight very poorly. It's a sad fact of life that there will always be those for whom money is the greater consideration and who will make that money from the innocent.



You could always run the standard excuses. Mma for the street,not interested in training with ego.sparring is not realistic.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Considering that a person can kill you simply by knocking you to the ground, every SD situation should be seen as life or death until you get the situation under control.



This prescriptive claim is tangential, but ok... 
If by 'seen as life or death' you mean to recognize that there is a mortal potential in every situation, yes there is everywhere and at all times.
If you mean to treat every situation as the same threat level, I don't think it's possible for most people for example dealing with the cliched drunk uncle vs a gang waving razors in their face.
As to whether they 'should' ... dunno, it seems a touch paranoid.



Hanzou said:


> That depends completely on the person striking,



I believe that is what I said.



Hanzou said:


> In that case above, the person doing the striking has a pretty significant size advantage over the person getting struck.



Yes they do. I don't know where you're going with this.



Hanzou said:


> Choke. No matter how strong you are, you need air.



Yeah but you still have to get the choke on, and if you can't you have to adapt.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Bjj has this saying. Position before submissions. Because they fall into the same trap. It can be easy to think that the new super technical armbar you have learned will defeat his arm bar. But you have to set it up. That is where the magic is.
> 
> Martial artists who talk about the strike and not the set up and escape don't understand the technique.



I don't know if you're expecting me to disagree with you.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> We had a child student join us, then leave within the first week.  I'm thinking the father thought our training was too tough. But she goes away and her father drops in 2 years later to say hello to us and to let us know that his daughter is now one step away from her black belt test.  So he asked her to demo her black belt form for us  (as any proud father would probably do).  When she showed us the form, we were shocked at how horrible it was. I'll put it this way, one wouldn't need to know how to fight to beat it.  The father then began to explain the type of "martial art system" she was doing.  He said their master told them that their style is gentle on the joints and that they don't get the impact like people do when they punch a pad.  We just couldn't believe what we heard.  But parents who think like that or who would even want to go to places like that aren't doing martial arts for self-defense at all. The father just saw the black belt for his daughter as a trophy accomplishment, and he couldn't care less if she learned real martial arts.  He just wants to be able to say she has a black belt and studied under some well known master.
> 
> Parents like that are worst than the instructors who mislead.



This is the nutzo stuff (among other things) that persuade me to never accept children as students, at least in the USA.

I could go to pretty much any third world country and find students whose attitude is radically different. Different social expectation and work ethic both from the parents, and internally from the student.

This also goes for a lot of adults, in the US sadly.

A number of returning servicemen who brought Korean and other martial arts back to the US found drop out ratios unbelievable, because they used the same teaching methods they learned under. But the American public by and large rejects this as "too hard". I apologize if any fellow Americans take offense at that.

But the McDojo is a direct result of our instant gratification oriented progressive postmodern worldview.

Like Geezer's step-brother who would take a son to a better school if said son was not promoted fast enough so perfectly illustrates.

The WW2 vets, (that I have spoken and briefly trained with), who brought Judo back had very tough training methods and frequently rejected potential students because they failed a physical readiness entrance exam for their school admission.

Eventually Judo took a back seat to Karate... But high standards commonly were held from the 40's to the beginning of the 80s.


Something changed in Americans after the kungfu craze of the 60s and 70s came and went.

I dont think it was overnight but the voting of the wallet led to sloppy standards, because Sensei has bills to pay, if he is going to keep the doors open.

I have spoken with two or three old Chinese Yang Taiji men... And they are pretty amazed at how disconnected the taichi is from the Chuan in the US. Everyone is doing it for the health benefits etc.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> When I made that statement about the one-strike, I was thinking of fighters and martial art practitioners who throw that one punch and leave the arm extended in a "Van Dam blood sport pose" thinking that one punch is enough to do the job.  The people that tend to have this habit are those who do point sparring, where the fighting stops after a foot or a fist makes contact.  Notice how the guy raises his hand after scoring.  This will eventually become habit and his weakness if he ever gets into a real fight or if he does something like Lei Tai


|
I'm a traditionalist, so allow me to lay a premise for my thoughts.  Nice follow-on vid & explanation too.  Your instructions are clear & to the point, very readily absorbed.
|
Premise 1. Traditional karate is not a sport; it's a mental discipline.
\
Premise 2. Sport training is fundamentally different from karate training, traditionally.  Sport training develops & relies on physical capability.  Karate proper develops & relies on mind / body unity with the mind in control at all times.  In "control" means actively thinking, not reacting for brevity sake.  The entire body is engaged into the technique.  As opposed to leaping ahead &  throwing an arm into a hand technique, off balance & out of position like we see your 'sport' karate video.
\
Premise 3. Sport karate is great for those who want a sport competition experience.  Sport karate develops good skills.  The problem is sport karate tend to focus on winning, rather than building a strong base of traditional karate that I have described.  That means 'scoring points' @ tournaments.  Sport karateka tend to work backwards from there, copying & mimicking what they see other sport karate competitors winning with.  Speed & fast reactions.  Physical traits.

THE 2010Sport MartialArt Video:
\
1. The VAN DAM BLOODSPORT PUNCH.  Truth be told, the basic kihon karate power shot leaving arm extended workS.  So does what the better (IMO) sport karate fighterS do and that is to immediately retract following a strike.  By kihon principles, rechamber.  The kihon karate form of full ROM movements, full extension is to develop a skill base which I described in my Premise #2.  Kihon karate form principles are principles.  Those principles DO NOT SAY cut & paste kihon karate training form into kumite.  It's the principles that are employed in kumite.  Those who think karate kihon is 'air punching,' you're already in a deep hole if you want the benefit the karate masters intended.
\
2. POINT FIGHTING.  Sport karate is a contest or game.  We see that in the video.  The contestants really don't want to seriously injure one another.  Because scoring points by some sport standard doesn't require precise control of power, tactical intelligence in winning, sport karateka don't have to train to traditional standards.  So we have all kinds of contorted means of tagging the other guy with no real whole body power and no real mental discipline in tightly controlled & tactically intelligent techniques....  As you might of surmised, I never go to  tournaments.
\
3. YOUR RAISED-HAND CRITICISM. To illustrate my view, it's OK for the winner to raise his had after scoring.  But that is only if, in his mind, he is mentally prepared to shift mentally & instantly attack or defend.  Here, I would surmise the winner is celebrating his victory, his mind is off fighting.  By traditional standards, that again is ok, if the assailant is disabled or dead; the threat ended.   To automatically raise your hand during kumite is stupid.  The disciplined mind is not in control, the emotions are, and traditional karate is on some other planet.
\
Following an exchange that is ended or paused, traditional karate kumite training calls for one to RE-position one's Stance & RE-chamber into an Active Guard.  Mentally ready for the next exchange.  The hand-raiser in the vid demonstrates he is more interested in the win, than executing karate principles.  It's a discipline issue, and ultimately a karate base issue.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the video with me in it, then it wasn't a demo. It was actual sparring and trying to use Jow Ga kung fu techniques so we have a large collection of our kung fu sparring successes and fails. This is a video from one of the images that I posted with me failing with a trap attempt.  Nothing in this video was choreographed including the roll that my sparring partner did at the end.
> 
> Hopefully one day I'll be able to spar against someone that does traditional karate.


|
JowGaWolf, I broke your Jow Ga Sparring Session Video Post into 2 replies 'cause you covered enormous ground.  Yeah, I surmised it wasn't a demo from the text.   To me, by how I train, it impressed me as a demo.  Let me expand.
\
1. THE SPORTSMARTIALARTS VID.  Here we have 2 sport karateka going @ one another.  Priceless how the one contender leaps forward and the defender stationary blocks him-- the attacker reacts like he ran into a tree.  I hate to say it, LOL.  The attacker probably had (in his head) the sport karate maxim of leaping forward very quick, hoping  to catch the opponent by surprise & before the opponent could react.  Instead, attacker experienced the surprise of running smack into a tree & it's limb.  Proves your whole thinking right there.
\
2. JGW's SPARRING EXERCISE.  Your kung fu techniques are going to work against boxer's (as a group), sport karateka, because they are more sophisticated in form.  You would do well against the 2 competitors in the SMA vid above.  Trouble is, your sparring partner in your Actual Sparring Video, is kinda on par with the sport karateka.  He's not very dynamic or strong in his technique - what I saw.  So of course your approach is going to trump his defense.  So in essence, we're (in your Active Sparring Vid) kinda stuck in the same sport mode.
\
You mention that nothing in the (Active Sparring Video) was choreographed.... presumably to add real-time & realism.  The trouble again is, those elements are precisely the same in the SportMartialArt sport karateka vid.  Precisely the same.  Exact same environment with the (your) opponent making the exact same fails.
|
In  terms of the Jow Ga Style, the message in your Active Sparring Video seem to be to create & exploit openings in your opponent's defense.  And the Jow Ga combination moves so presented illustrate that very well.  Traditional karate kumite training seeks to accomplish exactly the same tactical goal.  IT does so, however, on a more simplified plane.  If we are speaking Kihon (basic) level karate, much more simplified.
\
I'll Leave you with this thought:  In your hypothetical sparring exercise with a traditional karateka.
\
Here's how I would frame the issue & outcome.  There is the issue of physical form (Jow Ga more sophisticated, hence better), and there is the issue of TMA base.  The purpose of the traditional kararte curriculum is to simplify the training regimen so as to foster concentration on building a very strong karate base.  The SportMartialArt Competition Video, a massive fail in this regard.
|
In your hypothetical contest, the one with the stronger traditional martial arts base will prevail.  Not the one with more sophisticated technique.  So I have identified the true danger (focus on the TMA base) in facing a bona-fide karateka.
\
Good luck with that....


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Considering something as being terrible does not have to be ego driven.



When you find people who can only talk in negative terms about another art, it's probably ego.
When those terms are frequently way off base, it's probably ego.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> The kid had no idea about dealing with _real violence_ but he could do a nice martial dance and even break boards. At a family gathering, he asserted that he could dis-arm a knife wielding attacker. I grabbed a rubber spatula and showed him the dangerous error of his thinking. Unfortunately my wife witnessed my well meant "lesson" and _sent me outside to learn how to behave_


   That's a good lesson for him to learn.  It's good that you showed him the dangers since it was clear that he truly felt that he could dis-arm a knife wielding attacker.  You may have saved his life with that demonstration. Hopefully he know has a different perspective about defending against a knife.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> I did Lau Gar for a couple of years and it isn't great. I very much doubt it is a TCMA although it's certainly marketed as such. The training syllabus contains a lot of linework and one step drills and a little bit of light sparring and weapons. There are a small number of forms (when compared with other systems) which isn't a bad thing, but you have to look pretty hard to find a lot of the applications. There's also literally zero partner drills with the focus of improving sensitivity and there doesn't appear to be a lot of consistency between the techniques contained within the syllabus - which is strange, because I can't think of another TCMA like that. I'd go as far as saying that some bits of forms have been blatantly taken from other styles, which again, I amn't precious about, but without an understanding of what these techniques are trying to achieve it's a bit of a fruitless exercise - unless you like learning a funny looking dance.
> 
> I achieved a yellow sash (3 away from black) and I considered myself really quite good at the syllabus, but my fears about my training were all but confirmed when I gave 7 Star Praying Mantis a shot...it hadn't entirely been a waste of time, however I decided that from then on out I wanted to train smart in something that was going to make me into a good fighter. For me, Lau Gar was never going to do that.


Dinkydoo.
Thanks for sharing your experience with Lau Gar.  I have never heard of Lau Gar before and now I can stop being confused when it looks like I'm seeing other styles in the form. Are you still training in 7 Star Praying Mantis?


----------



## renc

ShotoNoob said:


> The kihon karate form of full ROM movements, full extension is to develop a skill base which I described in my Premise #2.  Kihon karate form principles are principles.  Those principles DO NOT SAY cut & paste kihon karate training form into kumite.  It's the principles that are employed in kumite.  Those who think karate kihon is 'air punching,' you're already in a deep hole if you want the benefit the karate masters intended.



ShotoNoob, if you don't mind, would you list kihon principles? Not an arm long list including real subtle stuff, just a broad / top level category list?

Thanks


----------



## renc

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I also agree that people should be humble.



And humility is widely prized in martial arts for martial reasons.
Attitudes promoted by Rogan and that 'Nic' ultimately harm their arts.
But it's great marketing if your aim is to attract the most number to your art, if you believe that popularity reflects quality.


----------



## renc

renc said:


> And humility is widely prized in martial arts for martial reasons.
> Attitudes promoted by Rogan and that 'Nic' ultimately harm their arts.
> But it's great marketing if your aim is to attract the most number to your art, if you believe that popularity reflects quality.



Ego stoking being given previously as a reason for the popularity of McDojos, it's an unexpected and ironic symmetry.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> This prescriptive claim is tangential, but ok...
> If by 'seen as life or death' you mean to recognize that there is a mortal potential in every situation, yes there is everywhere and at all times.
> If you mean to treat every situation as the same threat level, I don't think it's possible for most people for example dealing with the cliched drunk uncle vs a gang waving razors in their face.
> As to whether they 'should' ... dunno, it seems a touch paranoid.



No, I mean every situation could kill you. Some situations give you a higher chance than others. 

Goofing around with your drunk uncle at a BBQ isn't a situation. Your drunk uncle beating his wife in front of you is a situation.



> I believe that is what I said.
> 
> Yes they do. I don't know where you're going with this.



That a big huge guy kicking you in the nuts is different than a smaller person kicking you in the nuts.



> Yeah but you still have to get the choke on, and if you can't you have to adapt.



Or you can simply move to a different choke......


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> And humility is widely prized in martial arts for martial reasons.
> Attitudes promoted by Rogan and that 'Nic' ultimately harm their arts.
> But it's great marketing if your aim is to attract the most number to your art, if you believe that popularity reflects quality.



Well 10th Planet Bjj continues to be popular, and still churn out respected and quality black belts, so there goes that theory.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> Dinkydoo.
> Thanks for sharing your experience with Lau Gar.  I have never heard of Lau Gar before and now I can stop being confused when it looks like I'm seeing other styles in the form. Are you still training in 7 Star Praying Mantis?


Happy to share. 

I have literally just moved cities in the past 3 weeks so I am no longer doing mantis (my old club was the only 7 Star club in Scotland). I have a bit of kickboxing experience now so I'm going to continue down that route with Muay Thai; there a few good gyms here. I'm also interested in adding a bit of BJJ or Judo to my training and I'm set to try out a JKD club this week. 

What, after a month or so, I hope to be doing every week is:

Standup sport based striking - Muay Thai
Grappling - BJJ/Judo
Self Defence - JKD or Silat

There is quite a good wing chun club here and I have done a little WC before, but i'm not sure that would fit in with what I'm looking for in the Muay Thai - stylistically, they are very different.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> If this is true then talk about the other aspects of BJJ that doesn't involve being on the ground.  From now on, talk about the BJJ stand up game and tactics


If you want to know BJJ stand up, then go watch kodokan judo videos. Olympic style has removed some take downs such as the single and double leg. They also penalize for getting low to the ground in order to focus on the stand up. The funny thing is there is another branch of judo (aside from BJJ) called kosen judo that developed for judoka to focus more on newaza instead of restarting the matches so quickly after it hits the mats. It developed after Maeda went to Brazil and taught the Gracies judo (or rather the jiu-jutsu that would continue to morph into judo). Even though the developed independently, there are many parallels.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> If only we could see him use those techniques on some non-compliant partners


Yeah that's something you really want to do with a sword.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> That a big huge guy kicking you in the nuts is different than a smaller person kicking you in the nuts.



Yes, your point is?



Hanzou said:


> Or you can simply move to a different choke......



If conditions allow, if that is a reasonable option.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Well 10th Planet Bjj continues to be popular, and still churn out respected and quality black belts, so there goes that theory.



You can't correlate with a sample size of one.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> I don't know if you're expecting me to disagree with you.



It was more of a clarification. 

The re stomp the groin tactic is quite often partnered with an unrealistic expectation that learning deadly moves is an advantage over learning basics well.

There is no reason for this to happen. But it quite often does


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Ego stoking being given previously as a reason for the popularity of McDojos, it's an unexpected and ironic symmetry.



I have mentioned this before. But mma is not like never back down. Where cool people train by fight montage.

It is some sweaty guy sitting on you and punching you in the face.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> I have mentioned this before. But mma is not like never back down. Where cool people train by fight montage.
> 
> It is some sweaty guy sitting on you and punching you in the face.



I get that the reality of most sports fighting isn't glamorous. Mostly a lot of hard work.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> You can't correlate with a sample size of one.



I'm not. I'm talking about the entire organization, which has grown by leaps and bounds for years now. 10th planet is one of the largest Bjj associations on the planet, and its popularity isn't taking a hit because Rogan, London Real, and Eddie Bravo trash-talk other arts.

The only thing that would hit 10 planet's popularity is if a TMA guy entered a 10th planet academy and  beat the crap out of them, but we both know that that's never going to happen.


----------



## elder999

kuniggety said:


> If you want to know BJJ stand up, then go watch kodokan judo videos. Olympic style has removed some take downs such as the single and double leg. They also penalize for getting low to the ground in order to focus on the stand up. The funny thing is there is another branch of judo (aside from BJJ) called kosen judo that developed for judoka to focus more on newaza instead of restarting the matches so quickly after it hits the mats. It developed after Maeda went to Brazil and taught the Gracies judo (or rather the jiu-jutsu that would continue to morph into judo). Even though the developed independently, there are many parallels.


 

@kuniggety ":This is a pretty fair post, except for this part:  " Maeda went to Brazil and taught the Gracies judo*(rather the jiu-jutsu that would continue to morph into judo)*
-
Maeda taught the Gracies judo. He was born in 1878. The Kodokan was founded in 1882, and "Kano-jujutsu" was called _judo_ by Kano from this point forward, although there was some confusion and interchange of the terms (and, in some cases, very little differentiation: judo *is* jujutsu) well into the early 20th century. Maeda began judo at Waseda University in 1894, and was one of those sent abroad to "promote" judo in 1904, arriving -and staying-in Brazil in 1914. In his years abroad, he'd picked up some boxing and catch-wrestling, both of which he felt were antithetical to the principles of judo-or, rather, he felt that _Kano_ would think them antithetical, so it's thought that at some point  he might have started calling what he was doing _jujutsu_, rather than associate it with Kano...of course, judo continued to evolve-*and* in my opinion, devolve-throughout the 20th century, especially as it became a competitive "sport."

In any case, I first heard of "Brazilian jiu-jitsu" in the 80's, but didn't actually see any (except for _Lethal Weapon_) until the 90's. Both in the 90's and when seeing the little bit of it in _Lethal Weapon_, as a 20-year judoka at that point, I recognized what they were doing as *judo, though it would take a fair bit of actually feeling it and rolling with those guys to recognize that it had, indeed, morphed into something different......*


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> TMA guy entered a 10th planet academy and  beat the crap out of them, but we both know that that's never going to happen.


Well since that would be a crime I guess your right


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> I'm not. I'm talking about the entire organization, which has grown by leaps and bounds for years now.



'the popularity, 'the quality' of 'an organization' is still a sample size of one. Correlating is to observe how one variable changes as another changes, their covariance.



Hanzou said:


> its popularity isn't taking a hit because Rogan, London Real, and Eddie Bravo trash-talk other arts.



Again you're taking the opposite meaning from what was written.
Trash talking is good marketing from the point of view of increasing numbers.
It's good marketing because it appeals to the insecurities of newcomers.
It's good marketing because it takes advantage of lack of experience in martial arts (or any art), of inability to recognize the (il)logic behind the attitudes, or understand that those attitudes are setting them up for a fall, and failing to treat them as individuals.



Hanzou said:


> IThe only thing that would hit 10 planet's popularity is if a TMA guy entered a 10th planet academy and  beat the crap out of them, but we both know that that's never going to happen.



A challenge which often proceeds from misunderstanding motivation.

Most of these kind of arguments are a disagreement over whether training in martial arts means individuals learning how to make techniques effective for themselves vs whether styles 'are' effective. 'Techniques are effective' is already a generalization too far, 'styles are effective' one more so.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Well since that would be a crime I guess your right



If you issue a challenge, it shouldn't be a problem;


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> 'the popularity, 'the quality' of 'an organization' is still a sample size of one. Correlating is to observe how one variable changes as another changes, their covariance.



You said that Rogan's trash talking harms the quality of their MA. Based on 10th Planet's current status (which is the BJJ style Rogan practices) that hasn't been the case. I don't know what examples you would prefer me to use instead of the one you're actually addressing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

renc said:


> A challenge which often proceeds from misunderstanding motivation.


  The old school traditional Chinese Martial Arts school take challenges very seriously. You are basically going to someone's "house" and telling that person that he sucks and and his fighting system sucks and you're saying this in front of all of his students.

There's no guarantee that there will be rules and there's no guarantee that weapons won't be involved.  The thing about a challenge is that it's a real fight where you get to use all of your skills from your fighting style and a Kung Fu practitioner gets to use all of their skills from their fighting system.  For me to challenge another Kung Fu school may result in their Sifu handing me a staff and telling me to fight him. Granted that there are many TMA schools that don't focus on fighting, if you find one that is, you'll quickly learn that they are very serious about fighting and they don't take challenges lightly.

If anyone wants to try their skills against someone who does a TMA then I would recommend being respectful and asking the Sifu if he or she is interested in having sparring sessions where the two of you can gain learning experience and benefit from the sparring.   The intensity of the sparring can be determined to meet both needs without causing serious injury.


----------



## elder999

kuniggety said:


> If you want to know BJJ stand up, then go watch kodokan judo videos. s.


 
Oh, and there are lots of BJJ schools that have abandoned kodokan tachi waza altogether for wrestling takedowns.


----------



## JowGaWolf

While watching some of the recommended videos.  I ran across this video.   This is how I feel when I see bad kung fu knowing that there are good kung fu schools out there who train hard to fight.  This is the sad truth about a lot of martial arts especially in the U.S.  What's even worse people going to the fake places don't even care that what they are doing is fake.  You can tell them that it's fake and they'll still pay to get the belt.


----------



## ShotoNoob

renc said:


> ShotoNoob, if you don't mind, would you list kihon principles? Not an arm long list including real subtle stuff, just a broad / top level category list?
> 
> Thanks


|
Renc, whoever you are, I thought some of resident TA experts would have jumped in to support my post.
|
I'll just put up a couple of general principles:
|
1. the full ROM exercises developed physical conditioning.  Example, strength, flexibility & balance. Furthermore, since the movements are 'exaggerted' compared to normal activity, they also into a progressive stress that draws on the body physiologically and conditions the internal organs with better oxygen & circulatory flow.
|
2. the full ROM movements require more work, hence more mental discipline.  The mind has to do more work to get the body to do more work.  This building of mental discipline leads to the capability of greater control of the body.  Moreover, psychologically, one becomes less prone to emotion & reactive behavior when under actual stress.
|
3. the full ROM techniques are specifically designed to call upon & engage the entire body into the action, technique. Furthermore, a healthier body (1) supports a healthier mind (3) which can then think & act in a more effective manner.
|
4. the full ROM of kihon form also incorporates martial tactical advantages.  I can naturally reach farther to either strike or defend, if need be.  I can attack or defend different zones without constriction or resistance.\
|
5. Proper breathing which supports & enhances (1) through (4), including moving on the the metaphysical building of ki & facilitating it's flow, it's benefits re (1) through (4).
|
Of course one has to be willing to embrace these, which most aren't.  So that's why you have most plugging the gaps, in their swiss cheese TMA base with the kind of sport karate sparring Jow Ga Wolf was complaining about, then which he goes and largely replicates the same in his well-presented videos.  Of course K-Man, whomever here latching on the same.
|
Jow Ga should have replied to my post, not some "renc."  Good luck with that.....

BTW: Rogan is promoting the UFC, so what he talks about is fair to say.  I've just provided the specifics on why Rogan or any one else critical of the "Modern" or "Okinawan" karates or TMA in general (lets' include TKD, TSD) doesn't know what TMA is.
|
BTW2: training under full contact & opponents physically, "realistically"  trying to dominate you is tough.  Building the traditional martial arts base is way tougher..... what I have described is way tougher....  This is why you see such poor quality TMA.... which then Rogan & the full contact / sports guy then say, "it's the TMA model that's no good...."


----------



## ShotoNoob

THE ANSWER TO THIS:
\


JowGaWolf said:


> When I made that statement about the one-strike, I was thinking of fighters and martial art practitioners who throw that one punch and leave the arm extended in a "Van Dam blood sport pose" thinking that one punch is enough to do the job.  The people that tend to have this habit are those who do point sparring, where the fighting stops after a foot or a fist makes contact.  Notice how the guy raises his hand after scoring.  This will eventually become habit and his weakness if he ever gets into a real fight or if he does something like Lei Tai
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the video with me in it, then it wasn't a demo. It was actual sparring and trying to use Jow Ga kung fu techniques so we have a large collection of our kung fu sparring successes and fails. This is a video from one of the images that I posted with me failing with a trap attempt.  Nothing in this video was choreographed including the roll that my sparring partner did at the end.
> 
> 
> Hopefully one day I'll be able to spar against someone that does traditional karate.  _*See Below*_


\
CAN BE THIS
\


JowGaWolf said:


> INSERT JOWGAWOLF'S KUNG FU SPARRING VIDEO, STILLS....


\
THE REAL TMA ANSWER, HOWEVER, IS TO DEVELOP THE TMA BASE IN ORDER TO  BE ABLE TO DO THIS:
\




\


JowGaWolf said:


> Hopefully one day I'll be able to spar against someone that does traditional karate.


\
Jow Ga, good luck with that...


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> Jow Ga Wolf was complaining about, then which he goes and largely replicates the same in his well-presented videos.


  I didn't respond earlier because I understand what you are saying it just doesn't apply to how we spar at my school.  If people are sparring for the purpose of point sparring then your statement is true.

The sparring videos that you see are of us learning how to use the techniques and trying to figure out what techniques are best for which situation.  We don't do competitive sparring in my school.  If we want to use a specific technique to break an arm, then the attacker who wants to use the arm breaking technique will try to apply the technique right up to the point where the next move will be to break it.  We hit heavy bags and pads to condition our joints, ligaments, skin, and tendons for the impact that a full force hit will create.  I just wanted to be clear that our purpose for sparring isn't for winning, it's for self-defense and understanding our style and techniques better so that we can actually apply them in a real fight.

Some of the things you have seen in my sparring video are the exact same things I would try to pull off in a real fight, the only difference is that my intent and intensity. It's no different from throwing a punch.  In sparring a jab isn't thrown with the purpose of trying to defeat your sparring partner.  But that same jab that is practice in sparring now becomes dangerous in a real fight.  My school values technique and control, because without those 2 things our fighting would be garbage.

I'm confident in my training and conditioning where I'm not intimidated by other styles. But I'm realistic enough to know that I can always learn by sparring against other styles and smart enough to know that I can't beat everyone.  My school trains in soft and hard techniques so not to give away my training methods, we follow the general rule for dealing with heavy strikers so for me the power of someone's punch isn't as much as a factor for someone who wants to take the full force of a punch solid with the goal of who can take the most punishment.

By the way this is just a clarification on my school, training, and conditioning and not a disagreement to your statement.


----------



## kuniggety

elder999 said:


> Maeda taught the Gracies judo. He was born in 1878. The Kodokan was founded in 1882, and "Kano-jujutsu" was called _judo_ by Kano from this point forward, although there was some confusion and interchange of the terms (and, in some cases, very little differentiation: judo *is* jujutsu) well into the early 20th century. Maeda began judo at Waseda University in 1894, and was one of those sent abroad to "promote" judo in 1904, arriving -and staying-in Brazil in 1914. In his years abroad, he'd picked up some boxing and catch-wrestling, both of which he felt were antithetical to the principles of judo-or, rather, he felt that _Kano_ would think them antithetical, so it's thought that at some point  he might have started calling what he was doing _jujutsu_, rather than associate it with Kano...of course, judo continued to evolve-*and* in my opinion, devolve-throughout the 20th century, especially as it became a competitive "sport."



Thanks for the correction. I'm not a judo history buff and I was under the impression that the curriculum was still going through substantial revisions at the time.


----------



## ShotoNoob

typo


----------



## elder999

kuniggety said:


> Thanks for the correction. I'm not a judo history buff and I was under the impression that the curriculum was still going through substantial revisions at the time.


 
Yeah, it was revised up until WWII, and immediately afterward, but the basics stayed about the same: the _gokyo no waza_ , the kata and groundfighting  were all pretty well codified in 1895, and really weren't revised (refined might be a better word) much until about 1925....


----------



## ShotoNoob

JOW GA: Thanks for getting back.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't respond earlier because I understand what you are saying it just doesn't apply to how we spar at my school.  If people are sparring for the purpose of point sparring then your statement is true.


\
That's an important distinction.  Critically important....  Yet it is not the 'point system' that is the issue / problem per se.  There is a more comprehensive answer to the question of kumite, free sparring.



JowGaWolf said:


> The sparring videos that you see are of us learning how to use the techniques and trying to figure out what techniques are best for which situation.  We don't do competitive sparring in my school.  If we want to use a specific technique to break an arm, then the attacker who wants to use the arm breaking technique will try to apply the technique right up to the point where the next move will be to break it.  We hit heavy bags and pads to condition our joints, ligaments, skin, and tendons for the impact that a full force hit will create.  I just wanted to be clear that our purpose for sparring isn't for winning, it's for self-defense and understanding our style and techniques better so that we can actually apply them in a real fight.


\
Maybe a deeper interpretation is that winning is always the goal; so the sparring is cooperative training in the sense you are helping each other figure out & learn how to win.  All traditional karate curriculum's  -- as a general rule   -- have such free sparring as a required part of the curriculum for the very reasons you so articulate.
\
Also the conditioning drills you speak of are often ignored or downplayed in the modern practice of traditional karate.  Kudos to you on that score.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> Some of the things you have seen in my sparring video are the exact same things I would try to pull off in a real fight, the only difference is that my intent and intensity. It's no different from throwing a punch.  In sparring a jab isn't thrown with the purpose of trying to defeat your sparring partner.  But that same jab that is practice in sparring now becomes dangerous in a real fight.  My school values technique and control, because without those 2 things our fighting would be garbage.


\
Essentially agreed.  Yet the global question remains: How to best approach technique & more importantly CONTROL?  The "THIS IS KARATE DO SHOTOKAN video I put up, the question (by me) is how to you emulate the skills presented in that demo video?
\
At the end of that video, did you notice what the originator & participants performed?  in a word, KATA.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm confident in my training and conditioning where I'm not intimidated by other styles. But I'm realistic enough to know that I can always learn by sparring against other styles and smart enough to know that I can't beat everyone.  My school trains in soft and hard techniques so not to give away my training methods, we follow the general rule for dealing with heavy strikers so for me the power of someone's punch isn't as much as a factor for someone who wants to take the full force of a punch solid with the goal of who can take the most punishment.


\
Well if we are talking the potential of styles, then I as a traditional karate stylist am intimidated (practically speaking)  by the kung fu styleS.  They are, IMO, superior to far superior.  Kinda a side-note.
\
The fighting philosophy in your final sentence is precisely what my understanding of what traditional karate _in principle_ holds.  The often heard say, Shotokan emphasis of the one-strike kill, or 1-strike stop, is often taken too literally.  It is a working objection that has a set of training maxiums & techniques.  Those training maxims & techniques are as subset of traditional karate principles.  The 1-strike kill is a legitimate tactic.  No where in traditional karate does it say this is the only  tactic, nor a tactic to the exclusion of other tactical principles or objectives[SEE FOOTNOTE].
\
The video I put up is a fine example of what I am saying.  Any number of the blows in that demo (a single one) could have the potential to kill or maim, or otherwise disable the opponent.  Yet we DO NOT see not the Machida single reverse speed punch.  We see vigorous, continuous engagement of both active offense & defense.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> By the way this is just a clarification on my school, training, and conditioning and not a disagreement to your statement.


\
Thanks.  I like to use the 5-Animal style of kung fu metaphorically to better elucidate my view on traditional karate, TMA.  A traditional karate like Shotokan (similar but not what i practice), relies first on heavy, muscular physical power.  Later (much later) Shotokan moves to more relaxed physical power which is more speed oriented.  But the heavy physical strength developed is still largely behind that speed.  The 5 Animal Style has 5 Animals (ha, ha, don't laugh too hard).:
|
1. Tiger (strength)
2. Leopard (speed & agility)
3. Crane (dexterity)
4. Snake (fluidity)
5. Dragon (mystical combination of 1-4)
\
My vague understanding is that the last 3 are internally (ki) driven styles; the first 2 externally driven (physique) styles.  Of course external & internal are always present.  The traditional karate's are to me, largely based off Tiger.  Secondly, traditional karate becomes faster & more agile, hence Leopard-like.
\
So Shotokan,certainly as commonly practiced, is very strength oriented, physical power cen-tric.  That can be a weakness, as you indicate. Tiger style has it's strengths & weaknesses.  The TMA _GUIDING_ principle to remember, however, is that even a physical power oriented style of TMA such as Shotokan is NOT power against power.... as so often criticized.
\
The accurate way to cast Shotokan or any traditional karate (most all emphasize physical, muscular power) is that Shotokan karate is _tactical power against strength (or power)_.  Tactically intelligent power against whatever the opponent brings or resorts to.
\
The kung fu's seek to achieve the same tactical intelligence, but on a higher level.  The caveat (for argument's sake) is that true traditional karate is 10x more difficult than say boxing, and that bona-fide kung fu is 10-100x times more difficult than either.
\
Jow Ga, good luck with that....
|
Footnote: Traditional karate kihon focuses on single technique & simple combo's.  Traditional karate kumite & self defense exercises, the curriculum, teach include simple technique, then very soon expand into multiple technique & tactics.  Kata teaches continuous technique executed in a series of tactical sub parts.  As per the kung fu 2-man form you posted... maybe later comment....


----------



## ShotoNoob

As I said, IMHO, Rogan is a great sport karate competitor & successful instructor.  TMA,? no.


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> Also the conditioning drills you speak of are often ignored or downplayed in the modern practice of traditional karate. Kudos to you on that score.


 Without the conditioning the techniques are weak and useless.  It's no different than a sport as far as conditioning.  Athletes have to train hard, workout hard, and do the exercises that will give them the physical strength and skill to be good at their sport.  Too many TMA schools skip this and many of the students don't have the physical strength or body conditioning that is actually required to make the technique work.  But I guess that's just the way the world is these days.  People want it easy without a challenge, they don't want to feel the pain that comes with training, they don't want to face and fight their doubts about their abilities to do martial arts. So many people want a colored belt, or colored sash (because tradition kung fu systems don't have a color rank system.) to be their proof of skill level instead of the skills being the proof.  People ask me all the time, "How do I know which students are a higher rank than another? " I always tell them, because it shows when they do the forms and when they spar.

Yes. In Kung Fu we have forms which serve the same purpose as Kata. Even on my lazy days, I have to push myself to at least do my forms at least once. Our forms like a living library of techniques that would other wise be really difficult to remember without it being put into a form.  In our beginner form we have over 40 unique techniques each technique probably has at least 3 or 4 different ways to use it.  There is no way in the world I could remember all of that without a form.  



ShotoNoob said:


> Well if we are talking the potential of styles, then I as a traditional karate stylist am intimated by the kung fu styleS. They are, IMO, superior to far superior. Kinda a side-note.


 No one should be intimidated by Kung Fu styles because it isn't easy to use in application. Most of the people you meet that do kung fu aren't going to know how to actually apply a technique beyond basic kicks and punches.  The ones that you have to watch out for are the ones that do the traditional conditioning and spar using the actual techniques.  This goes for traditional karate as well.  I'm not worry about the ones that don't spar or do the traditional conditioning that comes with Karate. It's the ones that are conditioned for karate both physically, mentally, with skilled applications that are the dangerous ones. Traditional Karate fighters are like tanks.  Traditional Kung Fu fighters are "tricksters" so the most dangerous attacks are going to be hidden but only those who are good in applying the techniques are able to do this and it's not an easy thing to do.  I'm just now understanding one of our beginner techniques because when I looked deeper there were some additional applications that our Sifu held back on us. The application he taught us was for countering, the ones I discovered on my own are for attacking.



ShotoNoob said:


> My vague understanding is that the last 3 are internally (ki) driven styles; the first 2 externally driven (physique) styles. Of course external & internal are always present. The traditional karate's are to me, largely based off Tiger. Secondly, traditional karate becomes faster & more agile, hence Leopard.


 The crane has a good mixture of both internal and external applications.  In Tai Chi it is often used to redirect and hook but there are some external applications like attacks to the groin.  This requires really good finger strength and conditioning and my fingers aren't strong enough to actually use the technique.  The snake in my style "coils", wraps, redirects, grasps, blocks and strikes. You can always recognizes it because the hand is open with the fingers close together.  Based on the beginner form it usually attacks as part of a counter.  I don't know any dragon forms yet, but from what my Sifu told me, that takes a lot of hand and finger strength to be able to use that technique.


----------



## Milo of Croton

He's a commentator.

You pick what art you deem fit for yourself and make it work for you. The opinions of a UFC commentator matter because?


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> You said that Rogan's trash talking harms the quality of their MA. Based on 10th Planet's current status (which is the BJJ style Rogan practices) that hasn't been the case. I don't know what examples you would prefer me to use instead of the one you're actually addressing.



Point taken. When you wrote "Well 10th Planet Bjj continues to be popular, and still churn out respected and quality black belts, so there goes that theory" I assumed you were correlating quality with popularity, not 'trash talking'.

I'm not talking about churning out black belts.
If you are trash talking...
Fewer people from other martial arts are going to want to train with you, because your attitude sucks.
They're also not going to want to share training facilities with you where you can run your classes. This isn't conjecture, it's happened.
When you're picking out the worst examples of other arts to mock instead of the best examples to at least be aware of, you're promoting ignorance.
If you're going to actually fight someone from an art and you've got a mental impression of 'fat, lazy, don't spar and do useless forms', the moment they start disrupting your game is the moment your confidence takes a 90% hit. Like it or not Hanzou, and you'll probably disagree, there's always someone from art X who can apply their art better than you and I. And there are people of no style, no art, who can fight better than you and I, which is partly why style vs style is so much nonsense.

When I hear Nicolas Gregoriades say in that interview with Rogan "If you look at some of those more ridiculous martial arts [...] without fail, every single 45 year old plus traditional martial artist is the one who's got a slouch and a beer belly and you can see he hasn't done a pushup for like fifteen years", I don't get warm fuzzy feelings that people like Nic and Rogan have the kind of mental sharpness and hunger for knowledge which is what martial humility means and it's what you should get from hard training in any empirical art/science, I get the impression of intellectually lazy self-satisfied **** which makes me want to puke. It's not just that these types of claims are wrong, they're trivially disprovable, i.e. stupid.

When you have people graduating to black under respectable instructors with those kind of attitudes, and when they're going on to hold respected teaching positions as well as being media personalities, I feel that ought Hanzou to be more of a concern for you than whether there are 'McDojos' in arts you don't practise.

On a personal note. There's this guy I know who is great fun to talk with, funny, sometimes outrageous but always considerate and humble, a genuinely decent guy. But I can't and won't talk with him about martial arts, which is a shame as we both love the arts. He's unable to without expressing contempt for what I do, doesn't matter what the topic is. And there's this youtube trash talking culture at his club. It needn't be this way and it really shouldn't be this way. He does BJJ. And I'm not saying most BJJ or MMA practicioners are this way, most are not, probably most clubs are not either, in the same way that McDojos are not representative of what I do. But people like Rogan and Gregoriades are loud, visible, and they're promoting this kind of culture, and if all you're going to do is run with them it's going to turn into a bigger problem than it already is...


----------



## renc

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Renc, whoever you are, I thought some of resident TA experts would have jumped in to support my post.



Thanks, this stuff is kinda hard to find on the intertubes. I hadn't thought through 2, mental discipline to coax the body into full ROM movements, so that's cool.



ShotoNoob said:


> BTW: Rogan is promoting the UFC, so what he talks about is fair to say.  I've just provided the specifics on why Rogan or any one else critical of the "Modern" or "Okinawan" karates or TMA in general (lets' include TKD, TSD) doesn't know what TMA is.



Yes.



ShotoNoob said:


> BTW2: training under full contact & opponents physically, "realistically"  trying to dominate you is tough.  Building the traditional martial arts base is way tougher..... what I have described is way tougher....  This is why you see such poor quality TMA.... which then Rogan & the full contact / sports guy then say, "it's the TMA model that's no good...."



Yeah, it's not just that many don't want to go through with it, it also takes so damn long so you end up seeing on youtube and elsewhere a lot of people who are early in their development... not saying that it's wrong to post those videos, but they will be misinterpreted as you point out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I thought this would be fitting to post here.  It's a blog that my Sifu recently started.   This is how he thinks True Kung Fu
From part of his blog: 
"In my years of training, I’ve seen more than a few people who are blindly faithful to their system and teacher.  They never step outside their school/teacher for answers.  This is why so many fraudulent teachers flourish.  They don’t need to answer questions, or prove techniques because the student blindly follows their teaching."

This is probably a response to the numerous below standard Kung Fu schools that he's seeing in his area in the U.K.  This statement isn't just true for Kung Fu, it's true for all fighting systems.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Most of these kind of arguments are a disagreement over whether training in martial arts means individuals learning how to make techniques effective for themselves vs whether styles 'are' effective. 'Techniques are effective' is already a generalization too far, 'styles are effective' one more so.



You are working off evidence though. So you can test the genereal claims.

So say 10th planet bjj. Goes out and wins a heap of competitions. Then they are that effective. 

Scientific method.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Well since that would be a crime I guess your right



We look for those guys. Because we court loss. Maybe other people have an ego thing about getting man handled by a guy you don't expect to be manhandled by.

I respect that and encourage it.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> We look for those guys. Because we court loss. Maybe other people have an ego thing about getting man handled by a guy you don't expect to be manhandled by.
> 
> I respect that and encourage it.


I have No idea what you are trying to say


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGa, thanks.


JowGaWolf said:


> Without the conditioning the techniques are weak and useless.  It's no different than a sport as far as conditioning.  Athletes have to train hard, workout hard, and do the exercises that will give them the physical strength and skill to be good at their sport.  Too many TMA schools skip this and many of the students don't have the physical strength or body conditioning that is actually required to make the technique work.  But I guess that's just the way the world is these days.  People want it easy without a challenge, they don't want to feel the pain that comes with training, they don't want to face and fight their doubts about their abilities to do martial arts. So many people want a colored belt, or colored sash (because tradition kung fu systems don't have a color rank system.) to be their proof of skill level instead of the skills being the proof.  People ask me all the time, "How do I know which students are a higher rank than another? " I always tell them, because it shows when they do the forms and when they spar.


\
Every TMA school I've ever attended, save 1, had a physical fitness component of the class.  Physical conditioning is implicit in kihon training, if not explicit.  How much time & effort is put into a TMA school's conditioning program is subjective, of course.  How much time & effort the individual student puts in is also greatly determined by the student.  So we have a convention of commercial TMA schools we may place $$$ above proper standards.  And we may have a customer base for those schools who really don't want to meet proper standards.  So it's the commercial realities; the TMA model itself is sound & well thought out.  In my case, by the Okinawan Masters....
\
So I think we are in agreement here....



JowGaWolf said:


> Yes. In Kung Fu we have forms which serve the same purpose as Kata. Even on my lazy days, I have to push myself to at least do my forms at least once. Our forms like a living library of techniques that would other wise be really difficult to remember without it being put into a form.  In our beginner form we have over 40 unique techniques each technique probably has at least 3 or 4 different ways to use it.  There is no way in the world I could remember all of that without a form.


\
The purpose of the traditional of forms, in my view, is that they are a complete TMA training system in and of themselves.  One can become an expert TMArtist by practicing forms alone.  The later Okinawan's & Gichin Funakoshi changed the TMA model for karate by creating three distinct parts of the karate curriculum: kihon (basics), kata (forms), kumite (fighting application).  IMO I think this K>K>K model is the better model for most people.



JowGaWolf said:


> No one should be intimidated by Kung Fu styles because it isn't easy to use in application. Most of the people you meet that do kung fu aren't going to know how to actually apply a technique beyond basic kicks and punches.  The ones that you have to watch out for are the ones that do the traditional conditioning and spar using the actual techniques.  This goes for traditional karate as well.


\
Jow Ga, I beg to differ, with the proviso that we are talking about the potential for the style.  Kung fu styles as a group are superior to what karate has to offer.
\
In reality though, the karate styles are much more prevalent and successful in actual full contact competition.  This, IMO, stems from my proviso that kung is far harder to master to a point of application.  Karate, though difficult, is much easier.  So you have the kung fu practitioner as you intimated who has put in the same effort as karate, and the kung fu guy hasn't even gotten started.  Should we throw in sport karate, karate's physicality as I mentioned makes it more amenable to sport activity, so you have that much larger group succeeding.
\
You see all these arguments about say Wing Cun not being in MMA.  You have all these 'experts' coming up with all kinds of explanations & reasons EXCEPT, for the most part, pointing to the fact that bona-fide Wing Chun is very, very, very difficult to master. IMO, IMO, IMO.  Since Wing chun is so hard to do correctly, you're not going to see it in MMA 'cause their is a minority who can actually do Wing Chun.  The modern, traditional karates, by comparison, are easier to master to the point of application, or even step down and apply as sport fighting (much easier).



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not worry about the ones that don't spar or do the traditional conditioning that comes with Karate. It's the ones that are conditioned for karate both physically, mentally, with skilled applications that are the dangerous ones. Traditional Karate fighters are like tanks.  Traditional Kung Fu fighters are "tricksters" so the most dangerous attacks are going to be hidden but only those who are good in applying the techniques are able to do this and it's not an easy thing to do.  I'm just now understanding one of our beginner techniques because when I looked deeper there were some additional applications that our Sifu held back on us. The application he taught us was for countering, the ones I discovered on my own are for attacking.


\
I love your analogy of karate = tanks, vs. kung fu = tricksters.  Accurate in many ways.  I believe I have a better analogy, IMO.  Good karate = a destroyer.  Good Kung fu = a guided missile cruiser.  No contest.  There is a history of holding back techniques / principles in karate too.
\
ON SPARRING: I do very little free sparring.  Yet my in-dojo competition record is currently 91% wins, 9% losses.  That's across all the schools I've attended.  I've also out-stuck every boxer, kickboxer stylist I've encountered.  I have also shut done a good boxer with karate DEFENSE ONLY(technically speaking).  Sparring is not the most important part of the traditional karate (TMA) curriculum/
\
I have also defeated (in class) every karate instructor I've ever encountered.  Of course, I haven't fought all the karate instructors in my local.  The TMA practitioners who, as a general rule, can handle me are the forms experts.  In my local, these happen to be the kung fu practitioners...  When it comes to TMA, Kata is King.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> The crane has a good mixture of both internal and external applications.  In Tai Chi it is often used to redirect and hook but there are some external applications like attacks to the groin.  This requires really good finger strength and conditioning and my fingers aren't strong enough to actually use the technique.  The snake in my style "coils", wraps, redirects, grasps, blocks and strikes. You can always recognizes it because the hand is open with the fingers close together.  Based on the beginner form it usually attacks as part of a counter.  I don't know any dragon forms yet, but from what my Sifu told me, that takes a lot of hand and finger strength to be able to use that technique.


\
I mentioned Wing Chun earlier.  Wing Chun to me is patterned heavily off of CRANE.  Because the internal styles which rely on chi power, such as CRANE, true crane (not the so called crane applications in karate) is extremely difficult to master.  No wonder we don't see successful Wing Chun in heavy full contact.
\
Crane is so difficult, but we can still use the principles.  And we see Crane principles effectively incorporated within traditional karate style.  The internal style of crane originally developed in China, no way is that easy.  You are talking monk-like training.... This is one reason some of the southern styles of kung combined Tiger &  Crane.  The crane there is kinda bastardized, relying equally or more on physical strength.  I can produce some Tiger-Crane like power.  Which is one big reason I could shut down that good boxer with karate defense only....  I also used crane-styles techniques in form in order to get my karate defense up & running when overwhelmed by that boxer....
|
EDIT: Yes, Crane can be considered a mix of internal & external.  The key is the internal is say 50% of the effectiveness.  So doing physical Crane Kung fu tehcnique is half-a-crane, or really not a Kung fu crane @ all.  Tiger is bona-fide tiger on physical force alone.  Although this is an absolute since by definition, all TMA specifically develops chi and later uses internal power.
\
Kung fu is better than karate.  Karate is more practical to master than kung fu.  That's my verdict.
\
Good luck with those internal kung styles....


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Maybe other people have an ego thing about getting man handled by a guy you don't expect to be manhandled by.



If I get 'manhandled' by a guy I don't expect to be 'manhandled' by you better be sure the police are going to be involved asap.


----------



## ShotoNoob

renc said:


> Thanks, this stuff is kinda hard to find on the intertubes. I hadn't thought through 2, mental discipline to coax the body into full ROM movements, so that's cool.


\
Traditional karate is defined as a mental discipline.  The conscious, thinking mind is the fundamental driver of every action.


renc said:


> Yes.


\
Rogan is the typical good karate school instructor.  Except he's not really teaching karate.  He's teaching sport karate....



renc said:


> Yeah, it's not just that many don't want to go through with it, it also takes so damn long so you end up seeing on youtube and elsewhere a lot of people who are early in their development... not saying that it's wrong to post those videos, but they will be misinterpreted as you point out.


\
I mentioned when I first posted here and then again, again.  The practical traditional karate base... the journey to black-belt, takes on average 5 years (of course total hours, not length of time).  maybe some can do it in 3 years.  A really good karate base .... I think most have to spend 5 years @ a minimum, likely 7.  For me it was certainly 7-10 years before I gained full body power.  Very little free sparring during that time.
\
And this is the quote, "simpler," modern versions of traditional karate....  mind / body unity projecting full body power....
\
Karate critics, good luck with that.....


----------



## Tez3

ShotoNoob said:


> Traditional karate is defined as a mental discipline



or for empty hand civilian self defence.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> If I get 'manhandled' by a guy I don't expect to be 'manhandled' by you better be sure the police are going to be involved asap.


Are you calling the police to clean up the mess after your done with him.  I pitty the fool that tries to manhandle you


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Are you calling the police to clean up the mess after your done with him.  I pitty the fool that tries to manhandle you



Well I didn't want to say that in public you know but yeah


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> Good luck with those internal kung styles....


  Thanks.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> There's throws and takedowns in Bjj as well;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just like Judo or Shuai Jiao you can end the fight with one of them. However, if you're not able to end the fight in that fashion, or you don't want to seriously injury your opponent, you can opt for the ground option. The ground option is also in place in the event that the person you're trying to throw is better than you are at throwing.
> 
> In the end, the intent is to not purposely go to the ground all the time. The intent is to be a well-rounded, and be capable of ending a confrontation on your terms.


|
We've got some strong BJJ proponents here.  This Gracie BBJ video is very well produced.  They start in the opening seconds demonstrating throws effective against strikers....  What the Gracie;s (like rogan) don't portray is the weakness in their principles.... LATER....


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Point taken. When you wrote "Well 10th Planet Bjj continues to be popular, and still churn out respected and quality black belts, so there goes that theory" I assumed you were correlating quality with popularity, not 'trash talking'.
> 
> I'm not talking about churning out black belts.
> If you are trash talking...
> Fewer people from other martial arts are going to want to train with you, because your attitude sucks.
> They're also not going to want to share training facilities with you where you can run your classes. This isn't conjecture, it's happened.
> When you're picking out the worst examples of other arts to mock instead of the best examples to at least be aware of, you're promoting ignorance.
> If you're going to actually fight someone from an art and you've got a mental impression of 'fat, lazy, don't spar and do useless forms', the moment they start disrupting your game is the moment your confidence takes a 90% hit. Like it or not Hanzou, and you'll probably disagree, there's always someone from art X who can apply their art better than you and I. And there are people of no style, no art, who can fight better than you and I, which is partly why style vs style is so much nonsense.
> 
> When I hear Nicolas Gregoriades say in that interview with Rogan "If you look at some of those more ridiculous martial arts [...] without fail, every single 45 year old plus traditional martial artist is the one who's got a slouch and a beer belly and you can see he hasn't done a pushup for like fifteen years", I don't get warm fuzzy feelings that people like Nic and Rogan have the kind of mental sharpness and hunger for knowledge which is what martial humility means and it's what you should get from hard training in any empirical art/science, I get the impression of intellectually lazy self-satisfied **** which makes me want to puke. It's not just that these types of claims are wrong, they're trivially disprovable, i.e. stupid.
> 
> When you have people graduating to black under respectable instructors with those kind of attitudes, and when they're going on to hold respected teaching positions as well as being media personalities, I feel that ought Hanzou to be more of a concern for you than whether there are 'McDojos' in arts you don't practise.



It would be if this were a new phenomenon in the martial arts, but it isn't. You're acting like MA trash-talking started with Joe Rogan, Nic Gregoriades, and Bjj/MMA guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jujutsu guys used to bash Judo guys, Karate guys used to bash Kung Fu guys, Kung Fu guys bashed other Kung Fu guys, Everyone used to bash boxers, etc. The Gracies came in with Bjj and steamrolled everyone, and had the good sense to videotape it. So when they trashed talked other styles, they had the evidence to prove their claims. Thanks to the internet, those tapes and evidence are available for all to see anytime they want to see it.

So I disagree that Rogan or Gregoriades are doing any harm whatsoever to Bjj or MMA. If anything, they're simply doing what martial artists have always done, and it only enhances the popularity of those styles.

As I said before, the only thing that can silence those guys is if a Kung Fu guy, Aikido guy, or Karate guy walked into a Bjj or MMA gym and beat everyone in it, or at least gave them a good fight. That would change the entire current MA paradigm on its head, and frankly everyone would be better for it.



> On a personal note. There's this guy I know who is great fun to talk with, funny, sometimes outrageous but always considerate and humble, a genuinely decent guy. But I can't and won't talk with him about martial arts, which is a shame as we both love the arts. He's unable to without expressing contempt for what I do, doesn't matter what the topic is. And there's this youtube trash talking culture at his club. It needn't be this way and it really shouldn't be this way. He does BJJ. And I'm not saying most BJJ or MMA practicioners are this way, most are not, probably most clubs are not either, in the same way that McDojos are not representative of what I do. But people like Rogan and Gregoriades are loud, visible, and they're promoting this kind of culture, and if all you're going to do is run with them it's going to turn into a bigger problem than it already is...



Again it's always been this way.

You don't see Karate, Kung Fu, Aikido, or other arts do it is because they can't for a variety of reasons.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> It would be if this were a new phenomenon in the martial arts, but it isn't. You're acting like MA trash-talking started with Joe Rogan, Nic Gregoriades, and Bjj/MMA guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jujutsu guys used to bash Judo guys, Karate guys used to bash Kung Fu guys, Kung Fu guys bashed other Kung Fu guys, Everyone used to bash boxers, etc. The Gracies came in with Bjj and steamrolled everyone, and had the good sense to videotape it. So when they trashed talked other styles, they had the evidence to prove their claims. Thanks to the internet, those tapes and evidence are available for all to see anytime they want to see it.


Wow they steam rolled EVERYONE.  Well that's impressive.  


> So I disagree that Rogan or Gregoriades are doing any harm whatsoever to Bjj or MMA. If anything, they're simply doing what martial artists have always done, and it only enhances the popularity of those styles.
> 
> As I said before, the only thing that can silence those guys is if a Kung Fu guy, Aikido guy, or Karate guy walked into a Bjj or MMA gym and beat everyone in it, or at least gave them a good fight. That would change the entire current MA paradigm on its head, and frankly everyone would be better for it.


Nonsense.  Most people are smart enough to make their own decisions about what works and what doesn't.  They one guy doing anything means little compared to the style as a whole.  Only simple minded folks like to go to the YouTube bible as proof.



> Again it's always been this way.
> 
> You don't see Karate, Kung Fu, Aikido, or other arts do it is because they can't for a variety of reasons.


The main reason being they have been there done that long before the graices knew what a triangle was and have nothing to prove.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Wow they steam rolled EVERYONE.  Well that's impressive.



Yes, it really is.



> Nonsense.  Most people are smart enough to make their own decisions about what works and what doesn't.  They one guy doing anything means little compared to the style as a whole.  Only simple minded folks like to go to the YouTube bible as proof.



Yeah, that response really doesn't match the quote.



> The main reason being they have been there done that long before the graices knew what a triangle was and have nothing to prove.



Which is why we still get stuff like this?










I still wait for a good vs. Bjj or MMA series.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yes, it really is.


That's cool.  I've never even met a Gracie I had No idea I lost to one.  


> Yeah, that response really doesn't match the quote.


Ok like I said one guy dojo storming a BJ J gym means nothing about the style or art it's one guy or even one school. 


> Which is why we still get stuff like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still wait for a good vs. Bjj or MMA series.


Like I said there are simple minded folks out there


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> That's cool.  I've never even met a Gracie I had No idea I lost to one.



Most people don't. It must be that "invisible Jiujitsu" that Rickson talks about.



> Ok like I said one guy dojo storming a BJ J gym means nothing about the style or art it's one guy or even one school.



Just like one guy (Royce) beating several different arts in the first UFC means nothing? Or like one woman (Ronda Rousey) dominating with Judo in MMA means nothing? Both of those have changed the MA landscape.

So in reality, it actually means a great deal.



> Like I said there are simple minded folks out there



Yet the great masters of martial arts did the exact same thing over the centuries. Were they "simple minded" as well?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Most people don't. It must be that "invisible Jiujitsu" that Rickson talks about.


Or delusional fan boys


> Just like one guy (Royce) beating several different arts in the first UFC means nothing? Or like one woman (Ronda Rousey) dominating with Judo in MMA means nothing? Both of those have changed the MA landscape.


Yes it means nothing in the real world.  In the sport sure it means THEY are good it doesn't mean much about the style.  For every superstar there are 10000 average folks training.  You can't say JUDO is #1 because Rousey never looses. You can say Rousey is #1 means nothing about the style.  


> So in reality, it actually means a great deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the great masters of martial arts did the exact same thing over the centuries. Were they "simple minded" as well?


Only the ones demanding it be filmed and put on YouTube


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Yes it means nothing in the real world.



The growth of both Bjj and MMA are very real in the real world.



> Only the ones demanding it be filmed and put on YouTube



I seem to remember the stories of Morihei Ueshiba participating in numerous challenge matches during the formative years of Aikido.

Simple minded?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I have No idea what you are trying to say



No. I imagine you don't.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The growth of both Bjj and MMA are very real in the real world.


Nonsense.  You think the majority people out there give a second thought about BJJ or MMA or karate or boxing ?  No, the growth means something to you.  To me I dont care and Ive been training only in BJJ and Judo for a while now since it fitsmy schedule better.   


> I seem to remember the stories of Morihei Ueshiba participating in numerous challenge matches during the formative years of Aikido.
> 
> Simple minded?


I dont know did he demand proof on youtube to prove its better?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> If I get 'manhandled' by a guy I don't expect to be 'manhandled' by you better be sure the police are going to be involved asap.



In which case you don't invite other systems to train with you or explore different concepts.

It is not a method for everyone.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> No. I imagine you don't.


Try posting again in English


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense.  You think the majority people out there give a second thought about BJJ or MMA or karate or boxing ?  No, the growth means something to you.  To me I don't care and Ive been training only in BJJ and Judo for a while now since it fits my schedule better.



So you believe that the first UFC had no effect on Martial Arts?



> I don't know did he demand proof on youtube to prove its better?



No, but he actively fought other styles to prove that his art was superior.

Again, would you say that Morihei Ueshiba was "simple-minded"?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Try posting again in English



Well OK my old chap. If some blighter in school gives you a thrashing at the old fistycuffs. Don't be a whinger. Show a stiff upper lip. And treat the experience as a character building exercise.

Will make a man out of you.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So you believe that the first UFC had no effect on Martial Arts?


Not really The UFC has been around since the 90s.  People were fighting and having fighting competitions since well since the dawn of man.  What effect do you think it had? 



> No, but he actively fought other styles to prove that his art was superior.
> 
> Again, would you say that Morihei Ueshiba was "simple-minded"?


No Id say he is a salesman selling a product just like the Gracie's were  
You said you want other guys to come into a BJJ dojo and prove themselves.  Why should they? whats there to prove? For example  if I walked into a BJJ gym and beat the whole school up using only Goju does that mean Goju is better thenBJJ OR does it mean on that day I was better fighter?  If I walk in and get my butt kicked does that mean BJJ is better then Goju and even the Masters like Masaji Taira and Morio Higaonna would also loose OR that I personally just wasnt that good.  There is no way to prove style A is the best.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Well OK my old chap. If some blighter in school gives you a thrashing at the old fistycuffs. Don't be a whinger. Show a stiff upper lip. And treat the experience as a character building exercise.
> 
> Will make a man out of you.


ok thats at least easier to translate then what you posted the first time.  See its generally frowned upon to walk into a private establishment and attack people.  Thats kind of a crime here


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> It would be if this were a new phenomenon in the martial arts, but it isn't.



'They did it first' doesn't make it any more or less harmful for your art.



Hanzou said:


> You're acting like MA trash-talking started with Joe Rogan, Nic Gregoriades, and Bjj/MMA guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jujutsu guys used to bash Judo guys, Karate guys used to bash Kung Fu guys, Kung Fu guys bashed other Kung Fu guys, Everyone used to bash boxers, etc.



I'm well aware that we've been through the same follies, and learnt from them. And with time we'll forget those lessons and go through the cycle again. That's not our problem for the moment though.

But there are a few differences...



Hanzou said:


> the good sense to videotape [...] Thanks to the internet



That's only a bigger cross to bear. You'll end up like the ouroboros if you let that go too far.



Hanzou said:


> So I disagree that Rogan or Gregoriades are doing any harm whatsoever to Bjj or MMA.



I don't see any disagreement in your arguments.



Hanzou said:


> You don't see Karate, Kung Fu, Aikido, or other arts do it is because they can't for a variety of reasons.



In a way, those TMA schools which can pull the message from the marketing noise get the best of all worlds. I guess in this light it's really not bad at all. Well, it is for you, but not for us.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Not really The UFC has been around since the 90s.  People were fighting and having fighting competitions since well since the dawn of man.  What effect do you think it had?



1. It made grappling an important range of fighting within the martial arts.
2. It established the era of martial arts having to prove their effectiveness in an open and public format.
3. It initiated a decline in traditional styles, and the rise of modern styles. This included a resurgence in interest of older modern MAs like wrestling and boxing.



> No Id say he is a salesman selling a product just like the Gracie's were.



So then why do you call modern people doing the same thing "simple minded"?



> You said you want other guys to come into a BJJ dojo and prove themselves.  Why should they? whats there to prove? For example  if I walked into a BJJ gym and beat the whole school up using only Goju does that mean Goju is better thenBJJ OR does it mean on that day I was better fighter?  If I walk in and get my butt kicked does that mean BJJ is better then Goju and even the Masters like Masaji Taira and Morio Higaonna would also loose OR that I personally just wasn't that good.  *There is no way to prove style A is the best.*



I disagree. There is a way; You fight it out to see which one prevails. You pit individual against individual, school against school, affiliation against affiliation. Again, it's been happening like that for generations. This PC notion that every style is really equal is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, and seems to only apply when Bjj/MMA is brought into the equation. Traditional Arts to this day attack each other, have rivalries with one another, and take pleasure in outing similar styles they view as "fake".

Example;






BTW, that just may be the funniest "kung fu" fight I've ever watched.

I'd love to hear Jow's take on that vid.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> 'They did it first' doesn't make it any more or less harmful for your art.



They're still doing it. Is it somehow worse when Bjj/MMA guys do it than when TMA guys do it?



> I'm well aware that we've been through the same follies, and learnt from them. And with time we'll forget those lessons and go through the cycle again. That's not our problem for the moment though.



Again, it's still happening. 



> But there are a few differences...



I'd LOVE to hear those differences.



> That's only a bigger cross to bear. You'll end up like the ouroboros if you let that go too far.



I disagree. The internet and YT simply gives the claim longer legs. So when someone asks if MMA is more effective than Wing Chun, their little buddy can just pull up a vid of a MMA guy beating the crap out of a Wing Chun guy.

This again is why it would be helpful to see TMAs doing some old fashioned dojo storming. Sometimes old school is the best school.



> In a way, those TMA schools which can pull the message from the marketing noise get the best of all worlds. I guess in this light it's really not bad at all. Well, it is for you, but not for us.



I disagree. But that shouldn't be much of a surprise.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> 1. It made grappling an important range of fighting within the martial arts.


Well considering grappling has been taught and practiced since....we'll forever I'll have disagree


> 2. It established the era of martial arts having to prove their effectiveness in an open and public format.


So nobody did this prior to UFC 1 in the 90s? Strange because a few lines up,you said the old masters were doing this forever


> 3. It initiated a decline in traditional styles, and the rise of modern styles.


Hmmm there are plenty of thriving TMA schools around here they may be declining where you are but not here and they by far outnumber the bjj and mma gyms easily 10 to 1 in the county I work there are 5 BJ J or Mma gyms there are over 100 TMA schools 


> This included a resurgence in interest of older modern MAs like wrestling and boxing.


Which have never left there is no "resurgence"  every high school has a wrestling program around here and they have for decades




> So then why do you call modern people doing the same thing "simple minded"?


No I call people that really believe a YouTube clip means anything about a certain style simple minded.



> I disagree. There is a way; You fight it out to see which one prevails. You pit individual against individual, school against school, affiliation against affiliation. Again, it's been happening like that for generations. This PC notion that every style is really equal is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, and seems to only apply when Bjj/MMA is brought into the equation. Traditional Arts to this day attack each other, have rivalries with one another, and take pleasure in outing similar styles they view as "fake".


You can never have enough fights to get any real data.  Pick,1 style like TKD I'd guess thera are over a million people in the world training in some form of TKD so even a 10% sample you need  find 100000 of them willing to fight then 100000 bJJ fighters with equal experience. Impossible to pull off. That's just one of countless other styles. Then what do you do about people that cross train? Its impossible to pick the best.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Well considering grappling has been taught and practiced since....we'll forever I'll have disagree



While it was a part of various styles, it was largely neglected, or viewed as unimportant. That weakness was exploited to dramatic effects by the Gracies.



> So nobody did this prior to UFC 1 in the 90s? Strange because a few lines up,you said the old masters were doing this forever



There were random boxing vs judo or boxing vs Karate matches throughout the years, but there was nothing like the UFC at the time. People were very interested in a martial art tournament that pitted style vs style.



> Hmmm there are plenty of thriving TMA schools around here they may be declining where you are but not here and they by far outnumber the bjj and mma gyms easily 10 to 1 in the county I work there are 5 BJ J or Mma gyms there are over 100 TMA schools



TMA schools like this?








> Which have never left there is no "resurgence"  every high school has a wrestling program around here and they have for decades



Except wrestling coaches had a place to go if they were done with HS and/or Collegiate programs. Now wrestling coaches are sought in MMA and Bjj gyms.



> No I call people that really believe a YouTube clip means anything about a certain style simple minded.



Which was never part of the discussion in the first place. We were talking about people of different styles challenging each other.



> You can never have enough fights to get any real data.  Pick,1 style like TKD I'd guess thera are over a million people in the world training in some form of TKD so even a 10% sample you need  find 100000 of them willing to fight then 100000 bJJ fighters with equal experience. Impossible to pull off. That's just one of countless other styles. Then what do you do about people that cross train? Its impossible to pick the best.



And yet again, the first UFC won by Royce Gracie changed the entire MA landscape forever.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So you believe that the first UFC had no effect on Martial Arts?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but he actively fought other styles to prove that his art was superior.
> 
> Again, would you say that Morihei Ueshiba was "simple-minded"?



Royce's art has been beaten by a myriad of other grappling styles, 

not to mention Kimo literally broke Royce with streetfighting.

A lot of Royce and Renzos matches were won because both men are monsters

not because of BJJ.


Hanzou said:


> 1. It made grappling an important range of fighting within the martial arts.
> 2. It established the era of martial arts having to prove their effectiveness in an open and public format.
> 3. It initiated a decline in traditional styles, and the rise of modern styles. This included a resurgence in interest of older modern MAs like wrestling and boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do you call modern people doing the same thing "simple minded"?
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. There is a way; You fight it out to see which one prevails. You pit individual against individual, school against school, affiliation against affiliation. Again, it's been happening like that for generations. This PC notion that every style is really equal is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, and seems to only apply when Bjj/MMA is brought into the equation. Traditional Arts to this day attack each other, have rivalries with one another, and take pleasure in outing similar styles they view as "fake".
> 
> Example;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, that just may be the funniest "kung fu" fight I've ever watched.
> 
> I'd love to hear Jow's take on that vid.



Lets correct some points here too :

1. No UFC/MMA really didnt. Vale Tudo and Sambo did it long before that, as did goju. Not to mention the various schools that taught Judo + Karate or Hapkido + TKD. While you could say the UFC was the first to make it a standardized event, thats inaccurate too. Dana and Zuffa were simply able to fund and market it more.

2. Again, no it didnt establish this. Challenge matches had been around long before this. You also have a tendency to use this point out "the inferiority of traditional styles" regardless of how many tradionalists have been successful in other full contact venues, or the number who were more extremely successful in the early UFC's as strikers, and were more successful in later tourneys after adding a grappling base

3. You like to believe that the only reason for this was "effectiveness" even when evidence in even current UFC's disprove this. Fact is, If I know I wanna get in the cage and fight in 3 months, I'm not going to concern myself with rank or militaristic structure. Im just gonna  wanna learn to kick, to punch, and to sub.

Which TMA's all still have.

Ellenberger poked fun about thompsons Karate, 

that went well for him didnt it?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> BTW, that just may be the funniest "kung fu" fight I've ever watched.


 Thank you for putting "kung fu" in quotations because I didn't recognize any kung fu.  I'm going to assume that sweeps weren't allowed and that kicking isn't a strong suit for these two guys. Heck I'm going to just assume that real kung fu wasn't allowed either.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Royce's art has been beaten by a myriad of other grappling styles,
> 
> not to mention Kimo literally broke Royce with streetfighting.
> 
> A lot of Royce and Renzos matches were won because both men are monsters
> 
> not because of BJJ.



Which is why Bjj is still a core part of MMA?




> Lets correct some points here too :
> 
> 1. No UFC/MMA really didnt. Vale Tudo and Sambo did it long before that, as did goju. Not to mention the various schools that taught Judo + Karate or Hapkido + TKD. While you could say the UFC was the first to make it a standardized event, thats inaccurate too. Dana and Zuffa were simply able to fund and market it more.



Vale Tudo and Sambo weren't popular outside of Brazil or the Soviet Union respectively. I already mentioned that Judo neglected newaza pretty heavily for decades, partially because of the Olympics, and partially because Kano wasn't keen on ground fighting. As for Karate, Hapkido, and TKD, their ground fighting was on the elementary level at best, if it was taught at all.



> 2. Again, no it didnt establish this. Challenge matches had been around long before this. You also have a tendency to use this point out "the inferiority of traditional styles" regardless of how many tradionalists have been successful in other full contact venues, or the number who were more extremely successful in the early UFC's as strikers, and were more successful in later tourneys after adding a grappling base



Can you name the previous cross-style Martial Arts tournament that took place before UFC 1?



> 3. You like to believe that the only reason for this was "effectiveness" even when evidence in even current UFC's disprove this. Fact is, If I know I wanna get in the cage and fight in 3 months, I'm not going to concern myself with rank or militaristic structure. Im just gonna  wanna learn to kick, to punch, and to sub.



How do the current UFC's disprove this? The same basic paradigm of MMA has always been in place since the beginning. The Gracies practiced an early form of it, and it eventually evolved as better athletes took over the sport. However, the core that was established in the first UFC is still in place.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> While it was a part of various styles, it was largely neglected, or viewed as unimportant. That weakness was exploited to dramatic effects by the Gracies.


They have been wrestling and grappling for 1000s of years all over the world.  The Greeks were wrestling in the Olympics



> There were random boxing vs judo or boxing vs Karate matches throughout the years, but there was nothing like the UFC at the time. People were very interested in a martial art tournament that pitted style vs style.


 People would tour all over the world putting on fights.  Hell the acient Romans were training gladiators and fighting them.  People would travel the world fighting for money.  Now the UFC got it on TV and have found a way to make millions of dollars but they didn't invent fighting for entertainment.



> TMA schools like this?


Go open the phone book and count the # of MMA gyms and the # of other schools.  It is,what it is There are FAR less mma schools. They are growing but they are the flavor of the month.  It goes in stages always has always will.  People are always looking for the next big thing


> Except wrestling coaches had a place to go if they were done with HS and/or Collegiate programs. Now wrestling coaches are sought in MMA and Bjj gyms.


And? The coaches have always been here there is no resurgence




> Which was never part of the discussion in the first place. We were talking about people of different styles challenging each other.


And knowing how you operate it's only a matter of time before you posts silly YouTube clips as your "proof"



> And yet again, the first UFC won by Royce Gracie changed the entire MA landscape forever.


Which proved nothing.  He's got a few million more fights to go before the days means anything


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> They have been wrestling and grappling for 1000s of years all over the world.  The Greeks were wrestling in the Olympics



Which doesn't negate anything I said above.



> People would tour all over the world putting on fights.  Hell the acient Romans were training gladiators and fighting them.  People would travel the world fighting for money.  Now the UFC got it on TV and have found a way to make millions of dollars but they didn't invent fighting for entertainment.



I never said they did.



> Go open the phone book and count the # of MMA gyms and the # of other schools.  It is,what it is There are FAR less mma schools. They are growing but they are the flavor of the month.  It goes in stages always has always will.  People are always looking for the next big thing



The flavor of the month for almost 20 years? Come now Ballen, you're better than that.



> And? The coaches have always been here there is no resurgence



And the coaches didn't have nearly as many opportunities as they do now thanks to MMA.



> And knowing how you operate it's only a matter of time before you posts silly YouTube clips as your "proof"



Well I would love to find a video of "simple minded" Ueshiba fighting some challengers, but that's going to be hard to come by.




> Which proved nothing.  He's got a few million more fights to go before the days means anything



Again, I think the fact that MMA and Bjj are both growing at massive rates globally kind of proves that Royce Gracie did in fact change the martial arts landscape.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Which is why Bjj is still a core part of MMA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vale Tudo and Sambo weren't popular outside of Brazil or the Soviet Union respectively. I already mentioned that Judo neglected newaza pretty heavily for decades, partially because of the Olympics, and partially because Kano wasn't keen on ground fighting. As for Karate, Hapkido, and TKD, their ground fighting was on the elementary level at best, if it was taught at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name the previous cross-style Martial Arts tournament that took place before UFC 1?
> 
> 
> 
> How do the current UFC's disprove this? The same basic paradigm of MMA has always been in place since the beginning. The Gracies practiced an early form of it, and it eventually evolved as better athletes took over the sport. However, the core that was established in the first UFC is still in place.


Here you go again with black and white thinking

Submissions are apart of MMA, not necessarily BJJ.

Catch Wrestling is quickly becoming the norm far more than BJJ, nor did I speak ill of BJJ.

But the success of a person does not equate to the success of a system.

Jduo schools still regularly taught newaza, Kanos right and left hands were big benefactors of it. Mifune especially as has been pointed out to you time and time again here

other than Pancrase?

Pankration did it generations before


The myriad of Japanese venues with style v style?

Again, the UFC did nothing new, they only marketed it better.

other than the myriad of successful Traditionalists in the UFC? Whose striking was successful in other full contact venues as well? (Both past and present)

The only paradigm the UFC has ever posed is whos the better fighter, not whats the better style.

Jiu Jitieros have beaten wrestlers abnd 

vice verse

Karateka and TKders have beaten boxers and kickboxers

and vice versa

grapplers have beaten strikers

 and vice versa

The cross training in MMA was never anything new, Zuffa just marketed it better.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Here you go again with black and white thinking
> 
> Submissions are apart of MMA, not necessarily BJJ.



MMA submissions largely come from Bjj.



> Catch Wrestling is quickly becoming the norm far more than BJJ.



In MMA? LoL! That's not even close to reality. There's some guys trying to spread catch, and bring it back to prominence, but their main issue is properly separating themselves from established submission grappling systems, Freestyle Wrestling and Bjj. What often happens is that you get Bjj guys with strong wrestling backgrounds who claim to be catch and cause issues with other guys claiming to be catch. All the while, Bjj is absorbing their techniques and tactics. So no, Catch is nowhere near becoming the norm in MMA, or rivaling Bjj in popularity or availability.



> But the success of a person does not equate to the success of a system.



I would say that MMA and Bjj is quite popular. Wouldn't you?



> Jduo schools still regularly taught newaza, Kanos right and left hands were big benefactors of it. Mifune especially as has been pointed out to you time and time again here



Pre-war yes, post war no. Which is why there's so much cross-training now between Judo and Bjj.



> other than Pancrase?
> 
> Pankration did it generations before
> 
> The myriad of Japanese venues with style v style?
> 
> Again, the UFC did nothing new, they only marketed it better.



I was talking about in the U.S.



> other than the myriad of successful Traditionalists in the UFC? Whose striking was successful in other full contact venues as well? (Both past and present)
> 
> The only paradigm the UFC has ever posed is who's the better fighter, not whats the better style.



No, the paradigm has always included Bjj. Just about every MMA fighter utilizes a combination of Bjj, and something else. It's always been that way.



> The cross training in MMA was never anything new, Zuffa just marketed it better.



And it was marketed via a small Brazilian man in a gi beating guys larger than him.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> ok thats at least easier to translate then what you posted the first time.  See its generally frowned upon to walk into a private establishment and attack people.  Thats kind of a crime here



Amicable contest. Or whatever your version of it is.

You don't do open mat sessions?


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Here you go again with black and white thinking
> 
> Submissions are apart of MMA, not necessarily BJJ.
> 
> Catch Wrestling is quickly becoming the norm far more than BJJ, nor did I speak ill of BJJ.
> 
> But the success of a person does not equate to the success of a system.
> 
> Jduo schools still regularly taught newaza, Kanos right and left hands were big benefactors of it. Mifune especially as has been pointed out to you time and time again here
> 
> other than Pancrase?
> 
> Pankration did it generations before
> 
> 
> The myriad of Japanese venues with style v style?
> 
> Again, the UFC did nothing new, they only marketed it better.
> 
> other than the myriad of successful Traditionalists in the UFC? Whose striking was successful in other full contact venues as well? (Both past and present)
> 
> The only paradigm the UFC has ever posed is whos the better fighter, not whats the better style.
> 
> Jiu Jitieros have beaten wrestlers abnd
> 
> vice verse
> 
> Karateka and TKders have beaten boxers and kickboxers
> 
> and vice versa
> 
> grapplers have beaten strikers
> 
> and vice versa
> 
> The cross training in MMA was never anything new, Zuffa just marketed it better.



The sample size is bigger and the communication between schools are better.

The top gun of a local school vs the top gun of a local school is probably not in the same league of fighter as the two people competing in a title fight.

Those fighters set the tone for the school. That school sets the tone for the system.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> It would be if this were a new phenomenon in the martial arts, but it isn't. You're acting like MA trash-talking started with Joe Rogan, Nic Gregoriades, and Bjj/MMA guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jujutsu guys used to bash Judo guys, Karate guys used to bash Kung Fu guys, Kung Fu guys bashed other Kung Fu guys, Everyone used to bash boxers, etc. The Gracies came in with Bjj and steamrolled everyone, and had the good sense to videotape it. So when they trashed talked other styles, they had the evidence to prove their claims. Thanks to the internet, those tapes and evidence are available for all to see anytime they want to see it.
> 
> So I disagree that Rogan or Gregoriades are doing any harm whatsoever to Bjj or MMA. If anything, they're simply doing what martial artists have always done, and it only enhances the popularity of those styles.
> 
> As I said before, the only thing that can silence those guys is if a Kung Fu guy, Aikido guy, or Karate guy walked into a Bjj or MMA gym and beat everyone in it, or at least gave them a good fight. That would change the entire current MA paradigm on its head, and frankly everyone would be better for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's always been this way.
> 
> You don't see Karate, Kung Fu, Aikido, or other arts do it is because they can't for a variety of reasons.



The assumption is that no strikers ever got the better of a Gracie during the time they did challenge match/recording.

I Wonder how many tapes were buried...or if the Gracies batted 100%/100% we are only shown tapes wins. But isn't it funny that the challenge match recording were not done by a third party.

Not that I am saying something that already has been said before... But there is a persistent complaint (could be unfounded) that UFC1-4 were cherry picked on strikers.

The ring validates BJJ techniqiues and tactics as an effective combative sport most of the time against strikers. Especially ones with weak takedown defense. But this is not written in stone as 100% effective in every case.

But the hole in the BJJ or any Newaza focus-centric MA is: How do you fight multiple attackers in a two (bjj) defenders vs seven, eight or nine agresserors (untrained strikers) situation?

I am going to add a war stories thread soon with the details.. But I will leave this here. Late one night my Master, a fellow student and myself left the studio to walk fellow student home.

After dropping him off, and walking almost all the way back to the school... Master and I were set upon by a gang, I lost count at 7 as we were already fighting, but there were more than seven.

If Master only knew BJJ, instead of knowing several striking arts... It would have ended very badly for me, and perhaps him as well. As it was I didn't do well that time, but I had the opportunity to see Korean Karate validated as an effective and genuine self defense system.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Drose427 said:


> Ellenberger poked fun about thompsons Karate,
> 
> that went well for him didnt it?


\
Drose, Ellenberger was close to winning that fight.
\
Besides that, ok with your post....


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> The assumption is that no strikers ever got the better of a Gracie during the time they did challenge match/recording.



I don't know where you're getting that assumption from, since they fought more than just strikers, and no one is claiming they're invincible.

The point is that Bjj has remained relevant in MMA long after the Gracies left the sport.



> I Wonder how many tapes were buried...or if the Gracies batted 100%/100% we are only shown tapes wins. But isn't it funny that the challenge match recording were not done by a third party.



I don't think that anyone is claiming the Gracies have a 100% fight record. They've lost some notable fights, even before the UFC. As for the challenge tapes, you have random backyard wrestler types, or atypical McDojo instructors going up against the likes of Rickson, Royler, Royce, or Relson Gracie. Of course the former are going to lose 9.5 times out of ten.

[qupte]Not that I am saying something that already has been said before... But there is a persistent complaint (could be unfounded) that UFC1-4 were cherry picked on strikers.[/quote]

Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn completely negate that bogus claim. Further, the fact that Royce got injured fighting Kimo further shows that the fights were far from fixed.



> The ring validates BJJ techniqiues and tactics as an effective combative sport most of the time against strikers. Especially ones with weak takedown defense. But this is not written in stone as 100% effective in every case.
> 
> But the hole in the BJJ or any Newaza focus-centric MA is: How do you fight multiple attackers in a two (bjj) vs seven, eight or nine (untrained strikers) situation?



That's a hole in every martial art. The idea that any MA can allow you to take down more than 3 attackers at once unarmed is pure Hollywood fantasy.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Well OK my old chap. If some blighter in school gives you a thrashing at the old fistycuffs. Don't be a whinger. Show a stiff upper lip. And treat the experience as a character building exercise.
> 
> Will make a man out of you.



More English for you... that's a load of old bollocks. and it's 'fisticuffs' also one doesn't 'show' a stiff upper lip' one keeps it.



drop bear said:


> In which case you don't invite other systems to train with you or explore different concepts.
> 
> It is not a method for everyone.




As is that. In our gym we constantly have 'different systems' coming and going by the very nature of the type of students we have and if someone suddenly launched themselves on someone else if that person didn't swat them our instructor would for sure and they would stay very swatted.

I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now in trying to explain why what you do is superior to what everyone else does.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So say 10th planet bjj. Goes out and wins a heap of competitions. Then they are that effective.
> 
> Scientific method.


But only within certain parameters.

Scientific method.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> While it was a part of various styles, it was largely neglected, or viewed as unimportant.



Neglected by whom?



Hanzou said:


> There were random boxing vs judo or boxing vs Karate matches throughout the years, but there was nothing like the UFC at the time. People were very interested in a martial art tournament that pitted style vs style.



At the time. Up until UFC 4 it was style versus style (as extremely limited as it was) but then it got further and further away from that format. 



Hanzou said:


> TMA schools like this?



Or like mine which is the largest martial arts school in Australia and probably larger than all the MMA and BJJ schools in the country combined..



Hanzou said:


> Except wrestling coaches had a place to go if they were done with HS and/or Collegiate programs. Now wrestling coaches are sought in MMA and Bjj gyms.



Which may have more to do with MMA existing now when it did not before and the nature of MMA rather than a resurgence in grappling..



Hanzou said:


> And yet again, the first UFC won by Royce Gracie changed the entire MA landscape forever.



 Every time something new comes along the entire MA landscape changes forever. The entire 'UFC proved which style is better' argument is what is known as a Hasty generalization. How many martial arts styles are there? How many martial arts schools are there for each style? How many practitioners from those arts and schools were represented in the first 4 UFC's and how many match ups were made? The sample size is far too small to draw any kind of conclusion  as to which style is better.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Further, the fact that Royce got injured fighting Kimo further shows that the fights were far from fixed.


Kimo had no formal martial arts background, his black belt the UFC said he had was bestowed on him by the UFC so that he would sound more impressive so that is not an argument against the fights being fixed.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> More English for you... that's a load of old bollocks. and it's 'fisticuffs' also one doesn't 'show' a stiff upper lip' one keeps it.


Someone making a man out of you in your martial arts class would be a bit of a trick wouldn't it?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I would say that MMA and Bjj is quite popular. Wouldn't you?


TKD is more popular so you have no argument there.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> They're still doing it.



Which still doesn't make it any more or less harmful for your art.



Hanzou said:


> Is it somehow worse when Bjj/MMA guys do it than when TMA guys do it?



It's worse because it's being promoted by a large (for martial arts) marketing machine. It's worse because of *who* is doing it. It's worse because in the case of BJJ the narrative forms part of the identity of the art, part of your founding story.



Hanzou said:


> Again, it's still happening



Every now and again by nobodies who no serious person takes seriously. There are problems in the cultures of 'traditional' arts, but that is not it. That's your bag to deal with, or not to deal with or to celebrate. Your choice.



Hanzou said:


> I'd LOVE to hear those differences.



See above.



Hanzou said:


> The internet and YT simply gives the claim longer legs.



Precisely.



Hanzou said:


> So when someone asks if MMA is more effective than Wing Chun, their little buddy can just pull up a vid of a MMA guy beating the crap out of a Wing Chun guy.



Why I wish logic and statistics would be taught better or at all in schools.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Neglected by whom?



There's a reason MMA grappling pulls almost entirely from Bjj and wrestling. You don't see any fighters discussing their grappling skills from TKD and Karate do you?



> At the time. Up until UFC 4 it was style versus style (as extremely limited as it was) but then it got further and further away from that format.



Well yes, but the question was who else was doing something similar at the time, and who else had a small guy in a guy beating big guys with technique?



> Or like mine which is the largest martial arts school in Australia and probably larger than all the MMA and BJJ schools in the country combined..



TKD is a TMA? Wasn't it formed in the 50's?



> Which may have more to do with MMA existing now when it did not before and the nature of MMA rather than a resurgence in grappling..



Nope, there's definitely a resurgence in grappling. Grappling arts were nowhere near as popular in pre-UFC MA as they are now. Further, the aftermath of the UFC pushed many MAs to adopt grappling into their systems.



> Every time something new comes along the entire MA landscape changes forever. The entire 'UFC proved which style is better' argument is what is known as a Hasty generalization. How many martial arts styles are there? How many martial arts schools are there for each style? How many practitioners from those arts and schools were represented in the first 4 UFC's and how many match ups were made? The sample size is far too small to draw any kind of conclusion  as to which style is better.



Well again, it's been over 20 years. The same styles that dominated the first UFCs are still the main styles that fighters train in. So if there's something new under the sun, it should step up.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Kimo had no formal martial arts background, his black belt the UFC said he had was bestowed on him by the UFC so that he would sound more impressive so that is not an argument against the fights being fixed.



The fact that Royce had to withdraw from the tournament does prove it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> he fact that Royce had to withdraw from the tournament does prove it.


Or it proves that he underestimated Kimo.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> There's a reason MMA grappling pulls almost entirely from Bjj and wrestling. You don't see any fighters discussing their grappling skills from TKD and Karate do you?



Gee, could it be because Bjj and wrestling are grappling styles? You don't see any fighters discussing their striking skills from BJJ and Wrestling do you?



Hanzou said:


> TKD is a TMA?



Depends on how it is trained.



Hanzou said:


> Wasn't it formed in the 50's?.



So?



Hanzou said:


> Nope, there's definitely a resurgence in grappling. Grappling arts were nowhere near as popular in pre-UFC MA as they are now. Further, the aftermath of the UFC pushed many MAs to adopt grappling into their systems./QUOTE]
> 
> Which could also have something to do with the publicity and promotion through the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Hanzou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well again, it's been over 20 years. The same styles that dominated the first UFCs are still the main styles that fighters train in. So if there's something new under the sun, it should step up.
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting a competition format is not the only way to change the martial art's landscape.
Click to expand...


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> You are working off evidence though. So you can test the genereal claims.



I'm not sure how you would create a good test. It's an interesting challenge. You'd need to get a fair random sample. You'd need to define and isolate styles. You'd need to make decisions on how to allow training tailored to the event, on cross training, how to factor out quality of instruction, talent pool etc.

I doubt the results would be too meaningful when training is such a personal thing, following interest and motivation, and when there's no need to restrict within the boundaries of a style.



drop bear said:


> So say 10th planet bjj. Goes out and wins a heap of competitions. Then they are that effective.



They have effective individuals and instruction/coaching, maybe an effective organization to enable that, I wouldn't go further...


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Gee, could it be because Bjj and wrestling are grappling styles? You don't see any fighters discussing their striking skills from BJJ and Wrestling do you?



Because there's almost no striking at all in Bjj or Wrestling. However, if the argument is that there is grappling in TKD or Karate, where is it and why isn't it utilized in MMA?



> Which could also have something to do with the publicity and promotion through the media.



And why would there be promotion and publicity through the media?



> Promoting a competition format is not the only way to change the martial art's landscape.



I never said it was.



RTKDCMB said:


> Or it proves that he underestimated Kimo.



I don't think so. Kimo was simply a good fighter who had a significant size advantage on Royce. Further, Kimo studied Royce's game and developed counters for it. Despite that, Royce still beat him rather decisively.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> Which still doesn't make it any more or less harmful for your art.



If its not harming other arts, why would it harm bjj?



> It's worse because it's being promoted by a large (for martial arts) marketing machine. It's worse because of *who* is doing it. It's worse because in the case of BJJ the narrative forms part of the identity of the art, part of your founding story.



Again, that narrative isn't much different from the founding stories you hear in other martial arts. There's ample evidence of TMA guys doing exactly what BJJ/MMA guys do. I just think you have a personal bias against Bjj/MMA for whatever reason.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> Someone making a man out of you in your martial arts class would be a bit of a trick wouldn't it?



I think it's indicative of some people's idea of martial arts being all about machismo rather than self defence or even competition. Goes with the Tap Out t shirts, caps etc worn by fan boys because it makes them look hard.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The flavor of the month for almost 20 years? Come now Ballen, you're better than that.
> 
> 
> .


Come on now Hanzou 20 years is nothing and it wasn't very popular until maybe 10-15 years ago when I started seeing MMA gyms popping up . We have people on this forum that have been training two or three times longer.  My Judo teacher is 78 he started training at 6 so in the Big Picture 20 years is well nothing.  Now they do a great job marketing and selling it self so they may be able to stay around.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> If its not harming other arts,



It has at various points in time, just at this present moment it's more widespread and higher up the food chain and 'better' promoted in BJJ.
I seriously am grateful for BJJ disabusing us of this notion, even if the implications are misrepresented.



Hanzou said:


> why would it harm bjj?



For all the reasons listed here.



Hanzou said:


> Again, that narrative isn't much different from the founding stories you hear in other martial arts.



Not in the arts that I do, and our founding stories are too distant, too uncorroborated, so they're treated more like 'nice stories' than essential facts to be rammed down everyone's throats.



Hanzou said:


> I just think you have a personal bias against Bjj/MMA for whatever reason.



Oh no. I enjoyed watching the early UFC's and Royce above all others. I admired the art in what he did. I even enjoyed Royce vs Shamrock 2 when the meatheads were booing.
I just think your marketing sucks. There is a personal element here, my instructors give their all for us so when they're described by implication as fat lazy slobs by people who should know better, when the arts which have kept my friends safe in actual, real street fights are ridiculed, it kinda pisses me off. In that sense I do take a side, and I know that is unfair. As stated though, I've come to realize that in a weird kind of way this marketing trash is probably good for our arts, just it ain't, it really isn't for yours.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Because there's almost no striking at all in Bjj or Wrestling. However, if the argument is that there is grappling in TKD or Karate, where is it and why isn't it utilized in MMA?



There are many grappling techniques taught in TKD and Karate schools throughout the world.



Hanzou said:


> And why would there be promotion and publicity through the media?



To promote MMA and make butt loads of money.



Hanzou said:


> I don't think so. Kimo was simply a good fighter who had a significant size advantage on Royce. Further, Kimo studied Royce's game and developed counters for it. Despite that, Royce still beat him rather decisively.



That he did, just like _Gerard Gordeau_ beat Teila Tuli with striking despite the much larger size advantage of his opponent.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Come on now Hanzou 20 years is nothing and it wasn't very popular until maybe 10-15 years ago when I started seeing MMA gyms popping up . We have people on this forum that have been training two or three times longer.  My Judo teacher is 78 he started training at 6 so in the Big Picture 20 years is well nothing.  Now they do a great job marketing and selling it self so they may be able to stay around.



My point is that it's silly to call something a "fad" or "flavor of the month" if its been popular for 2  decades and is showing no signs of slowing down..


----------



## renc

RTKDCMB said:


> That he did, just like _Gerard Gordeau_ beat Teila Tuli with striking despite the much larger size advantage of his opponent.



Beat me to it  IIRC he was dropping him with open hand strikes when others were busting their hands.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> It has at various points in time, just at this present moment it's more widespread and higher up the food chain and 'better' promoted in BJJ.
> I seriously am grateful for BJJ disabusing us of this notion, even if the implications are misrepresented.



Again, how can you say Bjj has disabused TMA, specifically Kung Fu of those notions when they still occur in Kung Fu and other TMAs?



> For all the reasons listed here.



Yet Bjj has been around for over a century, filled with that same bravado, and none of those items have come to pass.



> Not in the arts that I do, and our founding stories are too distant, too uncorroborated, so they're treated more like 'nice stories' than essential facts to be rammed down our throats.



So you would look down on Kung Fu styles whose founding stories revolve around challenge matches and fights?



> Oh no. I enjoyed watching the early UFC's and Royce above all others. I admired the art in what he did. I even enjoyed Royce vs Shamrock 2 when the meatheads were booing.
> I just think your marketing sucks. There is a personal element here, my instructors give their all for us so when they're described by implication as fat lazy slobs by people who should know better, when the arts which have kept my friends safe in actual, real street fights are ridiculed, it kinda pisses me off. In that sense I do take a side, and I know that is unfair. As stated though, I've come to realize that in a weird kind of way this marketing trash is probably good for our arts, just it ain't, it really isn't for yours.



If that generalization doesn't apply to you, you shouldn't get bent out of shape about it. However, we'd be lying to ourselves if some of what was stated in that interview wasn't true.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> My point is that it's silly to call something a "fad" or "flavor of the month" if its been popular for 2  decades and is showing no signs of slowing down..


It is a fad still.  If its still as popular 20 years from today Ill apologize.  It is however starting to slow down.  I See alot more BJJ and MMA gyms starting after school kiddie programs around here to make up for loss of adult students


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> There are many grappling techniques taught in TKD and Karate schools throughout the world.



You mean stuff like this?






Not the same thing.






That's what we're talking about.





> To promote MMA and make butt loads of money.



In order to promote and make butt loads of money, they needed a good product. Again, a scrawny Brazilian guy taking out bigger guys is a great marketing tool.



> That he did, just like _Gerard Gordeau_ beat Teila Tuli with striking despite the much larger size advantage of his opponent.



I think we can both agree that Kimo Leopold was a vastly more formidable fighter than Telia Tuli.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You mean stuff like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're talking about.


There is more to grappling than throws and rolling around on the ground, both pictures show grappling, as a grappler you should know that.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> Again, how can you say Bjj has disabused TMA, specifically Kung Fu of those notions when they still occur in Kung Fu and other TMAs?



It hasn't for everyone, but for those it has I'm grateful.



Hanzou said:


> Yet Bjj has been around for over a century, filled with that same bravado, and none of those items have come to pass.



They've all come to pass, I guess we'll have to disagree.



Hanzou said:


> So you would look down on Kung Fu styles whose founding stories revolve around challenge matches and fights?



I'm not looking down on any style, I'm pointing out a problem. If a style contains such a story, whether and to what extent it is a problem depends on how people act and relate to it.



Hanzou said:


> If that generalization doesn't apply to you, you shouldn't get bent out of shape about it.



Yes. But also, people shouldn't make false generalizations. Particularly if they are martial artists, particularly those in positions of high visibility and responsibility.


----------



## Steve

I think this thread is getting absurd to the point of humor.   For example, Am inthe only one who sees the humor in tez3 arguing with drop bear about how her training is very similar to his in every meaningful way, but doesn't seem to notice that they both train MMA?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> My point is that it's silly to call something a "fad" or "flavor of the month" if its been popular for 2 decades and is showing no signs of slowing down..


When it gets to 6 decades then you might have something to talk about.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I don't think that anyone is claiming the Gracies have a 100% fight record. They've lost some notable fights, even before the UFC. As for the challenge tapes, you have random backyard wrestler types, or atypical McDojo instructors going up against the likes of Rickson, Royler, Royce, or Relson Gracie. Of course the former are going to lose 9.5 times out of ten.


That's a hole in every martial art. The idea that any MA can allow you to take down more than 3 attackers at once unarmed is pure Hollywood fantasy.[/QUOTE]


Who said anything about "taking down" 3 attackers. (Which of course is a groundfighting specialist's only option) There are other things besides a takedown.

There are lots of options like giving someone a broken nose, or a debilitating / knock out strike.

Or simply fighting on your feet, negating attacks, doing an occasional throw or sweep and wearing the untrained attackers out.

Some of the Karate based styles actually test the multiple attackers scenario at Dan rank tests (2 vs 1 at 1st Dan, 3 vs 1 at 2nd dan), and bring in outside instructors from other arts, as well as Karate.

The guest instructors are told well in advance that the the testee will be at defending at full speed and full power and acting as the test were a live fire event. (Which is why only mid and high Dan's are usually brought in)


----------



## TSDTexan

> Yes. But also, people shouldn't make false generalizations. Particularly if they are martial artists, particularly those in positions of high visibility and responsibility.


This!!
What Renc has said.

Sweeping generalizations by guys who should know better but use their soapbox to trash both fake MA and TMA at the same time, with the same breath. And the low information general population will take their word as gospel truth accepting the propaganda and setting a perception filter.
MA x is good
All other MA is bad.


----------



## Koshiki

Oh Great Groogly Mooglies, you guys. What is even going on in this Homeric epic, here?

Perhaps we could all agree on the following? 

1. Joe Rogan doesn't particularly care for the mindset and training methodologies of many TMAs, nor does he care about voicing his opinions politically. However, he has an entirely sport background and doesn't actually know too much about non-sport styles. Agreed?

2. Joe Rogan and his comments were the point of the thread.

3. BJJ is a very, very impressive martial sport in it's context, and frankly, if I wanted to learn ground relevant to my stand up, that's where I would look, albeit keeping in mind that pure grappling needs some alteration when striking is permitted.

4. MMA is a pretty cool sport. If you've never sparred with any MMA guys or gals, you're missing out. And yeah, with a few ubiquitous practices that are clearly detrimental to SD practice, training MMA is definitely going to put you well ahead of most other people on the fabled "street." (Although The Backyard or The Living Room might be more accurate, given the nature of most violent encounters... )

5. TMAs, nearly without exception, if trained diligently and effectively, with Self Defense in mind, are pretty damn effective. I will _never_ forget when I was mid-teens, a few years into martial arts, and suffering greatly from big-fish-little-pond syndrome. At a Taiji Chaun seminar, I was perhaps a little noticeably aloof to the point of borderline dismissiveness, skeptical of the white-haired, slightly lisping fellow teaching. He wisely chose me as his non-compliant assistant for the demo. Ow. I will never, _never, NEVER_, doubt the efficacy of well-trained soft styles again!

6. That being said, at least in the areas I have lived, many, if not a majority of TMA schools do _NOT_ train their art effectively. There is practice of forms without meaningful analysis or application, there is practice of "Self-Defense" which is low-percentage to be charitable, practiced extremely gently and infrequently against compliant, even assisting "attackers," and there is light sparring which, while fun, bears more resemblance to two-person tag than it does to any sort of violence, real-world, sport, or otherwise... I think there is a tendency for anyone involved in decent schools, to also surround themselves with people from other decent schools, and then forget about the ten schools around town that are basically teaching a mix of aerobic exercise, dance, and two-person trust drills. While the arts themselves may be as complete and effective as can be desired, the training that most people encounter, is not. We may dismiss those schools as, "Not real TMA," but the fact remains that that is the "TMA" that most people are frequently going to see.

7. Lastly, while I am a huge fan of the sports of BJJ and MMA styles, we cannot pretend that popularity is equivalent to validity. McDonalds is vastly popular, while quality burger joints languish in single-location obscurity. PBR is the beer of choice for many. I bet most of you guys are within a quick drive of a Wal-Mart or Costco, but how many of you are familiar with Boynton's Market? Politicians the world 'round are elected for their haircuts, demeanor, and "personality," rather than their histories on economic policy, diplomacy, and civil rights. Justin Beiber has been an international sensation for the better part of a decade, while I'm sure most of you have no idea who the heck Angelica Sanchez is... Popularity among the vulgar masses does not guarantee low-quality, but neither is the opposite true.

For example, in my very immediate area, there are six martial arts schools. There is an extremely popular Shaolin Kempo Karate school, there is a flourishing and kid-friendly "Kung Fu" school, there are two TKD locals, one of which also has an Aikido instructor, there is some weird school teaching something like "Universal Movement," (I don't really know what they teach, but I'm friends with one of their Black belts, and he mostly is prone to flips and butterfly kicks) and there is an MMA/BJJ/Muay Thai gym. The MMA place is tiny, tucked in behind a pet-grooming shop, and nearly impossible to find. I have visited twice during their Open Mat sessions, and found them closed: I guess no one showed up? I've emailed them as well, and never heard back. I'm sure they're pretty good, I know their instructors all compete in local events, but they're also shoring up their business with aerobic Kickboxing and a weight-loss course.

Frankly, I am encouraged that they don't seem to be terribly popular, that usually seems to follow from a more demanding training methodology. But at least from personal experience, I wouldn't guess that MMA is really taking the martial arts world by storm, and even if it was, I don't see why we should be surprised that the most well publicized genre of Martial Arts is getting the most new students walking in the door...

I would say that it may currently be vogue, taking the popular martial-arts fanbase by storm, but like in the case of McDonalds, popularity is an entirely separate issue from quality.

------------------

But basically guys, well-trained martial arts is effective for what it's designed for, be it MMA, TKD, Taiji Chuan, Savate, Boxing, Goju Ryu, BJJ, Shotokan, Kali, or whatever. And I think most of us really agree on that, even if Joe Rogan spouts off to the contrary...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You mean stuff like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to promote and make butt loads of money, they needed a good product. Again, a scrawny Brazilian guy taking out bigger guys is a great marketing tool.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can both agree that Kimo Leopold was a vastly more formidable fighter than Telia Tuli.


If you are going to post TKD grappling, then don't pick the worst examples. You only weaken your argument by posting the worst of TMA to support what you say


----------



## Koshiki

P.S. As what many would consider a "Traditional" Martial Artist, (My training is mainly Kata-Bunkai-Application centered), I actually agree in large part with the sentiments expressed by Joe Rogan. Obviously, he doesn't know what he's talking about as regards Traditional Arts as a whole, but the mindset of faith in mystical and fancy techniques which the practitioners believe will work, never having really tried to apply them, is obviously detrimental. You don't have to spar in the conventional sense, but if you don't train with opposition, you're not training for actual violence or sport combat.

That said, I love sparring with guys from other schools, and I have never been more impressed and intimidated and utterly steamrollered than those lucky occasions when I get to spar with the "Monkey Style" guys from the Iron Ring down in Massachusetts. In terms of hard-core martial arts, the top guys at that school are no joke. They're great for reminding me just how new I still am to the Martial Arts!



JowGaWolf said:


> If you are going to post TKD grappling, then don't pick the worst examples. You only weaken your argument by posting the worst of TMA to support what you say



Also, yeah, I'm a TKD guy, albeit far closer to many Karate Styles than to WTF, and my favorite place to be is in stand-up grappling range. I get pummeled if I stay at a nice head-kicking distance for more than a few moments, but once I can tangle arms and elbow heads and kick legs, I'm pretty happy to say the least.

I would consider myself a decent stand-up grappler. At least I'm comfortable there. What is this... _thing_ which has been posted??? It looks nothing like my TKD grappling, it looks like some point fighters watched an Aikido clip and said, "Hey, we can do that!" (Also, we have no idea what was actually going on, it could have been a demonstration of how the wrist bends, rather then a demonstration of a winning combo...)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Most of the traditional martial arts use Joint locks, trips, sweeps, and throws as grappling.  Chin na techniques being the most popular of the joint locks.  The techniques are difficult to pull off, but if you can, you'll use less strength and effort to bring down someone larger and stronger than you.

Grappling in TKD.  I don't know TKD so if these are bad examples then let me know.  TKD Throws


----------



## TSDTexan

Zack Cart said:


> 6. That being said, at least in the areas I have lived, many, if not a majority of TMA schools do _NOT_ train their art effectively. There is practice of forms without meaningful analysis or application, there is practice of "Self-Defense" which is low-percentage to be charitable, practiced extremely gently and infrequently against compliant, even assisting "attackers," and there is light sparring which, while fun, bears more resemblance to two-person tag than it does to any sort of violence, real-world, sport, or otherwise... I think there is a tendency for anyone involved in decent schools, to also surround themselves with people from other decent schools, and then forget about the ten schools around town that are basically teaching a mix of aerobic exercise, dance, and two-person trust drills. While the arts themselves may be as complete and effective as can be desired, the training that most people encounter, is not. We may dismiss those schools as, "Not real TMA," but the fact remains that that is the "TMA" that most people are frequently going to see.



Zack... Tag Karate, Tag Striking etc. This is exactly what I am talking about. And it reinforces the perceptions formed by those who have blindly accepted Joe-Ro-ish propaganda as factual.

IF there is anything about BJJ that I love, it has to be first and foremost that they (most bjj schools) are slow to promote, requiring mastery of skills by demonstrating on semi-resisting opponents forged in long hours of mat time.

This is something TMAs could take notes and learn from.

If a striking school were to log Free-sparing hours, and require Mid to Full contact for mid to upper belts in those hours. And log kata-application hours in a semi-resisting opponent as opposed to purely static 1steps...
It would help the reputation of TMAs, by turning out students at a slower rate, that are better skilled.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> If a striking school were to log Free-sparing hours, and require Mid to Full contact for mid to upper belts, it would help the reputation of TMAs, by turning out students at a slower rate, that are better skilled.


  I agree, it would also make the martial art style better, because it would help to make sure that technique applications aren't being misunderstood and applied to the wrong situation.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> There is more to grappling than throws and rolling around on the ground, both pictures show grappling, as a grappler you should know that.



Yeah, but in the MMA context, the top wouldn't be considered grappling.

FYI, I personally don't view Aikido as a true grappling art. I think a new category should be developed for it. As it stands, it lacks the scope of a grappling style like Judo, Sambo, Bjj, Catch, etc. However, that's just my opinion.



renc said:


> It hasn't for everyone, but for those it has I'm grateful.
> They've all come to pass, I guess we'll have to disagree.
> .



Yeah, I'm afraid so.



> Yes. But also, people shouldn't make false generalizations. Particularly if they are martial artists, particularly those in positions of high visibility and responsibility.



It's not quite a false generalization is no one's stepped up to prove their accusations false.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If you are going to post TKD grappling, then don't pick the worst examples. You only weaken your argument by posting the worst of TMA to support what you say



That's not TKD.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> That's not TKD.



What's not TKD, the picture you posted in post #635 or the videos in post #645 or something else?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Xue Sheng said:


> What's not TKD, the picture you posted in post #635 or the videos in post #645 or something else?


He's talking about the videos I put in post #645


----------



## Xue Sheng

JowGaWolf said:


> He's talking about the videos I put in post #645



If that is the case then he is wrong, much like his statements about Sanda were wrong.

That was in the TKD I learned between 1975 and 1980, in Boston, from a guy that was a student of General Choi, Hong Hi. and it was not Olympic TKD,


----------



## Koshiki

TSDTexan said:


> Zack... Tag Karate, Tag Striking etc. This is exactly what I am talking about. And it reinforces the perceptions formed by those who have blindly accepted Joe-Ro-ish propaganda as factual.



Exactly. It kinda seems like this thread should have been the OP asking about Rogan's Rant, followed by about four or five posts of, "Well, he's obviously not talking about true, well-trained TMAs, however, I can see how he would come away with that impression if he's most;y interacted with schools that aren't really geared towards actual conflict."

And then the thread should have died...



TSDTexan said:


> IF there is anything about BJJ that I love, it has to be first and foremost that they (most bjj schools) are slow to promote, requiring mastery of skills by demonstrating on semi-resisting opponents forged in long hours of mat time.
> 
> This is something TMAs could take notes and learn from.



If there is _one_ thing I love about BJJ, it's how quickly those guys can tie me up and tap me out, if they manage to get me down with a firm grip on me. BJJ is a fantastically effective grappling sport, that I'm always eager to get dominated by.

If there are _two_ things I love about BJJ, it's that you can say, "I have a Purple Belt," it means, "I am a competent, intermediate level Martial Artist who has trained hard and long." Versus a good deal of other arts where an intermediate belt means you've been reasonably consistent at showing up for class for the past year and a half...

Not really too into belts, honestly, but if you're going to use them, they should actually _mean_ something other than an indicator of how long you've been paying tuition...

But we digress.



Hanzou said:


> That's not TKD.



Is it Karate then? I don't really know how one can tell from the image, unless we're going by the apparel, in which case they are dressed exactly like my TKD school... Either way, at least among the schools I am at all familiar with, TKD grappling is basically stolen directly and unchanged from Karate grappling, and either way, it doesn't really look like pure grappling, because it's not supposed to be, generally.

Just like in MMA, the point of passing guard is frequently not to win the fight by grappling and submission, but rather by being in a better spot to pound the living daylights out of the other guy. So it's grappling as a means to better striking.

But I take your point, TKD/Karate grappling is vertical, not horizontal. It's also not the primary focus of Karate or TKD, where, I would tentatively offer that the tendency is towards grappling and body control as a means to more effective striking, rather than as a means to end the fight in and of itself.


----------



## Koshiki

JowGaWolf said:


> He's talking about the videos I put in post #645



 Wait, really? How is that not TKD? He's doing TKD techniques and TKD-style applications, wearing a TKD uniform, _calling_ what he does TKD, and being hosted by a site called TaeKwonWoo.net.

Plus it looks pretty damn close to what I've studied for the past 15 years, which is, as far as I know, TKD.

Although I admit to being pretty confused as to why he's got the BOB dummy there if he's not planning to hit it...!


----------



## ShotoNoob

I see there was a great push in anticipation of my post....  RALPH GRACIE'S TUTORIAL 1 - throws & takedowns.
\


Hanzou said:


> There's throws and takedowns in Bjj as well;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> [edit]
> \


\
I like the production of this vid.  The Gracie's present the potential of BJJ very well.  I'm going to comment briefly on the first 3 opening tacitcs, and detail the weak principles in the 3rd of those.  AGAINST TRADITIONAL KARATE.
\
1. THROW OF STANDING OPPONENT FROM YOUR BACK:
Time Stamp 0:14. Great if you can pull this off.
\
2. CLOSE DISTANCE & HOOK; FOLLOWED BY TRIP TD:
Time Stamp 0:25.  The defensive opponent is fighting from the boxer-like stance, and has zero active,
striking defense.  The latter 2 (common MMA conventions) prime him for BJJ take downs.  The BJJ offensive competitor exploits the defensive opponent perfectly.
\
3. DUCK UNDER OPPONENT'S JAB; TD:
Time Stamp 0:27. A Gracie classic & which would have been effective against Jow Ga's 'active' sparring partner in illustrations now gone....  The striking opponent (the thrown opponent) performed the standard boxing jab, lauded by MMA striking coaches as the essential starting striking tactic.  Note the following weaknesses:
\
(1) The jab opponent commits then over-commits to a single, high jab.
(2) He extends the jab, then leans forward into the path of the oncoming grappler.  The jab opponent lifts his rear foot off the ground in order to go beyond full natural extension.  Boxers have this habit all the time, sport karateka also comonly display this.
(3) With the commitment then over-commitment, the jab opponent is stuck in his stance, with no apparent options....
|
TRADITIONAL KARATE PRINCIPLES by the numbers:
\
(1) KIHON KARATE COMMITS; NEVER OVER-COMMITS: Kihon karate form commits to strikes  Traditional karate kihon expressly never over-commits.  The jab opponent throws a single technique, does nothing at his opponent changes movement.  The guarding hand is completely passive.  The principle of chambering in traditional karate demands that the non-striking hand is kept in position for immediate use in a technique.  Completely omitted.  A good boxer would be prepared to strike with the rear and as well, here I would call for the standard hook.  The offensive grappler has complicated that boxer move by ducking his head & placing at the outside of the jab opponents torso....
\
So @ (1) we have a commitment then over-commitment to a single strike from a boxing stance.  Prime for BJJ TD.
\
(2) KARATE STANCE NOT PRESENT.  As mentioned, the upright boxing stance makes a prime candidate for a BJJ TD.  Moreover, the jab opponent seeking to extend, overextends (over commits) thereby raising his rear foot off the floor.  Hence his front leg is bearing all his weight facilitating any TD by off-balancing, if the jab opponent hasn't already done that himself.  Kihon karate stances call for both feet to bear weight (generally) and for the karateka to be solidly on balance.  The most used stance in my stance is the front stance or lunge stance, which meets there requirements in spades...
\
So @ (2), we have the jab opponent exposed in a weak stance, completely unable to take the next step in the laughed-at, introductory Taikyoku kata.  WOW.
\
(3) TRANSITION (FOOTWORK) CAPABILITY COMPROMISED: The jab opponent's faulty stance reverberates into additional striking fails.  His mobility is compromised; footwork to avoid the TD grab is frustrated.  His ability to put whole body power into his strike is negated.  The opportunity for a follow-on strike is interfered with because the body is out of kilter & not synchronized.
\
And so @ (3), basically (no pun) several kihon karate principles are violated.  One's striking capability falls apart. Both boxers & sport karate are equally guilty of these violations.
\
BOTTOM LINE: The karate answer to the Gracie TD tactic is not uniquely grappling defense.  It's traditional kihon karate.  Sport karate, basic MMA striking conventions.... Gracie's are going to get the TD more often that not....
|
In terms of strikes, the most common strike in the traditional karate curriculum is the front punch (lunge punch).  Not the boxer, kick-boxer jab pictured the Vid.  Using a front punch has a number of advantages over the boxing, KB jab staple, which would apply to this case.  The kihon karate form of front punch would have the clear potential to produce a striking answer to the Gracie TD opponent.  If you are good at it....
\
Karate Kihon critics, keep the hands up like the Gracie's Jab Opponent..... & good luck with that.
\


Hanzou said:


> In the end, the intent is to not purposely go to the ground all the time. The intent is to be a well-rounded, and be capable of ending a confrontation on your terms.


\
Right....


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but in the MMA context, the top wouldn't be considered grappling.
> 
> FYI, I personally don't view Aikido as a true grappling art. I think a new category should be developed for it. As it stands, it lacks the scope of a grappling style like Judo, Sambo, Bjj, Catch, etc. However, that's just my opinion.


Well if Hanzou doesn't think Aikido is grappling then it must not be since apparently he has the final say.  I guess all you Aikido folks havejust been pretending all these years.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Most of the traditional martial arts use Joint locks, trips, sweeps, and throws as grappling.  Chin na techniques being the most popular of the joint locks.  The techniques are difficult to pull off, but if you can, you'll use less strength and effort to bring down someone larger and stronger than you.
> 
> Grappling in TKD.  I don't know TKD so if these are bad examples then let me know.  TKD Throws


\
Yeah, there is this disconnect on the way in which TMA is conventionally practiced, especially for sporting competition.  AND, what is actually contained in the traditional curriculum's, as is nicely illustrated here...
\
Here's a TKD SD lesson putting to bed that TKD guys proper only use their feet & for kicks.  How come Rogan, an *'expert'* in TKD didn't address this issue?  Or better yet, demonstrate these...?


----------



## Koshiki

ShotoNoob said:


> Here's a TKD SD lesson putting to bed that TKD guys proper only use their feet & for kicks.



Exactly. I _can_ thrown a head level round-kick, and I like to think I'm reasonably decent at them too. I _can_ throw a flying side-kick as evidenced by my profile picture. I _can _throw a jump, spinning, outside-to-inside crescent kick. Do I? Nope, not really. Sometimes the high round, but that's pretty, ok _extremely_ rare if I'm sparring at all seriously.

I fight close if I have my druthers, close enough to be able to elbow, to maintain arm contact most of the time. I _can_ still throw a high inverted kick to the head from here, but I only ever do as a gag, 'cause it's silly and surprising to have the other guys right leg swing up at your left ear while your in close.

But nearly all of my kicks are aimed at the foot, knee, hip, and sometimes the inner/outer thigh. In fact, I use my legs more to step and disrupt then I do to actually pick them up and kick.

I may have developed a little atypically as a TKD practitioner, but honestly, the mantra at my school was the Ol' "High kicks look good, Low kicks work good." If you ever sparred one of my three main teacher and your foot went much higher than their waist, there was a good chance you'd find yourself sitting down pretty swiftly. They were all older guys, and didn't have time to mess around with flashy kicks. My favorite teacher would sling me off-course with my own leg, the head teacher was a big fan of sweeping the supporting leg, the third guy has a strong Taiji Chuan and Bagua Zhang back ground and he would usually do something.... entertaining and unpredictable. None of them were/are prone to rewarding head kicks.

So yeah, some forms of TKD started getting super fancy with the kicks in the 70's as I recall, but a lot of schools didn't. We like joint locks.

I realize that's off topic, but this thread is a lost cause anyway...


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Hard hit from hard non-spinning backfist similar to the ones found in hung gar and Jow Ga kung fu.
> He actually lands 2 hard backfists (3:54 and at 5:32)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people assume that a backfist has no power or that it's not a strong strike.  Here's an interesting article on the backfist that references this fight.
> \
> 
> My guess is that most people would think a backfist is not a strong attack because they have not learned how to properly connect the body to generate the necessary power. As a result people have a weak backfist.   Here are 2 videos showing a weak backfist.  Notice how they try to generate all of the power from their arms.


\
Well Jow Ga, look @ the phsyique on Arlovski.  Bit of a step-up there.  I'll look at the article.
\
Some of the TMA presentations of backfist are limiting physically.  With full body strength, though they start to have effect.


JowGaWolf said:


> He even says that the backfist lacks power and then tries to use his waist to generate more power and the impact still sounds the same. This tells me that he hasn't learned to connect the body to his backfist properly that how he explained how to increase.  Another sign that he doesn't know how to connect his body to his backfist is by looking at how his waist is twisting.   Even though his backfist is weak he does understand that using the waist helps to add power, he just doesn't know how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will get you knocked out in a real fight or even a sparing fight where people throw combos.


|
Ok, and MMA especially suffers from the same approach, suffers greatly.  Why TKD _*as commonly practiced*_ is my least favorite style.... too sporty & too expedient.
\
MMA is even worse.  they latch onto those gawd-awful focus mitts with the same brainless, brain-numbing approach.
\
Coming to the defense of the non-power back-fist, the TMA effect legitimately sought in these TKD vids is not the single-strike KO, which you yourself criticized earlier in the SportMartialArt Vid.  The TKD backfist as presented can be a defensive technique in place of the boxer's jab.  The TKD backfist can, like the boxer's jab be a setup for follow-on strikes, the VERY combo you refer to as the counter for the TKD backfist.  The TKD backfist may also be a stunning or disrupting trauma strike, that causes a pause or lapse in attention so that the opponent hesistates or can't react right away. This creates "sen" [Japanese term] openings.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> If a student learns from instructors like the 2 videos above then that studentss perception of a backfist is going to be that it's not a strong attack with little or no power.
> If a student learns how to do a backfist from someone like the guy was was stunning his opponent with the backfist, then that student's perception is going to be that a backfist can be dangerous.


\
Poor instruction is found everywhere.... The 2-man kung fu form vid panned by Hanzou is a prime example.  Hanzou is right, the 2 guys doing that form will get absolutely pounded under pressure....  which the SD regs here would agree.... I'll speak to that later....
\


JowGaWolf said:


> If you have an instructor that teaches you like the 2 martial artist instructors then I would recommend that you find another instructor that can teach that back fist properly.


\
By focus mitt lore, Jow Ga you are dead on.  By TMA principles,,,, way too constricted a view of the back-fist....
\
Don't get me wrong.  that 2-MAN KUNG FU form is way-more better than anything traditional karate has to offer.  Which makes it way more important to adhere to principles, which those guys failed on a kihon karate level.  Again, why we don't see kung fu succeed in MMA.  Not because the animal stuff doesn't work (Rogan outright humilates the monkey style on YT).  It's that competent animal style kung fu is way over the avergage practitoner's heads....  as evidenced by that 2-man kung fu form vid....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Zack Cart said:


> Exactly. I _can_ thrown a head level round-kick, and I like to think I'm reasonably decent at them too. I _can_ throw a flying side-kick as evidenced by my profile picture. I _can _throw a jump, spinning, outside-to-inside crescent kick. Do I? Nope, not really. Sometimes the high round, but that's pretty, ok _extremely_ rare if I'm sparring at all seriously.
> 
> I fight close if I have my druthers, close enough to be able to elbow, to maintain arm contact most of the time. I _can_ still throw a high inverted kick to the head from here, but I only ever do as a gag, 'cause it's silly and surprising to have the other guys right leg swing up at your left ear while your in close.
> 
> But nearly all of my kicks are aimed at the foot, knee, hip, and sometimes the inner/outer thigh. In fact, I use my legs more to step and disrupt then I do to actually pick them up and kick.
> 
> I may have developed a little atypically as a TKD practitioner, but honestly, the mantra at my school was the Ol' "High kicks look good, Low kicks work good." If you ever sparred one of my three main teacher and your foot went much higher than their waist, there was a good chance you'd find yourself sitting down pretty swiftly. They were all older guys, and didn't have time to mess around with flashy kicks. My favorite teacher would sling me off-course with my own leg, the head teacher was a big fan of sweeping the supporting leg, the third guy has a strong Taiji Chuan and Bagua Zhang back ground and he would usually do something.... entertaining and unpredictable. None of them were/are prone to rewarding head kicks.
> 
> So yeah, some forms of TKD started getting super fancy with the kicks in the 70's as I recall, but a lot of schools didn't. We like joint locks.
> 
> I realize that's off topic, but this thread is a lost cause anyway...


\
Precisely Zack.  TKD presents choices, alternatives.  Which are then to be best matched to the situation....  Tactics, not technique alone....  Traditional TKD utilizes eight limbs.  If you want to comment on an art, read the curriculum first.  Training the total curriculum is of course what makes someone competent to evaluate same....
\
This business about the modern martial arts, the the 20th century versions being "stick figures" is ill-considered.....nonsense...


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> What's not TKD, the picture you posted in post #635 or the videos in post #645 or something else?



The picture I posted.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Well if Hanzou doesn't think Aikido is grappling then it must not be since apparently he has the final say.  I guess all you Aikido folks havejust been pretending all these years.



Actually that's a debate that has been ongoing within Aikido itself. Especially after the rise of grappling styles within MA. There are Aikidoka out there that would classify Aikido as something different than Judo, Wrestling, Bjj, Sambo, etc.

Given the nature of the style, they have a solid argument.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> The picture I posted.



Then I apologize for insinuating that you were wrong about TKD since you were not talking about the posted videos and I have no idea where that picture comes from


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Who said anything about "taking down" 3 attackers. (Which of course is a groundfighting specialist's only option) There are other things besides a takedown.



When I say "take down", I'm not talking about a grappling take down, I'm talking about taking them out, or beating them down.



> There are lots of options like giving someone a broken nose, or a debilitating / knock out strike.
> 
> Or simply fighting on your feet, negating attacks, doing an occasional throw or sweep and wearing the untrained attackers out.



That sounds like the plot of a bad karate movie. What if they're not "untrained"? What if thug#1 wrestled in high school, and thug#2 did some boxing at his community Rec Center? You don't need to take an Asian martial art to be "trained".



> Some of the Karate based styles actually test the multiple attackers scenario at Dan rank tests (2 vs 1 at 1st Dan, 3 vs 1 at 2nd dan), and bring in outside instructors from other arts, as well as Karate.
> 
> The guest instructors are told well in advance that the the testee will be at defending at full speed and full power and acting as the test were a live fire event. (Which is why only mid and high Dan's are usually brought in)



You mean like this?


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Then I apologize for insinuating that you were wrong about TKD since you were not talking about the posted videos and I have no idea where that picture comes from



Apology accepted.

That pic is from a UK Goju-Ryu dojo.


----------



## TSDTexan

Zack Cart said:


> If there is _one_ thing I love about BJJ, it's how quickly *those guys can tie me up and tap me out*, if they manage to get me down with a firm grip on me.
> BJJ is a fantastically effective grappling sport, that *I'm always eager to get dominated by.*



Somethings just never sound right.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> When I say "take down", I'm not talking about a grappling take down, I'm talking about taking them out, or beating them down.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the plot of a bad karate movie. What if they're not "untrained"? What if thug#1 wrestled in high school, and thug#2 did some boxing at his community Rec Center? You don't need to take an Asian martial art to be "trained".
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?




No. I mean untrained as in any discipline for any time worth mentioning... Because statistics tell us there are billions more non martial artists than martial artists, and your putting words in my mouth if you are arguing that I mean " just Asian ma" when I refer to untrained. Nice strawman.

Secondly, I was there, in the middle of a dog fight, getting my butt pretty much handed to me to the degree I had gone purely defensive, and that my Master started hurting people badly. After hurting two fellows badly he crushed the ringleader's will to fight, through applied Korean Karate... And they bailed.

He wouldn't have been able to do so, so easily, if they had more formal training than mere street fights, using numbers rather than skills.

Running for him wasn't a viable option, with a student partially pinned and fighting from his knees.

Master always relished a good fight, even before he became an accomplished MA. This was what he considered a weak challenge. He was disappointed that they were common street thugs.
Instead of disciplined fighters.

You are mistaken in your stated position that no MA style trains for multiple attackers. While ground fighting specialists have an advantage in 1 on 1.. It is a mistake to view all ma as training for 1 on 1. A careful review of Kata tells us that system founders expected multiple attackers.

As more than a few MA have a battlefield pedigree this should not surprise us.

The first time I did (Aikido) randori and had three people charge me from across the mats was a particularly wakeup moment. My Aikido Sensei said "A judoka assumes a single competition opponent, an aikidokoka has an implied assumption of many"


----------



## Koshiki

TSDTexan said:


> Somethings just never sound right.



Haha, wow, yeah, that's yup. I think I'll just step out of this conversation now--- Wait, what's that??? A bear??? Everybody look over there!!!!


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Actually that's a debate that has been ongoing within Aikido itself. Especially after the rise of grappling styles within MA. There are Aikidoka out there that would classify Aikido as something different than Judo, Wrestling, Bjj, Sambo, etc.
> 
> Given the nature of the style, they have a solid argument.


So grappling master what should we call it?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So grappling master what should we call it?



The Akidoka preferred the term "seizing" over grappling.

Again, they make a strong argument.


----------



## Koshiki

While Aikido is pretty divorced from the grappling found in most grappling-centered arts and sports, and actually reasonably distinct from the stand-up grappling of most other Japanese arts, it does still entail, shall we say, a _liiiiittle _bit of an emphasis on manipulation of the enemy, throws, and joint locks.

Which, generally speaking, is what has traditionally been considered grappling...

I'm not saying it absolutely is grappling, as I'm no Aikidoka, but I _am_ saying that if it's _not_ grappling, I don't know what to call it...

Just to hopelessly try to tie this thread back together: I wonder what Joe Rogan thinks it should be called?


----------



## Koshiki

Hanzou said:


> The Akidoka preferred the term "seizing" over grappling.



Huh, "seizing," really? Weird. Well, I guess there's my answer. Still looks like fluid grappling to me. I'm not saying it's a form of grappling I particularly find effective for me, but I guess I tend to view the contact components of arts as either striking or grappling.

"Seizing." Weird. Learn something every day... Do you happen to know why? A quick google of "Aikido Seizing" turned up all sorts of stuff like, "Aikido - seize the initiative," or, "seize the shoulder," neither of which is overly enlightening.

Also, I've been saying the word "seizing" in my head so much that it doesn't sound like a word anymore. Super Duper Semantic Satiation!


----------



## Hanzou

Zack Cart said:


> While Aikido is pretty divorced from the grappling found in most grappling-centered arts and sports, and actually reasonably distinct from the stand-up grappling of most other Japanese arts, it does still entail, shall we say, a _liiiiittle _bit of an emphasis on manipulation of the enemy, throws, and joint locks.
> 
> Which, generally speaking, is what has traditionally been considered grappling...
> 
> I'm not saying it absolutely is grappling, as I'm no Aikidoka, but I _am_ saying that if it's _not_ grappling, I don't know what to call it...
> 
> Just to hopelessly try to tie this thread back together: I wonder what Joe Rogan thinks it should be called?



Frankly, in those circles, Aikido is generally referred to as "crappling".


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The Akidoka preferred the term "seizing" over grappling.
> 
> Again, they make a strong argument.


Where are you seeing this? I know several people that train in Aikido and ive trained in it off and on I've never heard this.


----------



## Drose427

ballen0351 said:


> Where are you seeing this? I know several people that train in Aikido and ive trained in it off and on I've never heard this.



Youtube


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> How come Rogan, an *'expert'* in TKD didn't address this issue? Or better yet, demonstrate these...?


 Yep that a good question. For someone to be an "*expert*" in TKD not diving deeper into his own style is strange.  Had he done so he wouldn't have been "*surprised*" about it's limitations.



ShotoNoob said:


> Not because the animal stuff doesn't work (Rogan outright humilates the monkey style on YT). It's that competent animal style kung fu is way over the avergage practitoner's heads.... as evidenced by that 2-man kung fu form vid.


  One of the forms I know actually has part of the monkey style in it, but it's no where near like what most people see.  It's just a small piece Mark 0:41 and 0:48 (not me in the video) That small piece by itself is difficult to learn. It took me a about 6 months just to learn it where I feel comfortable with doing it. It will take about 6 months to learn how to generate the necessary power to make it useful and another 4 or 5 months just to know what situations are best suited for this technique in a fight.


----------



## Koshiki

The monkey style practitioners I know are without a doubt the most impressive martial artists I have ever met, in terms of real, full-contact application. They do five variations of monkey, each practitioner following on or more of the paths that suit there own abilities and skills.

I can't speak with authority or depth on the style itself, but I can say that those guys _TRAIN_ and, while they don't sport-spar, when you anything-goes spar with them, they are always in control. They're fast, fluid, tough, very adaptive, and unpredictable beyond belief. Some of the stuff they do works just because it seems so out there that you just would never expect _anyone_ to ever do it.

And then, watching them "play" with each other, you realize just how restrained and polite they were being with you...

I usually feel pretty on top of my game, when sparring, but I have never felt like anything but an eager student with any of their more advanced students/teachers.

And yes, when they spar, it is still very obviously monkey; it's fluid, it's jumpy, it's climby, it's weird and distracting, and at no point does it ever become anything like the faux kickboxing we're familiar with.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Where are you seeing this? I know several people that train in Aikido and ive trained in it off and on I've never heard this.



Again, its nothing official or anything, just something I've heard from some Akidoka that I've run across, and that I've seen repeated in a few forum posts.

Another one is "trapping".


----------



## Koshiki

Hanzou said:


> Again, its nothing official or anything, just something I've heard from some Akidoka that I've run across, and that I've seen repeated in a few forum posts.
> 
> Another one is "trapping".



I have heard both the term "to seize" and the term "to trap" many times, and yes, some of them from my one Aikido buddy, but always in regards to specific technique, not an entire style of [what is usually considered] grappling.

To seize something, in stand-up grappling, is usually just a way of saying "grab it." At least in my experience.

To Trap is usually a more specific meaning, implying that you assume control of a (usually) limb without grabbing or seizing it. You see a lot of what I'm talking about in Win Chun and Jeet Kun Do, at least as I've seen it practiced.

Here's the first example I found with a quick search. In the count of the initial drill, the "three" is where the trapping occurs, or can occur.






I'm not saying no Aikidoka use the terms trapping or seizing to describe their entire art, just that, based on my personal experience, most people use those terms for basic elements of upright grappling, along with many others, and that that _could_ be what these guys were talking about, rather that Aikido is "all trapping," or "all seizing." Maybe?

Although, you're right, after more googling, I did find one instance of someone on here saying that, yes, Aikido is grappling, but that as an Aikidoka, they prefer the term "Seizing." Seemed more like one guy's personal take though, rather than a strong debate within the actual Aikido community.


----------



## Koshiki

is aikido a grappling martial art? | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Wait, my mistake. The thread I found was about whether Aikido is grappling. The overwhelming consensus was that yes, it is quite obviously grappling. Chris Parker, at one point, mentioned that it is based on "seizing" which he defined as "grabbing, holding, pulling, pushing, squeezing, choking, pinning etc." He then offered that, by definition, grappling is technique which is seizing based.

Baku, the poster I was thinking of, then said that he'd never thought of using that terminology before, but that he liked it. I don't think he's actually an Aikidoko though, I'm not sure how I got the impression that he was...

Anyhow, I'd be interested to learn more about the terms usage within Aikido because I both love the Martial Arts, and find linguistics to be entertaining at worst, and essential to communication and thereby civilized democracy at best.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep that a good question. For someone to be an "*expert*" in TKD not diving deeper into his own style is strange.  Had he done so he wouldn't have been "*surprised*" about it's limitations.


\
Yeah, and Rogan's got tons of karate critic company....  We have to forgive when the desire to promote sport karate competition, which is much more attractive to the general public, is so over-riding....  NO greater truth to this than the mega-success of MMA commercially.
\


JowGaWolf said:


> One of the forms I know actually has part of the monkey style in it, but it's no where near like what most people see.  It's just a small piece Mark 0:41 and 0:48 (not me in the video) That small piece by itself is difficult to learn. It took me a about 6 months just to learn it where I feel comfortable with doing it. It will take about 6 months to learn how to generate the necessary power to make it useful and another 4 or 5 months just to know what situations are best suited for this technique in a fight.


\
Well, I personally wouldn't even contemplate monkey style.  To me though, only a fool would ridicule the Chinese masters of such styles....  Rogan violated a oft quoted maxim here (@ Martial Talk) of not criticizing what you don't have direct experience with....  He's an MMA spokesman now (& a darn good one).  MMA proponents, Stop there.
\
EDIT: Now there is Chinese kung fu--that form you put up.  Demonstrator is going too fast for  training speed.  Guy's really putting out.... Monster improvement over the 2-man form you showed earlier....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> You mean like this?


\
Hanzou, I've got to call you on the shirts.  It's a well established law of traditional karate or TMA for that matter, THAT:
|
As one becomes advanced, you lose the sleeves on your uniform.  Master level recognition is by tank-top......


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry I don't have any videos of me doing Lau Gar.  lol.. This is the best that I could find as far for what you are requesting.


|
The kung fu practitioner on the left.  To dispute Joe Rogan & all the hard core SD guys here @ MT, you can't not just select some nifty kung fu, practice the moves... an whalla, you're an MMA champion or street fighting guru.  It's questionable whether these guys would get a passing grade on the Taikyoku kata No.1.  Joe Rogan's sport TKD is going to mow down these guys, especially the one on the left.
\
I've mentioned before one clue is in the opening (&closing).  In kung fu, the involvement of mental discipline is paramount, and is what really sets kung fu apart from traditional karate.  the guy on the left's mind is on his performance for the camera.  Just like Jow Ga complained about the SportsMartialArts sport karate kumite for points video....
\
Yeah, kung fu is better than karate.  And it is also true here neither of these guys has strong KIME, the one on the left couldn't KIME his way out of a paper bag.....
\
Kung fu wannabees, good luck with that.....


----------



## Hanzou

Zack Cart said:


> is aikido a grappling martial art? | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
> 
> Wait, my mistake. The thread I found was about whether Aikido is grappling. The overwhelming consensus was that yes, it is quite obviously grappling. Chris Parker, at one point, mentioned that it is based on "seizing" which he defined as "grabbing, holding, pulling, pushing, squeezing, choking, pinning etc." He then offered that, by definition, grappling is technique which is seizing based.
> 
> Baku, the poster I was thinking of, then said that he'd never thought of using that terminology before, but that he liked it. I don't think he's actually an Aikidoko though, I'm not sure how I got the impression that he was...
> 
> Anyhow, I'd be interested to learn more about the terms usage within Aikido because I both love the Martial Arts, and find linguistics to be entertaining at worst, and essential to communication and thereby civilized democracy at best.



Yeah that is an interesting thread.

However, I think its unfair to call Aikido a "grappling art" when it lacks many of the trappings present in  other grappling MAs. So I do support it being considered something else.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Yeah that is an interesting thread.
> 
> However, I think its unfair to call Aikido a "grappling art" when it lacks many of the trappings present in  other grappling MAs. So I do support it being considered something else.




Hemminggg, haaawingg.. Much?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah that is an interesting thread.
> 
> However, I think its unfair to call Aikido a "grappling art" when it lacks many of the trappings present in  other grappling MAs. So I do support it being considered something else.


And your able to know what it's lacking with your vast study of Aikido correct?


----------



## kuniggety

In a black or white world of striking or grappling, I would pick grappling for aikido. I don't see what the big deal is though of someone not thinking that it really fits their definition of a grappling art. I've done some aikido before and it's really in its own world compared to wrestling, sambo, judo, BJJ, etc.


----------



## Koshiki

Hanzou said:


> However, I think its unfair to call Aikido a "grappling art" when it lacks many of the trappings present in  other grappling MAs. So I do support it being considered something else.



I guess my understanding (and most people I know) is that there are basically two broad kinds of offensive technique, strikes, which have to do with casuing something to impact your opponent, and grappling techniques which have to do with keeping ahold of your opponent in some way or other. Obviously many arts blur the lines in many of their techniques, and combine both forms of attack at once, but that basic distinction has always been a given, at least in my experience.

To say that aikido lack many of the elements of other grappling arts and is thereby not grappling seems odd, since, for example, collegiate wrestling
lacks many, many aspects common to other grappling arts.

I guess to me, that's a bit like saying that, say western boxing isn't a true striking art because there are no kicks.

I mean, we all have a general idea of what Aikido entails, so we're just arguing preferred semantics. I think the consensus among Aikidoka and most others is that it is a form of stand-up grappling, so, while it certainly is different from many other grappling arts, to me it makes the most sense to keep calling it grappling...

Calling it something like a "trapping art" or a "seizing art" (apart from being confusingly similar and frequently used as synonyms for "grappling"), is a bit odd to me, because it ignores so much of the body of the system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> However, I think its unfair to call Aikido a "grappling art" when it lacks many of the trappings present in other grappling MAs. So I do support it being considered something else.


  I don't know. Aikido fighters seem like grabby people to me. Most of the Aikido demos are of someone grabbing someone else.


----------



## Hanzou

Zack Cart said:


> I guess my understanding (and most people I know) is that there are basically two broad kinds of offensive technique, strikes, which have to do with casuing something to impact your opponent, and grappling techniques which have to do with keeping ahold of your opponent in some way or other. Obviously many arts blur the lines in many of their techniques, and combine both forms of attack at once, but that basic distinction has always been a given, at least in my experience.
> 
> To say that aikido lack many of the elements of other grappling arts and is thereby not grappling seems odd, since, for example, collegiate wrestling
> lacks many, many aspects common to other grappling arts.



Well that depends on the type of wrestling you're talking about. If something isn't in wrestling, it's usually because of its competitive ruleset. Wrestling in general is a pretty comprehensive grappling art, and forms the basis of almost all grappling styles. Which btw, would be another difference from Aikido and the grappling arts.



> I guess to me, that's a bit like saying that, say western boxing isn't a true striking art because there are no kicks.



Hey, thats a really good point. The only thing I can say against that is that so many striking arts use boxing that it would be hard to say that western boxing isn't a striking art. It can be argued that boxing is to striking arts what wrestling is to grappling arts.



> I mean, we all have a general idea of what Aikido entails, so we're just arguing preferred semantics. I think the consensus among Aikidoka and most others is that it is a form of stand-up grappling, so, while it certainly is different from many other grappling arts, to me it makes the most sense to keep calling it grappling...
> 
> Calling it something like a "trapping art" or a "seizing art" (apart from being confusingly similar and frequently used as synonyms for "grappling"), is a bit odd to me, because it ignores so much of the body of the system.



Well I think it goes a bit beyond simple semantics. Aikido is different from the other grappling arts on a mechanical level. I can look at a take down from Shuai Jiao for example, and understand how it works because it uses principles that exist within wrestling, judo, bjj, etc. Aikido stuff is like something from a different planet.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know. Aikido fighters seem like grabby people to me. Most of the Aikido demos are of someone grabbing someone else.



Well just about every Aikido takedown I've seen is based on someone grabbing you, not you grabbing them. There's also some nasty strikes hidden within the Aikido takedowns that aren't present in other forms of grappling.

Again, as a purple belt in Bjj, I can pick up on wrestling, Judo, and other grappling takedowns pretty easily.

Like this move;





I taught myself that move a few years ago, because I preferred that version to the one I was taught in Bjj.

This stuff;





Is something else entirely.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Well that depends on the type of wrestling you're talking about. If something isn't in wrestling, it's usually because of its competitive ruleset. Wrestling in general is a pretty comprehensive grappling art, and forms the basis of almost all grappling styles. Which btw, would be another difference from Aikido and the grappling arts.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, thats a really good point. The only thing I can say against that is that so many striking arts use boxing that it would be hard to say that western boxing isn't a striking art. It can be argued that boxing is to striking arts what wrestling is to grappling arts.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think it goes a bit beyond simple semantics. Aikido is different from the other grappling arts on a mechanical level. I can look at a take down from Shuai Jiao for example, and understand how it works because it uses principles that exist within wrestling, judo, bjj, etc. Aikido stuff is like something from a different planet.




No. It is semantics. You would have to redefine the very means of which the PINS of Aikido happen, they happen by means of grappling or grabbing.

You cannot proceed to throw someone without a means of attachment. Either you grapple them and toss, or they grapple you, you toss em.

Here's an idea.... Hows about you going and spending 10 to 12 months in a legitimate Aikido school. For help finding such contact any of the following:
Aikido Association of America

Aikido Association International

Aikikai

International Aikido Federation

Iwama Ryu

Aikido Schools of Ueshiba

Nippon Kan

Or if you want to find something more sporting

Try any of of the following.

Shodokan/Tomiki-ryu

Fugakukai aikido

Jiyushinkai aikido

You will have to reevaluate what you currently call grappling especially if you go for any of the last three.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Well just about every Aikido takedown I've seen is based on someone grabbing you, not you grabbing them. There's also some nasty strikes hidden within the Aikido takedowns that aren't present in other forms of grappling.
> 
> Again, as a purple belt in Bjj, I can pick up on wrestling, Judo, and other grappling takedowns pretty easily.
> 
> Like this move;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I taught myself that move a few years ago, because I preferred that version to the one I was taught in Bjj.
> 
> This stuff;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is something else entirely.




This entirely... Is pretty inline with Kano's brainchild known as judo unbalancing. If they were not wearing hakima... You would be able to see that the mechanical is very simple actually.

Did you know.. You can provoke an opponent into grabbing you? Even into grabing your wrist? Thus triggeribg the offense ahem defense. Did you know that causing someone to grap your arm or wrist is a form of trapping?

Did you know that a great many of Aikido's standing techs work as Shikko Waza?


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> This entirely... Is pretty inline with Kano's brainchild known as judo unbalancing. If they were not wearing hakima... You would be able to see that the mechanical is very simple actually.



Feel free to find the similar throw within Judo. I'd be curious to see it.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> No. It is semantics. You would have to redefine the very means of which the PINS of Aikido happen, they happen by means of grappling or grabbing.



As I've stated before, its far more than simply semantics. The mechanics are different.



> You cannot proceed to throw someone without a means of attachment. Either you grapple them and toss, or they grapple you, you toss em.



Except the Aikidoka is hitting them in the face, breaking their arm, and then probably snapping their wrist on the way down. Typically in grappling, we grab them, not the other way around.



> Here's an idea.... Hows about you going and spending 10 to 12 months in a legitimate Aikido school. For help finding such contact any of the following:
> Aikido Association of America
> 
> Aikido Association International
> 
> Aikikai
> 
> International Aikido Federation
> 
> Iwama Ryu
> 
> Aikido Schools of Ueshiba
> 
> Nippon Kan
> 
> Or if you want to find something more sporting
> 
> Try any of of the following.
> 
> Shodokan/Tomiki-ryu
> 
> Fugakukai aikido
> 
> Jiyushinkai aikido
> 
> You will have to reevaluate what you currently call grappling especially if you go for any of the last three.



Nah. I'd prefer to spend 10-12 months training to further the skills I already have. If I studied Aikido, I'd be starting over from square one, and from what I hear, you won't be very proficient in 10-12 months. That time is better spent becoming a better purple belt in my home art.

Maybe if it was Ueshiba's more aggressive pre-war Aikido it would be a different story....


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Feel free to find the similar throw within Judo. I'd be curious to see it.



First you talk about mechanics... Which is the principles behind the techniques. You say Judo is nothing like Aikido... And I cite your video, and show you Kano's principle at work...

And you go... "No, show me a similar throwing technique in judo" ignoring the hallmark innovation of Kano's observation and application.

/display Facepalm.captain.picard.jpg


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> As I've stated before, its far more than simply semantics. The mechanics are different.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Aikidoka is hitting them in the face, breaking their arm, and then probably snapping their wrist on the way down. Typically in grappling, we grab them, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. I'd prefer to spend 10-12 months training to further the skills I already have. If I studied Aikido, I'd be starting over from square one, and from what I hear, you won't be very proficient in 10-12 months. That time is better spent becoming a better purple belt in my home art.
> 
> Maybe if it was Ueshiba's more aggressive pre-war Aikido it would be a different story....



You fail to explain how the Akidoka is to break the arm and the wrist without using grappling.

No matter what you want to call it... You have to grab or attach... Thus grappling. No amount of word lawyering is going to change the phisics, kinesiology, and operations of the human body... In grappling the opponent.

A strike used by Aikido is irrelevant, to your case against it, because BJJ uses strikes to enter, before a takedown.
And we know BJJ isn't about the striking, its about pins, bars, chokes and subs, primarily on the ground.


You will find these three to be very aggressive.

Shodokan/Tomiki-ryu

Fugakukai aikido

Jiyushinkai aikido

I mean it... It would change your mind about what is a grappling art reguarding your exclusion of it, if you had first hand knowledge.


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## TSDTexan

http://www.amazon.com/Aikido-Ground-Fighting-Submission-Techniques/dp/1583946063


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> First you talk about mechanics... Which is the principles behind the techniques. You say Judo is nothing like Aikido... And I cite your video, and show you Kano's principle at work...



I never said that Judo is nothing like Aikido. There are similarities, but there's also some pretty big differences.



> And you go... "No, show me a similar throwing technique in judo" ignoring the hallmark innovation of Kano's observation and application.
> 
> /display Facepalm.captain.picard.jpg


 
Essentially you said if they weren't wearing hakamas it would look similar to Kano's Judo. I simply asked you to show me a similar looking throw within Judo to verify that claim.


----------



## TSDTexan

These two videos show the Aikido practioner doing the grabbing... Not passively responding to a grab.

This nullified your previous assertion about Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> These two videos show the Aikido practioner doing the grabbing... Not passively responding to a grab.
> 
> This nullified your previous assertion about Aikido.



You mean the Aikidoka who clearly cross-trained in Judo?

It even says it in the opening of the video.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I never said that Judo is nothing like Aikido. There are similarities, but there's also some pretty big differences.
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially you said if they weren't wearing hakamas it would look similar to Kano's Judo. I simply asked you to show me a similar looking throw within Judo to verify that claim.


Without the principles there is no basis for a mechanic.

We are at cross purposes here, as we have no agreement in terms. Unless we can codify definitions for our terns we are never going to see eye to eye.

If you want to redifine the word grappling as it applies to the MAs and exclude a martial art (aikido) that you admittedly have no experience with because of prejudices about "mechanics" knock yourself out.

Your wrong on this notion for a number of reasons, but it seems as if I am not going be able to reason with you. 

So have fun with that.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> You mean the Aikidoka who clearly cross-trained in Judo?
> 
> It even says it in the opening of the video.


You dont seem to understand that Aikido is conceptually driven, and that the curriculum is not frozen. Each Aikidoka is responsible for creating their own Aikido from its principles and its techs. 

Aikido is a Genkai. A modern or living art, it is not an unchanging Koryu.

New technique can arise from core foundational principles, without the need to throw away the whole system.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> You mean the Aikidoka who clearly cross-trained in Judo?
> 
> It even says it in the opening of the video.


You mean where it says "Chairman Aikido Division" USJA?
Right underneath where it says 7th Dan Aikido?

I think you didn't understand what you saw when you saw USJA United States Judo Association on the screen.

So what does the USJA Aikido subcommittee say their deal is..
_
"Our aim is to preserve and promote the growth of traditional Aikido. In this context, we are proud to provide technical and emotional support to those whose hearts and minds are committed to Aikido. The (ACE) Aikido Certified Examiners National Committee is composed of Sensei of various different systems of Aikido, each with their own unique background, approach and teaching styles. This committee is designed to coordinate a National Registry and provide social equality for the interest of all members. Those who are in accord with the objectives of this organization are welcome to apply for membership."
_
But nice try though. He is all about "Traditional Aikido" even if you dont quite get it.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> You fail to explain how the Akidoka is to break the arm and the wrist without using grappling.



He trapped the arm via the opponent's wrist grab. In Bjj I'd perform an arm bar by gripping the opponent's wrist with a  baseball grip. In Aikido, that arm bar is being performed because Uke was too stupid (or to slow) to let go of Tori's wrist.



> No matter what you want to call it... You have to grab or attach... Thus grappling. No amount of word lawyering is going to change the phisics, kinesiology, and operations of the human body... In grappling the opponent.



Really?







> A strike used by Aikido is irrelevant, to your case against it, because BJJ uses strikes to enter, before a takedown.
> And we know BJJ isn't about the striking, its about pins, bars, chokes and subs, primarily on the ground.



The Aikidoka didn't use strikes to enter. The entrance was the body turn following a wrist grab.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> You mean where it says "Chairman Aikido Division" USJA?
> Right underneath where it says 7th Dan Aikido?



Aikido Tenshinkai Of Florida - Adrade Sensei



> Andrade Sensei's avocation in martial arts dates back to his childhood in Cuba. He began studying Aikido in 1969, his further education in the martial arts of *Wrestling, Judo, Arnis, Karate, Kung Fu, Kobujutsu, Jujutsu, Aikido, and others*, reflects the instructional contributions of many well-known Japanese and non-Japanese teachers.



He's quite accomplished.

There is no native/traditioal ne-waza in Aikido, and unless I'm mistaken, there's one choke in the entire system. So yeah, he's clearly pulling it from elsewhere, which is fine.


----------



## Hanzou

Amazing.

Definitely not grappling....


----------



## TSDTexan

_Andrade Sensei's avocation in martial arts dates back to his childhood in Cuba.

He began studying Aikido in 1969, his further education in the martial arts of Wrestling, Judo, Arnis, Karate, Kung Fu, Kobujutsu, Jujutsu, Aikido, and others, reflects the instructional contributions of many well-known Japanese and non-Japanese teachers.

He has come to realize that Aikido has the best elements of other martial arts. He subscribes to the ideal of the valuable study and practice of venerable Western and Asian traditions (specially the preservation of Japanese Budo) utilizing such inexhaustible fount of wisdom to illuminate the mind. He also integrates the Japanese Zen Way into his life.

Andrade Sensei, is Kyoshi Shichidan (7th Dan) Aikido.

In 2010, his rank was granted directly from Kokusai Budoin/IMAF (International Martial Arts Federation) Headquarters Tokyo, Japan.

He has studied and trained in Japan with Kokusai Budoin Masters of several different styles of Aikido as well as in other Budo.

  During Kokusai Budoin 50th Anniversary Commemorative Special Event held in Japan, on March 2002, he was permitted to give his own Aikido demonstration as part of the celebration for the 26th All Japan Budo Exhibition held at Hibiya Park ( city where the first All-Japan Budo Exhibition was held in 1952) in Tokyo, Japan.

  Since the 1990's, he has been representing Kokusai Budoin as the highest ranking Primary Aikido Instructor and as Regional Director in the United States of America, teaching seminars national and abroad alongside with many other renowned Kokusai Budoin Japanese Budo Masters.

He is also Chairman of the Aikido Division for the United States Judo Association ( USJA )

  In the year 2000 Andrade Sensei was inducted into the American Federation of Martial Arts Hall of Fame as National Instructor, the United International Kung Fu Federation's Hall of Fame as Sensei of the year, as well as the World Head of Family Sokeship Council Martial Arts Hall of Fame as Millennium Master Instructor of the year.

  He was one of the 30 top martial arts featured instructor demonstrating at the 8th Aiki Expo 2005 Friendship Demonstration in California State University Dominguez Hills, Los Angeles, California.

His Aikido demonstration appeared in part one of the two DVD presentations. He also taught Aikido classes at this Aiki Expo 2005 event._

*If such a man were to divise new curriculum or new technique, he is able to... Do.... So without violating the precepts of his art.*


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Aikido Tenshinkai Of Florida - Adrade Sensei
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite accomplished.
> 
> There is no native/traditioal ne-waza in Aikido, and unless I'm mistaken, there's one choke in the entire system. So yeah, he's clearly pulling it from elsewhere, which is fine.




You are laboring under the assumption that he cannot create technique from observation and medical anatomy, and end up with something that looks borrowed but falls legally within the perimeters of the Concepts that drive Aikido.

The fact is no one art is pure. It is all borrowed from somewhere.

I point out a book to you on Aikido ground fighting, and told you much of what is done standing in Aikido can also be done as Shikko Waza or properly name Suwari Waza, but you can Shikko between Suwari Waza. Knee walking, and knee fighting...



No... Seriously, Ne Waza includes Shikko Waza. Why? Because you can Stand Up from Shikko Waza or Suwari Waza, just like from Ne Waza... Therefore neither are standup fighting... But are ground fighting.

Now... On the ground kneeling or Knee pinning and opponent.. If you applied at joint lock... What are you doing?

You are "say it with me" !!!grappling!!!

You realize that Samurai could knee pin a kneeling opponent, draw a tango or wakasashi and throat cut in less than one second Right?

You realize they developed a choke for use on a kneepinned samurai in armor, pretty much like a GI Choke?

About aikido's chokes....

I know several chokes that I learned in Aikido.
One is a sidesteping at punch. Dropping a 90 degree locked elbow strike on the punching arm to drive it down. And then violently thrusting the inner elbow into the thoat below the chin, keeping the elbow locked and walking backwards in a circle, while keeping their heels dragging... And gently lowering thier sleeping body to the ground.

This one I have used on a resisting attacker in real life. 

For the sake of argument...whether or not you belong to a tradition where Aikido is understood as a list of techniques (a "one through ten" kind of thing carved in stone) or whether you are of a tradition where Aikido is understood more in terms of principles/concepts.

If you belong to the latter line of thought/practice, you will see lots of everything - not just ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, shiho-nage, not just chokes, etc.

Moreover, you will see "basic" techniques (which will not be experienced by you as "basic" in the same way that they are experienced by the formerly mentioned practitioner) being done in many different ways (ways that have nothing to do with stylistic preferences but that have to do with an internally consistent combining and re-combining of principles).

Thus, in some family lines of Aikido, you will never see any chokes being used defensively and/or in response to any type of aggression.... While in other Family Lines you will see many chokes. As they are in the Kata.

What often passes for a "choke" in these lines of thought/practice is the "attack" Kubishime Katate-dori.

However, in my opinion, one should not feel that in learning to offer this cue to Nage that one is learning how to choke someone out and/or even choke effectively.

It is the same thing with Tsuki - practicing Tsuki over and over for many many years is not going to make one a proficient striker.

Aikido "attacks" are best understood as cues and/or as energy prints.

When they are understood as energy prints, one can see the core element of a given tactic and all of its variations - which is good for training and necessary for training within idealized conditions - but one does not thereby learn the specificities of a given tactic.

It is the specificities of a given tactic that make it effective and applicable outside of idealized training conditions.

Thus, when asked, "Are there any choking techniques (which is more than the energy print of chokes) in Aikido?"

Answer:
For some, yes. Absolutely.
For others, no.

Here's another shot (video) of another choke example - it's the last technique in the series:

Senshin Center


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Amazing.
> 
> Definitely not grappling....


I would like you to be his Uke... And try to RNC him.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> He trapped the arm via the opponent's wrist grab. In Bjj I'd perform an arm bar by gripping the opponent's wrist with a  baseball grip. In Aikido, that arm bar is being performed because Uke was too stupid (or to slow) to let go of Tori's wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aikidoka didn't use strikes to enter. The entrance was the body turn following a wrist grab.



Being grappled, or grappling someone else is in both cases grappling. Being "grabbed" and defending against a grab is in both cases grappling.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Amazing.
> 
> Definitely not grappling....



Magnetic Chi-life force energy grappling of the first rank... And a lot of it on the ground.

Need to send Joe Rogan to "test this guys gungfu"


----------



## RTKDCMB

Zack Cart said:


> TKD grappling is basically stolen directly and unchanged from Karate grappling,


Since Karate did not actually own grappling it was never actually stolen.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> So grappling master what should we call it?


Martial art he does not understand.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> And your able to know what it's lacking with your vast study of Aikido correct?


We all know BJJ and MMA are the only arts that have grappling in them.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but in the MMA context, the top wouldn't be considered grappling.


Hate to break it to ya bud but MMA is not the only context.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You mean like this?


That first example in that video is one I sometimes use as an example of poor martial arts training. Everything I have seen from that school makes me cringe.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> You are laboring under the assumption that he cannot create technique from observation and medical anatomy, and end up with something that looks borrowed but falls legally within the perimeters of the Concepts that drive Aikido.



Eh, not really. The ground fighting looked nothing like Aikido, and you can tell he pulled it from another system almost instantly. Ground fighting is kind of the antithesis of Aikido, and it makes sense why its pretty much non-existent within the system.



> The fact is no one art is pure. It is all borrowed from somewhere.



Which is true, but he's adding something that was never really part of the system, and frankly it doesn't really fit.



> I point out a book to you on Aikido ground fighting, and told you much of what is done standing in Aikido can also be done as Shikko Waza.
> 
> No... Seriously, Ne Waza includes Shikko Waza. Why? Because you can Stand Up from Shikko Waza, just like from Ne Waza... Therefore neither are standup fighting... But are ground fighting.



That's quite a stretch.  Fighting from your knees is quite a bit different from fighting off your back.



> Now... On the ground kneeling or Knee pinning and opponent.. If you applied at joint lock... What are you doing?
> 
> You are "say it with me" !!!grappling!!!



Boxing has the clinch. Is boxing now a grappling art as well?



> I know several chokes that I learned in Aikido.



Would you be kind enough to actually show them? I know of only one.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> I would like you to be his Uke... And try to RNC him.



Where do you get the impression that I believe I can beat him?

I posted that to show you Aikido without touching the opponent. 

How can Aikido be considered "grappling" if the Aikidoka isn't touching anyone?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Hate to break it to ya bud but MMA is not the only context.



The terminology was popularized largely due to MMA. 

In the end, when you think of grappling, you tend to not think of karate or Aikido wrist locks.


----------



## Steve

Does anyone in this thread have any actual, practical experience with aikido?  Just curious.


----------



## elder999

[QU


Steve said:


> Does anyone in this thread have any actual, practical experience with aikido?  Just curious.



Yeah, I do, but I don't see how it's relevant at all.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> In the end, when you think of grappling, you tend to not think of karate or Aikido wrist locks.


Actually I do think of karate or Aikido wrist locks when I think of grappling. I also think of Judo, BJJ, JJJ, Hapkido, TKD and others. I think you are grappling with some issues.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do, but I don't see how it's relevant at all.


Lot of guys speaking with authority on aikido.  Just wondering who knows what they're talking about.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Boxing has the clinch. Is boxing now a grappling art as wel



No, Boxing is an art that contains a limited amount of grappling.



Hanzou said:


> Would you be kind enough to actually show them? I know of only one.



Why should he show one when you have never shown a video of yourself?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> How can Aikido be considered "grappling" if the Aikidoka isn't touching anyone?


If the majority of Aikido was trained that way most of the time then it couldn't but this is not the case.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> The terminology was popularized largely due to MMA.



"MMA" existed long before the words "mixed martial arts" became common, and in the U.S. long before the Gracie's arried.

"Grappling" as well, I'm afraid:
Larry Hartsell Biography

This book came out in 1982...before there was "MMA" there were those of us who practiced "multiple martiala rts," and there were composite arts like JKD:






There's grappling in western boxing, wing chun, karate, muay thai,.

Wrestling:  Greco-roman wrestling, catch-wrestling, judo, jujutsu and aikido are all "grappling arts"




Hanzou said:


> TIn the end, when you think of grappling*, I *tend to not think of karate or Aikido wrist locks.



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, in those circles, Aikido is generally referred to as "crappling".


And I would call BJJ combat cuddling and it would be just as meaningless.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Does anyone in this thread have any actual, practical experience with aikido?  Just curious.


I've added all I intend to for that part of the conversation.....aikido *is* a "grappling art."


----------



## elder999

RTKDCMB said:


> And I would call BJJ combat cuddling and it would be just as meaningless.


"Combat cuddling..." cute.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ShotoNoob said:


> Some of the TMA presentations of backfist are limiting physically. With full body strength, though they start to have effect.



I have added a thread on my presentation of the Back fist so as to not derail this thread any more than it already has been.

Back fist strike. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## Xue Sheng

Why is it everyone seems to think a back fist strike only goes horizontally?

What I am getting out of this thread is that a whole lot of people have no idea what a back fist actually can be

I shall post in the new thread


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I absolutely do consider aikido a grappling art, but it's primarily focused on a very different aspect of grappling than Judo/BJJ/Sombo/Greco-Roman/Freestyle/Catch Wrestling.

Ellis Amdur refers to it as "arms-length" grappling as opposed to "body-to-body" grappling, which seems as useful a terminology distinction as any.



TSDTexan said:


>



Interesting. I don't believe any of that material is part of the classical aikido curriculum. It looks like the practitioner is adopting catch wrestling moves and applying them with an aikido flavor. Folks can argue over whether that's a good thing or in keeping with traditional aikido principles, but kudos to him for trying something new.



RTKDCMB said:


> And I would call BJJ combat cuddling and it would be just as meaningless.



Hey, hey, hey! Let's not leave out important details. It's combat cuddling *in our pajamas*!


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Eh, not really. The ground fighting looked nothing like Aikido, and you can tell he pulled it from another system almost instantly. Ground fighting is kind of the antithesis of Aikido, and it makes sense why its pretty much non-existent within the system.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is true, but he's adding something that was never really part of the system, and frankly it doesn't really fit.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a stretch.  Fighting from your knees is quite a bit different from fighting off your back.
> 
> 
> 
> Boxing has the clinch. Is boxing now a grappling art as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be kind enough to actually show them? I know of only one.



You realize that your statementsthat fighting from your knees is different than fighting from your feet Does Not change the fact that what I said about Aikido having much of its Standing Waza available in knee-walking mode.

It remains true, dispute your denial.

Many drop throws of aikido mirror the Judo counterparts, because they were fairly common jujutsu throws found in many systems.


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> Why is it everyone seems to think a back fist strike only goes horizontally?
> 
> What I am getting out of this thread is that a whole lot of people have no idea what a back fist actually can be
> 
> I shall post in the new thread


Ya, early on, I mentioned the Back fist of old "Te" being thrown from a vertical alignment, with a relaxed wrist that was rotated in with the fist rotated out, over a trapped hand as a punch defense.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Where do you get the impression that I believe I can beat him?
> 
> I posted that to show you Aikido without touching the opponent.
> 
> How can Aikido be considered "grappling" if the Aikidoka isn't touching anyone?



Tell me how many (percentage wise) Aikidoka train this?
5% 1% 1/2 of 1%.... I can pretty much tell you that this isn't something that 90-95% of Aikidoka train.

I Think you are grasping at straws to shore up a lost cause.
Aikido is grappling. And about this you are wrong.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Eh, not really. The ground fighting looked nothing like Aikido, and you can tell he pulled it from another system almost instantly. Ground fighting is kind of the antithesis of Aikido, and it makes sense why its pretty much non-existent within the system.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is true, but he's adding something that was never really part of the system, and frankly it doesn't really fit.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a stretch.  Fighting from your knees is quite a bit different from fighting off your back.
> 
> 
> 
> Boxing has the clinch. Is boxing now a grappling art as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be kind enough to actually show them? I know of only one.



Regular western boxing has a Ref to break up clinches.
Muy Thai has very specific attacks used in the clinch.. So in this case yes MT boxing has a grappling component, but it is primarily at striking art.

Aikido is not primarily a striking art... It is a grappling art.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Does anyone in this thread have any actual, practical experience with aikido?  Just curious.


 18 months on and off in about two 9month stints.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> I absolutely do consider aikido a grappling art, but it's primarily focused on a very different aspect of grappling than Judo/BJJ/Sombo/Greco-Roman/Freestyle/Catch Wrestling.
> 
> Ellis Amdur refers to it as "arms-length" grappling as opposed to "body-to-body" grappling, which seems as useful a terminology distinction as any.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I don't believe any of that material is part of the classical aikido curriculum. It looks like the practitioner is adopting catch wrestling moves and applying them with an aikido flavor. Folks can argue over whether that's a good thing or in keeping with traditional aikido principles, but kudos to him for trying something new.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, hey, hey! Let's not leave out important details. It's combat cuddling *in our pajamas*!



Unless it is no GI... Then its skin and furry chest combat cuddles.

And if you (Hypothetical Sensei) are a frozen curriculum, classical purist that uses a Menkyo Kaiden (full transmission teaching certification) then you are so old school Aikido that the founder actually evolved Aikido past you.

He did switch over to the Kyu/Dan system... And even the curriculum was in flux, for a time, because of that.

The only problem I would have with someone's Aikido is if they integrated something that was clearly not *EVER* seen in classical Bushi-jujutsu, Jujutsu or Budo.

Fencing based linear jabs ala JKD. Boxing's overhand right, or Shovel punch to the liver. That would destroy the Aikido Aesthetic... Or precepts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> Unless it is no GI...



The pajamas make it extra-cuddly, though.



TSDTexan said:


> And if you (Hypothetical Sensei) are a frozen curriculum, classical purist that uses a Menkyo Kaiden (full transmission teaching certification) then you are so old school Aikido that the founder actually evolved Aikido past you.
> 
> He did switch over to the Kyu/Dan system... And even the curriculum was in flux, for a time, because of that.


Yeah, Aikido can evolve and has evolved. I was just pointing out that the techniques demonstrated in the video are not practiced by 99.9+% of the aikidoka out there, are not part of the traditional curriculum in any of the major branches of the art that I'm aware of, and probably some aikidoka might argue that they aren't in keeping with the principles of the art.

If this particular instructor is influential enough that a significant branch of the art starts to incorporate submission fighting on the ground, I have no objections. More power to him. At this point I just think it might be more precise to say that this particular Aikido practitioner has incorporated submission ground grappling into the art than to say Aikido includes those techniques.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> No, Boxing is an art that contains a limited amount of grappling.



That's my point. Simply because it contains grappling, that doesn't make it a grappling art.

That said, I do like Tony's interpretation. Some difference should be drawn between Aikido and the other grappling arts.



> Why should he show one when you have never shown a video of yourself?



It doesn't need to be of him. He can simply find a vid of another Aikido practitioner doing the chokes. I was simply curious because from what I know of Aikido, it has like 1 choke.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> That's my point. Simply because it contains grappling, that doesn't make it a grappling art.
> 
> That said, I do like Tony's interpretation. Some difference should be drawn between Aikido and the other grappling arts.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be of him. He can simply find a vid of another Aikido practitioner doing the chokes. I was simply curious because from what I know of Aikido, it has like 1 choke.



Videos 1.
How to Do Kubishime in Aikido | Howcast

Video 2. Contains a number of both judo and Aikido shime
Nick Lowry on aikido and judo chokes | store

Video 3.






Video 4.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> If the majority of Aikido was trained that way most of the time then it couldn't but this is not the case.



There are Aikido techniques where you don't touch uke. I remember a very interesting series of Aikido throws where uke grabs tori's gi, and tori turns his body, tying up uke's hand in his gi, and proceeds to throw him without laying a finger on him.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Regular western boxing has a Ref to break up clinches.
> Muy Thai has very specific attacks used in the clinch.. So in this case yes MT boxing has a grappling component, but it is primarily at striking art.
> 
> Aikido is not primarily a striking art... It is a grappling art.



While I agree it would be a stretch to consider Aikido a striking art, their techniques seem to have quite a lot of strikes interlaced within them. Far more than what you'd find in other grappling arts.

As for the no touch stuff, isn't that guy the head of a large Aikido group in Japan?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> There are Aikido techniques where you don't touch uke. I remember a very interesting series of Aikido throws where uke grabs tori's gi, and tori turns his body, tying up uke's hand in his gi, and proceeds to throw him without laying a finger on him.


Right.. And can you guess percentage wise how much of the Aikido curriculum has no hands on uke tech? Significantly low enough that it isn't evidence for your case, when 95% or more of the techs have the uke being grabbed, or touched, or even using the Uke's own attachments against them by the Tori or Shi-te.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> While I agree it would be a stretch to consider Aikido a striking art, their techniques seem to have quite a lot of strikes interlaced within them. Far more than what you'd find in other grappling arts.
> 
> As for the no touch stuff, isn't that guy the head of a large Aikido group in Japan?



Well... For BJJ That has a lot to do with the Dr. Kano, pushing for a strike less competion ruleset in Judo, and reserving Atemi Waza to Dan ranks... Since most judoka never make BB... Most never learn its strikes... Fast forward a hundred years and you get idiots that boldly declare Judo never had striking.

If Kano had pushed striking as serious part of the sport...
It wouldn't have stood out as being different from the other Jujutsu of its day.

But for argument sake, if Kano had pushed striking early and often, we would have seen a MMA Sport that most Japanese would not have liked much at that time in post war Japan.

And probably wouldn't have been exported to Brazil.

So where aikido uses Atemi Waza to increase likelyhood of success in the combo... "Pure'" sport Judo doesn't even bother.
Although, one Judo coach I had, wasn't a pure Kodokan Judo guy... And had some other jujutsu flavor (read that as strikes)... For pain, unbalancing, and distraction to increase Judo throw/takedown success.

As for the No Touch stuff... I have seen things dude... Some crazy ****, that messes with my logical science based frame of mind. Done to resistant disbelievers in no touch.

A good friend was ragdolled by no touch. He deliberately made his mind up... I am going to out this clown as a fraud.
But 40 years in an Aiki art may give you superpowers... Who knows. Until they make SMMA... Seniors Mixed Martial Arts... And a nice 63 year old humors his students and no touch wins a fight....

And I have been thrown a considerable distance, by trying to grab clothing. I didn't even have a grip yet. I wasn't off balance. And then I was flying. Doesn't make sense.

I myself still dont believe my lying eyes. And yes, I was trying to grapple him, and he was grappling in defense against a grapple.

If I reached out to grab a train wipping by at 120 mph. Then the train is going to grab me and throw me instead.

We simply dont understand exactly how the energy transfer takes place.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Well... For BJJ That has a lot to do with the Dr. Kano, pushing for a strike less competion ruleset in Judo, and reserving Atemi Waza to Dan ranks... Since most judoka never make BB... Most never learn its strikes... Fast forward a hundred years and you get idiots that boldly declare Judo never had striking.
> 
> If Kano had pushed striking as serious part of the sport...
> It wouldn't have stood out as being different from the other Jujutsu of its day.
> 
> But for argument sake, if Kano had pushed striking early and often, we would have seen a MMA Sport that most Japanese would not have liked much at that time in post war Japan.
> 
> And probably wouldn't have been exported to Brazil.
> 
> So where aikido uses Atemi Waza to increase likelyhood of success in the combo... "Pure'" sport Judo doesn't even bother.
> Although, one Judo coach I had, wasn't a pure Kodokan Judo guy... And had some other jujutsu flavor (read that as strikes)... For pain, unbalancing, and distraction to increase Judo throw/takedown success.
> 
> As for the No Touch stuff... I have seen things dude... Some crazy ****, that messes with my logical science based frame of mind. Done to resistant disbelievers in no touch.
> 
> A good friend was ragdolled by no touch. He deliberately made his mind up... I am going to out this clown as a fraud.
> But 40 years in an Aiki art may give you superpowers... Who knows. Until they make SMMA... Seniors Mixed Martial Arts... And a nice 63 year old humors his students and no touch wins a fight....
> 
> And I have been thrown a considerable distance, by trying to grab clothing. I didn't even have a grip yet. I wasn't off balance. And then I was flying. Doesn't make sense.
> 
> I myself still dont believe my lying eyes. And yes, I was trying to grapple him, and he was grappling in defense against a grapple.
> 
> If I reached out to grab a train wipping by at 120. Then the train is going to grab me and throw me instead.
> 
> We simply dont understand exactly how the energy transfer takes place.


A good read.

“Yukiyoshi Sagawa: Daito-ryu Master,” by Kiyokazu Maebayashi


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Right.. And can you guess percentage wise how much of the Aikido curriculum has no hands on uke tech? Significantly low enough that it isn't evidence for your case, when 95% or more of the techs have the uke being grabbed, or touched, or even using the Uke's own attachments against them by the Tori or Shi-te.



Well can't it be argued that in the throw below, uke isn't touching tori either?





He strikes him, but he's not grabbing him, he is being grabbed.

So we have throws like the one above, gi only throws, and the ki throws where tori is thrown from several feet away by an invisible force.

What percentage of Aikido would you say all of that entails? Certainly more than 5%.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Well can't it be argued that in the throw below, uke isn't touching tori either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He strikes him, but he's not grabbing him, he is being grabbed.
> 
> So we have throws like the one above, gi only throws, and the ki throws where tori is thrown from several feet away by an invisible force.
> 
> What percentage of Aikido would you say all of that entails? Certainly more than 5%.



Absolutely Not. No.
Uke's left hand is grappling the tori's right wrist/forearm.
In your .gif image... And a hook on a rope and a wall are both grappling each other. Without the wall, there is nothing to attach to.

Without the Tori's arm... There is no place for the hook to start a grapple.

Let us see the exact same thing happen in the gif without the Tori' arm being present in the Uke's grab.
Phisics prevent it from happening.



But what if the wall has hooks on motorized chains that can snatch, or redirect the grapple? Is it still grappling... Yes.


Next,
Less than 5 percent. Easily. I will try and make some phone calls and get a solid answer. But which Aikido system do you want an answer from?

Not all Aikido systems contain all the same number of items in he curriculum.

If 51% of aikido was no touch throws and take downs, you might have a case, if you could prove no energy transfer.
Which is impossible.

But I have considered a test for the future, when technology allows for remote anamatronic human body like andrio-drones... Will no touch work on bodies that lack a life force?

Thirdly,
A GI throw is a grapple, for a moment, in the same way grabbing at a moving train is one.

The only other option is deny the GI was ever touched.

Fourthly, no touch is a mystery to me. Until I can do it, I cannot explain it, I have suspicions but I dont know.

Could it be energy based? Is it grappling?
It could be.. It might not be... I dont know.

But it is not enough of the Aikido art as practiced by at least 75% to 80% of Aikidoka to even matter.

Most know nothing of it first hand, they are seeing it in videos, or hearing about it second hand, presumably like yourself.

As such, it is an outlier, and does not define Aikido itself for the purpose of our discussion. If it never existed, or if it does exist... Aikido it neither makes nor breaks.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well can't it be argued that in the throw below, uke isn't touching tori either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He strikes him, but he's not grabbing him, he is being grabbed.
> 
> So we have throws like the one above, gi only throws, and the ki throws where tori is thrown from several feet away by an invisible force.
> 
> What percentage of Aikido would you say all of that entails? Certainly more than 5%.



He is propping the leg though. I don't separate grappling and non grappling I just do works dosent work.


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> Ya, early on, I mentioned the Back fist of old "Te" being thrown from a vertical alignment, with a relaxed wrist that was rotated in with the fist rotated out, over a trapped hand as a punch defense.



Xingyiquan; vertical fist up, rather powerful strike/block
Chen Taijiquan: vertical fist down, rather powerful strike


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> Xingyiquan; vertical fist up, rather powerful strike/block
> Chen Taijiquan: vertical fist down, rather powerful strike



The arm swings on the Hinge of the elbow, and whip-pops the fist into the target (ideally the spot between nose and upper lip) with the wrist loose, and fist tight.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> He is propping the leg though. I don't separate grappling and non grappling I just do works dosent work.



IT looks like he's doing an awkward version of what wrestlers and judoka know as "Hipping into him"

Its awkward but you can see the concept there


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> IT looks like he's doing an awkward version of what wrestlers and judoka know as "Hipping into him"
> 
> Its awkward but you can see the concept there



Yeah mabye if you really smashed the guy? But beyond what I would try to solve a wrist grab.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Lot of guys speaking with authority on aikido.  Just wondering who knows what they're talking about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One one guy is speaking with authority yet he has no experience in Aikido other then YouTube.   The rest of us are repeating pretty common knowledge


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


>


yep.. grabby people lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

ballen0351 said:


> One one guy is speaking with authority yet he has no experience in Aikido other then YouTube.   The rest of us are repeating pretty common knowledge


That's easy.  Find an qualified Aikido school and just ask their instructor about their art.  They will be more than happy to share information about it


----------



## ballen0351

JowGaWolf said:


> That's easy.  Find an qualified Aikido school and just ask their instructor about their art.  They will be more than happy to share information about it


OR I could ask my Aikido Instructor,  but i dont need to ask anyone to know Aikido is a grappling style


----------



## JowGaWolf

ballen0351 said:


> OR I could ask my Aikido Instructor,  but i dont need to ask anyone to know Aikido is a grappling style


lol True. Well there's the answer.  Aikido is a grappling style coming from the mouth of someone who does Aikido.  Works for me.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Absolutely Not. No.
> Uke's left hand is grappling the tori's right wrist/forearm.
> In your .gif image... And a hook on a rope and a wall are both grappling each other. Without the wall, there is nothing to attach to.
> 
> Without the Tori's arm... There is no place for the hook to start a grapple.
> 
> Let us see the exact same thing happen in the gif without the Tori' arm being present in the Uke's grab.
> Phisics prevent it from happening.



Like this?











> Next,
> Less than 5 percent. Easily. I will try and make some phone calls and get a solid answer. But which Aikido system do you want an answer from?



Don't all Aikido systems have some level of commonality?



> A GI throw is a grapple, for a moment, in the same way grabbing at a moving train is one.



But the train isn't grappling anything. We wouldn't say the train is performing grappling because its moving in a straight line.




> Fourthly, no touch is a mystery to me. Until I can do it, I cannot explain it, I have suspicions but I dont know.
> 
> Could it be energy based? Is it grappling?
> It could be.. It might not be... I don't know.



No touch certainly doesn't exist in Judo, Bjj, Sambo, Wrestling, etc.



> But it is not enough of the Aikido art as practiced by at least 75% to 80% of Aikidoka to even matter.
> 
> Most know nothing of it first hand, they are seeing it in videos, or hearing about it second hand, presumably like yourself.
> 
> As such, it is an outlier, and does not define Aikido itself for the purpose of our discussion. If it never existed, or if it does exist... Aikido it neither makes nor breaks.



Well the person in those vids doing the no-touch stuff is Nobuyuki Watanabe, and he's one of the head instructors at the Aikikai Honbu Dojo in Japan. So its not like he's some kook who is part of a splinter group of Aikido. He's one of the direct disciples of Ueshiba, and is an 8th dan.

And of course Ueshiba himself performed such techniques as well;






But that stuff is certainly not grappling.


----------



## Tez3

Seems to me that there's contact here 




Perhaps the person who did the first video missed something out, accidentally on purpose perhaps ?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't all Aikido systems have some level of commonality?
> 
> 
> 
> But the train isn't grappling anything. We wouldn't say the train is performing grappling because its moving in a straight line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No touch certainly doesn't exist in Judo, Bjj, Sambo, Wrestling, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the person in those vids doing the no-touch stuff is Nobuyuki Watanabe, and he's one of the head instructors at the Aikikai Honbu Dojo in Japan. So its not like he's some kook who is part of a splinter group of Aikido. He's one of the direct disciples of Ueshiba, and is an 8th dan.
> 
> And of course Ueshiba himself performed such techniques as well;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that stuff is certainly not grappling.



Find a way to email him, or an aid. Ask him. I can't speak on no touch. I can guess. But I don't know how it works.

Do magnets grab and push? Is there a type of energy the body produces that is similar?

I know that my palms produce some kind of field and if I keep my muscles relaxed, one hand's field pushes(when I move the other hand towards it) the other like two magnets of the same pole.

I have been told that I should have been an internal stylist because some dont develop that sensitivity for years.

All I know is that this phenomenon of the palm fields does me no practical help from a self defense perspective. It doesn't help me punch faster or harder.
It doesn't repel objects, or attract them like the Force from Star wars.

Frankly, its of no practical use.

Perhaps these Aiki guys after many decades have attained mastery of these fields of the body the way a marathon runner, or a gymnast has control over their muscles.

The question I have... If it real... How do you train it until it can be weaponized for the MA.... And will a guy like this one in your video ever take a Bas Ruttan for an Uke at a seminar?

Because it would be nice to see it get publicly validated, and taken away from Yellow Bamboo and Co.

Bas has said if he could be thrown around he would sign up as a student....

But no touch has no bearing on whether Aikido is a grappling art or not.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Find a way to email him, or an aid. Ask him.



For what?

I'm not making a judgement one way or the other. I'm simply displaying Aikido techniques that Aikidoka consider to be a part of their system, yet are different from grappling. From what I've read, people in the Aikikai believe that no-touch ki techniques are as real as cross collar chokes in Bjj.

Who am I to argue? I'm simply pointing out that that stuff doesn't exist in grappling. We actually have to grapple to throw someone.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Seems to me that there's contact here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the person who did the first video missed something out, accidentally on purpose perhaps ?



To be fair, the no-touch vids are a lot more recent.

He clearly advanced to Ueshiba levels of ki mastery in the last 20 something years.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> For what?
> 
> I'm not making a judgement one way or the other. I'm simply displaying Aikido techniques that Aikidoka consider to be a part of their system, yet are different from grappling. From what I've read, people in the Aikikai believe that no-touch ki techniques are as real as cross collar chokes in Bjj.
> 
> Who am I to argue? I'm simply pointing out that that stuff doesn't exist in grappling. We actually have to grapple to throw someone.



so do aikidoka doing the other 98% of techniques......


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> so do aikidoka doing the other 98% of techniques......



I disagree. There's quite a few Aikido techniques that are based on an opponent grabbing you, and you doing a series of movements to get them off of you. Many of those techniques don't require you to actually touch your opponent.

So for comparison's sake, if someone went to tackle you and you moved out of the way at just the right second to cause them to crash into a bunch of chairs, did you just perform grappling? I would say no.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I disagree. There's quite a few Aikido techniques that are based on an opponent grabbing you, and you doing a series of movements to get them off of you. Many of those techniques don't require you to actually touch your opponent.
> 
> So for comparison's sake, if someone went to tackle you and you moved out of the way at just the right second to cause them to crash into a bunch of chairs, did you just perform grappling? I would say no.




So when bars, pins, locks and breaks happen... No grappling was involved?

Absurd.

Bringing up no touch as an argument that aikido isn't a grappling art hurts your case more than it hurts mine.

Its like trying to argue that whack-a-mole isn't an impact game of sport because the handles are made out of foam rubber.

In essence... Red Herring.

And time spent by you in Aikido learning this first hand would disabuse you of that notion. I actually took Aikido on a joking dare. I thought it was fake. I found out otherwise.

Perhaps you banging on Aikido as not grappling is really contempt prior to investigation.


But I will leave it alone.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I disagree. There's quite a few Aikido techniques that are based on an opponent grabbing you, and you doing a series of movements to get them off of you. Many of those techniques don't require you to actually touch your opponent.
> 
> So for comparison's sake, if someone went to tackle you and you moved out of the way at just the right second to cause them to crash into a bunch of chairs, did you just perform grappling? I would say no.



Aikido Techniques - All the Defense and Attack Moves

List of Aikido Techniques with Instructions - Black Belt Wiki










Lots of grappling in aikido

I mean, its built upon join locks and restraints.....

Youre picking and choosing because you dont want it put in the same group as BJJ...

What you're doing is the equivalent of  someone watchy royce gracie slap and tickle to set up subs and saying BJJ isnt a grappling style, because he slapped...


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> So when bars, pins, locks and breaks happen... No grappling was involved?
> 
> Absurd.



Where did I say that? Grappling exists in non-grappling styles. Doesn't make the styles themselves a grappling art.



> Bringing up no touch as an argument that aikido isn't a grappling art hurts your case more than it hurts mine.
> 
> Its like trying to argue that whack-a-mole isn't an impact game of sport because the handles are made out of foam rubber.
> 
> In essence... Red Herring.



I posted the no-touch stuff in response to your earlier argument that the opponent needed to grab the Aikidoka's arm in order for a throw to be performed. Clearly, no touch shows that an Aikidoka can throw someone without either party touching them at all.

I'm curious why you think that no-touch hurts my argument. Isn't no-touch a part of Aikido?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Lots of grappling in aikido



And lots of this too;





Where's the grappling on the defender's part?



> I mean, its built upon join locks and restraints.....



And a lot of other stuff.



> Youre picking and choosing because you don't want it put in the same group as BJJ...
> 
> What you're doing is the equivalent of  someone watchy royce gracie slap and tickle to set up subs and saying BJJ isnt a grappling style, because he slapped...



Well the difference is that just about everything in Bjj involves grabbing on the part of the practitioner. The same applies to Wrestling, Sambo, Judo, Shaui jiao, Luta Livre, etc. Again, I *have* to grab my opponent in order throw them, or take them down.

You simply can't say the same about Aikido.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that? Grappling exists in non-grappling styles. Doesn't make the styles themselves a grappling art.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the no-touch stuff in response to your earlier argument that the opponent needed to grab the Aikidoka's arm in order for a throw to be performed. Clearly, no touch shows that an Aikidoka can throw someone without either party touching them at all.
> 
> I'm curious why you think that no-touch hurts my argument. Isn't no-touch a part of Aikido?



I dont know what the no touch stuff is.
Therefore I dont know if those are throws or hypnosis of a sort... Or even acting.

I can say from my time on Aikido mats it was very hands on, grabbing, pulling, seizing. Just like my time in a Judo hall.
Different techniques that outwork from different principles... But very grabbing, pulling, tripping, throwing, pinning, choking... Very grappling.

No touch hurts your argument, because it is raising an unknown variable to debate in known varibles, and it is a remote and irrelevant issue. To raise a minor and bring it to the majors, while remaining silent on the majors.. Hurts your case.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> And lots of this too;
> Well the difference is that just about everything in Bjj involves grabbing on the part of the practitioner. The same applies to Wrestling, Sambo, Judo, Shaui jiao, Luta Livre, etc. Again, I *have* to grab my opponent in order throw them, or take them down.
> .



Are you absolutely certain you want to stand by this statement?

Judo has a number of ways to put a guy on his butt without having to grab them. Yonezuka ADVOCATES the use of ASHIBARAI (foot sweep) without GRABBING as the BEST overall and SAFEST (for you) method of slamming someone on their keyster.

I can shoulder bump, and foot sweep with just Judo... And have a guy on his butt in pain. You act like only Aikido can do takedowns without grabbing, and also you act like almost all of the Aikido tech is no tori grabbing.

Smh


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I disagree. There's quite a few Aikido techniques that are based on an opponent grabbing you, and you doing a series of movements to get them off of you. .


How do you know how long have you trained in Aikido?


----------



## Flying Crane

Here's the thing. aikido is aikido.  It's based on older jiujitsu, but is its own thing.  Why would anybody care whether or not someone like hanzou is satisfied with a definition?  The mind is boggled.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Here's the thing. aikido is aikido.  It's based on older jiujitsu, but is its own thing.  Why would anybody care whether or not someone like hanzou is satisfied with a definition?  The mind is boggled.



sadly I can only agree with you once...... but BINGO.... you got it...


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> I dont know what the no touch stuff is.
> Therefore I dont know if those are throws or hypnosis of a sort... Or even acting.



It's considered a type of throw.



> I can say from my time on Aikido mats it was very hands on, grabbing, pulling, seizing. Just like my time in a Judo hall.
> Different techniques that outwork from different principles... But very grabbing, pulling, tripping, throwing, pinning, choking... Very grappling.
> 
> No touch hurts your argument, because it is raising an unknown variable to debate in known varibles, and it is a remote and irrelevant issue. To raise a minor and bring it to the majors, while remaining silent on the majors.. Hurts your case.



Again, it was simply brought up because you said that you couldn't perform an Aikido throw without touch. One of the top Aikidoka in the world appears to believe otherwise.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Are you absolutely certain you want to stand by this statement?
> 
> Judo has a number of ways to put a guy on his butt without having to grab them. Yonezuka ADVOCATES the use of ASHIBARAI (foot sweep) without GRABBING as the BEST overall and SAFEST (for you) method of slamming someone on their keyster.



Would you happen to have a vid of this technique? I'd be interested in seeing it.



> I can shoulder bump, and foot sweep with just Judo... And have a guy on his butt in pain. You act like only Aikido can do takedowns without grabbing, and also you act like almost all of the Aikido tech is no tori grabbing.



Where did I say any of that?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't all Aikido systems have some level of commonality?
> 
> 
> 
> But the train isn't grappling anything. We wouldn't say the train is performing grappling because its moving in a straight line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No touch certainly doesn't exist in Judo, Bjj, Sambo, Wrestling, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the person in those vids doing the no-touch stuff is Nobuyuki Watanabe, and he's one of the head instructors at the Aikikai Honbu Dojo in Japan. So its not like he's some kook who is part of a splinter group of Aikido. He's one of the direct disciples of Ueshiba, and is an 8th dan.
> 
> And of course Ueshiba himself performed such techniques as well;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that stuff is certainly not grappling.


Why to you pick the worst examples of a style and use it to represent the whole of a fighting system?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

The no touch stuff is (IMO) nonsense resulting from students becoming too mentally conditioned to go along with their instructor. Sort of mutual self-hypnosis.  It's embarrassing to see senior practitioners (of whatever art) fall into that stuff, but it's not particularly relevant to the 99+% of aikidoka who don't practice anything of the sort. (Even if some of them do buy into the belief that senior practitioners could develop mystical powers.)


----------



## ballen0351

JowGaWolf said:


> Why to you pick the worst examples of a style and use it to represent the whole of a fighting system?


That's what he does its his M.O.  He goes from style to style finds something done poorly paints the whole style with that brush, adds his BJJ/MMA is the best your style sucks and then moves on to a different style and starts over.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Would you happen to have a vid of this technique?



OK, here is a karate interpretation of the Ashi Barai. Precisely executed by by Lyoto Machida.




Here the Ashi Barai sweep has a pre-sweep distraction (hand on top of head)


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB said:


> I have added a thread on my presentation of the Back fist so as to not derail this thread any more than it already has been.
> 
> Back fist strike. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


|
Well Rogan's stance on TMA really opens up the whole can of worms.....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Tony Dismukes said:


> The no touch stuff is (IMO) nonsense resulting from students becoming too mentally conditioned to go along with their instructor. Sort of mutual self-hypnosis.  It's embarrassing to see senior practitioners (of whatever art) fall into that stuff, but it's not particularly relevant to the 99+% of aikidoka who don't practice anything of the sort. (Even if some of them do buy into the belief that senior practitioners could develop mystical powers.)


\
Tony.  Are you an expert on the mystical?  There's a lot of _'self hypnosis'_ among martial art practitioners about what works & what doesn't .  On many fronts...


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Why to you pick the worst examples of a style and use it to represent the whole of a fighting system?



How could you say that that gif is the worst example of Aikido? The guy in that gif is one of the highest ranking Aikidoka in the world, and one of the senior instructors in the Aikikai. Further, Aikidoka certainly don't view those techniques as "the worst example of the style".

I showed a video of the founder of Aikido doing the exact same thing Watanabe sensei is doing. Would you really say that Morihei Ueshiba was demonstrating "the worst example of Aikido"?


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> OK, here is a karate interpretation of the Ashi Barai. Precisely executed by by Lyoto Machida.



Oh, well yeah that's how it's executed in Karate. I was hoping you would show a Judoka doing the technique. Ashi Barai is a fairly common foot sweep in Karate;






I'm not really seeing what a Karate foot sweep has to do with Aikido.


----------



## TSDTexan

, post: 1724228, member: 31336"]Oh, well yeah that's how it's executed in Karate. I was hoping you would show a Judoka doing the technique. Ashi Barai is a fairly common foot sweep in Karate;






I'm not really seeing what a Karate foot sweep has to do with Aikido.[/QUOTE]

look again... I put up a ashi barai done as a bjj styled sweep as well.

The point is that to do a takedown you don't have to have a grip on someone in Judo... which was YOUR assertion:

_



			Well the difference is that just about everything in Bjj involves grabbing on the part of the practitioner. The same applies to Wrestling, Sambo, Judo, Shaui jiao, Luta Livre, etc. Again, I *have* to grab my opponent in order throw them, or take them down.
		
Click to expand...

_
You simply can't say the same about Aikido.
Here... "_I'm not really seeing what a Karate foot sweep has to do with Aikido."_  this is what we call moving goal posts. I got you on an assertion You made in #772.

Which I asked you if you really wanted to stand by that statement back at message
#774
You responded...in #779 with a request of Video Proof for the tech that I was talking about.

I give you the video proof...

You go "I'm not really seeing what a Karate foot sweep has to do with Aikido."...dodging the disproof of your initial assertion in #772.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> look again... I put up a ashi barai done as a bjj styled sweep as well.
> 
> The point is that to do a takedown you don't have to have a grip on someone in Judo... which was YOUR assertion.



Well you said there was numerous ways. You only posted one, and neither example was a Judoka performing it. But I'll you that one. Got any others?



> Here... "_I'm not really seeing what a Karate foot sweep has to do with Aikido."_  this is what we call moving goal posts. I got you on an assertion. You go "umm what does your point have to do with the issue"...dodging the disproof.



Actually the goal post was moved when you showed a karate guy performing a foot sweep instead of a Judoka performing it. The Bjj guy doing the sweep was a little better. However the entire issue misses the fact that you initially said that there were "numerous ways" for a Judoka to take down or throw someone without grabbing them. You've got one down, I'm interested in seeing the others.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Well you said there was numerous ways. You only posted one, and neither example was a Judoka performing it. But I'll you that one. Got any others?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the goal post was moved when you showed a karate guy performing a foot sweep instead of a Judoka performing it. The Bjj guy doing the sweep was a little better. However the entire issue misses the fact that you initially said that there were "numerous ways" for a Judoka to take down or throw someone without grabbing them. You've got one down, I'm interested in seeing the others.



BJJ is a sub-genre of Judo. It would never have existed without Kodokan Judo.

Your point was effectively countered.  this one...

_I *have* to grab my opponent in order throw them, or take them down.
_
I can find more, but it is 8:11pm and I have to bathe and bed down my son. Will be back later.

If a judo uke has a grip on me there are many sacrifice throws I can do to toss him without a grip.

I have done  Sukui Nage without gripping the leg.


----------



## TSDTexan

Here Hanzou... Judoka performance of ashi barai ( from the rear of the opponent )in Judo completion. Was awarded Ippon in the match.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> How could you say that that gif is the worst example of Aikido? The guy in that gif is one of the highest ranking Aikidoka in the world, and one of the senior instructors in the Aikikai. Further, Aikidoka certainly don't view those techniques as "the worst example of the style".
> 
> I showed a video of the founder of Aikido doing the exact same thing Watanabe sensei is doing. Would you really say that Morihei Ueshiba was demonstrating "the worst example of Aikido"?


because when I looked up the same founder this is what I found.  When I see film of a guy performing Aikido by joint manipulation and by grappling in the majority of the videos and then you show me 1 video where he does touchless throws then I question that 1 video which isn't representative of all of the other videos of him doing Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> BJJ is a *sub-genre* of Judo. It would never have existed without Kodokan Judo.



I don't think that word means what you think it means...



> Your point was effectively countered.  this one...
> 
> _I *have* to grab my opponent in order throw them, or take them down._



Not really, since I personally don't use a Ashi Barai for takedowns, and I've personally never encountered it as a Bjj takedown. I admit it was cool to see it being used as a takedown during a Bjj match.

That said, I am interested in seeing what else you can produce.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> OK, here is a karate interpretation of the Ashi Barai. Precisely executed by by Lyoto Machida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here the Ashi Barai sweep has a pre-sweep distraction (hand on top of head)


Oh so that's what that technique is.  I actually have video of me doing similar sweeps in kung fu


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> because when I looked up the same founder this is what I found.  When I see film of a guy performing Aikido by joint manipulation and by grappling in the majority of the videos and then you show me 1 video where he does touchless throws then I question that 1 video which isn't representative of all of the other videos of him doing Aikido.



Just fyi, he does no touch stuff in the videos you posted as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Just fyi, he does no touch stuff in the videos you posted as well.


 The ones that I saw that looked touch less I could only see one hand and I couldn't tell what the other hand was doing, and therefore I cant say it's touchless.   from what I can tell in akido the defender puts the hand in front of the face to distract and putt the attacker off balance. This is done so the attacker doesn't pay attention to the hand that is about to yank him down from the back. If I were to spin you around and suddenly put my hand in front of your face then your natural reaction is to move away from the hand.  Your efforts to move away causes you to be unbalanced making it easier to pull you down.  It looks touchless because we are foucused on whar the front hand is doing and not what the hand behind the back is doing.
This is nothing magical because we see the same thing in football. I could be wrong because I don't do Aikido. But from what I see that seems like what is happening





This is touchless to me. Until he gets kicked in the face.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The ones that I saw that looked touch less I could only see one hand and I couldn't tell what the other hand was doing, and therefore I cant say it's touchless.   from what I can tell in akido the defender puts the hand in front of the face to distract and putt the attacker off balance. This is done so the attacker doesn't pay attention to the hand that is about to yank him down from the back. If I were to spin you around and suddenly put my hand in front of your face then your natural reaction is to move away from the hand.  Your efforts to move away causes you to be unbalanced making it easier to pull you down.  It looks touchless because we are foucused on whar the front hand is doing and not what the hand behind the back is doing.
> This is nothing magical because we see the same thing in football. I could be wrong because I don't do Aikido. But from what I see that seems like what is happening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is touchless to me. Until he gets kicked in the face.



This comes from the first vid you posted;





Very clearly he isn't grabbing them from behind, and he's barely touching them if at all.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I don't think that word means what you think it means...
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, since I personally don't use a Ashi Barai for takedowns, and I've personally never encountered it as a Bjj takedown. I admit it was cool to see it being used as a takedown during a Bjj match.
> 
> That said, I am interested in seeing what else you can produce.



As I said before, sacrifice throws can be done without tori grips, grabs or grapples by any other name....

Sumi gaeshi and uki waza are able to make use of a defensive stance or modified jigotai which has no grip on the uke's judo gi.

If your uke has a solid grip on you, you can throw em.

Bear in mind, that according to the IJF Referee Commission.

They say that when a throw is successfully executed, resulting in a nice, clean throw onto Uke's back, it is Ippon even if Tori does not have a grip.

This ruling should tell you something. Its legal to throw without grips.... what is the case on the street.

If a guy really wants to hang onto me... I will take him for a mean ride. If I was a bjj man like you... drop right down into sumi gaeshi... into top mount 

Now for the record, I have given you four judo techniques that violate your assertion that you HAVE to grab to throw, or takedown.

I am not your personal researcher. I have been a good sport, and shared multiple or various ways a judoka player can do it.
You can find more no_grip judo techniques. I have... and tested such.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> This comes from the first vid you posted;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very clearly he isn't grabbing them from behind, and he's barely touching them if at all.



The first attack appears to be like a "clothes line" stike to the face

The second attack he touches them and presses down. Full Screen of what you posted





the attack after this he horse collars the guy. You can see him grab the back of the guys uniform around the neck area


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The no touch stuff is (IMO) nonsense resulting from students becoming too mentally conditioned to go along with their instructor. Sort of mutual self-hypnosis.  It's embarrassing to see senior practitioners (of whatever art) fall into that stuff, but it's not particularly relevant to the 99+% of aikidoka who don't practice anything of the sort. (Even if some of them do buy into the belief that senior practitioners could develop mystical powers.)



Why would that be fundamentally different to going with a technique?

And you see that a lot.






That dude must produce some terrible students.


----------



## JowGaWolf

My guess is if someone came at you at these angles and you struck them hard in the face in a similar manner, then the would experience something similar to what is being demonstrated. The only problem I see with Aikido is the same problem I see with most martial arts and that is knowing how to actually apply the techniques outside of demo mode.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> My guess is if someone came at you at these angles and you struck them hard in the face in a similar manner, then the would experience something similar to what is being demonstrated. The only problem I see with Aikido is the same problem I see with most martial arts and that is knowing how to actually apply the techniques outside of demo mode.



From guys who should in theory be able to counter that. Because they do akido as well.


----------



## Tez3

Are we going through every style comparing them unfavourably to BJJ? I'm sure we can find just the bad videos to show how deficient everything is to BJJ, we can ignore anything good about a style, we can ignore the effectiveness for the sake of the argument. If that's what we are doing can we just do it in one post please I'm bored with this drip feed of poison against other styles.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> There's quite a few Aikido techniques that are based on an opponent grabbing you, and you doing a series of movements to get them off of you.


That could have something to do with Aikido being a defensive art.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> The only problem I see with Aikido is the same problem I see with most martial arts and that is knowing how to actually apply the techniques outside of demo mode.


Since this is an Aikido thread now:






Start at 2:58.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> As I said before, sacrifice throws can be done without tori grips, grabs or grapples by any other name....
> 
> Sumi gaeshi and uki waza are able to make use of a defensive stance or modified jigotai which has no grip on the uke's judo gi.
> 
> If your uke has a solid grip on you, you can throw em.
> 
> Bear in mind, that according to the IJF Referee Commission.
> 
> They say that when a throw is successfully executed, resulting in a nice, clean throw onto Uke's back, it is Ippon even if Tori does not have a grip.
> 
> This ruling should tell you something. Its legal to throw without grips.... what is the case on the street.
> 
> If a guy really wants to hang onto me... I will take him for a mean ride. If I was a bjj man like you... drop right down into sumi gaeshi... into top mount
> 
> Now for the record, I have given you four judo techniques that violate your assertion that you HAVE to grab to throw, or takedown.
> 
> I am not your personal researcher. I have been a good sport, and shared multiple or various ways a judoka player can do it.
> You can find more no_grip judo techniques. I have... and tested such.



Even if I grant you all of those moves could be done without gripping your opponent. 4 variations of standard Judo throws isn't "numerous".


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The first attack appears to be like a "clothes line" stike to the face
> 
> The second attack he touches them and presses down. Full Screen of what you posted
> 
> the attack after this he horse collars the guy. You can see him grab the back of the guys uniform around the neck area



And in either case he's barely touching them. So even if I grant that there's contact being made, the simple fact is that what we're witnessing there is almost exactly like the no touch ki stuff. I mean, there's a few times in that vid where someone just barely touches him and they go flying in an opposite direction. It also happened quite a few times in that Segal video as well. In some cases it actually looks like a strike, which completely takes the opponent to the mat.

Let's, compare that and the other Aikido demonstrations posted to a Judo demonstration;






There's a huge difference.

Tapping/hitting someone on the head and them falling down isn't grappling.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Are we going through every style comparing them unfavourably to BJJ? I'm sure we can find just the bad videos to show how deficient everything is to BJJ, we can ignore anything good about a style, we can ignore the effectiveness for the sake of the argument. If that's what we are doing can we just do it in one post please I'm bored with this drip feed of poison against other styles.



Showing Ueshiba and Watanabe performing Aikido is bad? The founder of the style and the one of the highest ranked Aikido instructors alive are demonstrating bad Aikido?

Interesting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Tapping/hitting someone on the head and them falling down isn't grappling


 Depends on the technique being as a student would you want the instructor to literally spear hand you in the throat to show that it would hurt. As BJJ student do you want some to break your arm to show you that it works? As an Aikido student do you want to run at me full speed so I can grab your head and torque your neck for real.?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Let's, compare that and the other Aikido demonstrations posted to a Judo demonstration;


Yeah, lets:


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Yeah, lets:



The second video is fake.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> As BJJ student do you want some to break your arm to show you that it works?



We have the tap out to prevent that from happening. We don't tap their elbow, and have them wince in pain and spin around on the floor.



> As an Aikido student do you want to run at me full speed so I can grab your head and torque your neck for real.?



Are you implying that Aikidoka aren't really throwing/taking down their students in their demonstrations?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Yeah, lets:



1st video: Nick Lowery is a high ranking Aikidoka and a big proponent of Ki techniques. He wrote an article defending Watanabe's ki demonstrations from critics, and often says that he's been thrown at a distance from ki attacks himself. I'm not surprised that he's applying similar concepts to Judo. 

I would also note that what he was doing was a drill, not a demonstration.

2nd video: Fake.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Are you implying that Aikidoka aren't really throwing/taking down their students in their demonstrations?


 No they are most like real but not done with full force and not all of the techniques in martial arts can be demonstrated through full or partial contact.  You will never see someone do a contact demo of eye poking, not even a light one.  What you most likely will see is someone showing an eye poke and the person reacting to the eye poke as if it really hit them even though it's clear no contact was made.  The purpose of this is not to actually do the technique but to help students understand the technique. There are other techniques that are like this.

The pain that BJJ gives when simulating arm breaks isn't so you can tap out.  The pain helps the student applying the technique to know that they are doing the technique correctly.  We have a similar thing in my school when we practice Chin Na.  We'll apply the technique that destroys the joint slowly, because it doesn't take a lot of effort to rip a joint. When we apply the technique the student in the joint lock will let us know if we are doing the technique correctly by the amount of pain that shows on his face.

You should really do some research instead of just trying to put everything down. I would even recommend taking a free trial at an aikido school or a kung fu school that teaches joint locks, so you can have a better understanding of Martial arts in general.  People in this post are researching and telling you things that a serious martial arts student should be able to understand. It's not their responsibility to educate you via "proving that what you say isn't correct."  If you think something isn't correct, you should be asking how does this work? What is going on with that technique? Why does that guy look like he's throwing someone with no hands?  These are questions that someone would ask if they truly wanted to understand either own martial art or someone else's martial art style.  This are the question that will help you determine what is fake and what would actually work.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Even if I grant you all of those moves could be done without gripping your opponent. 4 variations of standard Judo throws isn't "numerous".


There are numerous, that is a fact.  I am not your reasercher. Feel free to do your own homework. It might help you not make general absolutes that have massive holes in them.

I have found 15. I have been told by a Judo coach that there are more still.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I've "thrown" someone in sparring with no-touch before. Actually, he got mad, came at me off-balance, I got out of the way, and he overextended, tripped, and threw himself headfirst into a wall. If I had been an advanced practitioner at the time I might have been tempted to take credit for moving with the perfect timing to cause him to throw himself. Realistically, though, I was a beginner and the other guy was just being a klutz.

Here's my impression of how the "no-touch" thing gets started as something an advanced practitioner is demonstrating as if it were a reliable skill:

1) Student starts training. Is encouraged as uke to feed big overcommitted attacks without trying to keep their balance or regain their balance & structure if that abalance and structure is compromised by tori.

2) Student spends time being uke for *real* techniques that *really* hurt. (wrist locks, clotheslines, etc).

3) Student is taught to take big fall to receive said real techniques, rather than exploring smaller movements for regaining balance and structure. (To be clear, sometimes those big falls may really be necessary.)

4) Student starts subconsciously moving in advance of the technique as uke, to throw himself before the pain hits.

5) Student starts subconsciously unbalancing himself in advance of the actual kuzushi in order to play the part of a "good" uke who is feeding a properly "committed" (i.e. overcommitted) attack.

6) Instructor notices the techniques he is demonstrating working easier and easier, but fails to realize it is due to the uke becoming mentally conditioned to go with the move. Attributes the change to his own skill.

7) Dogma within the school allows for the possibility of mystical powers (whether that is framed as an interpretation of "ki" or something else).

8) At some point the uke becomes so mentally conditioned to anticipate and go along with tori's move that he throws himself before contact is made. Both student and teacher attribute this to the instructor's skill or mystical powers rather than uke's mental conditioning. From this point on the whole thing feeds on itself.

I witnessed and experienced some of this during my time in the Bujinkan. I wasn't particularly advanced, but I had a few training partners who I could sometimes get to fall without actually applying the technique or even making contact in some cases. What I'm seeing in the movement of the no-touch Aikido demonstrations matches what I saw happening in the Bujinkan.

To be clear, the actual techniques of the Bujinkan (just like those of Aikido) absolutely require contact. The no-touch thing is a delusional trap that some practitioners fall into if they don't correct uke when he starts being conditioned to unconsciously go with the technique. Unfortunately, being high-ranked doesn't mean someone is immune from falling into a delusion. In some cases it probably makes the trap that much more tempting.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> And in either case he's barely touching them. So even if I grant that there's contact being made, the simple fact is that what we're witnessing there is almost exactly like the no touch ki stuff. I mean, there's a few times in that vid where someone just barely touches him and they go flying in an opposite direction. It also happened quite a few times in that Segal video as well. In some cases it actually looks like a strike, which completely takes the opponent to the mat.
> 
> Let's, compare that and the other Aikido demonstrations posted to a Judo demonstration;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a huge difference.
> 
> Tapping/hitting someone on the head and them falling down isn't grappling.



This is like saying cops arent "really" good with their firearms. They only practice on paper targets and not real humans.

In the same way placeholder attacks have value.

If you (a prospective student) signed a wavier to not sue me if I blinded you, or crippled you, I would still have an internal moral confict. I would have to be a benevolent sociopath to willfully injure or out right cripple my students for their well being some day, in a "hypothetical" future fight.

A number of judo throws can be modifed easily so they (uke) don't land on their back.... but upon their head, neck and shoulders.

That is what they were modified out of.
Killing blows.
Throwing a guy in armor and helmet, who is probably armed, while on the battlefield while unarmed.

You do NOT want him getting back up to re-attack you.
Either broken necks, separated shoulders, shattered collarbones was the goal.

Also failing to kill him, meant you likely disarmed him, which means recovering his weapon and dispatching your debilitated enemy was the follow up.

Returning Judo to Jujutsu's lethality isnt too hard. Do we want to practice at such intensity on our uke's?

If we do, they will be blinded, crippled or dead.

Placeholder attacks dont mean the art is false... it means a safer training session that lets the Uke go home alive and relatively well.

When a combative sport is too civilized for too long a mentality change happens. Part of the skepticism of the MMA combative sports crowd is that
what we do works. Prove what you do works.

If I take a pefectly healthy cadaver (heart attack victim), and I Ippon throw him on his head shattering his neck in five places, there will still be critics... "non resistant opponent".

Same throw modified to not kill: aww.. you threw him but I dont see how that could hurt anyone. Look your opponent is getting back up.

Most judo throws are imperfect. Perfect form is extremely rare. They still work, even when the ideal form is not exacuted.

Now if Aikido was such a fail. As some MMA proponents say... Why did so many Judoka transition into it or cross train right before and after WW2?

In their own words Judoka considered Aikido to be valid SD.
Which raises a question... why would Judoka feel the need for another MA to get SD? Judo is a beast.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The pain that BJJ gives when simulating arm breaks isn't so you can tap out.  The pain helps the student applying the technique to know that they are doing the technique correctly.



Yeah, but that has little to do with what you mentioned earlier. You asked if we break arms to show if an arm lock works. We have the tap out system in place so that we don't need to break arms.



> You should really do some research instead of just trying to put everything down. I would even recommend taking a free trial at an aikido school or a kung fu school that teaches joint locks, so you can have a better understanding of Martial arts in general.  People in this post are researching and telling you things that a serious martial arts student should be able to understand. It's not their responsibility to educate you via "proving that what you say isn't correct."  If you think something isn't correct, you should be asking how does this work? What is going on with that technique? Why does that guy look like he's throwing someone with no hands?  These are questions that someone would ask if they truly wanted to understand either own martial art or someone else's martial art style.  This are the question that will help you determine what is fake and what would actually work.



Nice lecture, but where exactly did I put AIkido down? I simply said that I don't consider it a grappling style, and proceeded to give reasons for that opinion. Nowhere did I mention anything about effectiveness or fakery.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> This is like saying cops arent "really" good with their firearms. They only practice on paper targets and not real humans.
> 
> In the same way placeholder attacks have value.
> 
> If you (a prospective student) signed a wavier to not sue me if I blinded you, or crippled you, I would still have an internal moral confict. I would have to be a benevolent sociopath to willfully injure or out right cripple my students for their well being some day, in a "hypothetical" future fight.
> 
> A number of judo throws can be modifed easily so they (uke) don't land on their back.... but upon their head, neck and shoulders.
> 
> That is what they were modified out of.
> Killing blows.
> Throwing a guy in armor and helmet, who is probably armed, while on the battlefield while unarmed.
> 
> You do NOT want him getting back up to re-attack you.
> Either broken necks, separated shoulders, shattered collarbones was the goal.
> 
> Also failing to kill him, meant you likely disarmed him, which means recovering his weapon and dispatching your debilitated enemy was the follow up.
> 
> Returning Judo to Jujutsu's lethality isnt too hard. Do we want to practice at such intensity on our uke's?
> 
> If we do, they will be blinded, crippled or dead.



So are you saying that the Aikido attacks in demonstration and practice are choreographed, or done at full force?

For comparison's sake, Rousey's Judo throws were full force, as in she was actually throwing someone. In those demonstration vids, are they throwing themselves, or is the thrower really throwing them?



> Placeholder attacks dont mean the art is false... it means a safer training session that lets the Uke go home alive and relatively well.
> 
> When a combative sport is too civilized for too long a mentality change happens. Part of the skepticism of the MMA combative sports crowd is that
> what we do works. Prove what you do works.
> 
> If I take a pefectly healthy cadaver (heart attack victim), and I Ippon throw him on his head shattering his neck in five places, there will still be critics... "non resistant opponent".
> 
> Same throw modified to not kill: aww.. you threw him but I dont see how that could hurt anyone. Look your opponent is getting back up.
> 
> Most judo throws are imperfect. Perfect form is extremely rare. They still work, even when the ideal form is not exacuted.
> 
> Now if Aikido was such a fail. As some MMA proponents say... Why did so many Judoka transition into it or cross train right before and after WW2?



Who said anything about Aikido being a "failure", or that it was false?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but that has little to do with what you mentioned earlier. You asked if we break arms to show if an arm lock works. We have the tap out system in place so that we don't need to break arms.


  You are still missing the point.  Not every technique is going to have a tap out option. by your logic these techniques are useless because the guy barely touches or doesn't touch at all when demonstrating a technique. Take note of the techniques where the person doesn't tap out. Take note of the techniques where the person doesn't make contact.







Hanzou said:


> Nice lecture, but where exactly did I put AIkido down?


 Your posts #762 
"In Aikido, that arm bar is being performed because Uke was too stupid (or to slow) to let go of Tori's wrist." Your words from post #707
Your post #709
You don't have to say it directly in order to imply it your actions speak towards your focus.  Just like the way you approach all of your discussions in the the same manner as a debater does, not caring about what the reality of a martial arts fighting style, nor having the desire to research beyond the argument you want to have.  Then when things get "tight" for you, you change the focus and make statements like. "Who said anything about Aikido being a "failure", or that it was false?"  and "Nowhere did I mention anything about effectiveness or fakery." Now with statements like this the argument no longer becomes about Aikido but about how you didn't directly say that Aikido is fake.

This is your MO


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The pain that BJJ gives when simulating arm breaks isn't so you can tap out. The pain helps the student applying the technique to know that they are doing the technique correctly. We have a similar thing in my school when we practice Chin Na. We'll apply the technique that destroys the joint slowly, because it doesn't take a lot of effort to rip a joint. When we apply the technique the student in the joint lock will let us know if we are doing the technique correctly by the amount of pain that shows on his face.



The tap out in sub wrestling is a bit different. You could say it simulates breaking an arm and therefore the same as akido simulating a wrist lock throw.

And there you would be correct.

But in sub wrestling you are actually holding holding someone down and hurting them regardless whether they want to get out or not. So they are not going with the technique to assist it.

So in terms of evidence you can say that if your technique holds someone down and hurts them it is a viable technique without having to move into theory at all.

Same with sparring and striking. I can in training punch a guy until he stops attacking me. Regardless what he wants to do. He is not going with that technique.

And from there we can build up self defence theories.

So young Luke here attacks poor eli. Eli has actually defended himself to a point he can leave the situation.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are still missing the point.  Not every technique is going to have a tap out option. by your logic these techniques are useless because the guy barely touches or doesn't touch at all when demonstrating a technique. Take note of the techniques where the person doesn't tap out. Take note of the techniques where the person doesn't make contact.



Except we weren't talking about "every technique". We were talking about arm locks.



> Your posts #762
> "In Aikido, that arm bar is being performed because Uke was too stupid (or to slow) to let go of Tori's wrist." Your words from post #707
> Your post #709
> You don't have to say it directly in order to imply it your actions speak towards your focus.  Just like the way you approach all of your discussions in the the same manner as a debater does, not caring about what the reality of a martial arts fighting style, nor having the desire to research beyond the argument you want to have.  Then when things get "tight" for you, you change the focus and make statements like. "Who said anything about Aikido being a "failure", or that it was false?"  and "Nowhere did I mention anything about effectiveness or fakery." Now with statements like this the argument no longer becomes about Aikido but about how you didn't directly say that Aikido is fake.
> This is your MO



LoL! Saying that the attacker is too stupid or slow to let go of the defenders wrist has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Aikido. I merely said that to point out that if someone is attacking you, you start performing an Aikido technique, and they refuse to release your wrist, then the idiot deserves all the pain coming his way.

BTW, I would apply the same to Bjj. If someone has me in a headlock, and I begin to counter the headlock by moving into a shoulder lock, the attacker would be either too stupid or too slow to release the headlock before I dislocate his shoulder. I take it the goal in Aikido would be to get the attacker to release the wrist, just like it would be Bjj's goal to get out of the headlock. Getting thrown to the concrete, or getting the shoulder dislocated are merely the consequences of being a stubborn attacker.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> So are you saying that the Aikido attacks in demonstration and practice are choreographed, or done at full force?
> 
> For comparison's sake, Rousey's Judo throws were full force, as in she was actually throwing someone. In those demonstration vids, are they throwing themselves, or is the thrower really throwing them?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about Aikido being a "failure", or that it was false?





Hanzou said:


> So are you saying that the Aikido attacks in demonstration and practice are choreographed, or done at full force?
> 
> For comparison's sake, Rousey's Judo throws were full force, as in she was actually throwing someone. In those demonstration vids, are they throwing themselves, or is the thrower really throwing them?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about Aikido being a "failure", or that it was false?




Neither choreographed nor full force. Aikido randori is not kata. It is live sparing with some of the dangerous attacks partlly aborted with the uke behaving in a manner consistent with said atack.

An  atemi to the eyeball is going to shut a guy down for a moment. The Uke does simulation wrt this.

Ukes do throw themselves to avoid breaks. The do have the option of resisting... which would be very harmful.

So if the Aikido tech is truely a throw (not a lock or break)... and is exactly done... the uke will go flying whether he wants to or not.

Same as Judo.
You should look into competitive aikido.  Very resistant ukes. Aka Tori on Tori fighting.

I am not speaking for all Aikido right here, just what I have been exposed to...

These days Aikido lower level randori typically simulates multiple unskilled attackers.

Only higher dan tests, or older past era's lower level randori saw multiple skilled attacker type uke In the match up.

It is chaos from the word Go!

3 or more men charge you with the attempt to kick punch or tackle you. They win if they successfully pin and hold you on the ground, and you cannot break free.

Your job is remain on your feet and stay in constant motion while being highly efficient with attack window opportunities.
You win by staying on your feet by showing a measure of control over your opponents.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I take it the goal in Aikido would be to get the attacker to release the wrist, just like it would be Bjj's goal to get out of the headlock.


I don't know the answer to that.  I found these two videos. Is this along the lines of what you were thinking?


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Neither choreographed nor full force. Aikido randori is not kata. It is live sparing with some of the dangerous attacks partlly aborted with the uke behaving in a manner consistent with said atack.
> 
> An atemi to the eyeball is going to shut a guy down for a moment. The Uke does simulation wrt this.
> 
> Ukes do throw themselves to avoid breaks. The do have the option of resisting... which would be very harmful.
> 
> So if the Aikido tech is truely a throw (not a lock or break)... and is exactly done... the uke will go flying whether he wants to or not.



So at what stage does uke learn to defend these attacks?.Or the other guy learns to counter that defence?So that you develop a layered approach to sell defence.

So to go to a wrestling scenario. I double leg. You sprawl. I switch to single. You get a leg out. I switch to knee tap and get the takedown.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know the answer to that.  I found these two videos. Is this along the lines of what you were thinking?




No, this;





Interestingly, that top vid is almost exactly how we do standing headlock defense in Bjj.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I witnessed and experienced some of this during my time in the Bujinkan. I wasn't particularly advanced, but I had a few training partners who I could sometimes get to fall without actually applying the technique or even making contact in some cases. What I'm seeing in the movement of the no-touch Aikido demonstrations matches what I saw happening in the Bujinkan.



I have witnessed this maaing and bjjing. You notice when you get a big new guy who dosent feed you anything and just clamps you.

You have to use different technique.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> No, this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, that top vid is almost exactly how we do standing headlock defense in Bjj.



Guy on top let's the guy on bottoms elbow out. Fighting for that escape is different technique.

And a good example of how resisted technique is different to non resisted.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Guy on top let's the guy on bottoms elbow out. Fighting for that escape is different technique.
> 
> And a good example of how resisted technique is different to non resisted.



The escape we use still not resisted though.





Wait that was a bad explanation. Neither technique is the escape.

If I could find scarf hold actually being defended which I cant.

But the correct technique generally looks like this.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Guy on top let's the guy on bottoms elbow out. Fighting for that escape is different technique.
> 
> And a good example of how resisted technique is different to non resisted.



The guy on the bottom's elbow is out because that's a headlock, not a Kesa Gatame/Scarf Hold. The latter is a far more secure hold, so it would require a different set of escapes.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> So at what stage does uke learn to defend these attacks?.Or the other guy learns to counter that defence?So that you develop a layered approach to sell defence.
> 
> So to go to a wrestling scenario. I double leg. You sprawl. I switch to single. You get a leg out. I switch to knee tap and get the takedown.




Uke is the attacker ... Tori in Judo or Nage (in aikido) thrower, defender.

Uke is learning the defense by _*receiving*_ the defense.
The word Uke means "receive" or commonly defined: one who takes the fall.

A more nuanced translation is "one who gains knowledge through suffering"

Uke (literally "one who receives", [and the thrown one] ) and nage (the thrower) have a very special relationship.

Unlike many martial artists who competes with an opponent and trains against an opponent, traditionally the aikidoka trains with a partner who simulates an attacker.

There is no competition in aikido, no pitting of one person against another. Instead, each partner is half of a whole, each having equal responsibility for the learning experience.

The uke exists to enhance the learning of the partner.

Yes, he or she is learning a number of things that are specific to that role. But in essence his primary role is to act as the check and balance on the partner's developing skills and to provide constant feedback to the partner.

Half of one's training is in the role of uke. If you are doing something different in each role, your body simply gets confused about what it should be doing.

Sometimes you are the yin... other times the yang.

Uke and nage should be doing exactly the same thing in terms of principle so that training in each role is still creating enhanced martial skills.

Somehow this got really distorted in modern Aikido.

Aikido so often these days is all about a nage striving to execute incredibly complex techniques against an uke who attacks like a martially handicapped person.

This fundamentally limits the level of the practice to something extremely basic regardless of the years of effort put in. Very sad.

What is wanted is to have a nage who can execute technique against an opponent who is using the same principles that he is using.

From the practice perspective this is precisely when the training gets worth the while.

Ukes should be taught from the very start how to attack properly. This is *too* often not the case.

Since one of the fundamental principles of Aikido is "kuzushi on contact", ukes should be taught how to grab in such a way that they can break the balance of the nage just with the grab itself, which is what an Akidoka should be trying to do if he grabbed a real life agressor.

Nage should be allowed to try to strike the uke when he grabs. If uke's grab doesn't allow him to defend against a punch or kick from nage, it isn't being done properly.

But much of what I see these days are examples of the attacker simply giving up right in the middle of his attack and it is terrible.

The Uke's job is to keep the attack continuous until it is brought under control by the nage. This is how uke gives feedback to nage.

Once one is past the beginner level of the art, if one leaves an opening anywhere in one's technique he should either be struck instantly or reversed.

In beginner practice, one should point out the openings but leave out the reversals simply because if a senior keeps reversing a technique the beginner never actually gets to do it and one doesn't ever learn to do something by *not* doing it over and over.

But about the notion that the uke takes falls.

The fall is simply how the uke keeps himself or herself safe when nage gets kuzushi.

Uke provides feedback to the partner.

That is the role of uke. It takes the form of maintaining ones balance when the nage doesn't get kuzushi properly.

It takes the form of striking the nage when he or she is presents an opening. But they need not be all out punches.

In training the objective for the uki was simply tap the nage on the head to let him know he was open to a punch.

An uki didn't have to punch his lights out to let him know. Within Randori and in general, traditionally akido isnt a fight or competition... it is communication.

Its been said by masters in Aikido is 90% strikes, and that was corrected to say 100% strikes. Instead of each and every punch, there was a substitute made in their places.
This was summed up up in Saotome Sensei's statement: "Every throw you do in Aikido is a strike or strikes that you CHOOSE not to do."


I would say Aikido is 10 percent atemi plus 90 percent atemi.

Saotome Sensei frequently said that if you *knew* the other guy would not, or could not strike you, ALL techniques were stoppable.

This is what it means when someone says the proverb "Aikido is 90% atemi". Atemi is implicit in every movement Aikido does.

It is uke's job as part of his training not to put nage in the position of having to make the atemi strikes explicit from either person's role.


Back to aikido being an art that shamelessly snatches from martial arts....
Saotome Sensei is firmly on record over 40 years saying that: " *Aikido has no "style"*. "

Saotome Sensei will do a class that looks like the softest T'ai Chi and then do a class that looks like the hardest karate.

He can throw you with a classic judo throw and he can send you flying with barely a touch.

It's ALL Aikido as far as he is concerened.

At its heart, Aikido is like most other Japanese martial arts in that it is imbued with "sword mentality".

One cut, one death is the model for Japanese sword and it influences all the other arts.

In karate, Funakoshi always said "one punch, one death". In Aikido it gets changed a bit by becoming Kuzushi on contact

(contained in the phrase Katsu hayabi, sometimes translated as instant victory).

The Aikidoka wins in the instant he came into contact (and that can actually be before the physical touch) then in that *instant* that moment in time he chose to manifest the technique in a way that is creative rather than destructive.

But he had that one moment when he could have destroyed the opponent.

If that moment wasn't there, the rest was just wishful thinking and the Aikido is just a dance.


----------



## Hanzou

Couldn't it be also argued that Aikido's striking and weapon training make it far different than grappling arts?


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> 7) Dogma within the school allows for the possibility of mystical powers (whether that is framed as an interpretation of "ki" or something else).
> 
> 8) At some point the uke becomes so mentally conditioned to anticipate and go along with tori's move that he throws himself before contact is made. Both student and teacher attribute this to the instructor's skill or mystical powers rather than uke's mental conditioning. From this point on the whole thing feeds on itself.
> 
> To be clear, the actual techniques of the Bujinkan (just like those of Aikido) absolutely require contact. The no-touch thing is a delusional trap that some practitioners fall into if they don't correct uke when he starts being conditioned to unconsciously go with the technique. Unfortunately, being high-ranked doesn't mean someone is immune from falling into a delusion. In some cases it probably makes the trap that much more tempting.



And then there is the contrary position






Re:
_1) Student starts training. Is encouraged as uke to feed big overcommitted attacks without trying to keep their balance or regain their balance & structure if that abalance and structure is compromised by tori._

My comment: Bad instruction from the sensai

Re:
_4) Student starts subconsciously moving in advance of the technique as uke, to throw himself before the pain hits._

My comment, the Nage or Tori needs to be able pick up on this and question the uke to help the uke observe and correct this. A good aikido sensai sould be able to spot this from across the room.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> And then there is the contrary position
> 
> View attachment 19493
> 
> Re:
> _1) Student starts training. Is encouraged as uke to feed big overcommitted attacks without trying to keep their balance or regain their balance & structure if that abalance and structure is compromised by tori._
> 
> My comment: Bad instruction from the sensai
> 
> Re:
> _4) Student starts subconsciously moving in advance of the technique as uke, to throw himself before the pain hits._
> 
> My comment, the Nage or Tori needs to be able pick up on this and question the uke to help the uke observe and correct this. A good aikido sensai sould be able to spot this from across the room.


I don't fully understand #1 and #4 but I'm definitely taking the picture with the Chinese proverb lol


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Couldn't it be also argued that Aikido's striking and weapon training make it far different than grappling arts?



Having more branches does not mean its not the same kind of tree.

Supplemental training doesn't negate its core.

The difference for bjj, is Dr. Kano cherry picked from unarmed techniques only. And reserved striking to dan ranks, but had Karate Masters come and teach selected atemi.

He could have retained weapons either as kata or as part of the Do. Turning the weapon into a philosophy or spiritual discipline, from a tool of war.

Bjj could have inherited weapons just like it has striking in its DNA.

If the grappling were totally absent your point would be valid.
If the grappling composes less then 25%  of techs or grappling isnt taught until after BB rank your point would be valid.

Someone could study all of traditional aikido and never transfer knowledge of weapons to his students.

Thats branch of aikido, would still be a grappling art.

There are Aikido teachers who believe aikido was never meant to have strikes, and say its not part of the art.

Are they wrong? Yes and no. Its a fact the original art has strikes. And their own aikido art is strikeless, and is still recognizable as Aikido.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't fully understand #1 and #4 but I'm definitely taking the picture with the Chinese proverb lol


It was put up to share. This I have as a print in my study.

Of course, skeptics will say wires on the guy or weights in the basket.

Who knows...


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Couldn't it be also argued that Aikido's striking and weapon training make it far different than grappling arts?


There are strikes in Judo so should it make judo far different the, grappling arts


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> There are strikes in Judo so should it make judo far different the, grappling arts



Restricted to kata, which is reserved for upper ranks, and some gyms don't even practice anymore....


----------



## Hanzou

double post.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Restricted to kata, which is reserved for upper ranks, and some gyms don't even practice anymore....


Nonsense Judo has strikes.  Period.  So again should we not consider it a grappling art?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense Judo has strikes.  Period.  So again should we not consider it a grappling art?



How is it nonsense if Atemi is integral to Aikido practice, yet many Judoka never learn, or use Judo atemi?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> How is it nonsense if Atemi is integral to Aikido practice, yet many Judoka never learn, or use Judo atemi?


Your lack of an answer programs point.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> How is it nonsense if Atemi is integral to Aikido practice, yet many Judoka never learn, or use Judo atemi?



Hanzou, if you use a little logic you will understand why Judo has striking and why it is just as integral to Judo as atemi is to aikido.

Fact 1. Judo has strikes introduced at a high level after the basics should be well established within the Judoka.

Fact 2. Dr Kano went to Okinawa to meet with Motobu Choki and learn aspects of striking from him.

Also, Dr Kano had masters like Gitchin Funakoshi actually come and teach the striking to the Kodakan Yudansha.

Fact 3. At this point, Tou-Te or Karate was not yet a competitive sport but a self defense discipline.

Fact 4. Striking is prohibited under the sport rulesets of Judo.

Deduction analysis dictates Atemi serve the self defense application of Judo. Primarly as attack by combination and attack by misdirection.

In a sport match, you already know that your competitors are Judoka, and you both are agreeing to start a grappling fight.

In a street application of Judo, you don't know if they are a martial artist, or an undisciplined fighter.

You know they won't want to let you judo throw them

Odds are against you just walking up and throwing them.

You have range issues to deal with. You have to enter his space and your primary skill set is grappling based attacks.

You will be expected to strike in a fight, however most people in a fight do not expect a judo throw.

If you start with a judo throw you will get shut down even if they don't understand the attack.

However a fast blow to the solar plexus.... and you have a human tackling dummy.

My judo coach was a wing chun man.
Chain punching makes a guy wanna tackle you.

Trying to tackle a judoka who really wants you to tackle him is a one way ticket to hurtsville population 1.

(Goading your attacker into attacking you in such a way that he volunteers to sacrifice posture and structure by overcommitted attack. Sounds like something out of a jujutsu playbook.)

He loved WC for its excellent trapping.
He said WC or JKD Trapping is ideal for Judoka in a No Gi wearing opponent self defense situation.

Which brings us back to your question... most Judoka are sportsmen, of low rank, trained by sport judo coachesn who never delved into Judo SD. 
The Cycle perpetuates...
Therefore in many Judo Halls... atemi is ignored, misapplied and misunderstood. Many people never got the memo.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> How is it nonsense if Atemi is integral to Aikido practice, yet many Judoka never learn, or use Judo atemi?


Watch some high level judo matches.

Look for strikes.Especially during entry, or when the contestants are looking for grips.

While you're at it, watch for contesting in the guard.....

When I was a kid, knife hand strikes to the opponent's forearm were still permitted in randori....now, it's what you've been trained to get away with, but hey............

....just sayin'


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> Watch some high level judo matches.
> 
> Look for strikes.Especially during entry, or when the contestants are looking for grips.
> 
> While you're at it, watch for contesting in the guard.....
> 
> When I was a kid, knife hand strikes to the opponent's forearm were still permitted in randori....now, it's what you've been trained to get away with, but hey............
> 
> ....just sayin'



Elder...Please correct me here if any of what I am about to say here is wrong...

A lot of MMA crowd and a number of BJJ guys like Joe Rogan crap on Aikido over non resistance training... but
Most of them are are unaware of the fact that Judo itself has a spectrum of soft to hard resistance training.

There is a compliant style of Judo randori, known as Yakusoku Geiko (prearranged practice), in which neither participant offers resistance to their partner's attempts to throw.

There is also Sute Geiko (throw-away practice), in which a sempai (corect spelling is with an N, but most westerners hear an M sound) judoka allows himself to be thrown by his  kōhai partner.

While the typical sempai/ kōhai relationship is between a Dan and a Kyu just like upperclassmen and lower classmen... in Sute Geiko practice it is pretty informal... there is no lifelong bond established. 

It is just an experienced Judoka allowing a less experienced Judoka gain some hands on training with a senior classman's insight.

Then there is the hard style of randori that seeks to emulate the style of sport judo as seen in competition.

There is sometimes an over-emphasis of the competitive aspect which distorts the purpose of the randori from the goal of learning into the goal of winning competition.

This aspect cannot be found in traditional old school Aikido.
However, as I have said before, Shotokan Aikido and the two others previously mentioned are competitive Aikido.

The purpose of Judo randori is not to train a judoka to win in Shiai. And it never was.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Elder...Please correct me here if any of what I am about to say here is wrong...
> 
> A lot of MMA crowd and a number of BJJ guys like Joe Rogan crap on Aikido over non resistance training... but
> Most of them are are unaware of the fact that Judo itself has a spectrum of soft to hard resistance training.
> 
> There is a compliant style of Judo randori, known as Yakusoku Geiko (prearranged practice), in which neither participant offers resistance to their partner's attempts to throw.
> 
> There is also Sute Geiko (throw-away practice), in which a sempai (corect spelling is with an N, but most westerners hear an M sound) judoka allows himself to be thrown by his  kōhai partner.
> 
> While the typical sempai/ kōhai relationship is between a Dan and a Kyu just like upperclassmen and lower classmen... in Sute Geiko practice it is pretty informal... there is no lifelong bond established.
> 
> It is just an experienced Judoka allowing a less experienced Judoka gain some hands on training with a senior classman's insight.
> 
> Then there is the hard style of randori that seeks to emulate the style of sport judo as seen in competition.
> 
> There is sometimes an over-emphasis of the competitive aspect which distorts the purpose of the randori from the goal of learning into the goal of winning competition.
> 
> This aspect cannot be found in traditional old school Aikido.
> However, as I have said before, Shotokan Aikido and the two others previously mentioned are competitive Aikido.
> 
> The purpose of Judo randori is not to train a judoka to win in Shiai. And it never was.



There are more judo guys who will beat you up than there are akido guys.

Nothing to prove also me


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> There are more judo guys who will beat you up than there are akido guys.



That just sounds as if Judo guys are more bolshie than Aiki guys, nothing to do with what martial arts they do.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dropbear said:
_"There are more judo guys who will beat you up than there are akido guys."_

How is this point relevant to the discussion? 

The number of style exponents (aikido) who are willing to beat someone up vs the number of another style (judo)has *no* bearing on whether the style is a legitimate martal art or a fantasy martial art. 

Joe Rogan was bashing tmas as well as what he calls em fantasy martial arts. There is a tendency to say if you wont come to the ring and compete... your art is probably fake.

Joe Rogan has dumped pretty good on White Crane Fist kung fu...and Tiger Fist.

And yet a Karate and Sanda Multiple Champion found practioners of white crane that surprised him. 

Usually he dominated in sparing with Kung Fu guys. These White Crane guys were demonstrating an art with effective fighting capacity and serious power, and were keeping up with his level.

This was out of his own mouth on the MA documentary program Kung Fu Quest when they reasearched the connections between the different okinaiwa karate and white crane traditions.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Dropbear said:
> _"There are more judo guys who will beat you up than there are akido guys."_
> 
> How is this point relevant to the discussion?
> 
> The number of style exponents (aikido) who are willing to beat someone up vs the number of another style (judo)has *no* bearing on whether the style is a legitimate martal art or a fantasy martial art.
> 
> Joe Rogan was bashing tmas as well as what he calls em fantasy martial arts. There is a tendency to say if you wont come to the ring and compete... your art is probably fake.



Well stuff like this doesn't help;






I mean, stuff like that just reinforces the perception.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> That just sounds as if Judo guys are more bolshie than Aiki guys, nothing to do with what martial arts they do.



They probably are. But it is the difference between a martial arts that will let you try it out and one that won't.

So if judo did nothing but the macarena for training but their student had the respect of other styles because they mix in and spar them. It would have more relevance than another martial art that say uses "science" or something but never goes outside its own comfort zone.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Dropbear said:
> _"There are more judo guys who will beat you up than there are akido guys."_
> 
> How is this point relevant to the discussion?
> 
> The number of style exponents (aikido) who are willing to beat someone up vs the number of another style (judo)has *no* bearing on whether the style is a legitimate martal art or a fantasy martial art.



That is the test . you don't as a martial artist do drills with another martial artist. You spar the guy. And you do that to find out if their style is legitimate.

Because at some point you are going to ask the question. Is this going to work?


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Joe Rogan has dumped pretty good on White Crane Fist kung fu...and Tiger Fist.
> 
> And yet a Karate and Sanda Multiple Champion found practioners of white crane that surprised him



Surprised him how?

Because if it was by beating people up...............


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> if you wont come to the ring and compete... your art is probably fake.


Another way to say this is

"If you don't test your skill against someone in the ring or on the mat for 3 days, your arms and legs will no longer be yours any more."

Have you ever asked your next door neighbor whether or not he is willing to spar/wrestle with you for 15 rounds if you are willing to pay him?

If you can use your "single leg" to take your opponent down

- 15 times in 15 rounds, your "single leg" skill is pretty good.
- 8 times in 15 rounds, your "single leg" skill is average.
- 1 or 2 times in 15 rounds, your "single leg" skill is pretty bad.

The number won't lie to you.

You can replace "single leg" by "hook punch" and replace "take down" by "knock down". But you may have hard time to find any of your next door neighbor who is willing to be your sparring partner. That's the advantage of the "grappling art" over the "striking art".


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> That is the test . you don't as a martial artist do drills with another martial artist. You spar the guy. And you do that to find out if their style is legitimate.
> 
> Because at some point you are going to ask the question. Is this going to work?



Missing the point.

It may not be the case that the art has failed the practitioner.... but that the practioner was still too green or underdeveloped In a valid art. Or using the art in an application outside of intended purpose.

At that point it isnt... is this going to work?
The question is: Am I able to make this work for me?

Its like finding fault in a race car, when the car performed poorly in response to bad driver control. Or trying to bring a nascar racecar to a Baja Off Road Rally... and blaming the car for losing to the all terain trucks.

Also...The purpose of randori is not competitive sparing but it is learning how to do the art. And sparing is a drill but is a live fire one.

And... not every art is designed for the artist to fight another martial artist or even other martial arts. Some arts are meant as a means of self defense from untrained common agressors with little to no skill sets.

If a western boxer loses 100 fights to bjj guys? Does that mean his art is not legitimate?

This is what you imply. Because in testing it fails the boxer.

But put the 100 Bjj guys in a boxing ring and force them to compete under WBF WBA or IBF Boxing rules they will almost certainly lose every fight in the boxing ring.

Does that mean BJJ isnt a legitimate art?

In both cases no.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> They probably are. But it is the difference between a martial arts that will let you try it out and one that won't.
> 
> So if judo did nothing but the macarena for training but their student had the respect of other styles because they mix in and spar them. It would have more relevance than another martial art that say uses "science" or something but never goes outside its own comfort zone.



Ok. I guess you mised the part where it was mentioned that there is competitive aikido as well as old school aikido that is noncompetitive. .


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Well stuff like this doesn't help;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, stuff like that just reinforces the perception.


.

I wonder how well that turkish wrestler would handle an Aikidoka like Roy Dean or Ari Bolden. Ari is a martial artist with over 25 years of experience.

If Ari responded by limiting himself to just Aikido techniques... I'm willing to bet he could handle the turkish wrestler.

He currently teaches Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Japanese Jujutsu at Fierce Studio in Victoria BC Canada.

His experience as a security professional for nearly two decades gives him a unique perspective on the practicality and applicability of martial arts in real life situations.

In addition to his martial arts and security background, Ari has written two books on night club security and self-defense, and has traveled extensively giving seminars on both subjects. He holds black belts in Japanese Jujutsu and Aikido, and holds purple belts in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (under professor Keith Owen) and 10th Planet Jiu Jitsu (under Eddie Bravo).

Ari also runs www.Submissions101.com , arguably the world's most viewed BJJ video instructional website offering instruction from a variety of instructors and styles.

So Hanzou for every poor example of Aikido you present, I am sure I can find something on the other end of the bell curve to counter.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> .
> 
> I wonder how well that turkish wrestler would handle an Aikidoka like Roy Dean or Ari Bolden. Ari is a martial artist with over 25 years of experience.



Probably poorly, since both those guys are Bjj black belts.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have you ever asked your next door neighbor whether or not he is willing to spar/wrestle with you for 15 rounds if you are willing to pay him?



My next door neighbour is a Gurkha so the answer is absolutely no, no and no. Ever.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Probably poorly, since both those guys are Bjj black belts.



Read the part about limiting himself to Aikido techniques again. And Ari promoted to brown and black in BJJ....?
Well news to me.

Btw... one aikidoka losing to a turkish wrestler doesnt prove your case that a. Aikido isnt a grappling art.
Two it doesnt prove JoeRoganish type criticism of aikido being a fantasy MA


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Read the part about limiting himself to Aikido techniques again.



I did. It's a pretty dumb argument. Interesting that out of all the high-ranking Aikidoka in the world, you choose two that are black belts in Bjj.



> Btw... one aikidoka losing to a turkish wrestler doesnt prove your case that a. Aikido isnt a grappling art.
> Two it doesnt prove JoeRoganish type criticism of aikido being a fantasy MA



That wasn't my argument. I was simply supporting Drop Bear's statement.

Also I don't think Rogan ever said that Aikido was a fantasy MA.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I did. It's a pretty dumb argument. Interesting that out of all the high-ranking Aikidoka in the world, you choose two that are black belts in Bjj.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't my argument. I was simply supporting Drop Bear's statement.
> 
> Also I don't think Rogan ever said that Aikido was a fantasy MA.




Steven Segal tappped Silva a few times... and thats just light action from an old, out of shape, has-been actor-akidoka, who's ego needs to lie and claim he taught Silva the front kick.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Steven Segal tappped Silva a few times... and thats just light action from an old, out of shape, has-been actor-akidoka, who's ego needs to lie and claim he taught Silva the front kick.



Which was as phoney as his films.

Think about it: If Segal could really tap out the best fighter in the world in a matter of seconds with seemingly no effort, why didn't he step into the octagon and do it in an actual fight?

C'mon man, you can't be that gullible.


----------



## Hanzou




----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Which was as phoney as his films.
> 
> Think about it: If Segal could really tap out the best fighter in the world in a matter of seconds with seemingly no effort, why didn't he step into the octagon and do it in an actual fight?
> 
> C'mon man, you can't be that gullible.




You think you can sub him?
Or... do you think you can sub Steven Segal?

Best fighter in the world doesn't equal immune to the techniques of a 7th Dan Aikidoka.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Steven Segal tappped Silva a few times... and thats just light action from an old, out of shape, has-been actor-akidoka, who's ego needs to lie and claim he taught Silva the front kick.



Anderson silver could probably make akido work.

Who has Steven segal fought again? I forget.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Which was as phoney as his films.
> 
> Think about it: If Segal could really tap out the best fighter in the world in a matter of seconds with seemingly no effort, why didn't he step into the octagon and do it in an actual fight?
> 
> C'mon man, you can't be that gullible.



Did tap him out in drills.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well stuff like this doesn't help;
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, stuff like that just reinforces the perception.


How does a friendly demonstration by a visiting Turkish wrestler in an Aikido class reinforce that perception?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> Btw... one aikidoka losing to a turkish wrestler doesnt prove your case that a. Aikido isnt a grappling art.


He didn't lose to the Turkish wrestler, it was clearly just a demonstration of his abilities. If you notice, the Aikido students did not have the reaction they would have if their instructor was being shown up by a visiting fighter. They were applauding every time the wrestler got the upper hand so unless their instructor was not very well liked in his own class it was just a demonstration of wrestling.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> How does a friendly demonstration by a visiting Turkish wrestler in an Aikido class reinforce that perception?



That wasn't a demonstration, that was a friendly sparring match. Which is why the wrestler didn't expect it, and they went twice.

The students clapped because they were impressed by the skill of the wrestler.

Typically in demonstrations between two styles, one style doesn't completely dominate the other.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Did tap him out in drills.



Tapping someone out in drills versus tapping someone out in fighting are two different things.


----------



## Tez3




----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That wasn't a demonstration, that was a friendly sparring match. Which is why the wrestler didn't expect it, and they went twice.
> 
> The students clapped because they were impressed by the skill of the wrestler.
> 
> Typically in demonstrations between two styles, one style doesn't completely dominate the other.


I didn't see it that way. Real challenges aren't friendly like that. You can hear the wrestler say "no striking", "just wrestling."   The Aikido practitioner is probably a really good one and the teacher there probably wanted to expand his understanding of Aikido when going against a different fighting style. No matter what style of martial arts you take, you can't fight all fighting systems with the same approach.  The fact that this was done in front of students means that the students are able to learn as well and can see the fight from a different perspective which will give the Aikido practitioner more information to use.  Most likely the head teacher of that school isn't the one wrestling. As the head teacher it's best to see the fight from the outside.  At no point in time in the video did the school lose face nor did the Turkish wrestler.
The Aikido students are also video taping as well, which will make for a good study reference and will help make their school better. The students were probably impressed to a point. But most of that clapping is probably out of respect and good will, especially since it's not a real challenge. I wouldn't be surprise if they build a relationship with this guy in an effort to learn more about how his style works so that they can fine tune Aikido to deal with similar wrestling movements.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't see it that way. Real challenges aren't friendly like that. You can hear the wrestler say "no striking", "just wrestling."   The Aikido practitioner is probably a really good one and the teacher there probably wanted to expand his understanding of Aikido when going against a different fighting style. No matter what style of martial arts you take, you can't fight all fighting systems with the same approach.  The fact that this was done in front of students means that the students are able to learn as well and can see the fight from a different perspective which will give the Aikido practitioner more information to use.  Most likely the head teacher of that school isn't the one wrestling. As the head teacher it's best to see the fight from the outside.  At no point in time in the video did the school lose face nor did the Turkish wrestler.
> The Aikido students are also video taping as well, which will make for a good study reference and will help make their school better. The students were probably impressed to a point. But most of that clapping is probably out of respect and good will, especially since it's not a real challenge. I wouldn't be surprise if they build a relationship with this guy in an effort to learn more about how his style works so that they can fine tune Aikido to deal with similar wrestling movements.



Who said it was a challenge? I said it was clearly a friendly sparring match. The Aikidoka was obviously attempting to perform his techniques, but he was completely overwhelmed.

Which again, is why he went at it a second time in an attempt to correct his mistakes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Who said it was a challenge? I said it was clearly a friendly sparring match. The Aikidoka was obviously attempting to perform his techniques, but he was completely overwhelmed.
> 
> Which again, is why he went at it a second time in an attempt to correct his mistakes.


Sorry I could have sworn that I saw the word challenge mentioned. I'll have to start doing screen captures to make sure I'm not seeing things lol


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Typically in demonstrations between two styles, one style doesn't completely dominate the other.


You have a very lax criterion for what passes for complete domination.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> You have a very lax criterion for what passes for complete domination.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> You have a very lax criterion for what passes for complete domination.



Getting taken down and subdued in a matter of seconds (not once, but twice) is being completely dominated.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Getting taken down and subdued in a matter of seconds (not once, but twice) is being completely dominated.


But of course that means that the entire style was dominated based on a single sparring session by a visiting instructor without any clear context.I guess Turkish wrestling must be better than Aikido.

Therefore it must also be better than BJJ:


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Getting taken down and subdued in a matter of seconds (not once, but twice) is being completely dominated.




so if I double leg a Jiu-Jitiero, and put him on his back I've completely dominated him?

Cool


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> But of course that means that the entire style was dominated based on a single sparring session by a visiting instructor without any clear context.I guess Turkish wrestling must be better than Aikido.
> 
> Therefore it must also be better than BJJ:



Your logic is outstanding. 
I am dumbfounded.

*claps wildly*


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> But of course that means that the entire style was dominated based on a single sparring session by a visiting instructor without any clear context.I guess Turkish wrestling must be better than Aikido.
> 
> Therefore it must also be better than BJJ:



Where did I say that Turkish wrestling was better than Aikido? I simply said that situations like that vid don't help with Aikido's perception.

Additionally, I never said the entire system was dominated, I said that Aikidoka was dominated.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> so if I double leg a Jiu-Jitiero, and put him on his back I've completely dominated him?
> 
> Cool



If you put him on his back and he's tapping in a matter of seconds?

Absolutely.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Additionally, I never said the entire system was dominated, I said that Aikidoka was dominated.



I refer you to your previous statement;



Hanzou said:


> Typically in demonstrations between two styles, one style doesn't completely dominate the other.



In the video I posted that BJJer was dominated.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Anderson silver could probably make akido work.
> 
> Who has Steven segal fought again? I forget.




Tell me why an instructor's own fight record actually matters.
The Art founder accepted duels... such as the one with a navy officer and won using aikido.

Fight record really doesn't count much as evidence unless it is a loosing fight record.

And then, its value as evidence counts more against an exponent of an art, rather than the art itself.

Also, there is a parallel here. Just because a person is a great fighter, and exponent of a given art... it does not automatically follow that they can effectively teach.

The fact that the alleged world's best fighter was for a time training with a highly ranked akidoka instructor should be evidence that there is more than smoke there.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I refer you to your previous statement;



You clearly missed the context.



> In the video I posted that BJJer was dominated.



Not really. The Bjjer at least put up a fight. Keep in mind, the Aikidoka was subbed, reset and subbed again in less time of that entire grappling match.

Further, I'm not hearing of any Turkish wrestlers dominating any major Bjj competitions or competitors, so your argument is kind of pointless. If a Turkish wrestler was subbing Marcelo Garcia, Kron Gracie, or Keenan, we'd have an argument here.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> so your argument is kind of pointless.


As is yours.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> As is yours.



Again, my argument was simply that videos like the one I showed simply reinforces negative views of Aikido's effectiveness.


----------



## Xue Sheng




----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Tapping someone out in drills versus tapping someone out in fighting are two different things.


 
Only if you're drilling incorrectly.

Drilling should be like going live, except when I run something right, its your turn to try

Thats wrestling 101, I'd be very surprised if BJJ wasnt the same way


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> He didn't lose to the Turkish wrestler, it was clearly just a demonstration of his abilities. If you notice, the Aikido students did not have the reaction they would have if their instructor was being shown up by a visiting fighter. They were applauding every time the wrestler got the upper hand so unless their instructor was not very well liked in his own class it was just a demonstration of wrestling.



How are you supposed to react?

We would be a whole room of very impressed people..


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Tapping someone out in drills versus tapping someone out in fighting are two different things.



Not if you do akido.

(See what I did there?)


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Not if you do akido.
> 
> (See what I did there?)




Well to be fair,

Even in wrestling its the same. If its not, you're drilling wrong


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


>



Can't find one for simply "not knowing the subject," but this also applies.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Tell me why an instructor's own fight record actually matters.
> The Art founder accepted duels... such as the one with a navy officer and won using aikido.
> 
> Fecord really doesn't count much as evidence unless it is a loosing fight record.
> 
> And then, its value as evidence counts more against an exponent of an art, rather than the art itself.
> 
> Also, there is a parallel here. Just because a person is a great fighter, and exponent of a given art... it does not automatically follow that they can effectively teach.
> 
> The fact that the alleged world's best fighter was for a time training with a highly ranked akidoka instructor should be evidence that there is more than smoke there.



The correct answer was kelly lebrock.

Otherwise the two days of training has been outed as a publicity stunt and Anderson Silva did know how to kick people in the head before he trained with Steven segal. So it was all smoke.

So Steven segal as no fight record to be proud of and has not trained any fighters. And I doubt you will see him sparring anybody any time soon or mixing it up with other systems.

All of that is fine. (Except for the Kelly lebrock thing) People train what they want for their own reasons. But you can't expected to earn the respect of a martial artist that is willing to put their reputation on the line by not putting yours.

I am not going to tolerate your fantasys if you enable mine. That is not mutual respect.

I will ground you in reality and graciously accept you grounding me through adversity. That is mutual respect.

And that is the Joe rogan point of humbleness even though commenting on the failings of a martial art.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Well to be fair,
> 
> Even in wrestling its the same. If its not, you're drilling wrong



Yeah but nobody is going to prop themselves up in wrestling by saying they tapped someone in a drill.

Because they don't consider that a real test of effectiveness.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Yeah but nobody is going to prop themselves up in wrestling by saying they tapped someone in a drill.
> 
> Because they don't consider that a real test of effectiveness.



If you cant do it in drilling, you can do it in a fight though


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> I am not going to tolerate your fantasys if you enable mine. That is not mutual respect.
> 
> I will ground you in reality and graciously accept you grounding me through adversity. That is mutual respect.
> 
> And that is the Joe rogan point of humbleness even though commenting on the failings of a martial art.



Joe could simply say he prefers training in a system with "alive practice" and that is his preference rather than bagging on all the styles he does.  In the end, in this situation he comes across as a jerk!


----------



## Steve

But does anyone really disagree with the idea here?  After how many pages, it still seems like we all agree with the idea that there is bad training.  And we all seem to mostly agree with what constitutes bad training.  

The sticking point seems to be a matter of ratio.  Contact and pressure testing are essential.  how much is the minimum?  How is the student's skill level tested to ensure proficiency?

Some styles seem to pressure test less often.  And those styles get picked on a little.  But inevitably, the people who defend these styles don't argue against pressure testing or contact.   They instead allege to be among the minority who train with contact.  

Hopefully this makes sense.  I'm typing on a phone, so please forgive odd spellings.


----------



## TSDTexan

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Joe could simply say he prefers training in a system with "alive practice" and that is his preference rather than bagging on all the styles he does.  In the end, in this situation he comes across as a jerk!




You put it perfectly.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> But does anyone really disagree with the idea here?  After how many pages, it still seems like we all agree with the idea that there is bad training.  And we all seem to mostly agree with what constitutes bad training.
> 
> The sticking point seems to be a matter of ratio.  Contact and pressure testing are essential.  how much is the minimum?  How is the student's skill level tested to ensure proficiency?
> 
> Some styles seem to pressure test less often.  And those styles get picked on a little.  But inevitably, the people who defend these styles don't argue against pressure testing or contact.   They instead allege to be among the minority who train with contact.
> 
> Hopefully this makes sense.  I'm typing on a phone, so please forgive odd spellings.



Steve... Don't be a wet blanket on a lively feed Bro.

Every one has a voice to speak on the subjects.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Steve... Don't be a wet blanket on a lively feed Bro.
> 
> Every one has a voice to speak on the subjects.


What?  I don't understand what you're saying. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> Steve... Don't be a wet blanket on a lively feed Bro.
> 
> Every one has a voice to speak on the subjects.





Steve said:


> What?  I don't understand what you're saying.



He's saying don't spoil a perfectly good argument with all this voice-of-reason, can't we all get along business.

Seriously, Steve, it's almost as if you don't want to watch everybody get into a big food fight.


----------



## Steve

I'm a libra.  What can I say?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> But does anyone really disagree with the idea here?  After how many pages, it still seems like we all agree with the idea that there is bad training.  And we all seem to mostly agree with what constitutes bad training.
> 
> The sticking point seems to be a matter of ratio.  Contact and pressure testing are essential.  how much is the minimum?  How is the student's skill level tested to ensure proficiency?
> 
> Some styles seem to pressure test less often.  And those styles get picked on a little.  But inevitably, the people who defend these styles don't argue against pressure testing or contact.   They instead allege to be among the minority who train with contact.
> 
> Hopefully this makes sense.  I'm typing on a phone, so please forgive odd spellings.



It would make sense. I am not sure it is always presented that way. I think for those that don't pressure test there has been a wall of excuses built up to defend that.

And we wind up with dudes like Steven segal thinking they are actually teaching Anderson Silva to kick.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Joe could simply say he prefers training in a system with "alive practice" and that is his preference rather than bagging on all the styles he does.  In the end, in this situation he comes across as a jerk!




Well as much as we like to say let's treat all styles with respect. I remember a poster here who made his own style up with advice from his street fighting mate. 

And I wonder how many people posted that they totally respect that rather than advise he does a real martial art. Like a duchebag.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> It would make sense. I am not sure it is always presented that way. I think for those that don't pressure test there has been a wall of excuses built up to defend that.
> 
> And we wind up with dudes like Steven segal thinking they are actually teaching Anderson Silva to kick.



In fairness to Steven... he did help "refine" a technique that Silva already new.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> In fairness to Steven... he did help "refine" a technique that Silva already new.



Look it up on the Internets. It was a publicity stunt. In fact look up Steven segals shenanigans in general. He is probably not the guy you want flagshipling akido.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Who has Steven segal fought again? I forget.


Who has tried?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Look it up on the Internets. It was a publicity stunt. In fact look up Steven segals shenanigans in general. He is probably not the guy you want flagshipling akido.


By all accounts, Seagal is a complete *******. However I train BJJ, so I'm not in a position to comment on disreputable representatives of other arts. Seagal may be a self-promoting, sexually-harassing, bullying douchebag, but at least he's not Helio Gracie.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> By all accounts, Seagal is a complete *******. However I train BJJ, so I'm not in a position to comment on disreputable representatives of other arts. Seagal may be a self-promoting, sexually-harassing, bullying douchebag, but at least he's not Helio Gracie.



There's mixed messages throughout his career-while I wouldn't want him anywhere near my daughter, he also has a reputation for generosity. While he's known to burn bridges with people who've been with him for years, he also has a reputation for being surprisingly warm and approachable. And, while he was known for treating stuntmen like he treats his uke (really *hard*), I know stunt-people who have worked with him on some of his last few direct-to-DVD productions, and they had nothing but good things to say about him.

His aikido, though, was impeccable, years ago-don't know about now......

Not really the kind of guy I'd recommend training with-he sounds  to be  alternately charming and intelligent, sometimes creepy and bullying, other times saintly and generous, secretive and frank, honest and deceptive .

In other words, a *sociopath*


----------



## Tony Dismukes

elder999 said:


> There's mixed messages throughout his career-while I wouldn't want him anywhere near my daughter, he also has a reputation for generosity. While he's known to burn bridges with people who've been with him for years, he also has a reputation for being surprisingly warm and approachable. And, while he was known for treating stuntmen like he treats his uke (really *hard*), I know stunt-people who have worked with him on some of his last few direct-to-DVD productions, and they had nothing but good things to say about him.
> 
> His aikido, though, was impeccable, years ago-don't know about now......
> 
> Not really the kind of guy I'd recommend training with-he sounds  to be  alternately charming and intelligent, sometimes creepy and bullying, other times saintly and generous, secretive and frank, honest and deceptive .
> 
> In other words, a *sociopath*


So what you're saying is ... in a different time and place, he _could_ have been Helio Gracie?


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> It's not quite a false generalization is no one's stepped up to prove their accusations false.



There are reasonable criticisms to be made of how 'traditional' martial arts are sometimes trained.
Tony Dismukes' theory of how 'no touch' may evolve from training methods is thoughtful, plausible and does not over-generalize.
ShotoNoob's criticisms are the sharpest this thread has seen.
Those are good examples of how to think and talk about martial arts.
These are not.
The claim by Rogan has been proven false in this thread:



> When you start sparring, that's when techniques really get weeded out, and that's when you understand what is the most effective use of energy and force, what techniques work the best, what techniques are applicable and what techniques are really kinda frivolous and what techniques are a waste of time and there's better alternatives. Well, Kung Fu never did that, they didn't have all the sparring."



And the claim by Gregoriades doesn't pass the smell test:



> If you look at some of those more ridiculous martial arts [...] without fail, every single 45 year old plus traditional martial artist is the one who's got a slouch and a beer belly and you can see he hasn't done a pushup for like fifteen years



I train with at least eight traditional martial artists whom are over the age of 45, none of whom remotely fit the above description. Equivocating over nonsense is not worthwhile.

As Zack Cart noted, 'bashing' is not a scientific approach it is political.
Worse than political, the claims are stupid. They are simply not good criticisms.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> So what you're saying is ... in a different time and place, he _could_ have been Helio Gracie?



....or a Tibetan Buddhist saint......or a "good" actor.....or a gifted blues musician....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










(I understand the problems of being multi-talented, but, seriously? 





  )

Seriously, a little back story: Craig Dunn, sensei-of the Kihon Dojo, in Taos, NM-formerly a Tenshin AIkido Dojo, under Steven Seagal-is a friend of mine-he's a winemaker at La Chiripada Winery, in Dixon, and was an uchi-deshi to Seagal in Osaka, before the movies. He was also Seagal sensei's stunt double in a couple of earlier movies.  I've been to a couple of Steven Seagal seminars at Craig's dojo, years ago. His aikido's no joke-it *hurts*, and Craig-and every other student of his I've met over the years-is pretty solid as well.

For the record, I've done "TMA" since I was 11. I'm over 55, don't slouch, and don't have a "pot-bellly." 

Not much of one, anyway....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Of course, I was "MMA" before it  was "MMA."......just sayin'


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> Of course, I was "MMA" before it  was "MMA."......just sayin'



Does Japanese Jujutsu, TKD, with a dash of Kempo...pre 1983, count as MMA before it was MMA too


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


> Does Japanese Jujutsu, TKD, with a dash of Kempo...pre 1983, count as MMA before it was MMA too




Only if you sparred all three at the same time.......*we did*


----------



## Sub Zero

drop bear said:


> It would make sense. I am not sure it is always presented that way. I think for those that don't pressure test there has been a wall of excuses built up to defend that.
> 
> And we wind up with dudes like Steven segal thinking they are actually teaching Anderson Silva to kick.



Whoa, whoa, wait a minute are you saying Segal didn't teach Silva everything he knows about fighting? Next thing you know you will be telling me pro-wrestling is fixed.


----------



## Hanzou

renc said:


> There are reasonable criticisms to be made of how 'traditional' martial arts are sometimes trained.
> Tony Dismukes' theory of how 'no touch' may evolve from training methods is thoughtful, plausible and does not over-generalize.
> ShotoNoob's criticisms are the sharpest this thread has seen.
> Those are good examples of how to think and talk about martial arts.
> These are not.
> The claim by Rogan has been proven false in this thread:



Rogan wasn't saying that TMAs never spar. He said that TMAs don't push out "frivolous" techniques, or techniques that don't really work very well in favor of better techniques. That practice can result from a martial art that lacks sparring, a martial art that adheres too closely to its roots, or a combination of both.

Take for example traditional karate and kung fu hand techniques vs. modern boxing. It's a pretty rare thing to see someone throw a reverse punch while sparring. However, seeing Karateka and traditional Kung Fu practitioners fighting like amateur kick boxers is a very common thing.



> And the claim by Gregoriades doesn't pass the smell test:



Well, that claim is a bit harder to substantiate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Rogan wasn't saying that TMAs never spar. He said that TMAs don't push out "frivolous" techniques, or techniques that don't really work very well in favor of better techniques. That practice can result from a martial art that lacks sparring, a martial art that adheres too closely to its roots, or a combination of both.
> 
> Take for example traditional karate and kung fu hand techniques vs. modern boxing. It's a pretty rare thing to see someone throw a reverse punch while sparring. However, seeing Karateka and traditional Kung Fu practitioners fighting like amateur kick boxers is a very common thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that claim is a bit harder to substantiate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.




Reverse Punches are thrown all the time in sparring.....


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Reverse Punches are thrown all the time in sparring.....



If you say so....

Keeping your hand chambered at the waist is a great way to get tagged in the face.

Which is why MMA and Sanda looked towards Muay Thai and Boxing.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> If you say so....
> 
> Keeping your hand chambered at the waist is a great way to get tagged in the face.



Thats not what defines a reverse punch in sparring.........


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Take for example traditional karate and kung fu hand techniques vs. modern boxing. It's a pretty rare thing to see someone throw a reverse punch while sparring. However, seeing Karateka and traditional Kung Fu practitioners fighting like amateur kick boxers is a very common thing.


 Drose427 is correct. Reverse punches are thrown all the time.

A 1,2, jab combination uses the reverse punch.





Here is another video showing the reverse Reverse punch used in kung fu sparring thrown by 3 different people 3 different ways

The reverse punch is often the fighters power hand. The reason why some Kung Fu practitioners fight like amateur kick boxers is because those people don't know how to use their techniques in a live fight. In these cases the technique isn't the problem, the fighter is.

Chambered fists are done in kata and form practice only (this includes punching drills).


----------



## elder999

JowGaWolf said:


> Chambered fists are done in kata and form practice only (this includes punching drills).



Oh, you've done it now...(_counting, 5.4.3.2.1..."*How come they don't fight the way they practice in Because boxing is better.**"* _  )


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Rogan wasn't saying that TMAs never spar. He said that TMAs don't push out "frivolous" techniques, or techniques that don't really work very well in favor of better techniques. That practice can result from a martial art that lacks sparring, a martial art that adheres too closely to its roots, or a combination of both.
> 
> Take for example traditional karate and kung fu hand techniques vs. modern boxing. It's a pretty rare thing to see someone throw a reverse punch while sparring. However, seeing Karateka and traditional Kung Fu practitioners fighting like amateur kick boxers is a very common thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that claim is a bit harder to substantiate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Thats the odd thing. The only time I have hit some in anger was with 3 alternating reverse punches, chambered from the hip. Thats was on a basketball court and I should have just walked away.
But he was knocked down and regreting it.
And I was kind of shocked because I didn't really intend punch him.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Drose427 is correct. Reverse punches are thrown all the time.
> 
> A 1,2, jab combination uses the reverse punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another video showing the reverse Reverse punch used in kung fu sparring thrown by 3 different people 3 different ways
> 
> The reverse punch is often the fighters power hand. The reason why some Kung Fu practitioners fight like amateur kick boxers is because those people don't know how to use their techniques in a live fight. In these cases the technique isn't the problem, the fighter is.
> 
> Chambered fists are done in kata and form practice only (this includes punching drills).



Let's make sure we're talking about the same punch here;








That is a reverse punch.

You really shouldn't train a punch like that if the goal is to perform a straight/cross punch. You're talking about two entirely different punches. If your goal is to perform a straight/cross punch, train the straight/cross punch.



TSDTexan said:


> Thats the odd thing. The only time I have hit some in anger was with 3 alternating reverse punches, chambered from the hip. Thats was on a basketball court and I should have just walked away.
> But he was knocked down and regreting it.
> And I was kind of shocked because I didn't really intend punch him.



Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six "ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?


----------



## kuniggety

Hanzou said:


> Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six "ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?



As someone who lives in Japan, I can tell you that ninjas are a very real threat. Luckily, I have an attuned spidey-sense that has prevented my assassination.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Let's make sure we're talking about the same punch here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a reverse punch.
> 
> You really shouldn't train a punch like that if the goal is to perform a straight/cross punch. You're talking about two entirely different punches. If your goal is to perform a straight/cross punch, train the straight/cross punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six "ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?



No. Not ninjas.
Common teen thugs street gang trash... on a street.

These two incidents were many years apart.
One was about winter 1990.. somewhere.

The other was about '02 or '03.

Your disbelief and mocking tone.... make me regret trying to share with you.

And yes that punch.

And the basketball incident is my biggest failure.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Let's make sure we're talking about the same punch here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a reverse punch.
> 
> You really shouldn't train a punch like that if the goal is to perform a straight/cross punch. You're talking about two entirely different punches. If your goal is to perform a straight/cross punch, train the straight/cross punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six "ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?




A Reverse Punch doesnt have to chamber at the waist to be a reverse punch..
Thats what youre missing here

Its the rotation(generally at the finish) and coming back to starting position(which can be the shoulder) that qualifies it as a reverse punch.

Most point tournaments have an entire seminar before the event on this

The only difference between a boxing straight right and a reverse punch in application (not kata) is the timing of the rotation


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> A Reverse Punch doesnt have to chamber at the waist to be a reverse punch..
> Thats what youre missing here
> 
> Its the rotation(generally at the finish) and coming back to starting position(which can be the shoulder) that qualifies it as a reverse punch.
> 
> Most point tournaments have an entire seminar before the event on this
> 
> The only difference between a boxing straight right and a reverse punch in application (not kata) is the timing of the rotation



So why is there a difference between a boxing straight and a reverse punch in kata and drilling?

Again, wouldn't the more efficient method be to simply teach the boxing straight?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> So why is there a difference between a boxing straight and a reverse punch in kata and drilling?
> 
> Again, wouldn't the more efficient method be to simply teach the boxing straight?



Different fundamentals.
Weighted fist with serious follow through on impact versus unweighted fist with retraction upon impact.  Also distance ranges berween striker and target are very different.

And this is also how it is done on the traditional striking target in old karate and Tou-Te... furthermore the chamber or hitake isn't what you think it is. Its a grabing traping hand.


----------



## TSDTexan

.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So why is there a difference between a boxing straight and a reverse punch in kata and drilling?
> 
> Again, wouldn't the more efficient method be to simply teach the boxing straight?



Again, the only difference in application is the timing of the rotation

it _is_ taught that way for sparring.

We've explained why forms have such exaggeration and deep elongated stances in the past over and over and over again.

they arent, and never were, meant to be a perfect representation of fighting


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> Different fundamentals.
> Weighted fist with serious follow through on impact versus unweighted fist with retraction upon impact.  Also distance ranges berween striker and target are very different.
> 
> And this is also how it is done on the traditional striking target in old karate and Tou-Te... furthermore the chamber or hitake isn't what you think it is. Its a grabing traping hand.



Dont even try to bring up applications/interpretations.

We've been down that road before and dont need to have another 40 pages that ends in personal attacks


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Thats the odd thing. The only time I have hit some in anger was with 3 alternating reverse punches, chambered from the hip. Thats was on a basketball court and I should have just walked away.
> But he was knocked down and regreting it.
> And I was kind of shocked because I didn't really intend punch him.


Was your fist chambered like the lady's picture below? Or did you throw a punch from the hip like the video below? To me the definition of a chambered fist is like how the lady is holding her fist next to the body. Punching from a chambered fist helps the student learn correct punching form and how to correctly generate power for punches.  To fight with a fist chambered like that is dangerous. It might be something you can get away with if you throw the first punch but you'll need that hand to help with defense once kicks and punches start flying,


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Let's make sure we're talking about the same punch here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a reverse punch.
> 
> You really shouldn't train a punch like that if the goal is to perform a straight/cross punch. You're talking about two entirely different punches. If your goal is to perform a straight/cross punch, train the straight/cross punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six "ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?


  A reverse punch is just a punch where you aren't punching with your lead hand. The gif that you have are punching drills. The purpose of this drill to learn how to throw a punch correctly.  The reverse punch is not the same as a cross.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drose427 said:


> Again, the only difference in application is the timing of the rotation
> 
> it _is_ taught that way for sparring.
> 
> We've explained why forms have such exaggeration and deep elongated stances in the past over and over and over again.
> 
> they arent, and never were, meant to be a perfect representation of fighting


I thought the "What's a reverse punch?" question was answered already too.


----------



## Drose427

JowGaWolf said:


> I thought the "What's a reverse punch?" question was answered already too.



Well we had a thread, but I wasnt sure hanzou stopped by to see it


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Different fundamentals.
> Weighted fist with serious follow through on impact versus unweighted fist with retraction upon impact.  Also distance ranges berween striker and target are very different.



Which is to be expected since they are two entirely different punches.

You also didn't answer my question.



> And this is also how it is done on the traditional striking target in old karate and Tou-Te... furthermore the chamber or hitake isn't what you think it is. Its a grabing traping hand.



It _can_ be a grabbing/trapping hand. However it never really is because the timing and power necessary to pull something like that off is pretty close to fantasy.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Which is to be expected since they are two entirely different punches.
> 
> You also didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> It _can_ be a grabbing/trapping hand. However it never really is because the timing and power necessary to pull something like that off is pretty close to fantasy.



We've explained this movment too......

You arent yanking them from that far off..


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> Was your fist chambered like the lady's picture below? Or did you throw a punch from the hip like the video below? To me the definition of a chambered fist is like how the lady is holding her fist next to the body. Punching from a chambered fist helps the student learn correct punching form and how to correctly generate power for punches.  To fight with a fist chambered like that is dangerous. It might be something you can get away with if you throw the first punch but you'll need that hand to help with defense once kicks and punches start flying,



Well the sequence was 4 repeated instances of hard charging right through me. I was set in position. He knocked me down, I said foul. Neither team gave me my free throws.  Inbound and repeat.
The fourth time I told him if you try to charge me like that again... its going to get serious.
He took a pass.. and drove towards me.
I pivoted down in to a deep horse stance and shoved him off after he impacted unforeseen resistance.
This led to him reentering to shove me.
Rather than getting into a shoving match. I pulled, as I was firing three alternating reverse punches.

The first was low on the hip, second and third didnt have time for the full low chamber. They were high rib chambers like Motobu Choki modeled.  A guarding chamber.

My greatest regret is that I could have walked off the court instead of dropping the gauntlet on the fourth charge.

I didn't have to play street ball. I escalated.
I didn't like being knocked down by a twenty year old.
Definitely had a huge ego.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Again, the only difference in application is the timing of the rotation



As well as the hand placement, and the entire stance.



> it _is_ taught that way for sparring.



Would that be because the traditional way was found to be ineffective I
While sparring?



> We've explained why forms have such exaggeration and deep elongated stances in the past over and over and over again.
> 
> they arent, and never were, meant to be a perfect representation of fighting



Then why do it? We don't see boxers doing chambered reverse punches in order to learn how to do a straight. They simply practice the straight.


----------



## TSDTexan

Drose427 said:


> We've explained this movment too......
> 
> You arent yanking them from that far off..



Ya... He doesn't get that its not an aikido throw but a guard break/unbalancer.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So why is there a difference between a boxing straight and a reverse punch in kata and drilling?
> 
> Again, wouldn't the more efficient method be to simply teach the boxing straight?


 A reverse punch can target anything from has high as the head to the waist.  A boxing straight or cross cannot. The reverse punch requires power to be generated from the hips or waist depending on the fighting system. The closer the punch is to the body the easier it is learn how to connect the twisting of the waist to the punch.  In addition "chicken wing" punches (punching with the elbow out) are bad in martial arts because there are techniques that will take advantage of that elbow sticking out.  In a real fight someone may disguise a reverse punch by holding that hand low.  In the video that I posted, I hid my reverse punch with another punch.  Reverse punches can be used as Block-attack combination where the lead hand blocks or redirects an incoming punch and the reverse punch attacks through the opening that the lead hand created.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Let's make sure we're talking about the same punch here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a reverse punch.
> 
> You really shouldn't train a punch like that if the goal is to perform a straight/cross punch. You're talking about two entirely different punches. If your goal is to perform a straight/cross punch, train the straight/cross punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you also say that your master saved you from six"ninjas" who attacked you in a parking lot?




 First video makes my eyes hurt.
A. That is a push... not a punch.
B. He is far too away from his target.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Was your fist chambered like the lady's picture below? Or did you throw a punch from the hip like the video below? To me the definition of a chambered fist is like how the lady is holding her fist next to the body. Punching from a chambered fist helps the student learn correct punching form and how to correctly generate power for punches.  To fight with a fist chambered like that is dangerous. It might be something you can get away with if you throw the first punch but you'll need that hand to help with defense once kicks and punches start flying.]



How can it be proper punching form if you're never supposed to punch while in that form? Isn't that an inherent contradiction, and a waste of training time? Wouldn't proper punching form be the actual form you take when you're punching something?

It doesn't help that this punch (you're never supposed to use) is reinforced in several kata.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou... 
The Way of Least Resistance: Karate punches vs. boxing punches


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> How can it be proper punching form if you're never supposed to punch while in that form? Isn't that an inherent contradiction, and a waste of training time? Wouldn't proper punching form be the actual form you take when you're punching something?
> 
> It doesn't help that this punch (you're never supposed to use) is reinforced in several kata.




You are missing it.
Learning the mechanics is the point of the form. 
Using the mechanics is the art.
Many can do the form and have not learned the mechanics of it.


----------



## TSDTexan

Here is Motobu Choki...(he was well noted for high chambers) showing where a reverse punch to the body ends at full extention. However the target is the rib/armpit/pressure point... with retraction upon impact instead of pushing into full extension.




Japanese Karate i.e. Shotokan style approaches  combat from a long distance range, Okinawan Karate or older Tou-Te prefers a shorter, closer, range.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> As well as the hand placement, and the entire stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be because the traditional way was found to be ineffective I
> While sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do it? We don't see boxers doing chambered reverse punches in order to learn how to do a straight. They simply practice the straight.




No the hand placement and stance arent different

A reverse punch as seen in kata is not a reverse punch in sparring or application......

hand placement and stance arent what make it a reverse punch youre ignoring that fact cause it doesnt fit your opinion even after an entire thread was started on it agreeing that what made the punch was the rotation and returning to starting position.


Its not about "traditional way" or not.

You keep living in this world where you think forms are supposed teach us to fight, and they arent.

Theres a reason the old masters still actually sparred.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> How can it be proper punching form if you're never supposed to punch while in that form? Isn't that an inherent contradiction, and a waste of training time?
> 
> It doesn't help that this punch you're never supposed to use is reinforced in several kata.


 Because proper punching and connecting the waist to a punch is not limited only to that punch. In my fighting system, the power of my jabs comes from my waist. I connect power the same way that I drive the chambered punch. I learned how to connect the power by first learning how to punch from a chambered fist.  I'm assuming that's the only way to learn how to connect the power from the waist because so many martial arts styles practice with a chambered fist.  You can tell that you aren't connecting the waist to a punch from a chambered position because the punch will be weak with question.  But the moment the energy from the waist is connected to the punch, you will know without a doubt that the punch is strong.

Martial arts are more complex than boxing.  The chambered fist doesn't just show how to connect power, it also helps students to learn multiple aspects of punching other than connecting power. The fact that this punch is reinforced in several kata, multiple kung fu forms, and across many fighting systems, is proof of its importance.  Forms and Katas help to train correct movement and 20 other things all at once.


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> Here is Motobu Choki...(he was well noted for high chambers) showing where a reverse punch to the body ends at full extention. However the target is the rib/armpit/pressure point... with retraction upon impact instead of pushing into full extension.
> View attachment 19501
> Japanese Karate i.e. Shotokan style approaches  combat from a long distance range, Okinawan Karate or older Tou-Te prefers a shorter, closer, range.



Not to mention Funakoshi used deeper longer stances in shotokan for phsyical conditioning.....

Hanzou still thinks people are taught to fight that way....


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Hanzou...
> The Way of Least Resistance: Karate punches vs. boxing punches



A whole lot of excuses as to why boxing has a superior punching method. However, the author is too stubborn to admit that so he uses a heap of illogic to try to say that both methods are equal.

Like so;



> *So why bother with karate punches?*
> 
> All of this poses the inevitable question, why don’t karateka simply adopt boxer’s tactics? As I have foreshadowed, this is largely answered by examining goals/motivations.
> 
> As I stated in my article “Civilian defence systems”, arts like karate *aren’t designed to "beat" an opponent or score a point. Your principal goal isn't to "land a knockout blow". Rather, you are trying to defend yourself.* Yes, this might involve a "knockout blow" - but it might not. In the course of this defence, your counters will tend to be conservative precisely because you aren't focused on "winning" – you are focused on not being hurt. Yes, the former and latter might end up being the same thing, but to suggest that they always will is a gross oversimplification of civilian defence needs and responsibilities under the law.



That's just silly talk and double speak. Karate isn't meant to beat someone up, yet if you "defend yourself" by kicking someone in the head, and then punching them in the face when they try to get back up again, what are you doing? What if a boxer gets confronted by an assailant, dodges the assailant's punch and does a kidney shot, causing the guy to double over so that the boxer can escape? Isn't the boxer defending himself?

What's worse than that? Saying a punch isn't really a punch, but really a super secret grab instead of simply admitting that the reverse punch as traditionally trained was impractical. So instead of using the traditional reverse punch, they adopted the boxing straight punch. A more efficient and practical way of doing the reverse punch.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> A whole lot of excuses as to why boxing has a superior punching method. However, the author is too stubborn to admit that so he uses a heap of illogic to try to say that both methods are equal.
> 
> Like so;
> 
> 
> 
> That's just silly talk and double speak. Karate isn't meant to beat someone up, yet if you "defend yourself" by kicking someone in the head, and then punching them in the face when they try to get back up again, what are you doing? What if a boxer gets confronted by an assailant, dodges the assailant's punch and does a kidney shot, causing the guy to double over so that the boxer can escape? Isn't the boxer defending himself?
> 
> What's worse than that? Saying a punch isn't really a punch, but really a super secret grab instead of simply admitting that the reverse punch as traditionally trained was impractical. So instead of using the traditional reverse punch, they adopted the boxing straight punch. A more efficient and practical way of doing the reverse punch.



Dude.......

The article is talking about beating someone in a competitive environment....

not "beating someone up"....


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou.. what martial arts do you train in?


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> You are missing it.
> Learning the mechanics is the point of the form.
> Using the mechanics is the art.
> Many can do the form and have not learned the mechanics of it.



And yet boxers learn the mechanics of the straight the exact same way they're supposed to use the straight.

So which method is more efficient? Teaching someone an exaggerated and elongated method that in practice is completely incorrect, or simply teaching them the correct method that in practice is correct?



Drose427 said:


> Dude.......
> 
> The article is talking about beating someone in a competitive environment....
> 
> not "beating someone up"....



Which is even worse, because there are karate schools focused on competition, and there's boxing schools for self defense.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Hanzou.. what martial arts do you train in?



I used to train in Shotokan, and I currently train Bjj.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> And yet boxers learn the mechanics of the straight the exact same way they're supposed to use the straight.
> 
> So which method is more efficient? Teaching someone an exaggerated and elongated method that in practice is completely incorrect, or simply teaching them the correct method that in practice is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Which it even worse, because there are karate schools focused on competition, and there's boxing schools for self defense.



Karateka dont _learn_ the technique or mechanics through kata, theyre a means of practice. Theyre taught the practical technique too.

Theres a reason karateka still spar (using reverse punches, not the kata version), do bag work, etc.

You should know this


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> And yet boxers learn the mechanics of the straight the exact same way they're supposed to use the straight.
> 
> So which method is more efficient? Teaching someone an exaggerated and elongated method that in practice is completely incorrect, or simply teaching them the correct method that in practice is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is even worse, because there are karate schools focused on competition, and there's boxing schools for self defense.



The article is going over tradtional Karate styles, which arent based around competition


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So which method is more efficient? Teaching someone an exaggerated and elongated method that in practice is completely incorrect, or simply teaching them the correct method that in practice is correct?


 Learning boxing mechanics is easier.  Martial arts is more complex so you can't train someone how to do kung fu the same way that a person is trained to do boxing.  Who has the most efficient punch? It all depends on what punch you are talking about.  Some martial arts punches are more efficient than boxer punches because they target certain areas of the head.  Targeted punches means hitting with different parts of your fist for the purpose of maximizing damage to the opponent.  In martial arts there are punches that are designed to break the collar bone of a person.  Boxing doesn't have a punch that does this.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> No the hand placement and stance aren't different














Looks different.



> A reverse punch as seen in kata is not a reverse punch in sparring or application......



Really? So what other strikes from kata and practice aren't for sparring or application?


----------



## Drose427

JowGaWolf said:


> Learning boxing mechanics is easier.  Martial arts is more complex so you can't train someone how to do kung fu the same way that a person is trained to do boxing.  Who has the most efficient punch? It all depends on what punch you are talking about.  Some martial arts punches are more efficient than boxer punches because they target certain areas of the head.  Targeted punches means hitting with different parts of your fist for the purpose of maximizing damage to the opponent.  In martial arts there are punches that are designed to break the collar bone of a person.  Boxing doesn't have a punch that does this.



Without delving into that,

lets keep in mind the punch in question is a reverse punch, which is only different from a boxers straight right because of the timing of the rotation


----------



## TSDTexan

Drose427 said:


> Karateka dont _learn_ the technique or mechanics through kata, theyre a means of practice. Theyre taught the practical technique too.
> 
> Theres a reason karateka still spar (using reverse punches, not the kata version), do bag work, etc.
> 
> You should know this




I don't know how far he got as a shotokan karateka.
Nor do I know what kinda of instruction he received.

But yes... if the instructor was competent... yes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I used to train in Shotokan, and I currently train Bjj.


Did your teacher tell you the importance of kata and the real fight applications of the techniques?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Karateka dont _learn_ the technique or mechanics through kata, theyre a means of practice. Theyre taught the practical technique too.
> 
> Theres a reason karateka still spar (using reverse punches, not the kata version), do bag work, etc.
> 
> You should know this



So just to clarify; If kata aren't a means to learn technique or mechanics, why are you practicing them?

Exercise? Dancing?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Looks different.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So what other strikes from kata and practice aren't for sparring or application?



You realize the top picture is from a hapkido question discussing the reverse punch?

Elements of a good reverse punch

and the bottom is forms demonstration?

A user even posted a video of reverse punches being used in sparring and you can find tournament introducitons that go over what constitutes a reverse punch as well as an entire thread on it.

It isnt the waist chamber or front stance...

We've been over this a million times now, you're simply ignoring the fact

Again, a sparring punch or punch in application isnt going to look like kata nor is it meant to, _you should know this as a karateka._


anddddd again, youre misconstruing what i said.

I never said a strike or technique wasnt for sparring, 

but theyre done very differently in forms for a few different reasons, one of the biggest is physical conditioning(why modern styles have deep stances)


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> So just to clarify; If kata aren't a means to learn technique or mechanics, why are you practicing them?
> 
> Exercise? Dancing?



Conditioning, waist, focus, etc.

any of the millions of reasons youve been given in the past


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Learning boxing mechanics is easier. Martial arts is more complex so you can't train someone how to do kung fu the same way that a person is trained to do boxing.



Learning boxing mechanics is easier= Boxing is a more efficient method of learning how to punch.



> Who has the most efficient punch? It all depends on what punch you are talking about.  Some martial arts punches are more efficient than boxer punches because they target certain areas of the head.  Targeted punches means hitting with different parts of your fist for the purpose of maximizing damage to the opponent.  In martial arts there are punches that are designed to break the collar bone of a person.  Boxing doesn't have a punch that does this.



They can be designed to do whatever. If you're not actually breaking your partner's collarbone in practice with your collarbone breaking punch, that argument is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> I don't know how far he got as a shotokan karateka.
> Nor do I know what kinda of instruction he received.
> 
> But yes... if the instructor was competent... yes.



I believe he was a shodan,

but I'll leave him to to clarify anything


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> I don't know how far he got as a shotokan karateka.
> Nor do I know what kinda of instruction he received.
> 
> But yes... if the instructor was competent... yes.


I'm looking at these possibilities.
1. He missed practice the day instructor went over this.
2. He didn't take shotokan karateka long enough to hear this explaination
3. His instructor didn't bring this topic up so that the student could understand why they were doing kata.
4. His instructor doesn't know the importance so the topic never came up.
5. McDojo.

These aren't a slam on him, but somewhere down the line the purpose of kata wasn't explained.  In my school we often reinforce the importance of form when we see students get slack and sloppy when practicing forms. Thanks to the kids that we have practicing with their parents, we usually explain this at least 3 times a months lol.


----------



## Argus

Drose427 said:


> You realize the top picture is from a hapkido question discussing the reverse punch?
> 
> Elements of a good reverse punch
> 
> and the bottom is forms demonstration?
> 
> A user even posted a video of reverse punches being used in sparring and you can find tournament introducitons that go over what constitutes a reverse punch as well as an entire thread on it.
> 
> It isnt the waist chamber or front stance...
> 
> We've been over this a million times now, you're simply ignoring the fact
> 
> Again, a sparring punch or punch in application isnt going to look like kata nor is it meant to, _you should know this as a karateka._
> 
> 
> anddddd again, youre misconstruing what i said.
> 
> I never said a strike or technique wasnt for sparring,
> 
> but theyre done very differently in forms for a few different reasons, one of the biggest is physical conditioning(why modern styles have deep stances)



Have you ever considered that, in the forms, you might, for instance, be practicing "punching from wherever the hand is"?
If your hands happen to be down, as they often will be if suddenly confronted by an attacker in a self defense context and unprepared, having trained how to punch via the most direct and efficient line from your hand down at your side is a useful skill.

Of course, then, in the style I practice, we usually punch from the hands chambered near the breast, much higher. This is likely for a couple of reasons specific to our particular style and the concepts and principles on which it is based. But in application, we don't do that -- I mean, not unless the hand happens to, for some reason, be there. And there are, furthermore, instances in all of our forms in which punches happen from an unchambered position.

So, I agree that application needn't look like the form. But then, the question arises of "why do we do it in the form, then?" Usually, there's a reason, and it's worth knowing / exploring.


----------



## Drose427

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm looking at these possibilities.
> 1. He missed practice the day instructor went over this.
> 2. He didn't take shotokan karateka long enough to hear this explaination
> 3. His instructor didn't bring this topic up so that the student could understand why they were doing kata.
> 4. His instructor doesn't know the importance so the topic never came up.
> 5. McDojo.
> 
> These aren't a slam on him, but somewhere down the line the purpose of kata wasn't explained.  In my school we often reinforce the importance of form when we see students get slack and sloppy when practicing forms. Thanks to the kids that we have practicing with their parents, we usually explain this at least 3 times a months lol.



I always bring up this point:

Theres a reason most 2 hour classes spend only 30-40 minutes on forms

and theres a reason in their memoirs the old masters explained how much they used to _fight
_
Ive never seen someone so vehemently believe we are going around treating forms as the be all end all of training


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> So just to clarify; If kata aren't a means to learn technique or mechanics, why are you practicing them?
> 
> Exercise? Dancing?


Kata is Karate, Karate is Kata.
But you probably were never told what that old saying means.

It is a repository of the whole art. The Karate of Tomari-Te... had only 4 Kata.  This is a very Simple Art.  Out of Kata you gain the Kihon. Out of Kata you unpack the bunkai.

If you dont know the meaning of Kata you really know nothing about the Karate.

Gitchen Funakoshi said he brought 15 kata. That that could be memorized correctly in about 5 years.

However it takes a very long time to master all that the Kata contains.


----------



## TSDTexan

Argus said:


> Have you ever considered that, in the forms, you might, for instance, be practicing "punching from wherever the hand is"?
> If your hands happen to be down, as they often will be if suddenly confronted by an attacker in a self defense context and unprepared, having trained how to punch via the most direct and efficient line from your hand down at your side is a useful skill.
> 
> Of course, then, in the style I practice, we usually punch from the hands chambered near the breast, much higher. This is likely for a couple of reasons specific to our particular style and the concepts and principles on which it is based. But in application, we don't do that -- I mean, not unless the hand happens to, for some reason, be there. And there are, furthermore, instances in all of our forms in which punches happen from an unchambered position.
> 
> So, I agree that application needn't look like the form. But then, the question arises of "why do we do it in the form, then?" Usually, there's a reason, and it's worth knowing / exploring.



This is one place Choki chambered.




Here is one of Gitchen Funakoshi's teachers... notice his chamber...



 

Motobu Choki also does the same chamber as this one.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> You realize the top picture is from a hapkido question discussing the reverse punch?
> 
> Elements of a good reverse punch



Its also from a youth karate website that says that its a cross punch;

White Belt



> and the bottom is forms demonstration?



And the point was that there's a very clear difference in hand placement and stance.



> A user even posted a video of reverse punches being used in sparring and you can find tournament introducitons that go over what constitutes a reverse punch as well as an entire thread on it.
> 
> It isnt the waist chamber or front stance...
> 
> We've been over this a million times now, you're simply ignoring the fact



Ignoring the fact that there's two entirely different techniques called the same thing?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Its also from a youth karate website that says that its a cross punch;
> 
> White Belt
> 
> 
> 
> And the point was that there's a very clear difference in hand placement and stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that there's two entirely different techniques called the same thing?




A sparring roundhouse is different from a breaking roundhouse but their both roundhouses?

An ezekiel choke is done very different in no gi but is still called an ezekiel?

A million judo throws are down different without a gi but are still called by their specific names? (uchi mata for instance)

The difference is the sparring form/application (which has nothing to do with specific hand placement or stance) or kata form.

The hand placement and stance are not what make the reverse punch, thats what you're ignoring so vehemently

Heck, some boxer drop their punching arm to their waist for an uppercut, guess thats not an uppercut then too


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Did your teacher tell you the importance of kata and the real fight applications of the techniques?



He certainly told me that it was important. I personally don't believe there's any real fight applications within the techniques. You and Drose reinforced that belief during this exchange.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Its also from a youth karate website that says that its a cross punch;
> 
> White Belt
> 
> 
> 
> And the point was that there's a very clear difference in hand placement and stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that there's two entirely different techniques called the same thing?




Ok... try citing something authoritative.
Like published works of system founders or fathers of the art.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> He certainly told me that it was important. I personally don't believe there's any real fight applications within the techniques. You and Drose reinforced that belief during this exchange.



"Break!" 
Trolling one point Red!
Ready?
"Begin!"


----------



## Argus

TSDTexan said:


> This is one place Choki chambered.
> View attachment 19502
> 
> Here is one of Gitchen Funakoshi's teachers... notice his chamber...
> 
> View attachment 19503
> 
> Motobu Choki also does the same chamber as this one.



Looks a lot like old fashioned bareknuckle boxing, before the use of gloves and rules prohibiting knees and such.






Fancy that! It's almost as if the demands of the context for which we train modifies _*how*_ we apply our training. 

Edit: and, yes, I'm aware that they're _practicing_ with gloves.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> A sparring roundhouse is different from a breaking roundhouse but their both roundhouses?



Because hitting a board is different than hitting a person.



> An ezekiel choke is done very different in no gi but is still called an ezekiel?
> 
> A million judo throws are down different without a gi but are still called by their specific names? (uchi mata for instance)



You're forgetting that there's practical uses for the gi versions of the ezekiel choke and the gi version of uchi mata. You're taught two different versions because you may encounter someone wearing loose fitting clothes, or you may encounter someone wearing a t-shirt. 

The kata/traditional version of the reverse punch will get you killed in a fist fight because it leaves your face wide open.



> The difference is the sparring form/application (which has nothing to do with specific hand placement or stance) or kata form.
> 
> The hand placement and stance are not what make the reverse punch, thats what you're ignoring so vehemently
> 
> Heck, some boxer drop their punching arm to their waist for an uppercut, guess thats not an uppercut then too



Yeah, that's called a stylistic difference between boxers. We're talking about karateka being trained one way in kata, and then supposedly trained a different way in sparring.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> "Break!"
> Trolling one point Red!
> Ready?
> "Begin!"




The "Te" of Choki was applied in street fights testing thoses things he learned in Kata. His very stances and combinations came from Kata.

When he returned from Jaoan to Okinaiwa He went to learn Kata from the one man who gave him a beat down.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Because hitting a board is different than hitting a person.
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting that there's practical uses for the gi versions of the ezekiel choke and the gi version of uchi mata. The kata/traditional version of the reverse punch will get you killed in a fist fight because it leaves your face wide open.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's called a stylistic difference between boxers. We're talking about karateka being trained one way in kata, and then supposedly trained a different way in sparring.



how is hitting board different from hitting a person other than how it feels on your foot?

"Boards dont hit back?"

Right, which is why white belts learn to set things up.

Is the technique of a throw or sub 100% diiferent on a dummy? c'mon now

and dropping your hand to your waist in a boxing match wont?

thats ridiculous and you know it.

the punch isnt whats different, the set up is.

Cant be any clearer than that.

The stance and chamber are the set up, not the reverse punch. 

its that simple. You can throw a reverse punch on the shoulder if you want.


----------



## Drose427

Argus said:


> Looks a lot like old fashioned bareknuckle boxing, before the use of gloves and rules prohibiting knees and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fancy that! It's almost as if the demands of the context for which we train modifies _*how*_ we apply our training.
> 
> Edit: and, yes, I'm aware that they're _practicing_ with gloves.



Thank god those leggings went away from bouts.....

Cant imagine folks would be as intimidating in those XD


----------



## Argus

Hanzou said:


> Because hitting a board is different than hitting a person.
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting that there's practical uses for the gi versions of the ezekiel choke and the gi version of uchi mata. You're taught two different versions because you may encounter someone wearing loose fitting clothes, or you may encounter someone wearing a t-shirt.
> 
> The kata/traditional version of the reverse punch will get you killed in a fist fight because it leaves your face wide open.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's called a stylistic difference between boxers. We're talking about karateka being trained one way in kata, and then supposedly trained a different way in sparring.



I'm always half in agreement, and half in disagreement with your posts, Hanzou. Not that it matters, or that I presume you care, or that I'm any kind of authority. But I'll opt for the "Like" button this time around. If nothing else, you challenge people's perspectives and cause them to think critically and defend their positions, for which there's a great deal to be said 

Actually, I often wonder if you're, at least part of the time, merely playing devil's advocate for that sake in and of itself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Learning boxing mechanics is easier= Boxing is a more efficient method of learning how to punch.
> 
> They can be designed to do whatever. If you're not actually breaking your partner's collarbone in practice with your collarbone breaking punch, that argument is pretty irrelevant.


Your statement "If you're not actually breaking your partner's collarbone in practice with your collarbone breaking punch, that argument is pretty irrelevant."  If this is your logic then "If you're not actually boxing your partner in practice then your argument of boxing is more efficient method of learning how to punch is just as irrelevant."

That's right you don't study boxing, you do BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Your statement "If you're not actually breaking your partner's collarbone in practice with your collarbone breaking punch, that argument is pretty irrelevant."  If this is your logic then "If you're not actually boxing your partner in practice then your argument of boxing is more efficient method of learning how to punch is just as irrelevant."
> 
> That's right you don't study boxing, you do BJJ.



I actually do study boxing. Not as much as I like, but I do attend a boxing gym every once in a while and go a few rounds in the ring. It's an excellent way to stay in shape.

That said, boxers do box their partners. It's called sparring, and boxers do it all the time. Sometimes people get knocked out in sparring.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I actually do study boxing. Not as much as I like, but I do attend a boxing gym every once in a while and go a few rounds in the ring. It's an excellent way to stay in shape.
> 
> That said, boxers do box their partners. It's called sparring, and boxers do it all the time. Sometimes people get knocked out in sparring.



he didnt mean boxers he meant you spefically

Most people spar every night at their TMA class as well, and sometimes they get knocked out too

hard sparring it isnt exclusive to boxing/ Muay Thai/MMA no matter how hard you think it is


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Learning boxing mechanics is easier= Boxing is a more efficient method of learning how to punch.



As someone who actually *boxed*, before he studied karate and all along, I have to say that no, "learning boxing mechanics" *is not* "easier......and, the key to efficiency in both types of punching is in the footwork and b_tai sabaki_. The chambered punch, hip and/or shoulder movement of the punch in karate  are _isolation_ exercises meant to develop the efficient delivery of power.....

BTW, all the punches of western boxing are in Okinawan and Japanese karate.....




Hanzou said:


> They can be designed to do whatever. If you're not actually breaking your partner's collarbone in practice with your collarbone breaking punch, that argument is pretty irrelevant.



As someone who has actually *broken someone's collarbone,* I gotta say you're *F.O.S.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I actually do study boxing.


 Not according to your response when I asked you what you studied.


----------



## JowGaWolf

elder999 said:


> As someone who actually *boxed*, before he studied karate and all along, I have to say that no, "learning boxing mechanics" *is not* "easier......and, the key to efficiency in both types of punching is in the footwork and b_tai sabaki_. The chambered punch, hip and/or shoulder movement of the punch in karate  are _isolation_ exercises meant to develop the efficient delivery of power.....
> 
> BTW, all the punches of western boxing are in Okinawan and Japanese karate.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has actually *broken someone's collarbone,* I gotta say you're *F.O.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Hanzou only believes it's possible if we are the ones doing it.  Correction only if he's the one doing it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

elder999 said:


> As someone who actually *boxed*, before he studied karate and all along, I have to say that no, "learning boxing mechanics" *is not* "easier


  He failed to realize that there are more to boxing mechanics than just punching.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> As someone who has actually *broken someone's collarbone,* I gotta say you're *F.O.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Yep so have I and I agree.  Although he guy kept saying I broke his Pancreas as he held his shoulder.  So that was funny


----------



## ballen0351

The look the doc gave me when I took him in the ER  was priceless. Doc says what's the problem officer as he sees the guy all stabalized by paramedics. I said he told me I broke his Pancreas.  Doc says ok we will send him for x-ra....,,wait what?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Looks different.


I agree with you 100% there.

Many years ago, one day I suddenly realized that the way I trained in my forms are different from the way that I hit on my heavy bag, and also different from the way that I sparred. After that day, not only I don't punch as the way that I trained in my forms, I gave up all my form training completely.

I like to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I see no reason to treat my training and my sparring differently. Today, I only train those drills that I have created by myself.

Even if the "long fist" system is one of my major systems, IMO, if the

- MT roundhouse kick is more powerful than the long fist roundhouse kick, and
- boxing punches is more powerful than the long fist punches,

I see no reason to switch to better training methods.

On the other hand, I still think the Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) "single leg" is much more effective than the western wrestling "single leg". So I'm not an anti-TMA person after all. I just like to keep the best material whether it may come from my major systems, or it may come from elsewhere.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Most people spar every night at their TMA class as well, and sometimes they get knocked out too
> 
> hard sparring it isnt exclusive to boxing/ Muay Thai/MMA no matter how hard you think it is



I never said it was. I said that the idea that you have a punch that breaks the collarbone means little if you're not actually breaking collarbones when you practice it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I never said it was. I said that the idea that you have a punch that breaks the collarbone means little if you're not actually breaking collarbones when you practice it.


That makes as much sense as saying an armbar means little if you don't break the arm


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> As someone who actually *boxed*, before he studied karate and all along, I have to say that no, "learning boxing mechanics" *is not* "easier......and, the key to efficiency in both types of punching is in the footwork and b_tai sabaki_. The chambered punch, hip and/or shoulder movement of the punch in karate  are _isolation_ exercises meant to develop the efficient delivery of power.....
> 
> BTW, all the punches of western boxing are in Okinawan and Japanese karate.....



I know they are. The point is that the training methods surrounding the Okinawan and Japanese karate systems are inefficient compared to western boxing. Which is why modern combat sports adopted western boxing OVER the Asian systems. That was the case even in Asia itself.

Why? Because western boxing simply had the better method. Heck, we just had a discussion where a punch you practice in karate over and over again for years is effectively the wrong way to punch. That's an inefficient method of training.



> As someone who has actually *broken someone's collarbone,* I gotta say you're *F.O.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.



ballen0351 said:


> That makes as much sense as saying an armbar means little if you don't break the arm



A joint lock is different than a strike.



JowGaWolf said:


> Not according to your response when I asked you what you studied.



Because unlike Bjj, it's not something that I do on a regular basis.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.
> 
> 
> .



More than once, actually....it's kind of a "go to" for me, along with the carotid sinus....what's so "interesting" about that?
(Note @Hanzou : if you can break five boards with a hammerfist, you can pretty much snap a collarbone.)


----------



## Argus

Hanzou said:


> I know they are. The point is that the training methods surrounding the Okinawan and Japanese karate systems are inefficient compared to western boxing. Which is why modern sports adopted western boxing OVER the Asian systems. That was the case even in Asia itself.
> 
> Why? Because western boxing simply had the better method. Heck, we just had a discussion where a punch you practice in karate over and over again for years is effectively the wrong way to punch. That's an inefficient method of training.
> 
> 
> 
> You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.



Is the best method for _most _people who compete in the ring the best method for _all_ people in _any_ context?

Take, for example, myself. Now, I definitely don't claim that I'm better than anyone else on average -- as if such a measurement could even be made, or made meaningfully. But I find that the specific TMA's that I study fit my psychology and learning style far better than most sportive arts such as western boxing, or even some contrasting TMAs that I appreciate but nonetheless don't practice. And while I don't have anything against such arts, I simply feel that the particular TMA methods that I study cater better to my learning style, and my natural skills, goals, psychology, and physiology. I do consider myself a bit of an oddity in this respect, and I see where many people struggle with or get hung up on the very methods that I find helpful, however.

I think that there's much to be said for practicing the martial art(s) that are most in line with your particular learning style, general psychology, and/or goals, and that some _tend_ excel in styles that others simply don't, and vice versa. And for that reason (and others), I think it's very important to get as wide and diverse an experience in the martial arts as you can, in order to learn about yourself and how you can better reach your goals and potential.

All arts have something to offer. And all arts offer something better for some people than others.


----------



## ballen0351

A joint lock is harder to pull off correctly then a strike.  I'd bet most average adults in relatively good shape are strong enough to break a collar bone.  I don't need to break them in training to know I'm powerful enough to do it when I need to


----------



## JowGaWolf

ballen0351 said:


> A joint lock is harder to pull off correctly then a strike.  I'd bet most average adults in relatively good shape are strong enough to break a collar bone.  I don't need to break them in training to know I'm powerful enough to do it when I need to


Not true... how do you know you can break a finger if you have never broken one before it only counts if you have actually done it.   oops... I've been listening to bad logic lately from hanzou lol.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> A joint lock is harder to pull off correctly then a strike.  I'd bet most average adults in relatively good shape are strong enough to break a collar bone.  I don't need to break them in training to know I'm powerful enough to do it when I need to



I never said one was harder to pull off than another. I said they're different from each other, and the training methods surrounding both allow you to practice breaking a joint a bit more accurately than breaking someone's collar bone with a strike.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I never said it was. I said that the idea that you have a punch that breaks the collarbone means little if you're not actually breaking collarbones when you practice it.



Hmm... I work with ceramics. I have done so since age 9.
I have also done horticulture and landscapping. As an adult who cleared land for profit.

In my life have butchered about 100 swine, 4000 cattle, countless whitertail and mule deer.
[I was a egg and vegetarian for almost decade after that.]

Human collarbones and bones in general are not really easy to break like  ceramics. There is a lot of give that is unexpected.

A good comparison would be a wet or green sapling vs a dry annd seasoned one.

However a proper axe will break a collarbone. No doubt. Also a throw done to someone who doent know how to break their fall... collar break.

Now most folks cannot do a proper axe kick soo...

A jumping double knifehand strike following a stunning blow is high percentage for broken collar bones.


----------



## Hanzou

Argus said:


> Is the best method for _most _people who compete in the ring the best method for _all_ people in _any_ context?



Well frankly yes. It might not appeal to you on a personal level, but its pretty obvious that boxing simply towers over other MAs in terms of punching. 

Now will everyone head to a boxing gym to learn boxing? Probably not. However, if you're serious about learning how to punch and the body mechanics around punching, you're going to be in a boxing or MMA gym learning boxing.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I never said one was harder to pull off than another. I said they're diffeent from each other, and the training methods surrounding both allow you to practice breaking a joint a bit more accurately than breaking someone's collar bone with a strike.





Hanzou said:


> I never said one was harder to pull off than another. I said they're different from each other, and the training methods surrounding both allow you to practice breaking a joint a bit more accurately than breaking someone's collar bone with a strike.





Hanzou said:


> I never said one was harder to pull off than another. I said they're different from each other, and the training methods surrounding both allow you to practice breaking a joint a bit more accurately than breaking someone's collar bone with a strike.


Nope using your logic if your not shredding an elbow joint and breaking arms in training you obviously are not able to do it the real world.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree with you 100% there.
> 
> Many years ago, one day I suddenly realized that the way I trained in my forms are different from the way that I hit on my heavy bag, and also different from the way that I sparred. After that day, not only I don't punch as the way that I trained in my forms, I gave up all my form training completely.
> 
> I like to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I see no reason to treat my training and my sparring differently. Today, I only train those drills that I have created by myself.
> 
> Even if the "long fist" system is one of my major systems, IMO, if the
> 
> - MT roundhouse kick is more powerful than the long fist roundhouse kick, and
> - boxing punches is more powerful than the long fist punches,
> 
> I see no reason to switch to better training methods.
> 
> On the other hand, I still think the Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) "single leg" is much more effective than the western wrestling "single leg". So I'm not an anti-TMA person after all. I just like to keep the best material whether it may come from my major systems, or it may come from elsewhere.



There is a phrase in Japanese that conveys an important strategy in Okinawa Karate:

“Suemono ni sh-ite utsu or if you prefer (据え物にして打つ)”.

This phrase means to strike your opponent after forcing him into an awkward position.

When you force your opponent into an awkward position, it gives you several important advantages during a confrontation:
(1) break your opponent’s balance so that he cannot effectively counter-attack,
(2) increase your chances of striking him,
(3) allow you to throw or grapple him.

So, how can you get an opponent into an awkward position?

Well lucky for us someone usually worked this out already in each respective Karate tradition,  and is generally comprised of two components.

The first is tenshin (転身) – turning / moving the body which teaches the mechanics of HOW to move.

The second part is kata which teaches the circumstances and principles of WHEN to move.

To apply this concept then, it is just a matter of looking into both of them deeply and practicing them diligently.

A Kata is more then just a series or sequence of actions attacks and blocks... that is done differently in the form than in real life.

Have you looked at your forns from new position like that?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I know they are. The point is that the training methods surrounding the Okinawan and Japanese karate systems are inefficient compared to western boxing. Which is why modern combat sports adopted western boxing OVER the Asian systems. That was the case even in Asia itself.
> 
> Why? Because western boxing simply had the better method. Heck, we just had a discussion where a punch you practice in karate over and over again for years is effectively the wrong way to punch. That's an inefficient method of training.
> 
> 
> 
> You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> A joint lock is different than a strike.
> 
> 
> 
> Because unlike Bjj, it's not something that I do on a regular basis.



Tell that to this boxer





He received a beat down by an okinaiwan karateka. This same Oki beat the All Japan Boxing Champ "Piston" Horiguchi

This puts a damper on your notion that Western Boxing is more efficient in method. In reality boxing has a good toolset.

However a boxer does not have the tool set of a karateka.

A really well trained full contact Karateka from say Mas Oyama's tradition who has really studied and conditioned himself is going to work ranges and shut a boxer down


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Tell that to this boxer
> View attachment 19505
> 
> He received a beat down by an okinaiwan karateka. This same Oki beat the All Japan Boxing Champ "Piston" Horiguchi
> 
> This puts a damper on your notion that Western Boxing is more efficient in method.



Not really, since boxing has changed considerably in the 90-100 years since those events took place. 

Okinawan Karate? Not so much.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> Have you looked at your forns from new position like that?


The forms may record what the form creator wanted to do several hundreds years ago. It may not suggest what I want to do today.


----------



## drop bear

OK. So we are on some collar bone breaking strike vs boring old punches in the head.

Boring old punches in the head break jaws and knock people out through 16 oz of padding in the ring. And kill people in the street. Which to me seems pretty efficient if you are that way inclined.





I am not sure there is a rule against collarbone strikes at least in mma.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> I am not sure there is a rule against collarbone strikes at least in mma.



Collarbone strikes are prohibited in the UFC, and most other MMA contests.......
.....'cause, you know, the fight is *over*, and that guy's not gonna be fighting for months...

EDIT: Actually, grabbing the clavicle is illegal....doesn't look like striking it is....


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> Did your teacher tell you the importance of kata and the real fight applications of the techniques?


 
This quote should answer your question:



Hanzou said:


> So just to clarify; If kata aren't a means to learn technique or mechanics, why are you practicing them?
> 
> Exercise? Dancing?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> The kata/traditional version of the reverse punch will get you killed in a fist fight because it leaves your face wide open.


Which is why it is not used that way in a real fight.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Which is why it is not used that way in a real fight.



Yet it's trained that way throughout the learning process.

We might as well include the blocking techniques as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm looking at these possibilities.
> 1. He missed practice the day instructor went over this.
> 2. He didn't take shotokan karateka long enough to hear this explaination
> 3. His instructor didn't bring this topic up so that the student could understand why they were doing kata.
> 4. His instructor doesn't know the importance so the topic never came up.
> 5. McDojo.
> 
> These aren't a slam on him, but somewhere down the line the purpose of kata wasn't explained.  In my school we often reinforce the importance of form when we see students get slack and sloppy when practicing forms. Thanks to the kids that we have practicing with their parents, we usually explain this at least 3 times a months lol.



I've made no qualms about saying that my karate training was largely a waste of time. Eight years that I wish I had spent learning something a bit more practical. Muay Thai, Savate, Sanda, etc. would have frankly been better choices in the long run. Heck, if the goal was to end up fighting like a kick boxer, it would have been better to just learn kickboxing.

No kata necessary.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Heck, if the goal was to end up fighting like a kick boxer, it would have been better to just learn kickboxing.


If your karate looks like kickboxing during sparring then you aren't doing karate. This isn't because karate isn't practical. It's because you aren't doing karate.

If you learn to use karate techniques during sparring then your sparring will eventually start to look like karate.  When you get good at it, it begins to look like this.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> We might as well include the blocking techniques as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context.


Blocking techniques, when performed properly,are key to a good defense. And yes i have known people who have used them in self  defense situations and have used them successfully myself and they are pretty damned practical.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> If your karate looks like kickboxing during sparring then you aren't doing karate. This isn't because karate isn't practical. It's because you aren't doing karate.
> 
> If you learn to use karate techniques during sparring then your sparring will eventually start to look like karate.  When you get good at it, it begins to look like this.



Excellent kumite both the full contact tourney stuff and the dojo kumite.  I see a lot of chambering on ribs and even hips in the fights.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Blocking techniques, when performed properly,are key to a good defense. And yes i have known people who have used them in self  defense situations and have used them successfully myself and they are pretty damned practical.



Mmmh.
I almost never do a hardblock.
The Japanese word that is translated block literally is Uke Which means "Receive".

The goal of blocking is to avoid or prevent a strike landing, or taking enough power out if the strike that when it lands it is rendered mostly harmless.

A better word than block would be "Deflection".

But Hanzou is trolling strikers now.
Even bjj teaches blocking as part of "punch defense".

As for not seeing them used in a fighting context... Hanzou has ignored western boxing.

And K1 full contact.  Andy Hug did lots of blocking.
And then Muy Thai... lots of blocking in those fights.

If he has meant just Karate arts... just how many karateka has he seen in fights both street and tourney?

He hasnt said. But I think he speaks from ignorance. No offense meant towards him. Blocking is the second most practical defensive act a karateka can do.

And you can turn blocks into offense while blocking.  A common block against a roundhouse kick is a elbow spike to the shin. 

I was a wee yellow belt with lots of roundhouse kicks when a blackbelt shut all of my offense down and beat me up using blocking. Only.

I am starting to get the feeling that he playfully is pushing buttons to get a rise out of folks.

I will stop feeding the troll.


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> Only if you sparred all three at the same time.......*we did*



Nah!..I didn't do that until about 1991/92, but by then I had added Long Fist, Taiji, and a little Xingyi . Got the coolest beating I ever got from a Southern Mantis guy who was also an ex-marine.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Interesting thing - if you do a Google image search for "boxing knockouts" or "MMA knockouts" you find a ton of examples where the non-punching hand is down, dare we say "chambered" by the lower ribs or even all the way down by the hip. This isn't just amateurs - you'll see it from top professionals.









I've said it before and I'll say it again. Boxers and karateka may learn the rear cross/reverse punch somewhat differently in their idealized training forms, but once they get into a real fight they start looking pretty much the same.


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> Nah!..I didn't do that until about 1991/92, but by then I had added Long Fist, Taiji, and a little Xingyi . Got the coolest beating I ever got from a Southern Mantis guy who was also an ex-marine.



A marine is a marine, there are no ex-marines.
As told to me by many, many marines. You are either an active marine or an inactive one. You can take a marine out of the corps but you can never take the corps out of the marine.


----------



## Drose427

Xue Sheng said:


> Nah!..I didn't do that until about 1991/92, but by then I had added Long Fist, Taiji, and a little Xingyi . Got the coolest beating I ever got from a Southern Mantis guy who was also an ex-marine.



I absolutely love working with current or ex military.

Especially if theyve been stationed or deployed overseas

Usually they like to spar hard, and have always picked up an interesting thing to two


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting thing - if you do a Google image search for "boxing knockouts" or "MMA knockouts" you find a ton of examples where the non-punching hand is down, dare we say "chambered" by the lower ribs or even all the way down by the hip. This isn't just amateurs - you'll see it from top professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Boxers and karateka may learn the rear cross/reverse punch somewhat differently in their idealized training forms, but once they get into a real fight they start looking pretty much the same.




Other than the weighted glove of a boxer, and the effect that the glove has... they are the same.
Other than this...
With the pullback immediately upon impact in karate rather than the follow through into full extension/overextension of the boxer.
Which necessity dictates the karate guy fire from a much closer distance, and the boxer can shoot at almost the end of his reach.

My reverse punch extended reach is 25 inches before spinal rotation (hip and sholder).
If I am trying to punch the back of the guys skull. Then my punch target is actually 8 to 10 inches behind his face. Which means my range begins at 15 to 18 inches plus spine rotation.

My rear cross is farther out with serious commitment to follow through. It's range starts with the 3 or 4 inches of boxing glove which is 22 inches before spine rotation then a follow through of 6 to 8 inches.

So effectively for me there is almost a foot of distance between these two punches for the terminus.

At the end of a right cross I have to adjust my feet, and body to regain my posture or fight with compromised structure and balance. 

At the end of a reverse punch, I am already firing the next, I do not have to move my feet to regain posture.


----------



## Drose427

TSDTexan said:


> Other than the weighted glove of a boxer, and the effect that the glove has... they are the same.
> Other than this...
> With the pullback immediately upon impact in karate rather than the follow through into full extension/overextension of the boxer.
> Which necessity dictates the karate guy fire from a much closer distance, and the boxer can shoot at almost the end of his reach.
> 
> My reverse punch extended reach is 25 inches before spinal rotation (hip and sholder).
> If I am trying to punch the back of the guys skull. Then my punch target is actually 8 to 10 inches behind his face. Which means my range begins at 15 to 18 inches plus spine rotation.
> 
> My rear cross is farther out with serious commitment to follow through. It's range starts with the 3 or 4 inches of boxing glove which is 22 inches before spine rotation then a follow through of 6 to 8 inches.
> 
> So effectively for me there is almost a foot of distance between these two punches for the terminus.



To be fair, some styles(or substyles/associations) do extend all the way instead of keeping the shoulders square.

Im not sure its accurate to make that distinction


----------



## TSDTexan

*The Cross*
_The right cross punch (power punch) begins with elevation at the right scapula involving upper traps 1 & 2 and levator scapulae mainly. The same exact 7 movements occur simultaneously except using the right side of the body: protraction of right scapula, right GH joint flexion and medial rotation, right elbow joint extension, right RU joint pronation, and rotation/lateral flexion towards left side of body using left internal and right external obliques. However, the incorporation of the lower body makes this phase the “power punch” phase.

The movements of the lower body are synchronized with those of the upper body simultaneously in creating a very forceful punch.

Starting with the right hip joint, medial rotation takes place using mainly the anterior portion of gluteus minimus and tensor fascia latae (TFL). The knee joint remains in slight flexion. At the right ankle joint there is plantar flexion using mainly the gastrocnemius (gastrocs), soleus, and plantaris muscles as well as inversion using mainly the tibialis posterior, flexor digitorum longus, and flexor hallucis longus (collectively called TDH muscles).

Again, all of the upper and lower body movements occur fairly simultaneously and is a whole movement that takes a lot of practice to get perfect._

The Reverse Punch doesn't require as much shoulder and arm strength to be effective which is why the range is reduced.


----------



## TSDTexan

Drose427 said:


> To be fair, some styles(or substyles/associations) do extend all the way instead of keeping the shoulders square.
> 
> Im not sure its accurate to make that distinction



Correct, I am of course speaking from the style of art that I have trained in. But the fact that other styles extend all the way doesn't negate the fact that my style doesn't.  In fact all karateka can do both.

Both are Karate.
On another thread I showed with video Two variations of the same form.
Kicho An Il Boo, and Kihon Kata (first kata, basic form 1)
TEZ3 said TSD practioners in the UK did the Korean Karate form the way the Japanese did in Kihon Kata.

However there is video of our founder doing it with square sholders when reverse punching.

So in TSD we have practioners doing both.
I have seen this in other species of Karate as well.

And I do rotate my hip/spine while keeping my sholders square.

For speeding the rate of fire.

If I rotate my sholders' in addition, my recovery time to fire the next punch increases because of the need to reverse the added step.

As the body is now facing perpendicular to the target upon impact' when previously it wasnt.

However, even with sholder rotation the Karateka should never be overextended to the degree feet have to move.
If feet have to move for this punch... its very bad form. Even... incorrect form.


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> A marine is a marine, there are no ex-marines.
> As told to me by many, many marines. You are either an active marine or an inactive one. You can take a marine out of the corps but you can never take the corps out of the marine.


I really hate that saying.  I did my time in the Marine Corps.  I got out Im not a Marine any longer so yes I'm an ex-marine.I hate when people get all bent out of shape over ex-marine.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Drose427 said:


> I absolutely love working with current or ex military.
> 
> Especially if theyve been stationed or deployed overseas
> 
> Usually they like to spar hard, and have always picked up an interesting thing to two



He also had pretty much grown up training with a sifu in Southern Mantis, and then joined the marines. He was incredibly athletic and a very good fighter and he tended towards his Southern Mantis training.. and except for one lucky strike using Xingyiquan (Piquan, the ONLY one I knew then) where I actually knocked him down...before he popped back up like a weeble... he dominated the match


----------



## TSDTexan

ballen0351 said:


> I really hate that saying.  I did my time in the Marine Corps.  I got out Im not a Marine any longer so yes I'm an ex-marine.I hate when people get all bent out of shape over ex-marine.



Your useage of the word Hate... lets me know that you have strong feelings about the subject. Why such strong emotions if you are just an ex?
As a LEO do you treat an ExConvict like someone who is a convict or a law abiding citizen? I suspect that your level of scrutiny at a stop, increases when a check comes back on a guy with lots of priors.
Why... human nature.
Once a con... always a con is the rule not the exception.


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> A marine is a marine, there are no ex-marines.
> As told to me by many, many marines. You are either an active marine or an inactive one. You can take a marine out of the corps but you can never take the corps out of the marine.



The guy I am talking about referred to himself as an ex-marine. Also worked with two marines, one Vietnam era who said he use to be a marine and he was a marine. Another, younger, said the same thing. The only other thing he ever said about it was in association with his going into the Army National Guard. HE said if he knew the Army was that easy he would have joined them first and probably stayed in for 20. Another good friend, who was a Vietnam era marine, never said he was still a marine, he would say he was in Nam, and the rest of the stories he told about it were fairly horrible and I am guessing his drinking problem had a lot to do with trying to forget the entire thing..

But with that said, I have run into a few that say what you have stated



TSDTexan said:


> Your useage of the word Hate... lets me know that you have strong feelings about the subject. Why such strong emotions if you are just an ex?
> As a LEO do you treat an ExConvict like someone who is a convict or a law abiding citizen? I suspect that your level of scrutiny at a stop, increases when a check comes back on a guy with lots of priors.
> Why... human nature.
> Once a con... always a con is the rule not the exception.



You seem to have extrapolated an awful lot of info out of a very short simple statement and penned that into a personal attack...that is not cool


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> The guy I am talking about referred to himself as an ex-marine. Also worked with two marines, one Vietnam era who said he use to be a marine and he was a marine. Another, younger, said the same thing. The only other thing he ever said about it was in association with his going into the Army National Guard. HE said if he knew the Army was that easy he would have joined them first and probably stayed in for 20. Another good friend, who was a Vietnam era marine, never said he was still a marine, he would say he was in Nam, and the rest of the stories he told about it were fairly horrible and I am guessing his drinking problem had a lot to do with trying to forget the entire thing..
> 
> But with that said, I have run into a few that say what you have stated
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have extrapolated an awful lot of info out of a very short simple statement and penned that into a personal attack...that is not cool


Wasnt meant as an attack.

Marines Mobile > Home

CMC's Planning Guidance:

It begins with the Commandant's Priorities, then his Planning Guidance follow, and is in turn followed by some very important information, important to all of us.  A quote from the Commandant, General James F. Amos:

"A Marine is a Marine.  I set that policy two weeks ago - there's no such thing as a former Marine.   You're a Marine, just in a different uniform and you're in a different phase of your life.  But you'll always be a Marine because you went to Parris Island, San Diego or the hills of Quantico.  There's no such thing as a former Marine."

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James F. Amos


----------



## Xue Sheng

TSDTexan said:


> Wasnt meant as an attack.
> 
> Marines Mobile > Home
> 
> CMC's Planning Guidance:
> 
> It begins with the Commandant's Priorities, then his Planning Guidance follow, and is in turn followed by some very important information, important to all of us.  A quote from the Commandant, General James F. Amos:
> 
> "A Marine is a Marine.  I set that policy two weeks ago - there's no such thing as a former Marine.   You're a Marine, just in a different uniform and you're in a different phase of your life.  But you'll always be a Marine because you went to Parris Island, San Diego or the hills of Quantico.  There's no such thing as a former Marine."
> 
> The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James F. Amos




That's nice, and it matters to the people I am talking about, getting me to admit I was wrong and proving your position how? They said what they said they believe what they believe, and I am still not going to retract my ex-marine statement in my previous post so this is all not only getting way off post but really pretty pointless. And lastly Policies are for Guidance on Non-Binding Documents


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting thing - if you do a Google image search for "boxing knockouts" or "MMA knockouts" you find a ton of examples where the non-punching hand is down, dare we say "chambered" by the lower ribs or even all the way down by the hip. This isn't just amateurs - you'll see it from top professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Boxers and karateka may learn the rear cross/reverse punch somewhat differently in their idealized training forms, but once they get into a real fight they start looking pretty much the same.



My theory on that is it is easier to punch that way. So you get a split second advantage in speed and some better angles. But you pay for it with lack of defence. So if your timing is up to speed. Hands down punching is viabe. If it isn't. Hands need to be up.

It is a top tier method though not a basic.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Hmm... I work with ceramics. I have done so since age 9.
> I have also done horticulture and landscapping. As an adult who cleared land for profit.
> 
> In my life have butchered about 100 swine, 4000 cattle, countless whitertail and mule deer.
> [I was a egg and vegetarian for almost decade after that.]
> 
> Human collarbones and bones in general are not really easy to break like  ceramics. There is a lot of give that is unexpected.
> 
> A good comparison would be a wet or green sapling vs a dry annd seasoned one.
> 
> However a proper axe will break a collarbone. No doubt. Also a throw done to someone who doent know how to break their fall... collar break.
> 
> Now most folks cannot do a proper axe kick soo...
> 
> A jumping double knifehand strike following a stunning blow is high percentage for broken collar bones.



There is an issue of time. For mma especially you are trying to slip your strikes in between their strikes and it is a lot harder to get moves like jumping knife hands after a stunning blow.

They have thrown 10 punches in the time it takes to set that up.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> My theory on that is it is easier to punch that way. So you get a split second advantage in speed and some better angles. But you pay for it with lack of defence. So if your timing is up to speed. Hands down punching is viabe. If it isn't. Hands need to be up.
> 
> It is a top tier method though not a basic.


I mostly tend to agree. A significant difference in training methodology is that boxers start out learning to punch with their hands up and eventually learn when it is appropriate to let them be low. Karateka are more likely to start out learning to punch with hands low and then learn when to keep them up.*

Personally I think the boxing approach is the safer way to learn, but at a high level it all starts to come together.

*(Obviously given the wide range of karate styles out there this is not a universal statement.)


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> To be fair, some styles(or substyles/associations) do extend all the way instead of keeping the shoulders square.
> 
> Im not sure its accurate to make that distinction



And a right cross will change depending what you want it to do.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> A jumping double knifehand strike following a stunning blow is high percentage for broken collar bones.


I think a springboard corkscrew splash is more reliable, unless your opponent counters with an elevated double chickenwing dropped into a double knee gutbuster.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think the difference in the punch isn't so much about the punch as it is about other factors.  Boxers learn to punch with comfort of knowing that their opponent will ALWAYS PUNCH. Martial artists punch with the knowledge and understanding that their opponent will do more than just punch.  Martial artists have to deal with a wide range of attacks that boxers do not deal with.  Boxers only have to worry about punches coming in.  Martial artist have to worry about everything coming in.

The punches that both boxing and martial arts uses reflect they type of attacks that they will get from their opponent.  If Boxers were allowed to sweep legs in addition to punching, then the dynamics of how the boxer throws punches and those punches would not be the same as it is now.


----------



## TSDTexan

Xue Sheng said:


> That's nice, and it matters to the people I am talking about, getting me to admit I was wrong and proving your position how? They said what they said they believe what they believe, and I am still not going to retract my ex-marine statement in my previous post so this is all not only getting way off post but really pretty pointless. And lastly Policies are for Guidance on Non-Binding Documents




Fair enough. My last point is that no one is a marine until they graduate Marine boot camp. And you cannot ungraduate marine boot camp or pretty much anything else. Which is why there is a timeless statement "once a marine, always a marine".
While it may not be a binding document... it is still clarification on what makes a marine a marine in the first place.


I dont need you to admit your position is wrong or anything of the sort. I am just offering food for thought in a counterpoint. 
There are a few marines I know who take offense to the use of the term Ex-marine. Just saying. 

And you make a good point. It probably doesn't matter at all to your marine friend.

Dropbear...
Notice I said "Following a stunning blow." They are not going to fire off 10 shots cause their bell just got rung. A double knifehand is a finisher. Because two broken clavicles is going wreck a fighter.  
This is not something you just do random in a fight.


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> Wasnt meant as an attack.
> 
> Marines Mobile > Home
> 
> CMC's Planning Guidance:
> 
> It begins with the Commandant's Priorities, then his Planning Guidance follow, and is in turn followed by some very important information, important to all of us.  A quote from the Commandant, General James F. Amos:
> 
> "A Marine is a Marine.  I set that policy two weeks ago - there's no such thing as a former Marine.   You're a Marine, just in a different uniform and you're in a different phase of your life.  But you'll always be a Marine because you went to Parris Island, San Diego or the hills of Quantico.  There's no such thing as a former Marine."
> 
> The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James F. Amos


Amos was an Air Winger.  Hes not the most popular Commandant among grunts And I beg to differ with him as I am no longer a Marine I did my time


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> I think a springboard corkscrew splash is more reliable, unless your opponent counters with an elevated double chickenwing dropped into a double knee gutbuster.



Rofl. Thats great! I just spewed coffee..  laughing so hard.


----------



## TSDTexan

ballen0351 said:


> Amos was an Air Winger.  Hes not the most popular Commandant among grunts And I beg to differ with him as I am no longer a Marine I did my time



His point was that graduating marine boot is what made you a Marine. You take that rare acomplishment wherever you go in life. Getting your DD214 doesn't ungraduate you, it just shows you are momentarily unemployed.


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> His point was that graduating marine boot is what made you a Marine. You take that rare acomplishment wherever you go in life. Getting your DD214 doesn't ungraduate you, it just shows you are momentarily unemployed.


I dont care about his point he wasnt my Commandant


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> And a right cross will change depending what you want it to do.



Definitely

I have a short straight/cross I do when someones jamming me up as i step to the outside, 

almost looks like a hook to folks who dont know proper form


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think a springboard corkscrew splash is more reliable, unless your opponent counters with an elevated double chickenwing dropped into a double knee gutbuster.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


>


Keep your hands up... also.
Learn head control and evasion.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hironori Ohtsuka, the founder of Wado-ryu, knew and later studied under Motobu in the 1930s and recalled that he was "definitely a very strong fighter".

Ohtsuka remembered seeing a fight,  a dueling match, between Motobu and a boxer named Piston Horiguchi. Motobu blocked all the boxer's attacks and Horiguchi was unable to land a single clean punch.

*Now Hanzou doesn't believe people use blocks or something like that.*

Given that BJJ is a victim of its own popularity and success, and in 2015 all grapling submissions are about 25 % of wins....
with Decisions taking a big increase at the expense of submissions.

Over the last 15 years submissions have gone from 45% of wins down to 25%
In the same 15 years KO/TKOs only increased about 5%.

Striking and defense against striking (blocking, evasion) are right now more important than ever. Either to KO for the win or bank enough points by out scoring (landing strikes)

Which means striking is winning about 2 of every 3 UFC match right now.





Which takes us back to TMAs. A number of MMA fighters are or were Karate-Ka. A lot of these fighters come out of Full Contact Karate traditions. I would hazard to bet that other TMAs are in the mix.


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> Keep your hands up... also.
> Learn head control and evasion.


\
Hands up does not work against very strong power strikes.
\
Evasion & head control were what the kick-ee was practicing.  They are passive defenses which fail in the face of dynamic strikers....
\
Good luck with that, sport fighters.... your vid / comment certainly demonstrates....


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> Which takes us back to TMAs. A number of MMA fighters are or were Karate-Ka. A lot of these fighters come out of Full Contact Karate traditions. I would hazard to bet that other TMAs are in the mix.


\
I edited out the bulk of your post, which was spot on....imHO.
\
Your stat presentation & accompanying argument are just the MMA theory I have presented here, on numerous posts, T's.
\
Striking > Grappling.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Hironori Ohtsuka, the founder of Wado-ryu, knew and later studied under Motobu in the 1930s and recalled that he was "definitely a very strong fighter".
> 
> Ohtsuka remembered seeing a fight,  a dueling match, between Motobu and a boxer named Piston Horiguchi. Motobu blocked all the boxer's attacks and Horiguchi was unable to land a single clean punch.
> 
> *Now Hanzou doesn't believe people use blocks or something like that.*
> 
> Given that BJJ is a victim of its own popularity and success, and in 2015 all grapling submissions are about 25 % of wins....
> with Decisions taking a big increase at the expense of submissions.
> 
> Over the last 15 years submissions have gone from 45% of wins down to 25%
> In the same 15 years KO/TKOs only increased about 5%.
> 
> Striking and defense against striking (blocking, evasion) are right now more important than ever. Either to KO for the win or bank enough points by out scoring (landing strikes)
> 
> Which means striking is winning about 2 of every 3 UFC match right now.
> 
> View attachment 19508
> 
> Which takes us back to TMAs. A number of MMA fighters are or were Karate-Ka. A lot of these fighters come out of Full Contact Karate traditions. I would hazard to bet that other TMAs are in the mix.



Ground and pound wins are also considered TKOs, and those are hallmarks of Bjj and submission grappling.

Additionally takedowns and controlling position on the ground can rack up points to help win a decision for you.


----------



## TSDTexan

The reason a 50 year old Motobu Choki dispatched the russian or german boxer quite easily was over 4 decades of daily Makiwara striking and just as much blocking practice.
He struck his makiwara no less then 1000 times a day. Sone days 1500.
By the time he fought the western boxer... he had more than 14.5 million strikes on a target.

This was the old school method... absent from McDojos.
There was an old expression "a dojo without a makiwara is not a dojo".


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> I edited out the bulk of your post, which was spot on....imHO.
> \
> Your stat presentation & accompanying argument are just the MMA theory I have presented here, on numerous posts, T's.
> \
> Striking > Grappling.



That was certainly proven in the first UFCs....


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Hironori Ohtsuka, the founder of Wado-ryu, knew and later studied under Motobu in the 1930s and recalled that he was "definitely a very strong fighter".
> 
> Ohtsuka remembered seeing a fight,  a dueling match, between Motobu and a boxer named Piston Horiguchi. Motobu blocked all the boxer's attacks and Horiguchi was unable to land a single clean punch.
> 
> *Now Hanzou doesn't believe people use blocks or something like that.*
> 
> Given that BJJ is a victim of its own popularity and success, and in 2015 all grapling submissions are about 25 % of wins....
> with Decisions taking a big increase at the expense of submissions.
> 
> Over the last 15 years submissions have gone from 45% of wins down to 25%
> In the same 15 years KO/TKOs only increased about 5%.
> 
> Striking and defense against striking (blocking, evasion) are right now more important than ever. Either to KO for the win or bank enough points by out scoring (landing strikes)
> 
> Which means striking is winning about 2 of every 3 UFC match right now.
> 
> View attachment 19508
> 
> Which takes us back to TMAs. A number of MMA fighters are or were Karate-Ka. A lot of these fighters come out of Full Contact Karate traditions. I would hazard to bet that other TMAs are in the mix.


Jesus this is so specious it makes me crazy.   Every professional MMAist is a grappler and a striker.  What can you learn about striking over grappling from the ufc?  Not much.   It's just not very helpful, unless you're trying to find evidence to support what you've already decided is true.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> That was certainly proven in the first UFCs....



Which of course no longer is the case.
Most of the striking world has recovered from  the shock being blind sided by a lack of a viable ground defense.

Many systems are now trying to address it.
Some are living in denial of it.

But its shock value is spent... and many strikers have developed takedown defense. And its starting show in the decrease of subs.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Which of course no longer is the case.
> Most of the striking world has recovered from  the shock being blind sided by a lack of a viable ground defense.



Johnny Nunez vs. Ryan Hall - TUF 22 Highlights






Yet it still happens.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Johnny Nunez vs. Ryan Hall - TUF 22 Highlights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it still happens.



Not like it used to. And you know that.
45% of wins by submission has become 20%.

You wanna argue facts or opinions?
Ground grappling just doesn't work like it used to.

A lot of strikers have learned how to avoid getting drug down and submitted.

And there are numerous TMAs that employed takedowns and striking the recipient of the takedown. This was not just the forte of Judo/Sambo/Brazilian Juijitsu. G&P is somewhat fairly represented in striking arts.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> That was certainly proven in the first UFCs....


\
Your evidence is like that presented in the Nick Diaz suspension NAC kangaroo court.  Relevant, but not reliable & otherwise incompetent.....
\
Ya fell off your wagon, Hanzou, to get grappling fans....


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Jesus this is so specious it makes me crazy.   Every professional MMAist is a grappler and a striker.  What can you learn about striking over grappling from the ufc?  Not much.   It's just not very helpful, unless you're trying to find evidence to support what you've already decided is true.




So are you with Hanzou "_We might as well include the blocking techniques as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context_."


Or with me "blocks have more value today than in the last 15 years"


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Not like it used to. And you know that.
> 45% of wins by submission has become 20%.
> 
> You wanna argue facts or opinions?
> Ground grappling just doesn't work like it used to.
> 
> A lot of strikers have learned how to avoid getting drug down and submitted.



Considering the amount of grappling training MMA fighters receive, I'd hesitate to consider them "strikers".



> And there are numerous TMAs that employed takedowns and striking the recipient of the takedown. This was not just the forte of Judo/Sambo/Brazilian Juijitsu. G&P is somewhat fairly represented in striking arts.



You can view several of the Gracie in Action fights that end with G&P. 

I would be quite interested in seeing some TMA G&P vids. Got any on hand?


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> So are you with Hanzou "blocks are worthless"
> Or with me "blocks have more value today than in the last 15 years"



Where did I say "blocks are worthless"?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Considering the amount of grappling training MMA fighters receive, I'd hesitate to consider them "strikers".
> 
> 
> 
> You can view several of the Gracie in Action fights that end with G&P.
> 
> I would be quite interested in seeing some TMA G&P vids. Got any on hand?



Remember when I showed you the no grab take down, the first of which was done by a KarateKa? Remember he punched for the point after the takedown?

You realize the self defense version of the same technique has no "points" but instead is a rain of blows until the KarateKa feels safe enough to stop and / or that the agressor has no further will to fight.

As I said before. I am not your personal researcher.
I have been doing Karate derived martial arts for twenty two or twenty three years. I KNOW we have GnP. And always have. If you bother to serously look you will verify this for yourself.

there several places in kata where you “go to the ground” Heian Godan, Kanku Dai, Unsu etc. Why does a kata have you on the ground ever? Because while a KarateKa is not a NeWaza specialist... he does go there.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say "blocks are worthless"?


It was corrected already.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> It was corrected already.



And when I'm talking about blocking, I'm talking about the impractical blocking found in traditional karate and KF.

Example;


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Ground grappling just doesn't work like it used to.
> A lot of strikers have learned how to avoid getting drug down and submitted.


The ground game has become more familiar so fighters are better able to defend against it. The more familiar you are with a fighting system the better you'll be in avoiding certain aspects of that fighting system. This is one of the reasons why Chinese martial arts were  so secretive with their fighting system.  Once someone understands how your fighting system works, then they can start creating better counters.  This understanding will also mean that a person will be more careful with throwing punches and kicks as it could mean that their opponent can take them to the ground. 

The ground game is still important, it just isn't that big of surprise as it used to be. Fighters don't panic like they used to when someone shoots on them.  And more of them are refusing to get on the ground if they don't have to, even if their opponent is on the ground.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> And when I'm talking about blocking, I'm talking about the impractical blocking found in traditional karate and KF.
> 
> Example;


I use a similar block in kung fu and it works.  The purpose of this block is to redirect a punch to the outside of your body allowing you to punch your opponent using the inside . I know for a fact that this works. Both karate and kung fu uses this technique in the same way during a fight in which the block itself is used with a punch as well. In this case I would be punching at the same time I'm using the block to redirect my opponent's punch.  If your arm is conditioned then the block will also damage your opponents arm.  This is actually one of the most practical techniques.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> And when I'm talking about blocking, I'm talking about the impractical blocking found in traditional karate and KF.
> 
> Example;


Your original statement:
_We might as well include the blocking techniques as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context_.
Was very broad. I have hammered on it.
Now you are adding specifics.

Are you sure you want to stand by your improved statement?

_"We might as well include the blocking techniques found in Karate and KungFu as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context_."

Because I have seen George Foreman throwing the same augmented block as Motobu Choki's augmented block. Fist against elbow sucked in tight. Looks impractical but blocks well.

The point of a block is to prevent a blow from becoming a good clean hit.


The main purpose of the uchi uke...
That outside block done with the inside of the forearm takes a centerline strike right offline against the center, and exposes ribs and kidneys to a counterstrike.
Works reliably.

Against a headkick or bodykick, it easily converts into a temp-grab (by rotating the wrist and grabbing shin or fabric) as I am sweeping the leg or striking the outside of the knee joint.
Or even a low push kick to the knee to hyperextend it.

As the attacker hits the ground it then converts into a legbar.
Game over.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> So are you with Hanzou "_We might as well include the blocking techniques as well. Completely impractical, and I honestly have never seen them used in a fighting context_."
> 
> 
> Or with me "blocks have more value today than in the last 15 years"


really?  Those are my only two choices?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> And when I'm talking about blocking, I'm talking about the impractical blocking found in traditional karate and KF.
> 
> Example;



Three Step Sparring (Sanbon Kumite). Middle Level Block (Uchi-Uke) and Reversed Punch (Gyaku-Zuki)


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> really?  Those are my only two choices?


No that was a request to pick from the two... because that was what the tug-o-war was about when you chimed in


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> The ground game has become more familiar so fighters are better able to defend against it. The more familiar you are with a fighting system the better you'll be in avoiding certain aspects of that fighting system. This is one of the reasons why Chinese martial arts were  so secretive with their fighting system.  Once someone understands how your fighting system works, then they can start creating better counters.  This understanding will also mean that a person will be more careful with throwing punches and kicks as it could mean that their opponent can take them to the ground.
> 
> The ground game is still important, it just isn't that big of surprise as it used to be. Fighters don't panic like they used to when someone shoots on them.  And more of them are refusing to get on the ground if they don't have to, even if their opponent is on the ground.


The surprise is when you find out that knowing about something is very different from being able to do something.  Understanding is not the same as applying.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> No that was a request to pick from the two... because that was what the tug-o-war was about when you chimed in


Option number three is that the tug of war is ridiculous.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Option number three is that the tug of war is ridiculous.


True.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> And when I'm talking about blocking, I'm talking about the impractical blocking found in traditional karate and KF.
> 
> Example;


In the example that you have presented, the guy only moves his arm. He doesn't move his body. IMO, that the wrong way to do blocking.

In CMA, if you want to block a punch, you either rotate your body to your left, or rotate your body to your right. Your arm sometime don't even move at all.

When you apply your blocking this way, it will be no difference from the boxing "dodging with head guard".

The CMA

- "comb hair" is similar to the boxing "crazy monkey".
- "rhino guard" is similar to the boxing "head guard".
- ...


----------



## TSDTexan

Old school karate ground and pound...
Folks have tried to tell me this is an example of a karateka overextening a reverse punch... and no... its a feint if it doesn't connect.. meant to totally dominate.

it is demonstrated in video here..n but it was in the eccentric Shigeru Egami's book,_ The Heart of Karate Do,_ as an application. Egami was one of Funakoshi's original students, but became gradually more eccentric after Funakoshi's passing.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> Old school karate ground and pound...
> Folks have tried to tell me this is an example of a karateka overextening a reverse punch... and no... its a feint if it doesn't connect.. meant to totally dominate.



Hey, that's *shotokan*!  

Everybody knows those throws and takedowns don't work...just ask Hanzou. 
(Talk about  据え物にして打つ)


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> Hey, that's *shotokan*!
> 
> Everybody knows those throws and takedowns don't work...just ask Hanzou.


Yes... he probably missed that class too.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the example that you have presented, the guy only moves his arm. He doesn't move his body. IMO, that the wrong way to do blocking.
> 
> In CMA, if you want to block a punch, you either rotate your body to your left, or rotate your body to your right. Your arm sometime don't even move at all.
> 
> When you apply your blocking this way, it will be no difference from the boxing "dodging with head guard".
> 
> The CMA
> 
> - "comb hair" is similar to the boxing "crazy monkey".
> - "rhino guard" is similar to the boxing "head guard".
> - ...




Yeah. Very static image. Not very alive.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> Yeah. Very static image. Not very alive.


When you apply blocking, in the

- beginner level, you move your arm without moving your body.
- advance level, you move your body without moving your arm.

In other words, in the advance level, your "blocking" and "dodging" are integrated together.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you apply blocking, in the
> 
> - beginner level, you move your arm without moving your body.
> - advance level, you move your body without moving your arm.
> 
> In other words, in the advance level, your "blocking" and "dodging" are integrated together.


Yeah.
A stance is a stance... except it isnt. Its a transition. But how can you sell a book full of crappy out of focused shots and teach the movement and correct postures of the transitions.

Well.. you cant.
So lets call em stances and sell the books anyway.


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> Hey, that's *shotokan*!
> 
> Everybody knows those throws and takedowns don't work...just ask Hanzou.
> (Talk about  据え物にして打つ)




But its a bit gratuitous over the "returning hand snatch" ahem.. I mean chamber.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> But its a bit gratuitous over the "returning hand snatch" ahem.. I mean chamber.





TSDTexan said:


> . Egami was one of Funakoshi's original students, but became gradually more eccentric after Funakoshi's passing.



He was quite the philosopher, and disdained competitive sparring, but I wouldn't say he was eccentric.....hell, he struggled with several serious health issues over the years, and I can tell you-that makes people kinda weird.....


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> He was quite the philosopher, and disdained competitive sparring, but I wouldn't say he was eccentric.....hell, he struggled with several serious health issues over the years, and I can tell you-that makes people kinda weird.....



You dont need health issues to make you weird. I'm healthy as an ox. Many folks know me as a pretty darned odd duck.

But then again my dad was very weird.
He flew a type writer in the airforce.

A little known fact...the IIbaru Bijuru is located in a wooded area just off Douglas Boulevard, close to the post office.

Shinto practioners used to pilgrimage to pray before a sacred stone placed there by their ancestors.

It was part was once known as Iibaru Gumi, a tiny village settled by the Uehara clan in the early 1800s. After World War II, the area was appropriated by the U.S. military.

The Futenma Shrine was a previous shinto shrine... but it was far away. They eventually built their own “bijuru,” or prayer site, around sacred stones brought from Futenma.

My dad was assigned to Kadena AFB.
He spent a lot of time at that shrine. Offering incense. Praying...

He came back a mix of Shinto and Zen Buddhist. I grew up listening to him reading from a very large library of Okinawan and Japanese books and translating into English stories of the Bushi... noble retainers to lords and ladies.

Dashing tales fights for honor. Bandits and war. Of retainer's failure to protect a Lord, the shame of being a ronin...and revenge... righting a wrong.

I watched my father work a zen pebble garden and meditate there,  fail miserably at flower arrangements (ikebana) and do lots of shodo calligraphy... and chado.... zen green tea ceremony.
My dad read D.T. Suzuki aloud every day...
And how reconciled this with his eastern orthodox faith....
I will never know. But it worked for him.

Until the Buddhist monks of South Vietnam started burning themselves mid'60s. In about a decade later He would do as they did in solidarity.  He died in the Burn Ward of Brooke Army Medical Center.

He took 6 weeks to die. A staph infection in his lungs killed him. He wasn't wanting to die. But he was convinced that he had a duty to do. He had giri to perform because of the crimes of the Air Force in Laos,  Cambodia and Vietnam. And because the US supported the South Vietnamese Government as it was brutally oppressing its own people.

He felt a karmic bond of responsibility.
That it was his duty to fix this.

My dad wasnt a martial artist. His way was a non violence way.

He was given a matched set of pre-war gendaito wakasashi and tsubagatana. The man who gave it to him said it was a poor gift as it was. (This man lost 4 sons and his wife his home and his hearing in the battle of Okinaiwa from bombing and disease)
The makers mark signature was one of four Satsuma armorers on Okinaiwa.


The man said it was a poor gift that much higher quality weapons were made. He said he gave it to my father because my father was a man of great Wa. And it (his wa) allegedly caused peace where he went on the island.

There were two drunk men from fighting beside a wall and for no apparent reason they stopped. On the other side of the wall, unbeknownst to them, my father had just walked by. No one missed a thing. It was seen. Spoken of and believed.

I am inclined to think it mere chance that they grew tired of fighting. But not these simple okinaiwans.

He never drew either blade except to clean them once a year.
They are in his casket.

"People are strange.." -Jim Morrison


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The ground game has become more familiar so fighters are better able to defend against it. The more familiar you are with a fighting system the better you'll be in avoiding certain aspects of that fighting system. This is one of the reasons why Chinese martial arts were  so secretive with their fighting system.  Once someone understands how your fighting system works, then they can start creating better counters.  This understanding will also mean that a person will be more careful with throwing punches and kicks as it could mean that their opponent can take them to the ground.
> 
> The ground game is still important, it just isn't that big of surprise as it used to be. Fighters don't panic like they used to when someone shoots on them.  And more of them are refusing to get on the ground if they don't have to, even if their opponent is on the ground.



Yeah but keeping those techniques secret also hampers the art's ability to evolve. So while elite fighters are more capable of countering the standard closed guard, they're less capable of countering a more eccentric guard like Ryan Hall's 50/50 guard. 

Eventually, they will figure out how to counter that guard, but then another guard will emerge to take its place, or someone will come along who is extremely good at the closed guard and force those fighters to relearn how to stop the basic closed guard all over again.

Bjj is better for that, because it benefits from that challenge, and evolves accordingly. Which is why in MMA circles it will never be completely removed from being required knowledge.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I use a similar block in kung fu and it works.  The purpose of this block is to redirect a punch to the outside of your body allowing you to punch your opponent using the inside . I know for a fact that this works. Both karate and kung fu uses this technique in the same way during a fight in which the block itself is used with a punch as well. In this case I would be punching at the same time I'm using the block to redirect my opponent's punch.  If your arm is conditioned then the block will also damage your opponents arm.  This is actually one of the most practical techniques.



Would you happen to have an example of someone in MMA or boxing using that block? I'd be very interested in seeing it used in that context.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Three Step Sparring (Sanbon Kumite). Middle Level Block (Uchi-Uke) and Reversed Punch (Gyaku-Zuki)



Funny, I thought the reverse punch was never actually supposed to be used as a punch.,. 

But yes, I would love to see middle block being used against someone jabbing you in the face.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Old school karate ground and pound...
> Folks have tried to tell me this is an example of a karateka overextening a reverse punch... and no... its a feint if it doesn't connect.. meant to totally dominate.
> 
> it is demonstrated in video here..n but it was in the eccentric Shigeru Egami's book,_ The Heart of Karate Do,_ as an application. Egami was one of Funakoshi's original students, but became gradually more eccentric after Funakoshi's passing.



Which looks nothing like the G&P you see in MMA.

This does;






And is actual fighting, not a demonstration.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the example that you have presented, the guy only moves his arm. He doesn't move his body.


How could you possibly get that from just two static drawings?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> But yes, I would love to see middle block being used against someone jabbing you in the face.


Unless someone's face is located in the middle of their body and not on their head I don't see why anyone would use a middle block to use against someone jabbing them in the face.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> Old school karate ground and pound...





Hanzou said:


> Which looks nothing like the G&P you see in MMA.



There is a difference between finishing off an opponent that you have just taken down with a follow up strike and the ground and pound you see in MMA fights. With ground and pound you are basically raining down blows until either; the ref stops you, your opponent taps; you get tired, your opponent stops fighting back and you declare victory and stop etc. Ground and pound is nothing new, schoolkids have been doing it in schoolyard fights long before the first UFC. probably most martial arts that have a significant amount of striking in them and include takedowns have follow up strikes to the downed opponent but they are not really the same thing, hence the reason why they look different.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Unless someone's face is located in the middle of their body and not on their head I don't see why anyone would use a middle block to use against someone jabbing them in the face.



It can be done high enough to block the face.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> There is a difference between finishing off an opponent that you have just taken down with a follow up strike and the ground and pound you see in MMA fights. With ground and pound you are basically raining down blows until either; the ref stops you, your opponent taps; you get tired, your opponent stops fighting back and you declare victory and stop etc. Ground and pound is nothing new, schoolkids have been doing it in schoolyard fights long before the first UFC. probably most martial arts that have a significant amount of striking in them and include takedowns have follow up strikes to the downed opponent but they are not really the same thing, hence the reason why they look different.



In traditional Bjj, the ground and pound is part of the submission process. Typically, you use it to force your opponent to make a mistake and lower their defenses so that you can more easily submit them.

Example;





In MMA, that process is stopped by the ref if they think that the person getting pummeled can no longer defend themselves.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It can be done high enough to block the face.


Then it wouldn't be a middle block.


----------



## Hanzou

Joe Rogan on Aikido

Joe Rogan vs Aikido Guy on Effectiveness of Aikido


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The surprise is when you find out that knowing about something is very different from being able to do something.  Understanding is not the same as applying.


 I agree.  Once you know about it you can then pick the most appropriate technique to use in order to deal with it. You can't understand something that you are unaware of.  It's not enough to know that someone may shoot on you and grab your legs.  You have to understand what has to happen to make that leg grab work.  Things like, how close does my opponent have to be in order to be in shooting range. Is my opponent likely to throw a distracting jab to my face before dropping for the shoot. What stance gives a better opportunity for the shoot? What kicks are high risk are most likely to trigger shoots. Can a shoot be successful with only one arm holding on.  Once you have a good understanding of these things then that person will be able to pick the best technique within their style to deal with it.  This will also help that person identify any holes in their fighting system that need to be filled.

When I spar against fighters that like to shoot, I'll actually bait them in an effort to make them shoot for my legs. It's better for me to deal with it when I'm looking for it than trying to react to it. Also it keeps them focused on grabbing my leg and not trying to hit me in the face.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Old school karate ground and pound...
> Folks have tried to tell me this is an example of a karateka overextening a reverse punch... and no... its a feint if it doesn't connect.. meant to totally dominate.
> 
> it is demonstrated in video here..n but it was in the eccentric Shigeru Egami's book,_ The Heart of Karate Do,_ as an application. Egami was one of Funakoshi's original students, but became gradually more eccentric after Funakoshi's passing.


I agree. That's how I saw it.  It's one of those punches that hide the true intent. The object is to throw that punch hard so that the opponent will either react to it by throwing up their guard, or not react to it and get hit in the face. But hitting that person in the face isn't the primary target, the primary target is the leg sweep, which is why the punch looks the way that it does.  He's not overextending the punch he's closing the gap for the sweep.  BJJ guys use this tactic all the the type.  They throw a punch to the face that appears to be fully committed. Their primary goal isn't to hit the face, it's to get their opponent to bring their hands up to guard against the punch so that they can drop for a shoot.  For the longest time in the UFC people were and still are getting caught by this tactic.  Most fighters haven't trained themselves to be able to sense this tactic and as a result they are taken down.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah but keeping those techniques secret also hampers the art's ability to evolve.


I agree with to a certain extent. If you can spar against someone without giving up the majority of your techniques then you can keep part of the techniques secret.  But if someone is not interacting and training with other people from other fighting systems then it greatly hampers the fighter's ability to use the correct technique for a specific situation.  You showed an example of this with the Jow Ga sifu who used the wrong technique to deal with a shoot.  Had he sparred with someone who shoots then he would have known to use one of the anti-grappling techniques that's in the system (provided that someone taught him that technique to being with).  Even if he doesn't know the technique he could have talked to another sifu to see what the appropriate technique would be.  But non of this happens unless that fighter goes against other fighting systems. 

Hanzou  I think you will appreciate or at the least enjoy this article that my Sifu wrote it brings ups some of the things you have stated as well: Challenge your Style



Hanzou said:


> Would you happen to have an example of someone in MMA or boxing using that block? I'd be very interested in seeing it used in that context.


 I'll take a look to see if I can see someone one using it.  I would have actually had a video of me doing it if I hadn't broken my finger during practice.  I may have some video of either me or my sparring partner doing a similar technique as well.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Which looks nothing like the G&P you see in MMA.
> 
> This does;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And is actual fighting, not a demonstration.



I never specified ground and pound like you see in the MMA.
The fact is that the opponent is on the ground and able to be pounded.

Just because it is demonstrated.... that does not mean it cannot be applied in a fight.  

Here is a fight with a resistant opponent demonstrating the same principle. 





But if point fighting sweeps dont do it for you, I will refer you to the Nakamura-Machida mma fight.

Throughout the fight, Nakamura kept throwing his powerful right hand and looking to step into the clinch. 

Eventually both committing to a swing and Nakamura when brought his feet close together in order to enter a clinch, he gave Machida the perfect opportunity to drive in behind his elbow and hit the wedge throw. 

Your attempt to redefine GnP to pounding someone after you have taken their back really shows desperate your cause is on this one.

This is moving goalposts. I am calling you on it.

Just tap. It is useless to deny that Karate has ground and pound. Not only did I give you kata. And then demonstrated videos. And now fights both traditional and MMA.

Just admit it.
The only thing you can ask for now is recorded footage of a real fight where a KarateKa actually used his training and applied in the real world on an opponent. 

I am certain such footage exists


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Then it wouldn't be a middle block.



Exactly...
It would be an upper block... and I know of no one who uses a middle block to do an upper block.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree.  Once you know about it you can then pick the most appropriate technique to use in order to deal with it. You can't understand something that you are unaware of.  It's not enough to know that someone may shoot on you and grab your legs.  You have to understand what has to happen to make that leg grab work.  Things like, how close does my opponent have to be in order to be in shooting range. Is my opponent likely to throw a distracting jab to my face before dropping for the shoot. What stance gives a better opportunity for the shoot? What kicks are high risk are most likely to trigger shoots. Can a shoot be successful with only one arm holding on.  Once you have a good understanding of these things then that person will be able to pick the best technique within their style to deal with it.  This will also help that person identify any holes in their fighting system that need to be filled.
> 
> When I spar against fighters that like to shoot, I'll actually bait them in an effort to make them shoot for my legs. It's better for me to deal with it when I'm looking for it than trying to react to it. Also it keeps them focused on grabbing my leg and not trying to hit me in the face.




People dont watch the eyes. People watch the limbs.
If they watch the eyes... the eyes look low before the shoot.
Blind shooting is almost unprecedented.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with to a certain extent. If you can spar against someone without giving up the majority of your techniques then you can keep part of the techniques secret.  But if someone is not interacting and training with other people from other fighting systems then it greatly hampers the fighter's ability to use the correct technique for a specific situation.  You showed an example of this with the Jow Ga sifu who used the wrong technique to deal with a shoot.  Had he sparred with someone who shoots then he would have known to use one of the anti-grappling techniques that's in the system (provided that someone taught him that technique to being with).  Even if he doesn't know the technique he could have talked to another sifu to see what the appropriate technique would be.  But non of this happens unless that fighter goes against other fighting systems.
> 
> Hanzou  I think you will appreciate or at the least enjoy this article that my Sifu wrote it brings ups some of the things you have stated as well: Challenge your Style
> 
> I'll take a look to see if I can see someone one using it.  I would have actually had a video of me doing it if I hadn't broken my finger during practice.  I may have some video of either me or my sparring partner doing a similar technique as well.



Well take Bjj for example, just about every technique is in a book, or online via Youtube. Nothing is a secret anymore in that system. That has greatly benefitted the style as a whole because people can then take what is shown and push it in other directions, as well as locate weaknesses and either buff them up, or eliminate them entirely. This keeps the art evolving and getting better and better from each generation to the next. The top Bjj guys today would utterly demolish the top Bjj guys from yesteryear. 

That's how it should be. When you put something behind a wall, it becomes less dynamic and tends to stagnate.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> There is a difference between finishing off an opponent that you have just taken down with a follow up strike and the ground and pound you see in MMA fights. With ground and pound you are basically raining down blows until either; the ref stops you, your opponent taps; you get tired, your opponent stops fighting back and you declare victory and stop etc.



Don't forget that finishing off your opponent (achieving a knockout) is also a very real possibility with ground and pound.



TSDTexan said:


> Your attempt to redefine GnP to pounding someone after you have taken their back really shows desperate your cause is on this one.
> 
> This is moving goalposts. I am calling you on it.
> 
> Just tap. It is useless to deny that Karate has ground and pound. Not only did I give you kata. And then demonstrated videos. And now fights both traditional and MMA.



I think you may have made a typo here. Ground-and-pound is not typically applied when you take someone's back (although it can be).

RTKDCMB has it right on this one. The traditional karate approach of taking an opponent down and immediately adding a finishing strike from standing (or possibly kneeling on one knee) is pretty different from the MMA paradigm of going to the ground on top of your opponent looking to control their position while landing an ongoing barrage of strikes.

You can apply the G-n-P moniker to the traditional karate approach if you like, but I think it just confuses things. The approaches are different and the name originated in MMA and was not traditionally used in any Karate system that I'm aware of.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> I never specified ground and pound like you see in the MMA.



Uh, ground and pound MMA was exactly what we were talking about via your little graph about MMA fight stoppages.



> Just because it is demonstrated.... that does not mean it cannot be applied in a fight.



I never said it couldn't be. I'm simply pointing out that showing people actually using the concept in an actual brawl gives it a bit more weight than performing a concept on a willing partner.



> Here is a fight with a resistant opponent demonstrating the same principle.



Again, where did I say that the principle couldn't work? I'm saying that MMA ground and pound is more clearly a descendant of Bjj fighting than the classic sweep, finishing strike you showed.



> Your attempt to redefine GnP to pounding someone after you have taken their back really shows desperate your cause is on this one.
> 
> This is moving goalposts. I am calling you on it.
> 
> Just tap. It is useless to deny that Karate has ground and pound. Not only did I give you kata. And then demonstrated videos. And now fights both traditional and MMA.
> 
> Just admit it.
> The only thing you can ask for now is recorded footage of a real fight where a KarateKa actually used his training and applied in the real world on an opponent.
> 
> I am certain such footage exists



Uh, taking the back and punching someone in the face IS ground and pound. Typically you have your opponent in a hold on the ground (typically the mount), and start punching or elbowing them in the face. That's sort of what ground and pound means. Also in the vid I posted, Royce Gracie had the first guy in the mount, and repeatedly slapped him in the face, instead of dropping bombs on him. He could have punched or elbowed him, but he was choosing to be a bit more gentle.

Who is trying to redefine G&P again?


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Don't forget that finishing off your opponent (achieving a knockout) is also a very real possibility with ground and pound.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have made a typo here. Ground-and-pound is not typically applied when you take someone's back (although it can be).
> 
> RTKDCMB has it right on this one. The traditional karate approach of taking an opponent down and immediately adding a finishing strike from standing (or possibly kneeling on one knee) is pretty different from the MMA paradigm of going to the ground on top of your opponent looking to control their position while landing an ongoing barrage of strikes.
> 
> You can apply the G-n-P moniker to the traditional karate approach if you like, but I think it just confuses things. The approaches are different and the name originated in MMA and was not traditionally used in any Karate system that I'm aware of.



No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.

I objected to his level of specifity. Grounding the opponent so he cannot evade blows is gnp. Yes a backmount is gnp. Not saying it is not. I am saying a greenbelt is going going to pretty much have to GnP after the takedown. A 5th dan should not have to. If he does many strikes he really doesnt deserve the rank of 5th Dan. (This assumes his tradition isnt broken)

You dont even have to mount or pin the guy. You can just as easily kneel beside the prone opponent.  He can be face up or down.

Heck... soccer kicking a downed opponent in the head when dealing with multiple opponents is gnp and considered fair in the defense of one's life.

Just not legal or MMA gnp.

However top mounting a fella to drop bombs is very much a valid option within the karate discipline.

The need for an adept to drop a rain storm was glaringly absent. The exponent was expect to have enough power and control to end the fight with one punch to a pressurepoint on a downed oppoent.

However,  a younger junior student without Kime or suffecient power would not be shamed for using as much power as he could muster in as many strikes as required.

Terminology specifics need not apply.

The old masters often would test students to come up with a ad hoc solution to a predicament that the sensei would put them in.

Sometimes no labels even existed for what was improvised by the student using the knowledge and principles that the student knew.

TouTe practices included aspects of Chin Na. Go to Okinawa today and visit old schools and you can verify this within the karate tradition. In fact they call the Chin Na that is preserved tudi or tode.


----------



## JowGaWolf

hanzou here are the variations of that karate block
*Boxing:*  Block then punch.   If he did the block and punch at the same time the punch would have landed shortly after the block. This is the same concept has the karate video with the exception that he blocked with the outside of his fore arm not the inside.

*MMA #1:* Concept of making the punch go to the outside of you so that you can move to the inside.  This is the same concept of the karate video. Technique is different but same concept.

*MMA #2:* One hand blocks and the other hand covers. Had the attackers hook connected it would have hit the guard while the defender would take the inside to counter.

The reason why none of these videos look exactly like the karate video is because none of them do karate or kung fu, but as you can see that the concept is sound.
*
A clip from one of my previous videos of me sparring. #3 * It's not mma nor boxing, but it is kung fu which is where a very similar technique exists.
My first two attacks uses this technique and you can clearly see that blocking arm.
My first attempt anticipated a wide shot from my opponent, which never came.
My second attempt was to recover from messing up on first attempt.  For the most part the second attempt block was successful in that it connected. It was useless in what I was trying to do because he didn't throw a punch. I would have been on the inside of the jab had he thrown a punch. I also couldn't fire the punch through the inside because his other hand was in the way.

The technique isn't difficult to do, it's very practical, and you can see that it's not slow in actual use compared to the karate demo.  I can only assume that in karate the punch will land either at the same time as the block or fractions of a second after the block. After that technique the karate practitioner would need to follow up with something so he doesn't get hit with the fist that he wasn't blocking.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.



Uh, where?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> No. Hanzou is the one who specified backmount being GnP.



Actually, the video Hanzou posted included G&P from both back mount and regular full mount. Other options not covered in that video would include working from top of knee mount, top of full guard, and top of half-guard. (These would be the most common options)

Honestly, Royce is barely doing any real GnP in that clip. It's more landing those little slaps to say "I could really beat you up here if I wanted to and you couldn't stop me."



TSDTexan said:


> I objected to his level of specifity. Grounding the opponent so he cannot evade blows is gnp.
> 
> You dont even have to mount or pin the guy. You can just as easily kneel beside the prone opponent. He can be face up or down.



If you aren't pinning your opponent, then he is free to move and defend himself. You may get that immediate strike after the takedown, but you don't have the control to hold him in place while you land repeated strikes. That's the situation that the GnP moniker was invented to cover - *holding someone in place* on the ground to land your punches. Feel free to use "GnP" to describe the Karate approach if you want to, but you'll be confusing people more than communicating.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> hanzou here are the variations of that karate block
> *Boxing:*  Block then punch.   If he did the block and punch at the same time the punch would have landed shortly after the block. This is the same concept has the karate video with the exception that he blocked with the outside of his fore arm not the inside.
> 
> *MMA #1:* Concept of making the punch go to the outside of you so that you can move to the inside.  This is the same concept of the karate video. Technique is different but same concept.
> 
> *MMA #2:* One hand blocks and the other hand covers. Had the attackers hook connected it would have hit the guard while the defender would take the inside to counter.
> 
> The reason why none of these videos look exactly like the karate video is because none of them do karate or kung fu, but as you can see that the concept is sound.
> *
> A clip from one of my previous videos of me sparring. #3 * It's not mma nor boxing, but it is kung fu which is where a very similar technique exists.
> My first two attacks uses this technique and you can clearly see that blocking arm.
> My first attempt anticipated a wide shot from my opponent, which never came.
> My second attempt was to recover from messing up on first attempt.  For the most part the second attempt block was successful in that it connected. It was useless in what I was trying to do because he didn't throw a punch. I would have been on the inside of the jab had he thrown a punch. I also couldn't fire the punch through the inside because his other hand was in the way.
> 
> The technique isn't difficult to do, it's very practical, and you can see that it's not slow in actual use compared to the karate demo.  I can only assume that in karate the punch will land either at the same time as the block or fractions of a second after the block. After that technique the karate practitioner would need to follow up with something so he doesn't get hit with the fist that he wasn't blocking.



I'm talking about the upper, middle, and lower blocks of karate.

I saw none of those in the vids you posted.

Btw, if someone showed me a vid of you guys sparring and they asked me to guess the style, Kung Fu would've last on the list. Some form of Kickboxing would be at the top.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Actually, the video Hanzou posted included G&P from both back mount and regular full mount. Other options not covered in that video would include working from top of knee mount, top of full guard, and top of half-guard. (These would be the most common options)
> 
> Honestly, Royce is barely doing any real GnP in that clip. It's more landing those little slaps to say "I could really beat you up here if I wanted to and you couldn't stop me."
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't pinning your opponent, then he is free to move and defend himself. You may get that immediate strike after the takedown, but you don't have the control to hold him in place while you land repeated strikes. That's the situation that the GnP moniker was invented to cover - *holding someone in place* on the ground to land your punches. Feel free to use "GnP" to describe the Karate approach if you want to, but you'll be confusing people more than communicating.


I didnt see the video.  Just the thumbnail had the bjj exponent with a backmount. This was the context I responded to.
I fell him changing term use from a generic term to a very specific role of that term when I saw the thumbnail of backmounted striker.

Top mounting a fella to drop bombs is very much a valid option within the karate discipline.

At its core Karate is driven by was is necessary and effective for self preservation.

A younger junior student without Kime or suffecient power would not be shamed for using as much power as he could muster in as many strikes as required.

Or sitting on a guy to keep him from running away' while doing so.

The general feeling is that tactical position is ceded when you go to the ground but kata cearly shows us on the ground at times. So while we are by nessceity on the ground it makes sense to keep the option of pinning and raining blows or (a finishing blow) open.

Actually doing so would be poor art. But an expression of art none the less.


----------



## TSDTexan

Karate blocks in MMA?





Inward depressing forearm/palm block.
His use of an inward palm block
is hardly surprising.  

This is the favourite of most competiton kumite (ie. distance karate) fighters - Machida's pre-MMA bread and butter.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I can only show variations. I can't show you an exact one from Karate because I don't do karate, boxers don't do karate, and the MMA guys that I showed most likely don't do karate. Also keep in mind that this type of block isn't a one size fits all block. If the situation isn't there then a person that is comfortable with blocking like that video isn't going to use that block.  For example rising blocks works for jabs and maybe crosses, but not for upper cuts and hooks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about the upper, middle, and lower blocks of karate.
> 
> I saw none of those in the vids you posted.
> 
> Btw, if someone showed me a vid of you guys sparring and they asked me to guess the style, Kung Fu would've last on the list. Some form of Kickboxing would be at the top.


Kick boxing doesn't move that way. If you had seen the entire clip then kickboxing wouldn't even be on your list.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree.  Once you know about it you can then pick the most appropriate technique to use in order to deal with it. You can't understand something that you are unaware of.  It's not enough to know that someone may shoot on you and grab your legs.  You have to understand what has to happen to make that leg grab work.  Things like, how close does my opponent have to be in order to be in shooting range. Is my opponent likely to throw a distracting jab to my face before dropping for the shoot. What stance gives a better opportunity for the shoot? What kicks are high risk are most likely to trigger shoots. Can a shoot be successful with only one arm holding on.  Once you have a good understanding of these things then that person will be able to pick the best technique within their style to deal with it.  This will also help that person identify any holes in their fighting system that need to be filled.
> 
> When I spar against fighters that like to shoot, I'll actually bait them in an effort to make them shoot for my legs. It's better for me to deal with it when I'm looking for it than trying to react to it. Also it keeps them focused on grabbing my leg and not trying to hit me in the face.


Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it.  I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.

Many people understand a technique.  They know what it is and they know why and how to use it.  But as a direct result of their training (whether that is a lack of experience, flaws in their training model or physical/mental limitations that impede learning) they cannot execute the technique.

The issues here are not technical issues.  They are procedural.  It's not the techniques.  It's the verification on an individual level that skills have been successfully transmitted from instructor to student so that the student can demonstrate proficiency.

And ultimately, where people who HAVE never truly tested their techniques teach people who WILL never test their techniques, there is at best a question and at worst, a very unfortunate and potentially dangerous lack of self awareness.

As I've said in other places, the up side is that we live in an era of relative safety under the rule of law.  In most places, the chances of actually encountering violence is slim, which allows us all the luxury of indulging our delusions of grandeur.

The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do.  The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context.  The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she might better understand the context (although this is not a given.)  The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Because some people don't know their stuff.
This is kickboxing





This is Muay Thai





None of the stuff in this video ---> Non-kickboxing Non-Muay Thai fighting. looks like anything in the first 2 videos.


----------



## Argus

Steve said:


> The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do. The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context. The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she fully understands the context. The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.



That's a very good way of putting it. Actually, it sums up all of the reoccurring points in these TMA vs MMA discussions.

Neither need be the case, however, when individuals examine their training through pressure testing methods, and/or broaden it by exploring other contexts, whilst being very clear and earnest about what they're doing. And, many people do this in both the practice of Traditional Martial Arts, as well as more Sportive Martial Arts. It simply matters how you approach and expand your training. Narrow mindedness, and an unexamined, narrow focus, will hurt anyone who steps outside of the bounds they've established for themselves.

Now, I'm sure we all like to think that we know what we're doing, and that we're not the least bit narrow-minded in our training, but that's rarely the case unless you've actively sought to broaden your experience and understanding and have been exposed to a wide array of training methodologies geared for different purposes.


----------



## Steve

Argus said:


> That's a very good way of putting it. Actually, it sums up all of the reoccurring points in these TMA vs MMA discussions.
> 
> Neither need be the case, however, when individuals examine their training through pressure testing methods, and/or broaden it by exploring other contexts, whilst being very clear and earnest about what they're doing. And, many people do this in both the practice of Traditional Martial Arts, as well as more Sportive Martial Arts. It simply matters how you approach and expand your training. Narrow mindedness, and an unexamined, narrow focus, will hurt anyone who steps outside of the bounds they've established for themselves.
> 
> Now, I'm sure we all like to think that we know what we're doing, and that we're not the least bit narrow-minded in our training, but that's rarely the case unless you've actively sought to broaden your experience and understanding and have been exposed to a wide array of training methodologies geared for different purposes.


I agree, with the caveat that there is nothing wrong with understanding the boundaries of your style of training and choosing not to address them.  The only concern is lack of self awareness.  I personally think, in this day and age, in the Western world, ROI on most self defense training is very low.  On the spectrum of useful things to know to avoid personal danger, self awareness is toward the top of my list, while physically being able to defend myself from a gang of knife wielding thugs is pretty low.  And I think that the training methodology either actively creates greater self awareness or actively discourages self awareness depending in large part on how the style is pressure tested.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it. I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.


In most martial arts that I know, the students are taught technique then application using demo attacks to help students understand how the technique works.  When it comes to a real fight you have to not only know how to apply a technique, but you also have to understand how your opponent is fighting you. 

Everyone in my school knows how to sweep, but I'm the only one that excels in it.  Me being able to sweep my opponent is determined by my understanding of how my opponent moves and how they attack.  Me understanding the movement of my opponent helps me to understand when I should use the sweep.  Without understanding my opponent then there's no successful application (outside of luck).  But you can have application without understanding, and we often see this with TMAs trying to punch against someone shooting.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> You broke someone's collarbone with a punch that you practiced? Interesting.
> .



...and, just to muddy things up, it occurs to me that this:






is one of the ways I practiced it., ......see 0:44....


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> In most martial arts that I know, the students are taught technique then application using demo attacks to help students understand how the technique works.  When it comes to a real fight you have to not only know how to apply a technique, but you also have to understand how your opponent is fighting you.
> 
> Everyone in my school knows how to sweep, but I'm the only one that excels in it.  Me being able to sweep my opponent is determined by my understanding of how my opponent moves and how they attack.  Me understanding the movement of my opponent helps me to understand when I should use the sweep.  Without understanding my opponent then there's no successful application (outside of luck).  But you can have application without understanding, and we often see this with TMAs trying to punch against someone shooting.


I don't think it's very constructive to try and draw conclusions about what "most martial arts" do or don't do.  Who knows? 

I appreciate your recognition of what you specifically can and can't do.  If we did more of that around here, pointless debates about one style being better than others would largely go away. 

You mention application without understanding.  In a way, you're right, but I think we're hitting a bit of a semantical distinction.  I would say that understanding is academic.  You can go beyond parroting back what you have been told, and can now explain it.  Then you work to apply the technique.  Where you talk about application without understanding actually suggests to me the next step, which is analysis... where your technical ability leads to a deeper understanding, which is called synthesis, and then evaluation.  I've talked about Bloom's taxonomy of learning before in posts, and I believe it's a very useful way to make sense of how people learn to do anything and everything, from how to read to how to kick a ball to martial arts.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Once again, understanding something isn't the same as being able to do it.  I'm concerned that you use "know -> understand" throughout your post, but never really seem to acknowledge that after "understand" is "apply," which is the first step to demonstrating competence.
> 
> Many people understand a technique.  They know what it is and they know why and how to use it.  But as a direct result of their training (whether that is a lack of experience, flaws in their training model or physical/mental limitations that impede learning) they cannot execute the technique.
> 
> The issues here are not technical issues.  They are procedural.  It's not the techniques.  It's the verification on an individual level that skills have been successfully transmitted from instructor to student so that the student can demonstrate proficiency.
> 
> And ultimately, where people who HAVE never truly tested their techniques teach people who WILL never test their techniques, there is at best a question and at worst, a very unfortunate and potentially dangerous lack of self awareness.
> 
> As I've said in other places, the up side is that we live in an era of relative safety under the rule of law.  In most places, the chances of actually encountering violence is slim, which allows us all the luxury of indulging our delusions of grandeur.
> 
> The advantage that a sport martial artist has over others is that the sport athlete understands in context what he/she actually can or cannot do.  The hazard is misinterpreting or misunderstanding the context.  The advantage that a non-sport athlete has is that he/she might better understand the context (although this is not a given.)  The hazard is that he or she may not truly be aware of their own lack of proficiency within that context.




Which gives rise to what I call a broken traditional martial art.

Old Te was real.
McDojo Te is as real as MickeyD's all beef burger patties.
But lineage means nothing if the art gets broke.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> How could you possibly get that from just two static drawings?







Because the drawing line shows the arm movement path. To show the body rotation and the footwork, that drawing line should be at a different place.

In the following clip at 0.20, you can see the "body rotation" used in the arm block. You mainly see the body rotation, you don't see much arm movement. IMO, that's what I would like to call "body unification".

Your

- hand coordinates (start to move at the same time, and also stop at the same time) with your foot.
- elbow coordinates with your knee.
- shoulder coordinates with your hip.







In the following clip at 1.03, you can see she moves her arm only without moving her body. Her hand coordinates with "nothing". It's easier to be learned by beginners this way, but it also easier to develop bad habit out of it. I'm strongly dislike this kind of "arm moving only blocking".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I don't think it's very constructive to try and draw conclusions about what "most martial arts" do or don't do. Who knows?


 This is why I said* most* and not all. I even stated "*That I know of*" so I don't see how that is drawing conclusion. I can only comment on what I know.  If you can show me 5 martial art schools that don't teach technique, basic kicking, basic punching before teaching how to understand and read a real fight or sparring situation, then I would just gain more knowledge and my comments would reflect that.  

Adult beginner classes are often similar you'll see them trying to keep their balance, trying to punch and kick properly, and trying to get the movements of the martial art style before they even start thinking about actually trying to use it in a real fight.  Discussion about how to watch the eyes, the body movement, identifying when someone is about to shoot, won't be part of their training until they get better at doing the techniques. I'm actually training a student that knows more kung fu than I do but he hasn't quite learned how to actually use it in a fight. He'll be able to use his kung fu in a real fight situation after he gets a better understanding of the aspects and "secrets" to fighting down. He can read eyes now, but he also has to learn how to read slight body movements and weight shifts.  Then he'll have to go back and learn the same things, but how to identify it when the opponent is moving.



Steve said:


> pointless debates about one style being better than others would largely go away.


  I also don't like debates like this because it's ego driven. No matter how good I think my fighting system is, it's the fighter that determines how effective the fighting system is. Can a boxer beat me up? Sure, I have no doubt of that, especially if I try to out box the boxer.  If the boxer has faster hands and more powerful punches than me, then it's possible for the boxer to beat me up. I take all fighters serious even if I don't think their style is effective.  For me I'm fighting the fighter and not their style.  It's the fighter's skill set that knocks a person out.



Steve said:


> I would say that understanding is academic. You can go beyond parroting back what you have been told, and can now explain it


 I agree with this when it's the fighting system that I'm training in. The only way I can have a deeper understanding of a different fighting system is if I actually train in it.



Steve said:


> Where you talk about application without understanding actually suggests to me the next step, which is analysis... where your technical ability leads to a deeper understanding, which is called synthesis, and then evaluation.


 For me all of this would count as part of "understanding," which is why I try to record my sparring sessions.  This doesn't just mean understanding my fighting system but understanding it in relation to a different fighting system.  I fight against TKD, Boxing, and MMA fighters differently because each has different strength and weaknesses so I have to customize my "Kung Fu plan of attack or defense." based on who I'm fighting and the strengths of their fighting style.


----------



## Star Dragon

I confess that I haven't had the time yet to read this long thread in full. So I will limit myself to a few general remarks.

Most martial arts started out as effective methods for fighting. In many cases, the focus later shifted to sports, health, meditation, that's when some of the more specifically combative elements got dropped. The revised arts then appear to be ineffective. But generally, the combative part can be reintroduced with some effort.

I have personally studied several hard as well as soft styles. Many here may not agree, but I consider Taiji to be an extremely effective self-defence art in particular, even though it is rarely taught as such. That's where having some background in hard styles comes in handy.

Martial arts in general should be thought of as progressive sciences rather than unchangeable doctrines written in golden letters - so they can stay relevant to human demands which are inevitably changing over time. And sometimes, progress requires going back to the roots.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> McDojo Te is as real as MickeyD's all beef burger patties.


  Whaaat!?!?  MickeyD doesn't use all beef burger patties lol.  you mean all this time I've been practicing,... err I mean eating them thinking that the burgers were real fighting...I mean real hamburgers.  Now I'm mad at all TMA's .. crap.. I mean hamburgers just because of Mickey D's.  I wish someone would have told me earlier even though I could have looked it up on my own.

Sorry I couldn't resist the dig.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because the drawing line shows the arm movement path. To show the body rotation and the footwork, that drawing line should be at a different place.
> 
> In the following clip at 0.20, you can see the "body rotation" used in the arm block. You mainly see the body rotation, you don't see much arm movement. IMO, that's what I would like to call "body unification".
> 
> Your
> 
> - hand coordinates (start to move at the same time, and also stop at the same time) with your foot.
> - elbow coordinates with your knee.
> - shoulder coordinates with your hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the following clip at 1.03, you can see she moves her arm only without moving her body. Her hand coordinates with "nothing". It's easier to be learned by beginners this way, but it also easier to develop bad habit out of it. I'm strongly dislike this kind of "arm moving only blocking".


I agree with your statements about that second video. It's clear to see that she has no power with that block. She'll eventually damage her elbow when she tries to actually apply it with force or when that block is struck.  In the video with the guy you can tell his blocks had power and force even though he wasn't doing it full speed or full force.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Star Dragon said:


> Taiji to be an extremely effective self-defence art in particular, even though it is rarely taught as such


 I study this as well and it's the most deceptive martial art that I ever experienced.  Arm breaks are literally initiated from quick snaps and not from fighting someone who is muscling an arm break.  The downside to Taiji is that it's not a fighting system that someone can learn how to quickly use with effectiveness.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> There is a difference between finishing off an opponent that you have just taken down with a follow up strike and the ground and pound you see in MMA fights. With ground and pound you are basically raining down blows until either; the ref stops you, your opponent taps; you get tired, your opponent stops fighting back and you declare victory and stop etc. Ground and pound is nothing new, schoolkids have been doing it in schoolyard fights long before the first UFC. probably most martial arts that have a significant amount of striking in them and include takedowns have follow up strikes to the downed opponent but they are not really the same thing, hence the reason why they look different.



There is a more developed version in the ufc.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I also don't like debates like this because it's ego driven. No matter how good I think my fighting system is, it's the fighter that determines how effective the fighting system is. Can a boxer beat me up? Sure, I have no doubt of that, especially if I try to out box the boxer. If the boxer has faster hands and more powerful punches than me, then it's possible for the boxer to beat me up. I take all fighters serious even if I don't think their style is effective. For me I'm fighting the fighter and not their style. It's the fighter's skill set that knocks a person out.



Then why train if the system does not define the fighter?

Just be a good fighter and save yourself the trouble.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Then why train if the system does not define the fighter?
> 
> Just be a good fighter and save yourself the trouble.



1. Coaching
2. Consistent access to parters
3. Natural Body Mechanics(some people are more comfortable with some styles way of doing techs than other)


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> 1. Coaching
> 2. Consistent access to parters
> 3. Natural Body Mechanics(some people are more comfortable with some styles way of doing techs than other)



Nope apparently all martial arts systems will have the same effect. The variable is the fighter.


----------



## TSDTexan

Star Dragon said:


> I confess that I haven't had the time yet to read this long thread in full. So I will limit myself to a few general remarks.
> 
> Most martial arts started out as effective methods for fighting. In many cases, the focus later shifted to sports, health, meditation, that's when some of the more specifically combative elements got dropped. The revised arts then appear to be ineffective. But generally, the combative part can be reintroduced with some effort.
> 
> I have personally studied several hard as well as soft styles. Many here may not agree, but I consider Taiji to be an extremely effective self-defence art in particular, even though it is rarely taught as such. That's where having some background in hard styles comes in handy.
> 
> Martial arts in general should be thought of as progressive sciences rather than unchangeable doctrines written in golden letters - so they can stay relevant to human demands which are inevitably changing over time. And sometimes, progress requires going back to the roots.



One interesting thing about tangsoodo of the MDK... is the upper ranks of Hwang Kee yudansha were taught a 150 step/movement yang style of Taichi Chuan


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Nope apparently all martial arts systems will have the same effect. The variable is the fighter.



Well they can have all the same effect

They all strike or grapple

Only so many ways to hurt people


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Then why train if the system does not define the fighter?
> 
> Just be a good fighter and save yourself the trouble.


Because a good fighter from a fighting system will almost always be better than a good fighter from no fighting system depending on the advantages that the fighting system has over street fighting.  I'll use Kimbo Slice as an example: Good Trained fighter vs Good Street fighter.




This fight would have been over a lot sooner if Kimbo was fighting a Muay Thai fighter. It was clear his legs weren't conditioned for the kicks. A Muay Thai fighter would have recognized that from the beginning after a few test leg kicks. This fighter didn't realize this until later in the fight.

A good fighter from a from a fighting system will have tools and skills sets that a person isn't going to learn unless they have trained in that fighting system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Then why train if the system does not define the fighter?
> 
> Just be a good fighter and save yourself the trouble.


By the way the fighting system doesn't define the fighter.  It only defines the possible tool set that fighter may have.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> By the way the fighting system doesn't define the fighter.  It only defines the possible tool set that fighter may have.



This is absolutely correct.

I call it color palette theory.
But an artist who can work in oil and charcoal and water color has a problem of too many options.

The specialist who works in one media alone has a reduced pallete but has a faster course to mastery.

The tradeoff is that there will be holes in the specialist fighter.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Nope apparently all martial arts systems will have the same effect. The variable is the fighter.


I see what you did there.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tony Dismukes said:


> Don't forget that finishing off your opponent (achieving a knockout) is also a very real possibility with ground and pound.


That is covered by the 'etc'.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because the drawing line shows the arm movement path. To show the body rotation and the footwork, that drawing line should be at a different place.



The drawing line only shows the arm movement path and from the arrow it could also be an uppercut punch. Whether they are just indicating the arm movement because that's all the movement there was, they did not include arrows for the overall direction of movement (was he stepping forwards or backwards?) or the arrows just indicate the relevant motion, you can't tell for sure from just a simple drawing.

I find it weird that they drew a whole person and uniform, including his belt, but for some reason did not bother to give him a face.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> I find it weird that they drew a whole person and uniform, including his belt, but for some reason did not bother to give him a face.


Me too I kept thinking that same thing.


----------



## Dirty Dog

RTKDCMB said:


> I find it weird that they drew a whole person and uniform, including his belt, but for some reason did not bother to give him a face.





ballen0351 said:


> Me too I kept thinking that same thing.



I kicked his face off...


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I kicked his face off...


He must have tried to middle block your face kick


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> He must have tried to middle block your face kick


Now he's just another faceless karateka.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Now he's just another faceless karateka.



"Now, you're just a face (less) in the crowd" -Tom Petty.

Sean Archer: "I want to take his face... off. Eyes, nose, skin, teeth. It's coming off." -Face/Off (1997)


----------



## TSDTexan

Hey Hanzou...
You made an assertion that multiple attackers scenario only happens in the movies....
Are you Sure... that you want to stand by that statement?
You seemed to be disbeliving when I shared part of my one first hand testimony.

Like I said staying in motion.


Here is some experiences of others. While I have a large collection assembled, I am only posting a single sample.
Word has it that this guy is a retired iraqi pro boxer.
There are many videos, on the net, showing real life successes in multiple attacker scenario. 

You might look to your Shotokan training for guidance in Multiple Attacker Scenario.


----------



## Buka

It's going to be a long read catching up with this thread.

But the very idea of someone talking smack about another's Martial Art......why, who ever heard of such a thing? Thank goodness we are all above such shenanigans.


----------



## Koshiki

I cannot believe this thread is still alive. Has anything actually been said, aside from the following?

"Poorly trained martial arts are bad."

"Yes. They are."


----------



## TSDTexan

Buka said:


> It's going to be a long read catching up with this thread.
> 
> But the very idea of someone talking smack about another's Martial Art......why, who ever heard of such a thing? Thank goodness we are all above such shenanigans.



What. ......?
We are? 
Ahem. I mean why yes. We certainly are.


----------



## TSDTexan

Zack Cart said:


> I cannot believe this thread is still alive. Has anything actually been said, aside from the following?
> 
> "Poorly trained martial arts are bad."
> 
> "Yes. They are."



Sort of.

I think I heard someone say something to the effect that karate's blocks are probably not effective or practical for combat sports.


----------



## Dinkydoo

TSDTexan said:


> Sort of.
> 
> I think I heard someone say something to the effect that karate's blocks are probably not effective or practical for combat sports.



I realise you're stirring it a bit here...but what the hell

I've heard that said before too....

In Mantis we had those big outer, inner, downward and upward forearm blocks that you see in some styles of Karate but the theory is, irrespective of how tight, loose or non-existent your guard is, you've trained the block for ages in it's fullest range of motion. So it shouldn't matter whether you've been caught off guard with the hands by your hips, or even stroking the chin, deep in thought - the movement has been committed to muscle memory. 

Now, blocks like that against other trained fighters are a different sport altogether. They still work, but they're much more subtle and you're going to need to almost move with it to either get in or out....but it's the same technique, just trained to a higher degree.

Standing in horse riding  stance doing the blocks isn't really achieving anything though, beyond being an absolute beginner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> It's going to be a long read catching up with this thread.
> 
> But the very idea of someone talking smack about another's Martial Art......why, who ever heard of such a thing? Thank goodness we are all above such shenanigans.


Don't bother trying to catch up.  We have gone over the same arguments at least twice. I'm sure the same arguments will come up again for a third time.


----------



## Koshiki

TSDTexan said:


> I think I heard someone say something to the effect that karate's blocks are probably not effective or practical for combat sports.



Gasp! Surely not! You mean, if a bad guy lunges at me with a punch to the ribs from the left, from too far away to hit, I shouldn't swing my arm all the way to my shoulder, turn my entire body towards him, and then smash my forearm into his as hard as possible?

Crap, well, there go the last fifteen years of practice...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Zack Cart said:


> smash my forearm into his as hard as possible?


A hard block can be used to hurt your opponent's punching arm. To let your opponent's roundhouse kick to hit on your sharp elbow joint can give him a big surprise. Both methods just like to use knife to cut through wood. It fits into the 5 elements strategies "metal against wood".

Boxing doesn't use hard block doesn't mean that "metal against wood" strategy doesn't exist in TMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Hey Hanzou...
> You made an assertion that multiple attackers scenario only happens in the movies....
> Are you Sure... that you want to stand by that statement?
> You seemed to be disbeliving when I shared part of my one first hand testimony.
> 
> Like I said staying in motion.
> 
> 
> Here is some experiences of others. While I have a large collection assembled, I am only posting a single sample.
> Word has it that this guy is a retired iraqi pro boxer.
> There are many videos, on the net, showing real life successes in multiple attacker scenario.
> 
> You might look to your Shotokan training for guidance in Multiple Attacker Scenario.


I've seen this


Kung Fu Wang said:


> A hard block can be used to hurt your opponent's punching arm. To let your opponent's roundhouse kick to hit on your sharp elbow joint can give him a big surprise. Both methods just like to use knife to cut through wood. It fits into the 5 elements strategies "metal against wood".
> 
> Boxing doesn't use hard block doesn't mean that "metal against wood" strategy doesn't exist in TMA.


Boxers break their hands on elbows all the time.


----------



## Star Dragon

Zack Cart said:


> Gasp! Surely not! You mean, if a bad guy lunges at me with a punch to the ribs from the left, from too far away to hit, I shouldn't swing my arm all the way to my shoulder, turn my entire body towards him, and then smash my forearm into his as hard as possible?
> 
> Crap, well, there go the last fifteen years of practice...



That kind of nonsensical "kata bunkai" by ignorant "masters" is exactly why it's so easy for some people to make fun of TMA. Show them the real meaning of the moves, and they probably won't be laughing any more.


----------



## Koshiki

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A hard block can be used to hurt your opponent's punching arm. To let your opponent's roundhouse kick to hit on your sharp elbow joint can give him a big surprise. Both methods just like to use knife to cut through wood. It fits into the 5 elements strategies "metal against wood".
> 
> Boxing doesn't use hard block doesn't mean that "metal against wood" strategy doesn't exist in TMA.



100% agreed. I was trying to poke fun at the commonly presumed application of some of the most basic Karate and Taekwondo, where the "block" takes twice as long to complete as the attack.

Big fan of hard blocks though. We just call them strikes in my style. Some of our friends in Five Animal/Monkey Kung Fu call it Stone Monkey, I believe.


----------



## TSDTexan

Zack Cart said:


> 100% agreed. I was trying to poke fun at the commonly presumed application of some of the most basic Karate and Taekwondo, where the "block" takes twice as long to complete as the attack.
> 
> Big fan of hard blocks though. We just call them strikes in my style. Some of our friends in Five Animal/Monkey Kung Fu call it Stone Monkey, I believe.



In old Karate... they are deflections, parries, shoves, or trapping and rarely are they "just" hard blocks or even hard blocks at all.

I remember 20 something years ago when I had the epiphany my block was actually an offensive strike, and could be used on things other than "stopping an incoming strike".

I started thinking about the practice in europe of "shield-bashing". I started trying to figure out what kind of targets on the human body would be ideal for being clubbed by a forearm. The throat and spine are quite lovely.
As are targets such as the back of an elbow, the boney orbit of the eyesocket by the temple, and the nose.

The hammer fist does more damage but a relaxed arm swings faster... and soft tissue targets don't have to be struck with a fist to deal significant trauma.

However there are quite a few blocks that are so poor a strike as to make it clear they are NOT a strike becomes self evident.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dinkydoo said:


> I realise you're stirring it a bit here...but what the hell
> 
> Standing in horse riding  stance doing the blocks isn't really achieving anything though, beyond being an absolute beginner.



You realize a 10 hour shift on a day spent in deep horse stance is brutally effective in body conditioning for the leg and spine.

Add in continuous full speed, full power blocks (for the whole ten hours) or slow speed dynamic tensioned blocks and you have just started some serious cardio and endurance.

Add in a partner kicking and punching your body, if you fail to block and you have reaction time / speed training and medicine ball body conditioning.

There is a reason why the shaolin did deep horse stance training from day one. Heck... just a horse stance is a full on gym.

Add some kettle ball arm "lift and holds".

Or stone bracelet punching....erm..."blocking"

Or the stone hammer body conditioning...
Or a deep horse stance on the top ends of two wooden poles or stone columns up 6 or more feet in the air.

With a guy running a tennis ball launcher. Or a guy pitching iron pellet bean bags. Better make them blocks and weaves.

This is stuff that can challenge a master.
I think it achieves a lot more than you realize for anyone on their journey.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> I realise you're stirring it a bit here...but what the hell
> 
> I've heard that said before too....
> 
> In Mantis we had those big outer, inner, downward and upward forearm blocks that you see in some styles of Karate but the theory is, irrespective of how tight, loose or non-existent your guard is, you've trained the block for ages in it's fullest range of motion. So it shouldn't matter whether you've been caught off guard with the hands by your hips, or even stroking the chin, deep in thought - the movement has been committed to muscle memory.
> 
> Now, blocks like that against other trained fighters are a different sport altogether. They still work, but they're much more subtle and you're going to need to almost move with it to either get in or out....but it's the same technique, just trained to a higher degree.
> 
> Standing in horse riding  stance doing the blocks isn't really achieving anything though, beyond being an absolute beginner.



It is tricky. They work well for one off big shots. I use them for overhand rights some times. But they become low percentage for combinations because your arms won't keep up with theirs and you get over run.

For the SD you may need to karate style block if they have a weapon because a cover may still get you carved up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> spent in deep horse stance ... Add in continuous full speed, full power blocks


It's better to repeat your hip throw (or shoulder throw) solo drill 300 times non-stop than to stay in horse stance for 30 minutes. You will get everything that you can get from your 30 minutes horse stance training but much more.

It's better to develop your "body unification" from day one. It may be harder for any beginner to do. But why do you want to go through the wrong way and then chance it back to the right way several years later?

Some beginners may do the following:

1. step in,
2. downward block.

You move your leg first. After your leg finish the move and stop, you then move your arm.

Why don't you do:

1. step in and downward block at the same time?

The moment that you start to move your leg, the moment that you start to move your arm. The moment that your leg stop, the moment that your arm stop at the same time.

The following 2 clips have good "body unification - hand and foot start and stop at the same time".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> For the SD you may need to karate style block if they have a weapon because a cover may still get you carved up.


In the praying mantis system, you run toward your opponent with 2 upward blocks (one after another) to raise both of his arms and expose his belly for your punch.

In the XingYi system, the upward blocking is like to raise a curtain, you then move in under it.

In both cases, footwork is integrated with your upward blocking.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the praying mantis system, you run toward your opponent with 2 upward blocks (one after another) to raise both of his arms and expose his belly for your punch.
> 
> In the XingYi system, the upward blocking is like to raise a curtain, you then move in under it.
> 
> In both cases, footwork is integrated with your upward blocking.



But I assume can be negated by their footwork.


----------



## Dinkydoo

TSDTexan said:


> You realize a 10 hour shift on a day spent in deep horse stance is brutally effective in body conditioning for the leg and spine.
> 
> Add in continuous full speed, full power blocks (for the whole ten hours) or slow speed dynamic tensioned blocks and you have just started some serious cardio and endurance.
> 
> Add in a partner kicking and punching your body, if you fail to block and you have reaction time / speed training and medicine ball body conditioning.
> 
> There is a reason why the shaolin did deep horse stance training from day one. Heck... just a horse stance is a full on gym.
> 
> Add some kettle ball arm "lift and holds".
> 
> Or stone bracelet punching....erm..."blocking"
> 
> Or the stone hammer body conditioning...
> Or a deep horse stance on the top ends of two wooden poles or stone columns up 6 or more feet in the air.
> 
> With a guy running a tennis ball launcher. Or a guy pitching iron pellet bean bags. Better make them blocks and weaves.
> 
> This is stuff that can challenge a master.
> I think it achieves a lot more than you realize for anyone on their journey.


This is all good stuff, but who do you know that actually trains like that? I'm not doing much TMA these days simply because I couldn't find anything like that. I honestly want to go and train with those guys.


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> It is tricky. They work well for one off big shots. I use them for overhand rights some times. But they become low percentage for combinations because your arms won't keep up with theirs and you get over run.
> 
> For the SD you may need to karate style block if they have a weapon because a cover may still get you carved up.


Agree. 

When I first started trying to use Mantis in free sparring I tried to 'chase'  combinations and meet each strike with a block or trap......I got hit a lot!


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> Boxers break their hands on elbows all the time.


I have bruised my foot a few times on them as well.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dinkydoo said:


> This is all good stuff, but who do you know that actually trains like that? I'm not doing much TMA these days simply because I couldn't find anything like that. I honestly want to go and train with those guys.



A few actually.  And most of them are not taking students.


----------



## Dinkydoo

TSDTexan said:


> A few actually.  And most of them are not taking students.


Can you give me any examples of the schools that train like this, so i can dig around a bit and see if there is anything related or similar where I am?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> This is all good stuff, but who do you know that actually trains like that? I'm not doing much TMA these days simply because I couldn't find anything like that. I honestly want to go and train with those guys.


 My school trains stances minus the 6 foot poles. We hold each stance for 10 seconds and then transition to another one. This helps us to build leg strength and makes it easier for use to move and out of stances.  You do this exercise until the body can no longer hold the stance.  If 10 seconds is too easy then increase it by 10 seconds.
The exercise that I do is starts in horse stance -> bow stance ->cat stance -> cross stance -> then repeat.

You can substitute the tennis ball launcher with a sparring partner.  Have your partner throw light to medium speed/force punches and tell him to actually try to hit you with a specific punch or kick so that you can train a specific block. Make sure that he doesn't throw punches in a pattern or rhythm.  Have him feint attacks if he sees that you are anticipating patterns.  This activity should be done in a low stance.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dinkydoo said:


> Can you give me any examples of the schools that train like this, so i can dig around a bit and see if there is anything related or similar where I am?


This place was in 2000 / 2001 when I lived in las vegas

United Studios of Self Defense - Henderson, NV


----------



## TSDTexan

Dinkydoo said:


> Can you give me any examples of the schools that train like this, so i can dig around a bit and see if there is anything related or similar where I am?



Also, Master Yi in the Austin TX area will teach it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dinkydoo said:


> This is all good stuff, but who do you know that actually trains like that? I'm not doing much TMA these days simply because I couldn't find anything like that. I honestly want to go and train with those guys.


I don't like to build foundation first and develop skill later approach. I like to develop skill first and build foundation later approach. When you build your house, you can spend a lot of money to build a strong foundation. Sometime you may find out that you just run out of money to put your roof on. You will end with a house that has solid foundation but no roof which is not livable. You don't want to train our MA skill this way.

IMO, you should use:

1. partner drill to "develop" skill.
2. sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
3. weight equipment training to "enhance" skill.
4. form/drill/stance to "polish" skill.

Your priority should be to "develop" your skill 1st and then "polish" it later. The reason that you may want to pick that order because you can only "develop" and "test" your skill when you are still young. When you get older, you will have all the time in the world to "enhance" and "polish" your skill.

You can stay in horse stance all day long when you are 80 years old. You just can't spar/wrestle when your are that old. So try to spend as much time as you can in your sparring/wrestling while you are still young.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like to build foundation first and develop skill later approach. I like to develop skill first and build foundation later approach.
> 
> IMO, you should use:
> 
> 1. partner drill to "develop" skill.
> 2. sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
> 3. weight equipment training to "enhance" skill.
> 4. form/drill/stance to "polish" skill.
> 
> Your priority should be to "develop" your skill 1st and then "polish" it later. The reason that you may want to pick that order because you can only "develop" and "test" your skill when you are still young. When you get older, you will have all the time in the world to "enhance" and "polish" your skill.
> 
> You can stay in horse stance all day long when you are 80 years old. You just can't spar/wrestle when your are that old. So try to spend as much time as you can in your sparring/wrestling while you are still young.
> 
> When you build your house, you can spend a lot of money to build a strong foundation. Sometime you may find out that you just run out of money to put your roof on. You will end with a house that has solid foundation but no roof which is not livable. We don't want to train our MA skill this way.



While you make a great deal of points, there is something else to consider.
On days you have no partner to practice with... those are solo days. One should solo practice every day... Ideally, once upon waking and once before bed both of these can be done in stance training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> On days you have no partner to practice with...


This is why you should choice your girlfriend or wife who also trains MA as well. This way, you will have your training partner 24/7. My wife always tells me that she doesn't fight fair and she fights dirty." She has no problem to smash my body all the way down to the ground.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like to build foundation first and develop skill later approach.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you may find out that you just run out of money to put your roof on.



You can't build a roof without a foundation. And if your foundation is weak then the roof will collapse on you.
You can't grow a tree from the top down.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> You can't build a roof without a foundation. And if your foundation is weak then the roof will collapse on you.
> You can't grow a tree from the top down.



Count the cost of building before you start. 

Plan the work and work the plan.


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should choice your girlfriend or wife who also trains MA as well. This way, you will have your training partner 24/7. My wife always tells me that she doesn't fight fair and she fights dirty." She has no problem to smash my body all the way down to the ground.



Heres a listing I just came up with:
I want an outdoorsy girl!
Let’s go hiking, swimming, fishing, running, sailing, canoeing, camping, mountain climbing, bungee jumping, skydiving, spelunking, deep-sea diving, and so on until we’re so completely exhausted that we don’t even have the energy to have sex. It will help if we both take steroids.
About you...
1.  must like long walks on a beach and enjoy a good rear naked choke while watching a beautiful sunset.
2. You refuse to tap or sub. And you refuse to accept taps or subs from your partner.  Its an honor thing. Cause your old school classy like that. You have broken other people's arms and you refuse to share your Xrays.
3. No ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands with restraining orders for D.V.
4. Your prison tattoos are better looking than mine.
5. You lost the olympic gold medal in judo to a rival and you have been a bully in the UFC ever since.
6. You are almost sane.
7. You believe me whenever I say "Of course, I am not lying"

About me. I am rich, and I own a mansion and a yacht. I am willing to crash at yours while having mine remodeled.

I have a string of very dangerous ex girlfriends who can break arms and have done time for shanking other ex girlfriends.
I have 13 restraining orders for DV (on them... not me)

I come from a Brazilian family that has made billions suckering people into spending 10-20 years earning a black piece of fabric to wear. When some of the students are allowed to earn it in 4 we say they are gifted and especially talented.

I have six pack abs.

My name is pronounced with an R and not an H.


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should choice your girlfriend or wife who also trains MA as well. This way, you will have your training partner 24/7. My wife always tells me that she doesn't fight fair and she fights dirty." She has no problem to smash my body all the way down to the ground.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should choice your girlfriend or wife who also trains MA as well. This way, you will have your training partner 24/7. My wife always tells me that she doesn't fight fair and she fights dirty." She has no problem to smash my body all the way down to the ground.



I can hear ya. We be lucky, bro.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Thanks for all the tips and suggestions. For me, all the TMA training I've had seems have been missing something, some element of the puzzle which would really help me improve and develop practical skills: 

Lau Gar (okay, technically not TMA) the syllabus wasn't great but I had a fantastic teacher, who's technique was near perfect and he ran his class expecting the same dilligence and effort from his students. Downfall: we were expected to go from linework and one step sparring to free sparring without much coaching, the result, that horrible sparring we've all seen Hanzou post (oh, so many) videos of online. 

7 Star Praying Mantis: great system, great teacher, we worked drills, stancework and forms every class. Sparring wasn't using hard contact and without protective gear so it lost an element of realism. Too many forms, many repetitive (50 empty hand). 

Wing Chun: same club as the above, lack of proper sparring meant I was missing key elements like timing and strategy. Much of my softer skills (sensitivity...etc) were developed quite nicely though.

Taiji: good teacher, but I was the youngest guy (by far) in the class, and nobody else had any desire to really defend themselves with it. The instructor tried his best to keep me interested by letting me practice applications on him but I was never going to progress very far in that kind of environment. 

Once I started sparring twice a week at kickboxing (and then, a third outside of class with friends), my Mantis skills and Wing Chun started to become quite useful, although I still felt that i was missing things by not having an opportunity to go 'balls to the wall' in a class that taught those styles. In the end I got fed up with the endless number of empty hand forms in Mantis and now having moved city, I have the perfect opportunity to start somewhere else. 

I don't agree with Joe Rogan at all, but my experiences certainly do nothing to disprove his arguement....maybe if I didn't have such an open mind and respect for TCMA then after my 4 years training, it might be one that I'd agree with. (Btw the kickboxing club definitely had it's flaws too, but that's probably for a different thread)

I try out a JKD club taught by a guy certified by Ted Wong tonight, which I'm really excited about!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Thanks for all the tips and suggestions. For me, all the TMA training I've had seems have been missing something, some element of the puzzle which would really help me improve and develop practical skills:
> 
> Lau Gar (okay, technically not TMA) the syllabus wasn't great but I had a fantastic teacher, who's technique was near perfect and he ran his class expecting the same dilligence and effort from his students. Downfall: we were expected to go from linework and one step sparring to free sparring without much coaching, the result, that horrible sparring we've all seen Hanzou post (oh, so many) videos of online.
> 
> 7 Star Praying Mantis: great system, great teacher, we worked drills, stancework and forms every class. Sparring wasn't using hard contact and without protective gear so it lost an element of realism. Too many forms, many repetitive (50 empty hand).
> 
> Wing Chun: same club as the above, lack of proper sparring meant I was missing key elements like timing and strategy. Much of my softer skills (sensitivity...etc) were developed quite nicely though.
> 
> Taiji: good teacher, but I was the youngest guy (by far) in the class, and nobody else had any desire to really defend themselves with it. The instructor tried his best to keep me interested by letting me practice applications on him but I was never going to progress very far in that kind of environment.
> 
> Once I started sparring twice a week at kickboxing (and then, a third outside of class with friends), my Mantis skills and Wing Chun started to become quite useful, although I still felt that i was missing things by not having an opportunity to go 'balls to the wall' in a class that taught those styles. In the end I got fed up with the endless number of empty hand forms in Mantis and now having moved city, I have the perfect opportunity to start somewhere else.
> 
> I don't agree with Joe Rogan at all, but my experiences certainly do nothing to disprove his arguement....maybe if I didn't have such an open mind and respect for TCMA then after my 4 years training, it might be one that I'd agree with. (Btw the kickboxing club definitely had it's flaws too, but that's probably for a different thread)
> 
> I try out a JKD club taught by a guy certified by Ted Wong tonight, which I'm really excited about!


The thing about kung fu is that you have to do the conditioning and strengthening in order to use it effectively.  It's no different from athletes doing weight training (lifting weights) and conditioning that is specific to their sport. Kung Fu has the same requirement of conditioning. Think of the all of the strengthening and conditioning that boxers do, that don't have anything to do with contact sparring. 

Kung Fu requires strong grips, conditioned hands and knuckles, this includes fast hand speed and endurance required for grabbing. Conditioned forearms that can take a beating without being damaged, strong legs that have endurance, conditioned shins, stomachs, and cardiovascular endurance, flexibility for certain attacks and defenses. Hand and eye coordination, footwork training, sensing, and other crazy stuff depending on what techniques you want to use. This will still be the case for JKD.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing about kung fu is that you have to do the conditioning and strengthening in order to use it effectively.  It's no different from athletes doing weight training (lifting weights) and conditioning that is specific to their sport. Kung Fu has the same requirement of conditioning. Think of the all of the strengthening and conditioning that boxers do, that don't have anything to do with contact sparring.
> 
> Kung Fu requires strong grips, conditioned hands and knuckles, this includes fast hand speed and endurance required for grabbing. Conditioned forearms that can take a beating without being damaged, strong legs that have endurance, conditioned shins, stomachs, and cardiovascular endurance, flexibility for certain attacks and defenses. Hand and eye coordination, footwork training, sensing, and other crazy stuff depending on what techniques you want to use. This will still be the case for JKD.




Very agreed.
But I will shut up and let an old master speak:
While he is from JMA, I absolutely believe this to be a universal constant in any MA.

“_People who think they can ignore training their bodies and only work on techniques are amateurs. You cannot do a technique if your body is not developed. Actually, if you don’t prepare your body properly, you have no hope of ever perfecting your technique."_

Yukiyoshi Sagawa
佐川 幸義


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing about kung fu is that you have to do the conditioning and strengthening in order to use it effectively.  It's no different from athletes doing weight training (lifting weights) and conditioning that is specific to their sport. Kung Fu has the same requirement of conditioning. Think of the all of the strengthening and conditioning that boxers do, that don't have anything to do with contact sparring.
> 
> Kung Fu requires strong grips, conditioned hands and knuckles, this includes fast hand speed and endurance required for grabbing. Conditioned forearms that can take a beating without being damaged, strong legs that have endurance, conditioned shins, stomachs, and cardiovascular endurance, flexibility for certain attacks and defenses. Hand and eye coordination, footwork training, sensing, and other crazy stuff depending on what techniques you want to use. This will still be the case for JKD.


Man, with all due respect, I'm certain that a bit of extra conditioning isn't going to magically fix the issues I have with my kung fu training. I posted up my strength and conditioning routine on another thread a little while back and it is quite thorough. On top of that, the kickboxing classes I did contained an hour of circuits before we even started throwing techniques and sparring, because we were training for competitions....it was tough. The issue with my kung fu is that I couldn't bridge the gap from set drills and one step stuff to free sparring....and after 4 years, with ample effort and time invested on my part, my body is quite well conditioned.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Man, with all due respect, I'm certain that a bit of extra conditioning isn't going to magically fix the issues I have with my kung fu training. I posted up my strength and conditioning routine on another thread a little while back and it is quite thorough. On top of that, the kickboxing classes I did contained an hour of circuits before we even started throwing techniques and sparring, because we were training for competitions....it was tough. The issue with my kung fu is that I couldn't bridge the gap from set drills and one step stuff to free sparring....and after 4 years, with ample effort and time invested on my part, my body is quite well conditioned.


oh ok.  I understand now.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?


For me I thought you were having trouble with your kung fu because the strengthening and conditioning needed to do your techniques weren't there. But from what you recently told me your have the strength and conditioning, it's just the transition from knowing how to do the technique to applying the technique in a free sparring situation. 

I have a solution that works with my style but I don't know if it will work the same way with your 7 star praying mantis. I don't mind sharing how I make the technique transition from drill to free sparring.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> For me I thought you were having trouble with your kung fu because the strengthening and conditioning needed to do your techniques weren't there. But from what you recently told me your have the strength and conditioning, it's just the transition from knowing how to do the technique to applying the technique in a free sparring situation.
> 
> I have a solution that works with my style but I don't know if it will work the same way with your 7 star praying mantis. I don't mind sharing how I make the technique transition from drill to free sparring.


Yes, that's exactly it. To be honest, I'm a bit better at applying my Mantis in free sparring now that I have some fundamental sparring skill gained through kickboxing and now, due to my recent move, I won't be doing much mantis (other than working on what techniques I like from what syllabus I'd been taught) - although I'm still interested in what methods work for you. It 'kind of' fits in with the thread but if you'd rather pm me then I'd be happy with that too - gotta dash for now, first JKD class in 30 mins


----------



## Steve

Dinkydoo said:


> Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?


It sounds like there was a disconnect between what you were learning and what you expected to learn. 

Clear objectives that are measurable.  Clear feedback that directly relates to the objectives.  It's how we learn to do literally everything else in our lives, except martial arts.  Some martial arts.


----------



## TSDTexan

Dinkydoo said:


> Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?



No. And Yes.
It's like class rooms are car design and theory.

But you got to get the car on the track to test and validate your car.

Half of the art is adapting yourself to it
The other half is adapting it to you.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?



Well it is not the style. It is the individual. Or so they say.

Sparring is a different game to drills. Simple as that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dinkydoo said:


> Am I picking you guys up wrong or is it being suggested that my kung fu didn't work very well simply because I wasn't working hard enough?


It might be that your expectations about how you are supposed to apply the skills you are developing, don't match with reality.  I'd say that is a common misunderstanding, even among many who are "teachers".

I'm not in your class and I'm not there to witness how you train outside of class, so I cannot comment on that.  You might be training hard enough, you might not, it's not for me to say.

But if you believe you should be able to apply your techniques in sparring exactly how they are contained in the forms, my experience tells me you are mistaken.  I would say this is especially true in sparring, when your partners are probably your classmates, and they are familiar with what you know, and everyone is hyper-alert to what the other guy may attempt, and there is some control to be exercised to avoid injury.  These things all work together to fundamentally undermine the literal translation of formal technique from the forms into sparring.

Anyway, I don't believe that is how application comes to life, based on my own experiences anyway.  It's not about using stylized techniques.  It's more about the application of principles, and the practice of stylized techniques are a vehicle that helps you better understand the principles, even if the actual application is different.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> No. And Yes.
> It's like class rooms are car design and theory.
> 
> But you got to get the car on the track to test and validate your car.
> 
> Half of the art is adapting yourself to it
> The other half is adapting it to you.


Except when you learn to drive a car, you actually get to drive a real car.  Even when you're learning to drive, you get to drive an actual car several times... on the street... in traffic.  And then you get your license, which indicates that you are proficient.  And then you continue to drive more and more until you are, hopefully, at some point, pretty good at it.


----------



## Dinkydoo

I agree. I think the bottom line was that i expected to be able to use my kungfu skills to face off and fight someone...but what I was being taught didn't really lend itself to that. That's the reason why some people think "all TMAs suck" - there's a disconnect between what they're expecting to get out of training and what they're actually doing. 

In the end I kind of made it fit by doings bits and pieces elsewhere, but for 'proper' TCMA, I believe I shouldn't have had to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Sparring is a different game to drills.


If you create your drills from sparring, your sparring and drills will be the same.

sparring -> drills

For example,

- jab, cross
- roundhouse kick, side kick,
- groin kick, face punch,
- haymaker, reverse head lock,
- separate hands, head lock,
- arm dragging, single leg,
- foot sweep, arm jam, face punch,
- ...

Some of those drills may not exist in your forms, or may not exist in your MA system, but it should not prevent you from creating it yourself.

Your

- cross may come from "boxing".
- roundhouse kick may come from "MT".
- side kick may come from "TKD".
- groin kick may come from "long fist".
- haymaker may come from "CLF".
- head lock may come from "Shuai Chiao".
- arm drag may come from "wrestling".
- foot sweep may come from "praying mantis".
- ...


----------



## Dinkydoo

Also, the principles thing is a good point. I think i had a similar conversation with a poster on here, but on another forum, a while ago when I was first realising that I needed to evaluate what I was doing. 

I still don't use many of the flashy mantis techniques in sparring but some of the sweeps are great and sticking principles work well to get inside a guard

Edit: that's not entirely true, I do love a hurricane kick! Totally telegraphed almost every time, but I won't forget the look on my mate's face the first time I caught him with it.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Except when you learn to drive a car, you actually get to drive a real car.  Even when you're learning to drive, you get to drive an actual car several times... on the street... in traffic.  And then you get your license, which indicates that you are proficient.  And then you continue to drive more and more until you are, hopefully, at some point, pretty good at it.



My analogy was neant to be taken from an automotive engineering perspective... not a consumer side one.

Regular drivers shouldn't be part of the debug and design process. Otoh.
You don't have to even have a license on a test track.

Eventually you and the car become one.
The car becomes an extension of your will.


The two halves.
First you become the art.

Following:
Memorizing Forms.
Skill acquisition.
Body development and conditioning.
Agility strength flexibility training. 
Focus development and concentration.
Ingrained motor cordination or muscle memorization of perfect or idealized segments of movement.
Submitting yourself to the rules.
The how to.

Then the art becomes you.

Leading:
Comprehending the forms. And reflexive application of them.
Skill mastery.
Fine tuning of the body.

Expression of the will.

Adaptive muscle movement and instead of large exaggerated segments of movement (idealized beginning form) your body produces tight smaller and efficient movements based on the underling principles of the form.
Becoming the rules.
The why.

Eventually you become fully integrated art and man.
And the line between each disappears or is transparent.
And the ruler and the rules are forgotten.

He simply Is.

The artist doing is replaced with being.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dinkydoo said:


> In the end I kind of made it fit by doings bits and pieces elsewhere, but for 'proper' TCMA, I believe I shouldn't have had to.


Could you explain a bit what you mean with this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> Yes, that's exactly it. To be honest, I'm a bit better at applying my Mantis in free sparring now that I have some fundamental sparring skill gained through kickboxing and now, due to my recent move, I won't be doing much mantis (other than working on what techniques I like from what syllabus I'd been taught) - although I'm still interested in what methods work for you. It 'kind of' fits in with the thread but if you'd rather pm me then I'd be happy with that too - gotta dash for now, first JKD class in 30 mins


My sparring class isn't until Thursday so I'll have a video of parts of that class posted around this weekend.  I think there's one technique I can show without getting into trouble with my Sifu.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Yea, no problem. We did no 'gloves on' free sparring at the Mantis club, so I started sparring with friends from other styles in a hall we rented every week. I then decided that I needed to spar whilst being coached because I was being soundly beaten by guys who had only started 6 months ago....I myself had 2 and a half years under my belt by that point (averaging 10 hours training per week). I joined a kickboxing club and learnt a lot about timing and strategy when sparring that helped me apply some of the mantis I'd trained in....because those fundamentals were missing from my training. 

Coincidently I ended up loving kickboxing and have kept it up ever since. Fast forward a year and a half and I won a couple of medals fighting in my first ISKA tournament at the start of the year.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> My sparring class isn't until Thursday so I'll have a video of parts of that class posted around this weekend.  I think there's one technique I can show without getting into trouble with my Sifu.


Man, that would be awesome but don't go doing anything that will get you into trouble at your club. I'd love to see it though, always happy to get insight into other guys training because it helps me to evaluate my own.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dinkydoo said:


> Yea, no problem. We did no 'gloves on' free sparring at the Mantis club, so I started sparring with friends from other styles in a hall we rented every week. I then decided that I needed to spar whilst being coached because I was being soundly beaten by guys who had only started 6 months ago....I myself had 2 and a half years under my belt by that point (averaging 10 hours training per week). I joined a kickboxing club and learnt a lot about timing and strategy when sparring that helped me apply some of the mantis I'd trained in....because those fundamentals were missing from my training.
> 
> Coincidently I ended up loving kickboxing and have kept it up ever since. Fast forward a year and a half and I won a couple of medals fighting in my first ISKA tournament at the start of the year.


Ok, I actually was hoping to get clarification on what you meant by "for proper TCMA you shouldn't have to". Sorry I wasn't clear on that.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I actually was hoping to get clarification on what you meant by "for proper TCMA you shouldn't have to". Sorry I wasn't clear on that.


No worries.

I meant that the sanda element should be part of your TCMA training. At some point you need to train with unscripted power and aggression aimed towards you....most places put sparring gear on and have sparring matches (tactical and free) in order to achieve this.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dinkydoo said:


> No worries.
> 
> I meant that the sanda element should be part of your TCMA training. At some point you need to train with unscripted power and aggression aimed towards you....most places put sparring gear on and have sparring matches (tactical and free) in order to achieve this.


Gotcha.  Thx.  I think it's about understanding what the end result is going to be, and not expecting something that looks like a Jackie Chan movie.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> My analogy was neant to be taken from an automotive engineering perspective... not a consumer side one.
> 
> Regular drivers shouldn't be part of the debug and design process. Otoh.
> You don't have to even have a license on a test track.
> 
> Eventually you and the car become one.
> The car becomes an extension of your will.
> 
> 
> The two halves.
> First you become the art.
> 
> Following:
> Memorizing Forms.
> Skill acquisition.
> Body development and conditioning.
> Agility strength flexibility training.
> Focus development and concentration.
> Ingrained motor cordination or muscle memorization of perfect or idealized segments of movement.
> Submitting yourself to the rules.
> The how to.
> 
> Then the art becomes you.
> 
> Leading:
> Comprehending the forms. And reflexive application of them.
> Skill mastery.
> Fine tuning of the body.
> 
> Expression of the will.
> 
> Adaptive muscle movement and instead of large exaggerated segments of movement (idealized beginning form) your body produces tight smaller and efficient movements based on the underling principles of the form.
> Becoming the rules.
> The why.
> 
> Eventually you become fully integrated art and man.
> And the line between each disappears or is transparent.
> And the ruler and the rules are forgotten.
> 
> He simply Is.
> 
> The artist doing is replaced with being.


Okay, ignoring the fancy pants, pseudo-philosophical idealism, artists actually execute in their chosen mediums.  Painters paint.  Sculptors actually sculpt.  Writers write.  Drivers drive things.  Golfers play golf.  Using your analogy, the martial arts cars would rarely move beyond concept and never get to the prototype stage, much less into production.

What's the difference between a medical intern and an attending physician?  Answer:  hours logged working as a doctor.

Martial artists do what?  Spar?  Compete?  Do forms?  Do kata?  Explore bunkai?   Get in shape?  Learn respect? 

What's the difference between a martial arts beginner and martial arts expert?  The answer could be just about anything.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Okay, ignoring the fancy pants, pseudo-philosophical idealism, artists actually execute in their chosen mediums.  Painters paint.  Sculptors actually sculpt.  Writers write.  Drivers drive things.  Golfers play golf.  Using your analogy, the martial arts cars would rarely move beyond concept and never get to the prototype stage, much less into production.
> 
> What's the difference between a medical intern and an attending physician?  Answer:  hours logged working as a doctor.
> 
> Martial artists do what?  Spar?  Compete?  Do forms?  Do kata?  Explore bunkai?   Get in shape?  Learn respect?
> 
> What's the difference between a martial arts beginner and martial arts expert?  The answer could be just about anything.



One is learning the ropes.
The other expresses himself.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> One is learning the ropes.
> The other expresses himself.


Of course.  The ropes.  And the other is expressing himself.  In understand that's illegal in some states.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you create your drills from sparring, your sparring and drills will be the same.
> 
> sparring -> drills
> 
> For example,
> 
> - jab, cross
> - roundhouse kick, side kick,
> - groin kick, face punch,
> - haymaker, reverse head lock,
> - separate hands, head lock,
> - arm dragging, single leg,
> - foot sweep, arm jam, face punch,
> - ...
> 
> Some of those drills may not exist in your forms, or may not exist in your MA system, but it should not prevent you from creating it yourself.
> 
> Your
> 
> - cross may come from "boxing".
> - roundhouse kick may come from "MT".
> - side kick may come from "TKD".
> - groin kick may come from "long fist".
> - haymaker may come from "CLF".
> - head lock may come from "Shuai Chiao".
> - arm drag may come from "wrestling".
> - foot sweep may come from "praying mantis".
> - ...



We get people who constantly struggle to make the transition from the pads to live sparring. Same thing happens if you spar someone good.you struggle to implement what you have trained.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Yea, no problem. We did no 'gloves on' free sparring at the Mantis club, so I started sparring with friends from other styles in a hall we rented every week. I then decided that I needed to spar whilst being coached because I was being soundly beaten by guys who had only started 6 months ago....I myself had 2 and a half years under my belt by that point (averaging 10 hours training per week). I joined a kickboxing club and learnt a lot about timing and strategy when sparring that helped me apply some of the mantis I'd trained in....because those fundamentals were missing from my training.
> 
> Coincidently I ended up loving kickboxing and have kept it up ever since. Fast forward a year and a half and I won a couple of medals fighting in my first ISKA tournament at the start of the year.



There are just a lot of basic fighting fundamentals you just won't pick up unless you do a kicboxing or similar. Not even the stylistic differences. Quite often there are no outlets for fighters in a lot of styles. I mean if say for example you wanted to be an akido kill monster. Who do you fight? Where as wrestling you could fight quality guys all the time.


----------



## Dinkydoo

drop bear said:


> There are just a lot of basic fighting fundamentals you just won't pick up unless you do a kicboxing or similar. Not even the stylistic differences. Quite often there are no outlets for fighters in a lot of styles. I mean if say for example you wanted to be an akido kill monster. Who do you fight? Where as wrestling you could fight quality guys all the time.


I think this depends on the attitude of the people you train with too; naturally, competitive arts are going to attract more people who want to really push themselves and test their skills in the ring - therefore the training is all geared towards making sure this stuff works when facing off against someone. I've watched quite a few episodes of Kung Fu Quest and generally, the guys who are profiled on it are really serious about using their art to fight - unfortunately for me, I don't live in China (and probably never will). If we bring the context back to the UK then there is really only one Kung Fu club that i've seen who train their guys the way i want to train, a Chow Gar club that is around a 6 hour round trip for me now....yet within a half hour walk from my flat, I can be training with pro Muay Thai and MMA fighters.


----------



## DAVID LEE SPRINGER

hello everyone--i see there is a few of my gung-fu brothers on here---greatings from california(david springer 20 years -shori-go ju-ryu/15 years 7 star northern mantis 15 years chi-na)


----------



## TSDTexan

DAVID LEE SPRINGER said:


> hello everyone--i see there is a few of my gung-fu brothers on here---greatings from california(david springer 20 years -shori-go ju-ryu/15 years 7 star northern mantis 15 years chi-na)


Welcome to Martial Talk, David


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Welcome to Martial Talk, David



Gojo... heavy breathing! Great branch of Karate.
How much hojo undo did you do in that 20 years of Gojo?
Sanchin stepping with heavy nigiri game is boss!


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB said:


> Unless someone's face is located in the middle of their body and not on their head I don't see why anyone would use a middle block to use against someone jabbing them in the face.


\
I'm glad you spoke up.
\
The traditional karate blocking concepts re principles are taught immediately in the traditional curriculum...  The happenstance that the unknowing / all-knowing go out & rigidly paste these kihon training structures onto actual application absent the principles.... then no the standard middle block doesn't work readily against jabs to the faCE.
\
The latter should ask Joe R over to dinner.... you'all have a lot to commiserate about.


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> Exactly...
> It would be an upper block... and I know of no one who uses a middle block to do an upper block.
> View attachment 19511


\
No, it's more representative to say that most karateka don't know how to actually apply these standard karate blocks @ All.
\
WAIT: OMGawrsh, we are finally getting the karate manual out...  I'm in shock & awe....
\
But then again, the conventional full contact mentality says these karate blocks don't work.... It's hands up boys....  High defense, middle defense, low defense.... that's as outdated as RTKDCMB's board breaking demo's....they say.


----------



## ShotoNoob

OMGarsh.... I'm missed this....


Hanzou said:


> It can be done high enough to block the face.


\
om 2xgAWRSH..... TWO posters are correct @ the same time..!!!  Gee I (me) learned @ white-yellow belt at my current school there's Kihon training form &  there is Kumite application form.  Will the twain ever shall meet????


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> In traditional Bjj, the ground and pound is part of the submission process. Typically, you use it to force your opponent to make a mistake and lower their defenses so that you can more easily submit them.
> 
> Example;


\
RTKDCMB or someone, flying crane?, asked me to post my video demo.  which I didn't post.
\
Well here is a "karate" demo vid of how I DON'T TRAIN OR FIGHT.  Never encountered traditional karate training @ numerous TMA schools in my area advocating walking around aimlessly with no guard; them madly rushing standing upright smack dab into the opponent with my hands @ my sides....  a Gracie grappler no less...
\
No, the kihon middle block (or punch) doesn't work 'cause the karateka in this video doesn't know application of either....


----------



## Hanzou

Back on topic;


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> RTKDCMB or someone, flying crane?, asked me to post my video demo.  which I didn't post.
> \
> Well here is a "karate" demo vid of how I DON'T TRAIN OR FIGHT.  Never encountered traditional karate training @ numerous TMA schools in my area advocating walking around aimlessly with no guard; them madly rushing standing upright smack dab into the opponent with my hands @ my sides....  a Gracie grappler no less...
> \
> No, the kihon middle block (or punch) doesn't work 'cause the karateka in this video doesn't know application of either....


That guy is basically stuck in demo mode for which approaches like that are common. If this is the case then that guy doesn't have the basic experience to be sparring let alone going against another fighting style. This is basically what he had playing in his mind of how real fighting is. lol




It actually makes bjj look less impressive because he's not going against a skilled karate fighter.  He's just going against a skilled with demo forms.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> That guy is basically stuck in demo mode for which approaches like that are common. If this is the case then that guy doesn't have the basic experience to be sparring let alone going against another fighting style. This is basically what he had playing in his mind of how real fighting is. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually makes bjj look less impressive because he's not going against a skilled karate fighter.  He's just going against a skilled with demo forms.



Interesting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Back on topic;


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Back on topic;


It's interesting how debates and comments are about TMAs vs MMA are never really compare the arts as a whole. Debates usually always focus on grappling and striking as if that is all within a fighting system. Weapons never come up. Historical context never comes up and McDojos are never distinguished from the real fighting systems.

I do kung fu.  If I went against a professional MMA fighter playing by MMA rules then there's a high chance that I'll lose. Here we are both limited to the same rules
If I went against the same MMA fighter on concrete then I feel better about my chances of winning, simply because sweeps done on concrete not only hurt an opponent but has the risk of breaking bone when hitting the ground. Here we are both limited by the same rules and dangers of the concrete
If I used a wax wood staff and gave that same MMA fighter a wax wood staff then there's a high chance that I'll win. Here we are both limited to the same rules and same weapons.

It's just a shame that people like Joe take a part of a fighting system and then make assumptions about the whole of that fighting system and then throw other TMAs into the same boat. An Aikido practitioner with a bokken would beat an MMA practicioner with a bokken but we don't hear Joe ragging MMA out about that.  What is really sad is that there are a lot of MMA fighters probably don't hold the same opinions that Joe has.  Many of them are more than happy to take various techniques from TMA's so long as that technique helps them to win.

The good thing about Joe is that while he's a "dead horse" topic there has been some really informative stuff that has come out that has nothing to do with Joe at all.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> It's interesting how debates and comments are about TMAs vs MMA are never really compare the arts as a whole. Debates usually always focus on grappling and striking as if that is all within a fighting system. Weapons never come up. Historical context never comes up and McDojos are never distinguished from the real fighting systems.
> 
> I do kung fu.  If I went against a professional MMA fighter playing by MMA rules then there's a high chance that I'll lose. Here we are both limited to the same rules
> If I went against the same MMA fighter on concrete then I feel better about my chances of winning, simply because sweeps done on concrete not only hurt an opponent but has the risk of breaking bone when hitting the ground. Here we are both limited by the same rules and dangers of the concrete
> If I used a wax wood staff and gave that same MMA fighter a wax wood staff then there's a high chance that I'll win. Here we are both limited to the same rules and same weapons.
> 
> It's just a shame that people like Joe take a part of a fighting system and then make assumptions about the whole of that fighting system and then throw other TMAs into the same boat. An Aikido practitioner with a bokken would beat an MMA practicioner with a bokken but we don't hear Joe ragging MMA out about that.  What is really sad is that there are a lot of MMA fighters probably don't hold the same opinions that Joe has.  Many of them are more than happy to take various techniques from TMA's so long as that technique helps them to win.
> 
> The good thing about Joe is that while he's a "dead horse" topic there has been some really informative stuff that has come out that has nothing to do with Joe at all.



Sort of. There is what is called drinking the cool aid. And that is the idea that your technique works even though you have never fought anybody good. So if your staff training is mostly forms and bunkai. You will probably get bashed by a hema or dog brothers guy who is doing contact sparring.

It is this fairly consistent method as to what turns out good fighters.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It's just a shame that people like Joe take a part of a fighting system and then make assumptions about the whole of that fighting system and then throw other TMAs into the same boat. An Aikido practitioner with a bokken would beat an MMA practicioner with a bokken but we don't hear Joe ragging MMA out about that.  What is really sad is that there are a lot of MMA fighters probably don't hold the same opinions that Joe has.  Many of them are more than happy to take various techniques from TMA's so long as that technique helps them to win.
> 
> The good thing about Joe is that while he's a "dead horse" topic there has been some really informative stuff that has come out that has nothing to do with Joe at all.



I don't believe its a shame at all. Joe made a lot of excellent points in that video. The guy he was talking to was clearly delusional and literally making up complete BS throughout the entire exchange.


----------



## Flying Crane

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> RTKDCMB or someone, flying crane?, asked me to post my video demo.  which I didn't post.
> \
> Well here is a "karate" demo vid of how I DON'T TRAIN OR FIGHT.  Never encountered traditional karate training @ numerous TMA schools in my area advocating walking around aimlessly with no guard; them madly rushing standing upright smack dab into the opponent with my hands @ my sides....  a Gracie grappler no less...
> \
> No, the kihon middle block (or punch) doesn't work 'cause the karateka in this video doesn't know application of either....


Wasn't me.  I simply asked you to explain a comment you made.  You have not done so.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I don't believe its a shame at all. Joe made a lot of excellent points in that video. The guy he was talking to was clearly delusional and literally making up complete BS throughout the entire exchange.


 This is Aikido as well. Do the "excellent points" go for these practitioners as well. Are these practitioners just willingly being tossed around? Does it look like the techniques are fake? Do those same "excellent points" apply to these men and women?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> Says it doesn't work.
> 
> But he ignores the navy seal that got KOd by a Shaolin fighter, in a boxing ring.



Or a boxer being defeated by a grandmother:


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Sort of. There is what is called drinking the cool aid. And that is the idea that your technique works even though you have never fought anybody good. So if your staff training is mostly forms and bunkai. You will probably get bashed by a hema or dog brothers guy who is doing contact sparring.
> It is this fairly consistent method as to what turns out good fighters.



As for HEMA.  the same can be said about a HEMA or dog brothers guy. Take away his sword and put him in the ring then how does he fair against someone who does MMA.
Even if you only train staff forms and don't spar, you'll still have an advantage over an MMA guy that doesn't use a staff at all.  If you compare 100% of HEMA vs 100% of MMA then HEMA has a very high chance of winning even if the HEMA person only does forms.

A HEMA person that does contact sparring vs a person that only does kung fu Spear form would will still have trouble beating the staff.  A staff is just a spear without the metal head. Kung fu spear technique from someone who only does forms.  He still has a good chance putting up a good fight against someone who does HEMA so long as he doesn't try to fight as if he's doing the form.





This is what HEMA would have to face when someone who actually spars using kung fu spear techniques.





HEMA is at a disadvantage because they are still piecing together lost techniques.  You can tell in the movements that one system has clearly learned how to be one with the weapon and the other system is still trying to figure it out.  I'm not saying HEMA sucks, because I like that they weapon spar. I'm just saying that they really are at the early stages of trying to put a dead fighting system back together with very few actual techniques.  The most that they'll get in the end is a hybrid system that may or may not be accurate to HEMAs


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is Aikido as well. Do the "excellent points" go for these practitioners as well. Are these practitioners just willingly being tossed around? Does it look like the techniques are fake? Do those same "excellent points" apply to these men and women?



No it's not. It's a branch of Aikido that allows competition. The vast majority of Aikido associations don't allow competition, and don't feel that it's "true" Aikido. That includes the Aikikai, which is by far the largest.

It's also interesting how much competitive Aikido resembles Judo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No it's not. It's a branch of Aikido that allows competition. The vast majority of Aikido associations don't allow competition, and don't feel that it's "true" Aikido. That includes the Aikikai, which is by far the largest.
> 
> It's also interesting how much competitive Aikido resembles Judo.



What's the difference between Aikido and a branch of Aikido? It's still Aikido right? It's a shame that other associations don't consider them "true aikido" just because they do competition.

As far as competitive Aikido resembles Judo, I can only say that there are only so many ways to throw bodies and do joint locks before techniques in other systems begin to have some similarities.  Maybe that is what you are picking up.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> What's the difference between Aikido and a branch of Aikido? It's still Aikido right? It's a shame that other associations don't consider them "true aikido" just because they do competition.



Competition, that's the difference. Additionally 8/10 of the Aikido schools are going to be Akikai or Yoshinkan, not the competitive version of Aikido. The competitive versions of Aikido are extremely rare.



> As far as competitive Aikido resembles Judo, I can only say that there are only so many ways to throw bodies and do joint locks before techniques in other systems begin to have some similarities.  Maybe that is what you are picking up.



No, I'm noticing that the competitive version of Aikido looks far different than the Aikido shown in practice or drilling. It certainly doesn't look as smooth or spectacular.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No, I'm noticing that the competitive version of Aikido looks far different than the Aikido shown in practice or drilling. It certainly doesn't look as smooth or spectacular.


  This will always be the case with form vs real world application.  The techniques will still be there but not all will not always look the same. The purpose of the form isn't so that it looks the same in a real fight but to have the same outcome.  I can actually show this from a personal experience with me sparring with an opponent.

I can show the form version and I can show the exact form version executed in living sparring. They don't look the same even though I executed both the same way.  The difference in looks is caused because of the impact of my leg against an object.  The expected results are the same, but the looks aren't, even though the technique is the same.


----------



## JowGaWolf

This spear form doesn't look like the spear sparring video that I posted. And someone who saw him do forms would doubt that the techniques would actually work in a real situation.  Actual use of technique doesn't always look like what is done in the form, but it's clearly there, because those kung fu guys with the spears clearly know how to use the spear and that skill clearly didn't come from sparring alone.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> As for HEMA.  the same can be said about a HEMA or dog brothers guy. Take away his sword and put him in the ring then how does he fair against someone who does MMA.
> Even if you only train staff forms and don't spar, you'll still have an advantage over an MMA guy that doesn't use a staff at all.  If you compare 100% of HEMA vs 100% of MMA then HEMA has a very high chance of winning even if the HEMA person only does forms.
> 
> A HEMA person that does contact sparring vs a person that only does kung fu Spear form would will still have trouble beating the staff.  A staff is just a spear without the metal head. Kung fu spear technique from someone who only does forms.  He still has a good chance putting up a good fight against someone who does HEMA so long as he doesn't try to fight as if he's doing the form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what HEMA would have to face when someone who actually spars using kung fu spear techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HEMA is at a disadvantage because they are still piecing together lost techniques.  You can tell in the movements that one system has clearly learned how to be one with the weapon and the other system is still trying to figure it out.  I'm not saying HEMA sucks, because I like that they weapon spar. I'm just saying that they really are at the early stages of trying to put a dead fighting system back together with very few actual techniques.  The most that they'll get in the end is a hybrid system that may or may not be accurate to HEMAs



It is a pity there isn't a vehicle that could either prove or disprove your theory. Mabye some sort of gathering where like minded weapon practitioners could get together and spar.

So I guess we will just never know.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I don't believe its a shame at all. Joe made a lot of excellent points in that video. The guy he was talking to was clearly delusional and literally making up complete BS throughout the entire exchange.



Yes and no. The NCAA wrestler is not as fair a judge of technique as we would like to think. So say I use the most bullet proof takedown defence there is. And test it against a world class wrestler. What do you think would be the result?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This will always be the case with form vs real world application.  The techniques will still be there but not all will not always look the same. The purpose of the form isn't so that it looks the same in a real fight but to have the same outcome.  I can actually show this from a personal experience with me sparring with an opponent.
> 
> I can show the form version and I can show the exact form version executed in living sparring. They don't look the same even though I executed both the same way.  The difference in looks is caused because of the impact of my leg against an object.  The expected results are the same, but the looks aren't, even though the technique is the same.



Well yeah, because forms are worthless nonsense. I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about the technique itself shown in Aikido demonstrations vs Aikido competition.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yes and no. The NCAA wrestler is not as fair a judge of technique as we would like to think. So say I use the most bullet proof takedown defence there is. And test it against a world class wrestler. What do you think would be the result?



You really think an Aikidoka can stop a NCAA wrestler? 

I don't.

An Olympic level wrestler? Not a chance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It is a pity there isn't a vehicle that could either prove or disprove your theory. Mabye some sort of gathering where like minded weapon practitioners could get together and spar.
> 
> So I guess we will just never know.


I think that would be great there's a group where I live that is doing that now, just not with weapons.  Weapons sparring requires a lot of control.  The guys fighting with the spears clearly have more control than me or my fellow students. The group will have to have practitioners that have control and know that people don't actually be jabbed in the mouth for them to understand that it's a possible outcome.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well yeah, because forms are worthless nonsense. I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about the technique itself shown in Aikido demonstrations vs Aikido competition.



Bjj drills the application. Rather than applies the form. And that makes a big difference.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You really think an Aikidoka can stop a NCAA wrestler?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> An Olympic level wrestler? Not a chance.



Can you?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Well yeah, because forms are worthless nonsense. I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about the technique itself shown in Aikido demonstrations vs Aikido competition.


Some of those same Aikido techniques were actually pulled off in the Aikido sparring video that I posted. 
My first double leg sweep ever was executed with only form practice showing me how to do the technique. I got that on video as proof of how useful forms can be.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I think that would be great there's a group where I live that is doing that now, just not with weapons.  Weapons sparring requires a lot of control.  The guys fighting with the spears clearly have more control than me or my fellow students. The group will have to have practitioners that have control and know that people don't actually be jabbed in the mouth for them to understand that it's a possible outcome.




There are plenty of groups that spar in different systems. You would not have to just assume yours is better. You could go find out.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Some of those same Aikido techniques were actually pulled off in the Aikido sparring video that I posted.
> My first double leg sweep ever was executed with only form practice showing me how to do the technique. I got that on video as proof of how useful forms can be.



There is some akido techniques that work. That is not really in debate. There s nothing separating the stuff that works from the stuff that dosent. Unless you train with resistance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You really think an Aikidoka can stop a NCAA wrestler?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> An Olympic level wrestler? Not a chance.


The Aikido fighting system includes weapons while NCAA wrestling does not.  It's possible to stop an NCAA wrestler using Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There are plenty of groups that spar in different systems. You would not have to just assume yours is better. You could go find out.


I never assume that my fighting system is better.  I always spar against people with the assumption that they are dangerous and are worth my respect that they can do harm to me.  That way I don't go into the fight half-assed and clouded with ego.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> This will always be the case with form vs real world application.


I'm strongly against the form training but I love the drills training. If you train drills instead of form, you can add proper footwork to meet your need which may not exist in your form.

In stick fight, the dog brothers like to run toward their opponents with attacking. It's like the horse back fight that you may only have one chance. The footwork will be important there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang I'm not disagreeing with you just sharing with you how forms are important to me.

I do both form training and drill training.  Form training is my library of techniques I have to do the form to remember the numerous techniques.  Drill training for me can be done in the form (limited application freedom of when a technique can be launched).  The drill training that helps me the most is to be free flowing with the techniques in my form. I break the form completely apart and I try to see which techniques flow well into each other.  I first use the techniques that come natural to me and getting those down where I can apply them.  After that I add a new technique from the form

I don't add new techniques from my original form until I can execute a technique from almost any position.  I sit on the floor, lay on the floor, put my back to the wall, face the wall, intentionally have someone push me off balance and any other possible situation for the sake of understanding the techniques better and to have a feel for which techniques work best and when.

For the next 3 months I'll be learning how to use my techniques to fight with one good hand (due to a broken finger).  I'm with you that I enjoy the drill training a lot but I still have to keep up with the forms because the forms have other benefits that the drill doesn't give me.  As far as cardiovascular endurance and strengthening, my forms are excellent.  I'm stronger and faster because of my forms.  But the drilling is also equally important as they help me to actually be able to use what I learned in my forms in an actual fight.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Can you?



Yes. I've rolled with my share of NCAA wrestlers. Let's just say that the guard is a wonderful thing. 

Against an Olympic wrestler? Not a chance. There's no way I'd be able to keep up with their endurance and explosiveness.

In short, a good wrestler is a tough roll regardless. It gets progressively harder to shut them down the higher you go up the ladder. The difference is that Bjjs ground game can make up for the wrestler's superior takedown and top game.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The Aikido fighting system includes weapons while NCAA wrestling does not.  It's possible to stop an NCAA wrestler using Aikido.



Do you tend to carry around samurai swords and spears?

I highly doubt it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> You really think an Aikidoka can stop a NCAA wrestler?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> An Olympic level wrestler? Not a chance.


I believe Aikido can be more combat effective but the training method will need to be modified. 

If we look at the following demo clip (I don't know the person in that clip. It's general principle discussion and has nothing to do with individual). We can see something are missing.

- Your opponent always attacks with full commitment. In the real world, people won't be that stupid.
- Even if your opponent attacks with speed, the moment that you apply your move, he has no defense and no counter. In the real world, your opponent will have some defense and counter skill.
- You always deal with your opponent's wrist area. This will not only give too much space between your body and his body, since his elbow joint is free, he can do a lot of counters if he knows how.
- You always wait for your opponent to attack. This will add one extra "dependency" on "how to apply your skill".
- ...

The main concern is, instead of always have to wait for your opponent to attack you, you should attack first. When your opponent responds to your attack, you then respond to his respond. This way, since you don't know what kind of your opponent's respond may come back from your initial attack, your next move will be undefined.

Since you don't know "where" and "how" to obtain your opponent's "contact points", your MA straining will be more realistic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Do you tend to carry around samurai swords and spears?
> 
> I highly doubt it.


Swords are part of Aikido and part of their fighting system.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> This will always be the case with form vs real world application.  The techniques will still be there but not all will not always look the same. The purpose of the form isn't so that it looks the same in a real fight but to have the same outcome.  I can actually show this from a personal experience with me sparring with an opponent.
> 
> I can show the form version and I can show the exact form version executed in living sparring. They don't look the same even though I executed both the same way.  The difference in looks is caused because of the impact of my leg against an object.  The expected results are the same, but the looks aren't, even though the technique is the same.




Except for old Okinawa kata... which had free sparing which was identical to its solo form.
This type of free sparing and fight application was pretty much supressed to the point where no one in Japan taught kumite other than Motobu Choki.

It almost completely died out. After Karate became (in Japan) a hit free sparing was demanded by students.
In the place of real kata related free sparing a new kumite, of improvised free sparing was substituted.

Motobu Choki and a few others actually commented on this directly. And he only practiced Naifachi kata. It was complete. Also was what he used to fight .


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> It's interesting how debates and comments are about TMAs vs MMA are never really compare the arts as a whole. Debates usually always focus on grappling and striking as if that is all within a fighting system. Weapons never come up. Historical context never comes up and McDojos are never distinguished from the real fighting systems.
> 
> I do kung fu.  If I went against a professional MMA fighter playing by MMA rules then there's a high chance that I'll lose. Here we are both limited to the same rules
> If I went against the same MMA fighter on concrete then I feel better about my chances of winning, simply because sweeps done on concrete not only hurt an opponent but has the risk of breaking bone when hitting the ground. Here we are both limited by the same rules and dangers of the concrete
> If I used a wax wood staff and gave that same MMA fighter a wax wood staff then there's a high chance that I'll win. Here we are both limited to the same rules and same weapons.
> 
> It's just a shame that people like Joe take a part of a fighting system and then make assumptions about the whole of that fighting system and then throw other TMAs into the same boat. An Aikido practitioner with a bokken would beat an MMA practicioner with a bokken but we don't hear Joe ragging MMA out about that.  What is really sad is that there are a lot of MMA fighters probably don't hold the same opinions that Joe has.  Many of them are more than happy to take various techniques from TMA's so long as that technique helps them to win.
> 
> The good thing about Joe is that while he's a "dead horse" topic there has been some really informative stuff that has come out that has nothing to do with Joe at all.


Some questionable logic here.  Give an experienced MMA athlete a long stick to hit you with, and he may or may not "win."  Depends on how you train.  It is not a given that an aikidoka with a bokken would "beat" an MMA practitioner with a sword shaped stick.  My belief is that a person can actually be less capable of defending himself training in a way that fosters an unrealistic assessment of what he or she is actually learning (and what they are not learning).


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Some questionable logic here.  Give an experienced MMA athlete a long stick to hit you with, and he may or may not "win."  Depends on how you train.  It is not a given that an aikidoka with a bokken would "beat" an MMA practitioner with a sword shaped stick.  My belief is that a person can actually be less capable of defending himself training in a way that fosters an unrealistic assessment of what he or she is actually learning (and what they are not learning).



Steve... on this one... aikido is a sword art. If the instructor was orthodox and proficient and the student was in proper shape and had applied himself in learning the sword art.

I would say 85% or higher that the aikidoka would beat an mma down. Mma practices dont involve training with or against weapons.

This was demonstrated when ufc guys visited the US MC MAP HQ.

Even when given weapons the marines pwned face.
However most of the marines would not do as well in the octagon.


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Steve... on this one... aikido is a sword art. If the instructor was orthodox and proficient and the student was in proper shape and had applied himself in learning the sword art.
> 
> I would say 85% or higher that the aikidoka would beat an mma down. Mma practices dont involve training with or against weapons.
> 
> This was demonstrated when ufc guys visited the US MC MAP HQ.
> 
> Even when given weapons the marines pwned face.
> However most of the marines would not do as well in the octagon.


I would say that I would believe it when I see it.  Otherwise it is speculation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Some questionable logic here.  Give an experienced MMA athlete a long stick to hit you with, and he may or may not "win."  Depends on how you train.  It is not a given that an aikidoka with a bokken would "beat" an MMA practitioner with a sword shaped stick.  My belief is that a person can actually be less capable of defending himself training in a way that fosters an unrealistic assessment of what he or she is actually learning (and what they are not learning).


Yes you are correct that it depends on how you train. That is always the case regardless of the activity.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I would say that I would believe it when I see it.  Otherwise it is speculation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  What is specualtion? Someone trained to use a weapon would have a high chance of winning against someone who isn't trained to use a weapon?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> What is specualtion? Someone trained to use a weapon would have a high chance of winning against someone who isn't trained to use a weapon?


Yes.  Depends on the training.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes you are correct that it depends on how you train. That is always the case regardless of the activity.


Right.  And some training is ineffective.  You've said as much yourself.  So if someone is training with a sword, shaped stick, but in an ineffective manner, why is it difficult to envision some one who is trained being unable to overcome someone who is not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> What is specualtion? Someone trained to use a weapon would have a high chance of winning against someone who isn't trained to use a weapon?



Save your breath on this one. Lead a horse to water. . .
Steve might think an mma fight has a fair chance against a FMA fighter with a escrima stick as well.

I saw this vid where the fighters of the UFC went to the United States Marine Corp. They picked up bayonet simulators and went into the woods whereupon the Marines with knife simulators promptly murdered them.

Same deal with properly trained akidoka with wooden swords.
I mean MMAs dont block. Charge in. And are outranged by 30 to 45 inches. A decent akidoka would target the aggressor's weapons. Broken fists/hands don't punch or grapple well.

There are 8 basic cuts. And the only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses.
Then factor in the many sword based take downs.

One way or another the MMA guy is getting his wig split.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> That guy is basically stuck in demo mode for which approaches like that are common. If this is the case then that guy doesn't have the basic experience to be sparring let alone going against another fighting style. This is basically what he had playing in his mind of how real fighting is. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually makes bjj look less impressive because he's not going against a skilled karate fighter.  He's just going against a skilled with demo forms.


\
Yeah, JowGa, this stuff keeps getting re-posted about how the Shotokan-like traditional karate's have all these faults.  And, the overriding reason I took up a style of 'modern' traditional karate was to determine just that.
\
But having a broader exposure in TMA, I quickly came to see the universal principles behind & common to all styles of TMA.  And those universal principles are clearly & definitely the foundation of the so-called 'modern' traditional karates....
\
Your point is well taken about the BJJ'r vs. the so-called karate opponent in the quoted Gracie vid I posted.
\
But it is side point.  the real, true point is that the 'karate' opponent the Gracies's toss all around & submit, etc., is violating all the universal principles of traditional karate.... so well presented in your kARATE DEMO VID that you pan....  you have missed completely the skill set that is presented in that demo.... one key lesson of which is TOO NEVER ACT LIKE THE GRACIE VID KARATE MORON DID....
\
Sparring is not the key to success in the traditional martial arts model.  this is a maxim of boxing, sport fighting where doing is succeeding...  TMA, which Rogan never got, getting by on his great athletics & very sharp mind, requires a physical then mental base, which to borrow a phrase recently repeated here, develops mind-body unification.  Not sharp witted, technical athletic responses....
\
In TMA, success is achieved by building a base of mind & body unity which as a complete unit, can out think & then out act the physically gifted opponent....  Sparring is a minor component of that base building process.... less so if one takes seriously the kumite exercises which most don't....
\
That's a great vid to flesh out the issues.... for traditional karate, not against it.....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Flying Crane said:


> Wasn't me.  I simply asked you to explain a comment you made.  You have not done so.


\
you didn't respond to my request either....


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> I do kung fu.  If I went against a professional MMA fighter playing by MMA rules then there's a high chance that I'll lose. Here we are both limited to the same rules.


\
The competent TMA practitoner should defeat the MMA competitor, rules are not the determining factor.  Rules are a determining factor when one is talking sports physicality.  The TMA base is superior to the MMA training base....  That's the martial determining factor.
\
[edit]
\


JowGaWolf said:


> IIt's just a shame that people like Joe take a part of a fighting system and then make assumptions about the whole of that fighting system and then throw other TMAs into the same boat. An Aikido practitioner with a bokken would beat an MMA practicioner with a bokken but we don't hear Joe ragging MMA out about that.  What is really sad is that there are a lot of MMA fighters probably don't hold the same opinions that Joe has.  Many of them are more than happy to take various techniques from TMA's so long as that technique helps them to win.


\
Rogan is a stand up comic.  & a sport karate competitor & 1-time TKD school owner....  Now an MMA promoter / commentator.   I, personally, would not call him a Master of TKD.  Not by any means....


----------



## TSDTexan

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> Yeah, JowGa, this stuff keeps getting re-posted about how the Shotokan-like traditional karate's have all these faults.  And, the overriding reason I took up a style of 'modern' traditional karate was to determine just that.
> \
> But having a broader exposure in TMA, I quickly came to see the universal principles behind & common to all styles of TMA.  And those universal principles are clearly & definitely the foundation of the so-called 'modern' traditional karates....
> \
> Your point is well taken about the BJJ'r vs. the so-called karate opponent in the quoted Gracie vid I posted.
> \
> But it is side point.  the real, true point is that that 'karate' opponent the Gracies's toss all around & submit, etc., is violating all the universal principles of traditional karate.... so well presented in your kARATE DEMO VID that you pan....  you have missed completely the skill set that is presented in that demo.... one key lesson of which is TOO NEVER ACT LIKE THE GRACIE VID KARATE MORON DID....
> \
> Sparring is not the key to success in the traditional martial arts model.  this is a maxim of boxing, sport fighting where doing is succeeding...  TMA, which Rogan never got, getting by on his great athletics & very sharp mind, requires a physical then mental base, which to borrow a phrase recently repeated here, develops mind-body unification.  Not sharp witted, technical athletic responses....
> \
> In TMA, success is achieved by building a base of mind & body unity which as a complete unit, can out think & then out act the physically gifted opponent....  Sparring is a minor component of that base building process.... less so if one takes seriously the kumite exercises which most don't....
> \
> That's a great vid to flesh out the issues.... for traditional karate, not against it.....



The okinawan art which shotokan came out of has no less than 72 groundfighting newaza techiques. But what about "sport" karate which has tournament rules? Grabbing is a foul under JKA rules. Wouldn't want karateka confused with judoka.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Right.  And some training is ineffective.  You've said as much yourself.  So if someone is training with a sword, shaped stick, but in an ineffective manner, why is it difficult to envision some one who is trained being unable to overcome someone who is not?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes but If I'm going to compare fighting systems then I'm not going to pick a student from a McDojo (with or without a weapon) to go against a professional MMA fighter.
Just like I wouldn't pick a horrible MMA fighter to go against someone with advanced skills in fighting with a weapon.


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> The okinawan art which shotokan came out of has no less than 72 groundfighting newaza techiques. But what about "sport" karate which has tournament rules? Grabbing is a foul under JKA rules. Wouldn't want karateka confused with judoka.


\
Texan.... I am not a sport competitor, nor a sport enthusiast...  I look @ the art in it's entirety beginning with principles.....
\
Take the Shotokan karate [?] demo vid JaGow panned, which I commented on above. Those practicing karateka do in fact incorporate several grappling maneuvers into their regimen.  Of course the Okinawan karates are much broader & have more emphasis on grappling.  Why?  Because that is the nature of Okinawan karate styles as a group.  *Nevertheless, both Okinawan & Japanese karate's broach the principles & tactics of grappling.*
\
And furthermore, what to do, how to respond to some one coming at you in general as portraying in that vid... be it striker or grappler.... the opponent is coming into combat range with intent to do harm.... I don't see those demonstrators exhibiting a lackadaisical mindset until it's too late & the opponent has clocked them a good one or taken them down....  That's the mental skill set that overrides physical training alone.... like me against a Gracie jab/ feint duck into a take down....
\
Most karate tournaments, which I am not a proponent of.... exhibit a certain, narrowly defined skill set compared to the complete traditional karate curriculum.  If one chooses to be sport oriented and work backward to expediently develop the skills to prevail at sport karate point fighting.... then technically speaking.... that practitioner is no longer training the traditional karate standards &curriculum....
\
*I believe it was JaGow how who put uf that SPORTS MARTIAL ARTS. COM Point karate tournament vid that showed EXACTLY what I am complaining about... and to the extend of your post... you also....  I don't train like that vid, I don't fight like that vid, that vid is not the traditional karate curriculum skill set to any meaningful extend.  it was almost all athletics.... of various levels....
\*
Traditional karates as a rule tend to emphasize striking.  The base skill set underneath that striking enables a striking response that is designed to defeat antagonists entering into combat with you, approaching you to do harm....  rudimentary self defense applications are presented which are grappling attacks, including grappling-like responses.  Striking is, yes, the major technical divide.....
\
Proper Shotokan tournaments do allow grappling as a supplement to the dominant striking techniques....
\
IMHO, the whole TMA point of the JaGow Shotokan demo vid is to be able to hit your opponent hard enough to stop his ability to continue....  If one wants a simple kumite objective, that's the self defense effect sought in that vid.  That means defending as well as attacking in a manner that prevents him from hurting you....  All these overall fighting objectives are accomplished by the principles put forth in that vid.  EDIT: IN PRINCIPLE.
\
It's a mentally-driven process.... It's not about throwing a spinning back kick like Rogan does on YT & smacking a heavy bag all around.  Joe Rogan-ites, mentally-blocked rule set fighters..... good luck with that.....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Here's a Shotokan kumite vid that portrays both sides of the issue....




Proponents & detractors, karate fans and non-fans, feel free to chime in....


----------



## JowGaWolf

ShotoNoob said:


> The competent TMA practitoner should defeat the MMA competitor, rules are not the determining factor. Rules are a determining factor when one is talking sports physicality. The TMA base is superior to the MMA training base.... That's the martial determining factor.


  Nothing is 100% guaranteed. 100% of a TMA should have a high chance of beating someone who only does MMA. Some MMA fighters also do TMA's which is why there's not a 100% chance that the MMA guy would loose.  It's possible that the MMA guy would actually dump the MMA mindset and fall back on TMA weapon's techniques that they train in.

Just because they are MMA doesn't mean that they don't have a TMA background. It may not be likely but it's still possible.


----------



## ShotoNoob

JowGaWolf said:


> Nothing is 100% guaranteed. 100% of a TMA should have a high chance of beating someone who only does MMA.


\
we agree.
EDIT: traditional karate provides an intelligent approach -- NEVER A GUARANTEE.


JowGaWolf said:


> Some MMA fighters also do TMA's which is why there's not a 100% chance that the MMA guy would loose.  It's possible that the MMA guy would actually dump the MMA mindset and fall back on TMA weapon's techniques that they train in.


\
It's the the quality of the TMA that the fulcrum swings on.  A quality TMA base is much harder to accomplish than an MMA base, as conventionally practiced.  Techniques are secondary....



JowGaWolf said:


> Just because they are MMA doesn't mean that they don't have a TMA background. It may not be likely but it's still possible.


\
Again, what is the quality of that TMA base?  The SportsMartialArts.com vid you posted .... MMA would likely flatten those guys like Hughes did Gracie....  lol if deserved anywhere on that one....
\
See my bertel kumite vid (POST #1262).  the purpose of the training demo in the vid you panned is to provide the traditional karate base to win the Bertel kumite match.....  that's what those guys in your 'awful' karate demo vid (Post #1213) are training....  EDIT: believe it or not.... like it or not...


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hey, some here like to poke fun @ me.  Here's a board breaking demo that is superior to RTKDCMB's demos.  And it's presented by a dorky looking / dorky acting instructor similar to me....  so all that want a good laugh on my account, pay attention....




\
As dorky as this guy is (I am), he does a good presentation of board breaking form, IMO.
\
One interesting takeaway, is that like in JaGow's Shotokan demo kumite,  Laszlo Huve presents how to clock the fallen opponent in the face so his nose is flattened into his skull, associated pressure points are whacked, his front teeth are now rolling around in his mouth & the chin/ jaw rocked or cracked.  Gracie grapplers, good luck with that....
\
edit: Here's the Shotokan demo vid equation: Sound body mechanics + Disciplined KIME = Disabling Effect.
\
Thanks Laszlo....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Well all, think this over.  Laszlo & I share a lot in common.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Swords are part of Aikido and part of their fighting system.



So not relevant for self defence is the point made. Unless you can get hold of a sword.

Street sword!!!!!






It is not completely true. But probably deserved if you keep on with this akido trumps mma cos swords.

Street sword.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Save your breath on this one. Lead a horse to water. . .
> Steve might think an mma fight has a fair chance against a FMA fighter with a escrima stick as well.
> 
> I saw this vid where the fighters of the UFC went to the United States Marine Corp. They picked up bayonet simulators and went into the woods whereupon the Marines with knife simulators promptly murdered them.
> 
> Same deal with properly trained akidoka with wooden swords.
> I mean MMAs dont block. Charge in. And are outranged by 30 to 45 inches. A decent akidoka would target the aggressor's weapons. Broken fists/hands don't punch or grapple well.
> 
> There are 8 basic cuts. And the only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses.
> Then factor in the many sword based take downs.
> 
> One way or another the MMA guy is getting his wig split.
> View attachment 19545



Human weapon guy flogged the ninja after a week of training. But the only way to tell is to get a stick a


Hanzou said:


> Yes. I've rolled with my share of NCAA wrestlers. Let's just say that the guard is a wonderful thing.
> 
> Against an Olympic wrestler? Not a chance. There's no way I'd be able to keep up with their endurance and explosiveness.
> 
> In short, a good wrestler is a tough roll regardless. It gets progressively harder to shut them down the higher you go up the ladder. The difference is that Bjjs ground game can make up for the wrestler's superior takedown and top game.



The thing is your system will work up to a point but will fall down at the point where your oponants skill trumps yours. It is not always system against system sometimes it is person against person.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ShotoNoob said:


> Here's a board breaking demo that is superior to RTKDCMB's demos.


Really? I broke twice as many boards so I would say that my board breaking demos are twice as superior to his, here's one that is three times as superior;. 






But hey, feel free to post your own board breaking demo to show us how it should be done.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So not relevant for self defence is the point made. Unless you can get hold of a sword.
> 
> Street sword!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not completely true. But probably deserved if you keep on with this akido trumps mma cos swords.
> 
> Street sword.


Depending on where you are carrying a sword is no different than carrying a gun.  Depending on what day I'm practicing weapons I may have a sword in the trunk of my car or in the backseat.

Swords use in the world
Man defends himself with a sword
Man defends himself with a zelda sword (not the sword I would have choosen but still a sword)
Burglars stopped with a sword
Store Clerk uses sword to fight against robber (size does matter awesome video robber probably crapped in his pants.)
Homeless man with a sword
John Hopkins student kills burglar with sword
Indian man saves shop keeper from sword attack
Road rage leads to sword attack
Guy with machete gets popped with a gun
Woman uses machete to stop burglar

In Georgia, the county, and city where I live  I could walk with a sword on my back if I wanted to.  I would probably look stupid doing so but it's legal so long as I have a permit.  If I had a conceal weapon permit then I could carry it on my back in one of those nice silk bags and as long as the handle wasn't showing, people probably wouldn't even think twice about what's on my back.  A wooden bokken would be no problem at all.  Depending on the country you live in, sword and knife attacks may happen more often than in the U.S.  The number incidents increases if you include attacks with machetes and defenses with machetes.

With the examples given, I don't see what is wrong with looking at the entire martial arts 100% with no restrictions when talking about self defense.  If the fighting system has weapons then why limited the effectiveness of that fighting system with rules that are used in a sport?


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Save your breath on this one. Lead a horse to water. . .
> Steve might think an mma fight has a fair chance against a FMA fighter with a escrima stick as well.
> 
> I saw this vid where the fighters of the UFC went to the United States Marine Corp. They picked up bayonet simulators and went into the woods whereupon the Marines with knife simulators promptly murdered them.
> 
> Same deal with properly trained akidoka with wooden swords.
> I mean MMAs dont block. Charge in. And are outranged by 30 to 45 inches. A decent akidoka would target the aggressor's weapons. Broken fists/hands don't punch or grapple well.
> 
> There are 8 basic cuts. And the only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses.
> Then factor in the many sword based take downs.
> 
> One way or another the MMA guy is getting his wig split.
> View attachment 19545


Yep I may need to save my breath on this one.   But seriously if we are talking about effectiveness of fighting systems then weapons are weapons of a fighting system. Fencing is a fighting system, it's not a grappling, punching, or kicking fighting system, but it is a fighting system.  We wouldn't compare bjj with fencing by saying. A bjj guy would defeat a fencing guy if they fought MMA rules.  lol.  But so many people seem to be willing to do that with many TMA fighting systems.  Oh MMA beat shaolin fighting systems, if the shaolin fighting system has to follow MMA rules. 

I know there are a lot of MMA fans out there and I'm one of them. But like you stated.  The only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses. It doesn't matter what weapon it is, that statement hold true.  2 sticks in an everyday person's hands is useless against someone with an escrima stick.

The same can be said with a 6 foot staff.  I could give an everyday person who is strong enough to swing a staff, but if they don't have the techniques and knowledge on how to fight with it, then that staff becomes useless.  Some people would try big baseball bat swings (end game) or they would try poking with an incorrect grip (end game), others will try to hold it like they see in the movies in hopes that they can figure it out (end game).  

From Joe's own mouth "I have never been a part of a Martial Arts that teaches threat awareness."  Not my word his.
From Joe's own mouth "Almost everything they are teaching would only work against a non trained opponent." Most people who are attack and are victims of violent crimes come from untrained attackers.
Things that work against skilled martial artist, and "trained killers"... weapons - Good TMA (not the mcdojo stuff) has it covered.


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> Depending on where you are carrying a sword is no different than carrying a gun.  Depending on what day I'm practicing weapons I may have a sword in the trunk of my car or in the backseat.
> 
> Swords use in the world
> Man defends himself with a sword
> Man defends himself with a zelda sword (not the sword I would have choosen but still a sword)
> Burglars stopped with a sword
> Store Clerk uses sword to fight against robber (size does matter awesome video robber probably crapped in his pants.)
> Homeless man with a sword
> John Hopkins student kills burglar with sword
> Indian man saves shop keeper from sword attack
> Road rage leads to sword attack
> Guy with machete gets popped with a gun
> Woman uses machete to stop burglar
> 
> In Georgia, the county, and city where I live  I could walk with a sword on my back if I wanted to.  I would probably look stupid doing so but it's legal so long as I have a permit.  If I had a conceal weapon permit then I could carry it on my back in one of those nice silk bags and as long as the handle wasn't showing, people probably wouldn't even think twice about what's on my back.  A wooden bokken would be no problem at all.  Depending on the country you live in, sword and knife attacks may happen more often than in the U.S.  The number incidents increases if you include attacks with machetes and defenses with machetes.
> 
> With the examples given, I don't see what is wrong with looking at the entire martial arts 100% with no restrictions when talking about self defense.  If the fighting system has weapons then why limited the effectiveness of that fighting system with rules that are used in a sport?



I carry a slingshot that is terrifyingly powerful. I also carry two typed of shot for it. Pepperballs. (Think paintball with pepperspray capzasin content) and steel shot.

40 mm diameter.

It usually is in the small of my back tucked into my belt.
I train 30 minutes daily with it and have done so for about a decade.

I can hit a quarter dollar size coin at 35 feet or almost 11 meters. There are a series of drills to progressively increase accuracy at a distance.  Speed comes naturally over deep time.

Quickly, repeatedly and efficiently.
I can do it under pressure as well.

I give my senior students paint ball masks and we go paintballing without the guns. In parking lots, on the streets and alleys, in warehouses and wooded lots.

This trains how to hit a moving target and protect yourself from attack at range. Attacking from cover and concealment.

Bring the pain mode: substitution of pepperballs for paintballs in the range sparing.


I hope to never use it.
But if I come into a situation where my life, or the life and well being of others is in real danger. This will spead the sorting out.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> I carry a slingshot that is terrifyingly powerful.


Just like Bart Simpson.  Unfortunately those are illegal in Australia.


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> I carry a slingshot that is terrifyingly powerful. I also carry two typed of shot for it. Pepperballs. (Think paintball with pepperspray capzasin content) and steel shot.
> 
> 40 mm diameter.


You sure about that size?


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Just like Bart Simpson.  Unfortunately those are illegal in Australia.



All slingshots or just the ones with wrist support?
I have heard a number of places have banned the wrist supported ones. The ones we use have no wrist support and have flat bands.


----------



## TSDTexan

ballen0351 said:


> You sure about that size?




Looking at a pepperbal box right now and laughing.  I need a cup of coffee. Good eye... I must have been subconsciously thinking about tear gas grenades and M79 launchers or something.

You are correct.  .40 cal.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> All slingshots or just the ones with wrist support?


I am not entirely sure but I think they both are. Over here they are often called Gings. I am not sure what Joe Rogan would have to say about them (just to keep on topic)


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> Save your breath on this one. Lead a horse to water. . .
> Steve might think an mma fight has a fair chance against a FMA fighter with a escrima stick as well.
> 
> I saw this vid where the fighters of the UFC went to the United States Marine Corp. They picked up bayonet simulators and went into the woods whereupon the Marines with knife simulators promptly murdered them.
> 
> Same deal with properly trained akidoka with wooden swords.
> I mean MMAs dont block. Charge in. And are outranged by 30 to 45 inches. A decent akidoka would target the aggressor's weapons. Broken fists/hands don't punch or grapple well.
> 
> There are 8 basic cuts. And the only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses.
> Then factor in the many sword based take downs.
> 
> One way or another the MMA guy is getting his wig split.
> View attachment 19545


LOL.  When did you start mixing in escrima?  And comparing an aikidoka with a sword shaped stick and a US Marine is pretty insulting to the Marines, IMO.  I think the training model for FMA has more in common with MMA than with Aikido.  I'd invite some of our resident FMAists to comment on that, as they would know better than I.

FWIW, you're trying to use an association fallacy here.  Aikido has little to do with FMA.  Aikido has even less in common with the US Marines. 

But in the end, it's just a real shame there's no way to know what would happen if you gave an experienced MMAist a stick and asked him to spar with an experienced Aikidoka with a bokken.  Just too bad.


----------



## ballen0351

TSDTexan said:


> Looking at a pepperbal box right now and laughing.  I need a cup of coffee. Good eye... I must have been subconsciously thinking about tear gas grenades and M79 launchers or something.
> 
> You are correct.  .40 cal.


I was going to say wow thats a monster slingshot to throw 40mm balls


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep I may need to save my breath on this one.   But seriously if we are talking about effectiveness of fighting systems then weapons are weapons of a fighting system. Fencing is a fighting system, it's not a grappling, punching, or kicking fighting system, but it is a fighting system.  We wouldn't compare bjj with fencing by saying. A bjj guy would defeat a fencing guy if they fought MMA rules.  lol.  But so many people seem to be willing to do that with many TMA fighting systems.  Oh MMA beat shaolin fighting systems, if the shaolin fighting system has to follow MMA rules.
> 
> I know there are a lot of MMA fans out there and I'm one of them. But like you stated.  The only defense is luck if you have no training in weapon defenses. It doesn't matter what weapon it is, that statement hold true.  2 sticks in an everyday person's hands is useless against someone with an escrima stick.
> 
> The same can be said with a 6 foot staff.  I could give an everyday person who is strong enough to swing a staff, but if they don't have the techniques and knowledge on how to fight with it, then that staff becomes useless.  Some people would try big baseball bat swings (end game) or they would try poking with an incorrect grip (end game), others will try to hold it like they see in the movies in hopes that they can figure it out (end game).
> 
> From Joe's own mouth "I have never been a part of a Martial Arts that teaches threat awareness."  Not my word his.
> From Joe's own mouth "Almost everything they are teaching would only work against a non trained opponent." Most people who are attack and are victims of violent crimes come from untrained attackers.
> Things that work against skilled martial artist, and "trained killers"... weapons - Good TMA (not the mcdojo stuff) has it covered.


Fencers spar and compete.  Give a fencer a live blade and I expect someone who doesn't spar or compete would get stuck with it pretty quickly.  Were I a betting man, I'd wager a fencer would fare far better against an MMAist with a stick than someone who trains in any style that does not incorporate some practical feedback in some way, such as live drills, sparring and competition.

Edit:  And for the record, this is another association fallacy, unless you truly believe and are asserting that fencing and aikido share more than an extremely superficial resemblance that amounts to both holding a longish blade/stick.


----------



## Xue Sheng

What about fencer vs a kendo person....


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> I carry a slingshot that is terrifyingly powerful. I also carry two typed of shot for it. Pepperballs. (Think paintball with pepperspray capzasin content) and steel shot.
> 
> 40 mm diameter.
> 
> It usually is in the small of my back tucked into my belt.
> I train 30 minutes daily with it and have done so for about a decade.
> 
> I can hit a quarter dollar size coin at 35 feet or almost 11 meters. There are a series of drills to progressively increase accuracy at a distance.  Speed comes naturally over deep time.
> 
> Quickly, repeatedly and efficiently.
> I can do it under pressure as well.
> 
> I give my senior students paint ball masks and we go paintballing without the guns. In parking lots, on the streets and alleys, in warehouses and wooded lots.
> 
> This trains how to hit a moving target and protect yourself from attack at range. Attacking from cover and concealment.
> 
> Bring the pain mode: substitution of pepperballs for paintballs in the range sparing.
> 
> 
> I hope to never use it.
> But if I come into a situation where my life, or the life and well being of others is in real danger. This will spead the sorting out.


Slingshots are so underestimated. I made one as kid and that thing was awesome.  Parents threw it away because we moved to a state where it was illegal.  I used to have blow darts as well and I know the technology for both are so much better than 30+ years go.  This wouldn't happen to be you in the video? lol Check out some of his videos. He made one slingshot that's equipped with pepper spray and two knives.




sling shot beats sword unless it's this guy.




The sling shot is one of the best hand weapons ever made (in my opinion.) Simple and effective


----------



## Dirty Dog

Xue Sheng said:


> What about fencer vs a kendo person....



Since fencing means "sparring with swords"...

People seem to be operating under the impression that "fencing" means the sort done in the olympics.  It does not. 
It should also be remembered that Olympic fencing with foil, epee, or saber, bears little resemblance to fighting with a small sword, rapier, or back sword. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Were I a betting man, I'd wager a fencer would fare far better against an MMAist with a stick than someone who trains in any style that does not incorporate some practical feedback in some way, such as live drills, sparring and competition.


 So the MMA fighter who doesn't use a weapon at all would do better than a person who trains with weapons but doesn't spar with weapons?  Out of curiosity do you use train with weapons in your fighting system?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Xue Sheng said:


> What about fencer vs a kendo person....


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> So the MMA fighter who doesn't use a weapon at all would do better than a person who trains with weapons but doesn't spar with weapons?  Out of curiosity do you use train with weapons in your fighting system?


Some mma fighters who don't train with weapons would do better than some people who do train with them.

I am specifically challenging the assertion that the martial artist (in this case an aikidoka) who trains with a bokken would almost always (someone was even specific to the point of saying 85%, IIRC) defeat an MMAist with a bokken.

I am asserting that, given the relative consistency of the MMA training model from school to school and the acknowledged inconsistency of aikido training from school to school, it is not a given that the aikidoka would prevail.  It really depends upon how the aikidoka trains.

I am further asserting that one can be functionally less capable of using a sword if one's training is impractical and creates a gap between what a person can do and what that person THINKS he/she can do.

Finally, I am suggesting that this doesn't have to be a theoretical conversation.  It is easy for an individual aikidoka to test his or her specific ability by actually giving a bokken to an experienced MMAist and seeing how it goes.


----------



## TSDTexan

Your missing fundamentals. 
A. Usmc ma is combat ma. Not civilian defense system or sport. In other words killing is the primary objective of the majority of the techniques. 
B. Akido and aiki jujutsu techniques and strategies are derived from such a combat MA.

Not an unfair comparison. 

The difference between Aiki Jujutsu and Aikido are more philosophical than technical. 

It still remains that an unarmed opponent without training in weapons or weapon defence is going after a guy who has a deadly weapon, is proficient and has more then three feet of range.

Its very one sided.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


>


I wonder what kendo and fencing have in common that would be relevant to this discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> Your missing fundamentals.
> A. Usmc ma is combat ma. Not civilian defense system or sport. In other words killing is the primary objective of the majority of the techniques.



The current MCMAP is not primarily "killing." It was developed for the Marine Corps' changing mission, and geared more towards "arrest" and police action....as well as fitness.

From a combat aspect, and even martial arts aspect, having had recent direct experience with it, I gotta say it kinda sucks....it's okay for people who have time to pursue it and some other (real) martial art alongside it, but most Marines don't have any real skill at it, or the time to develop it.




TSDTexan said:


> B. Akido and aiki jujutsu techniques and strategies are derived from such a combat MA.
> 
> Not an unfair comparison.
> 
> The difference between Aiki Jujutsu and Aikido are more philosophical than technical.



Having direct experience with both arts, the differences are technical as well as philosophical.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I would probably look stupid doing so



Your major issue right there. And so cops would find a reason to stop you.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Fencers spar and compete.  Give a fencer a live blade and I expect someone who doesn't spar or compete would get stuck with it pretty quickly.  Were I a betting man, I'd wager a fencer would fare far better against an MMAist with a stick than someone who trains in any style that does not incorporate some practical feedback in some way, such as live drills, sparring and competition.
> 
> Edit:  And for the record, this is another association fallacy, unless you truly believe and are asserting that fencing and aikido share more than an extremely superficial resemblance that amounts to both holding a longish blade/stick.



Case in point.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Just like Bart Simpson.  Unfortunately those are illegal in Australia.



Not in qld surprisingly.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The same can be said with a 6 foot staff. I could give an everyday person who is strong enough to swing a staff, but if they don't have the techniques and knowledge on how to fight with it, then that staff becomes useless. Some people would try big baseball bat swings (end game) or they would try poking with an incorrect grip (end game), others will try to hold it like they see in the movies in hopes that they can figure it out (end game).



So you are suggesting they may try something like this.






And you would be all over them?

Personally I don't know how you could say one way or the other. And I would suggest you go find out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

[/QUOTE]


Steve said:


> Some mma fighters who don't train with weapons would do better than some people who do train with them.
> 
> I am specifically challenging the assertion that the martial artist (in this case an aikidoka) who trains with a bokken would almost always (someone was even specific to the point of saying 85%, IIRC) defeat an MMAist with a bokken.
> 
> I am asserting that, given the relative consistency of the MMA training model from school to school and the acknowledged inconsistency of aikido training from school to school, it is not a given that the aikidoka would prevail.  It really depends upon how the aikidoka trains.
> 
> I am further asserting that one can be functionally less capable of using a sword if one's training is impractical and creates a gap between what a person can do and what that person THINKS he/she can do.
> 
> Finally, I am suggesting that it is easy for an individual aikidoka to test his or her specific ability by actually giving a bokken to an experienced MMAist and seeing how it goes.





Steve said:


> I wonder what kendo and fencing have in common that would be relevant to this discussion?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


someone asked to see it


----------



## Xue Sheng

Dirty Dog said:


> Since fencing means "sparring with swords"...
> 
> People seem to be operating under the impression that "fencing" means the sort done in the olympics.  It does not.
> It should also be remembered that Olympic fencing with foil, epee, or saber, bears little resemblance to fighting with a small sword, rapier, or back sword.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



It was actually more a comment to my feeling of the silliness of the comparison MMA vs. sword fighter, that is was to be take all that seriously.

Anyway I was referring to...







I still feel this post is more deserving of this actually


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Your major issue right there. And so cops would find a reason to stop you.


I'm black so I've been stopped for no reason at all before,no weapon needed, but that's a different story. I do carry weapons on me but that's because they aren't your typical weapons. If I were to carry a sword it would be on my back in a tube that looks less threating. I would have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and a permit to carry a knife with a blade longer than the law allows.  If I was in a crowded place I would have a smaller weapon where I don't have to worry about hitting innocent people from swinging a sword. When I go hiking I take my staff.  I have a family member who carries a sword in his car all the time and a friend who carries a gun in her car all the time. Once I learn how to fight with daggers then I'll probably carry those. I used to know about 5 people who carried cane swords.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So you are suggesting they may try something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you would be all over them?
> 
> Personally I don't know how you could say one way or the other. And I would suggest you go find out.


yes.  because those attacks aren't difficult to defend against. It would be in my benefit if my opponent swings like that especially with a combat staff which aren't light nor are they flexible like the ones in that video.  I'm not bragging. I just understand what makes a staff dangerous and it's no swinging the staff like that.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm black so I've been stopped for no reason at all before,no weapon needed, but that's a different story. I do carry weapons on me but that's because they aren't your typical weapons. If I were to carry a sword it would be on my back in a tube that looks less threating. I would have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and a permit to carry a knife with a blade longer than the law allows.  If I was in a crowded place I would have a smaller weapon where I don't have to worry about hitting innocent people from swinging a sword. When I go hiking I take my staff.  I have a family member who carries a sword in his car all the time and a friend who carries a gun in her car all the time. Once I learn how to fight with daggers then I'll probably carry those. I used to know about 5 people who carried cane swords.



You ever used a knife on a guy or seen someone machetied?

Have you been in a weapon fight? 

It is a pretty big step to take.
 The thing I like about unarmed S.D. is I have some control over whether I kill someone or not. 

And you still don't know how you are actually going to go against this untrained guy.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> yes.  because those attacks aren't difficult to defend against. It would be in my benefit if my opponent swings like that especially with a combat staff which aren't light nor are they flexible like the ones in that video.  I'm not bragging. I just understand what makes a staff dangerous and it's no swinging the staff like that.



And that pretty much explains my issue here. You don't have the practical experience.
You get the same with people who watch mma fights. And are like. "But they swing so wildy and do not have the sophistication that my martial art does"

It comes from defining fighting ability from the wrong place.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> It was actually more a comment to my feeling of the silliness of the comparison MMA vs. sword fighter, that is was to be take all that seriously.
> 
> Anyway I was referring to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still feel this post is more deserving of this actually



As a society we are still beating the dead horse of Darwinism and climate change.

I mean there is a creation museum.
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

So I am not sure the dead horse comment is relevant. If you defined this by scientific method. Many martial arts would just fall over.





Martial arts that pressure test. Would pass. And that would be the end of it.

But martial arts encompasses more than that so the debate continues.

And it is not necessarily mma vs sword fighter. That is apples and oranges. It would be training sword using mma training methods. Vs by rote kata and drills.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Some mma fighters who don't train with weapons would do better than some people who do train with them.
> 
> I am specifically challenging the assertion that the martial artist (in this case an aikidoka) who trains with a bokken would almost always (someone was even specific to the point of saying 85%, IIRC) defeat an MMAist with a bokken.
> 
> I am asserting that, given the relative consistency of the MMA training model from school to school and the acknowledged inconsistency of aikido training from school to school, it is not a given that the aikidoka would prevail.  It really depends upon how the aikidoka trains.
> 
> I am further asserting that one can be functionally less capable of using a sword if one's training is impractical and creates a gap between what a person can do and what that person THINKS he/she can do.
> 
> Finally, I am suggesting that this doesn't have to be a theoretical conversation.  It is easy for an individual aikidoka to test his or her specific ability by actually giving a bokken to an experienced MMAist and seeing how it goes.




If you are going with my greater than 85%...
Please allow my stipulated criteria.

If 100 fights happen between various mma vs Aikidoka
And...
If the instructor was orthodox (correct art transmission)
and...
If the instructor was proficient (knew how to correctly teach)
and...
the student was in proper shape (his body and mind could properly perform, the art he was correctly taught)
and...
The student had applied himself in learning the sword art.
(He sought excellence and was good at aikido sword work)

With these conditions set... 85 fights of 100 would be won by Aikidoka... or more.

Now the reason I can estimate is I have seen UFC grade mma fighters go up against weapons. They have no training and have to reinvent the wheel (unarmed vs armed) while a lion is running at them.

Maybe 15 guys of a hundred will get lucky enough to see an opening and exploit it.

But I don't event believe 15 would. Maybe less.

But that would be a wager I would bet.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> As a society we are still beating the dead horse of Darwinism and climate change.
> 
> I mean there is a creation museum.
> Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum
> 
> So I am not sure the dead horse comment is relevant. If you defined this by scientific method. Many martial arts would just fall over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martial arts that pressure test. Would pass. And that would be the end of it.
> 
> But martial arts encompasses more than that so the debate continues.
> 
> And it is not necessarily mma vs sword fighter. That is apples and oranges. It would be training sword using mma training methods. Vs by rote kata and drills.




Dropbear please dont bring up religious stuff pro or con in a argument to support a position in a MA related thread. It does your case more harm then good. Free advice.


----------



## TSDTexan

I will take a samurai derived art user with a bokken any day vs mma guy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You ever used a knife on a guy or seen someone machetied?
> 
> Have you been in a weapon fight?
> 
> It is a pretty big step to take.
> The thing I like about unarmed S.D. is I have some control over whether I kill someone or not.
> 
> And you still don't know how you are actually going to go against this untrained guy.


It doesn't take alot of brain power to stab someone with a knife it's the not getting cut part or should I say not taking critical injury part that is the challenge. I was a decision away (5 minutes) from stabbing someone with a knife at the age of 13.  I've seen people who have been stabbed and slashed with knives, I've seen people how have been hacked with machetes, my wife was unfortunate enough to have her abdomen sliced by a girl attacking her with a knife.

I've been in a weapon fight with sticks if that counts. We both didn't know how to fight with sticks and both didn't want to be hit so most of it was one hitting and the other getting out of the way.  Other than that and the 2 occasions where I have had guns pointed to my head at 2 separate occasions (in my 20's) that's it.  I train in hand vs knife scenarios where my classmates actually stab and slash at me. We use cold steel training knives and I hate that they still hurt when being stabbed or when someone hacks with the knife and I can feel it to the bone of my fingers or wrists.  I still get cut but not stabbed as much (not like when I first started).  I train with the staff but we don't go full contact fighting. We do train doing attacks and blocking attacks at 30%-50% force.

My goal is to not be in another hostile situation again that involves guns or knives being directed towards me. I don't like tempting fate, but I do want to be prepared for it just in case it happens again.

If I had to fight against someone with a staff in a real fight, I would take note of how he holds the staff which will help me to determine if he knew how to actually use it. I would also check his grip to see if there's an opportunity to actually knock the stick out of his hand using my staff.  I would check his stance to see if there is an opportunity to go for the joints in his legs (knee or ankle).  I would check to see if hitting the shin is an option.  I would also try to determine if he might try to shoot on me as well.  I definitely want to keep that option away from him.  He may be willing to take a hit if he thinks he can shoot on me and disarm me. I would only use the techniques that I can generate power with. My main goal would be to access his knowledge of a staff as quickly as possible.  The staff can be devastating only if you know how to generate enough power to strike your opponent hard with it, this is where technique comes in.

If you train with a weapon then you should be developing the control that you would need to either severely injure or kill.  




My weapon fighting is only I've seen people stabbed and hacked with machetes.


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> The current MCMAP is not primarily "killing." It was developed for the Marine Corps' changing mission, and geared more towards "arrest" and police action....as well as fitness.
> 
> From a combat aspect, and even martial arts aspect, having had recent direct experience with it, I gotta say it kinda sucks....it's okay for people who have time to pursue it and some other (real) martial art alongside it, but most Marines don't have any real skill at it, or the time to develop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having direct experience with both arts, the differences are technical as well as philosophical.



Yes but would say the difference in philosophy is greater than the difference in technicals.

About the USMCMAP... it was a less lethal replacement fo Linear Infighting Neural Override Engagement which was a less lethal replacement for post WW2 H2H killing training. 

It has been scaling back for a while.

FMFRP 12-80 is titled "Kill or be Killed" for a reason
This field manual was created for marines.

The fact you bring up about the USMCMAP being more cop-jutsu and less killem-fu actually works for my case of unarmed mma guys vs akidoka with bokken.

I mean a weaker US marine core martial art handled the ufc guys


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And that pretty much explains my issue here. You don't have the practical experience.
> You get the same with people who watch mma fights. And are like. "But they swing so wildy and do not have the sophistication that my martial art does"
> 
> It comes from defining fighting ability from the wrong place.


I didn't say that those guys didn't have deadly staff or spear skills, it's just that the video isn't what they were using.  Here's a closer look at some stick fighting.  Notice that sticks are highly flexible and that they actually break. 





List to how they view what they are doing





A wild punch is not the same as punching done with control.  There is a big difference.  You can tell when someone swings wildly because they have no control over that punch and they are poorly aimed.  It's not to say that the wild punches aren't dangerous because they are, but they are also over committed,poorly aimed and eat up a lot of energy.
Wild Punch


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Swords are part of Aikido and part of their fighting system.



Yeah, and you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> I will take a samurai derived art user with a bokken any day vs mma guy.
> 
> View attachment 19550



You do realize that attacking someone with a sword gives them grounds to blow off your head right?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't take alot of brain power to stab someone with a knife it's the not getting cut part or should I say not taking critical injury part that is the challenge. I was a decision away (5 minutes) from stabbing someone with a knife at the age of 13.  I've seen people who have been stabbed and slashed with knives, I've seen people how have been hacked with machetes, my wife was unfortunate enough to have her abdomen sliced by a girl attacking her with a knife.
> 
> I've been in a weapon fight with sticks if that counts. We both didn't know how to fight with sticks and both didn't want to be hit so most of it was one hitting and the other getting out of the way.  Other than that and the 2 occasions where I have had guns pointed to my head at 2 separate occasions (in my 20's) that's it.  I train in hand vs knife scenarios where my classmates actually stab and slash at me. We use cold steel training knives and I hate that they still hurt when being stabbed or when someone hacks with the knife and I can feel it to the bone of my fingers or wrists.  I still get cut but not stabbed as much (not like when I first started).  I train with the staff but we don't go full contact fighting. We do train doing attacks and blocking attacks at 30%-50% force.
> 
> My goal is to not be in another hostile situation again that involves guns or knives being directed towards me. I don't like tempting fate, but I do want to be prepared for it just in case it happens again.
> 
> If I had to fight against someone with a staff in a real fight, I would take note of how he holds the staff which will help me to determine if he knew how to actually use it. I would also check his grip to see if there's an opportunity to actually knock the stick out of his hand using my staff.  I would check his stance to see if there is an opportunity to go for the joints in his legs (knee or ankle).  I would check to see if hitting the shin is an option.  I would also try to determine if he might try to shoot on me as well.  I definitely want to keep that option away from him.  He may be willing to take a hit if he thinks he can shoot on me and disarm me. I would only use the techniques that I can generate power with. My main goal would be to access his knowledge of a staff as quickly as possible.  The staff can be devastating only if you know how to generate enough power to strike your opponent hard with it, this is where technique comes in.
> 
> If you train with a weapon then you should be developing the control that you would need to either severely injure or kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My weapon fighting is only I've seen people stabbed and hacked with machetes.



So wait. Are you carrying a stick or a sword for S.D?
Because I can't see how using a sword is not going to potentially maim someone. 

But OK you are carrying a stick. And you think I can't generate a powerful strike without training as if anyone has not hit something with a stick. I can hit a small round ball pretty hard with a stick. But you are suggesting hitting a head with a stick will be harder? Or I am not going to hit them with enough force?

Good job nobody gets technical about swinging a stick around.






OK. So you are better than someone who dosent train stick.

(Let's tie the suri stick fighting in here)

You are better than someone who actually does stick fighting.

What evidence have you got that has taken you to this conclusion?

Training will make you better than someone who is untrained. Provided it is the right training. How do you know you are doing the right training?

And regarding the mma guy verses you and sticks. Why would it be so hard just to get some padded sticks find a mma fighter and find out for sure?

You seem to have your conclusions based on everything but evidence.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> someone asked to see it


LOL.  I think I was too subtle.  They are both martial arts that pressure test their skills through competition.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> I will take a samurai derived art user with a bokken any day vs mma guy.
> 
> View attachment 19550




We could find out. It is not that hard. Same deal, get them together get some padded bloody sticks.

This is where Joe rogan is coming from. Not a mma guy could just shoot a samurai. But that people hold beliefs such as yours that could be easily tested. And instead of testing them. Come up with a whole bunch of nonsense as to why it would work.

Martial arts is full of this mindset. Akido guy had this mindset. That is drinking the cool aid.

It is not a martial art being better or worse. It is just looking at things a bit differently.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And it is not necessarily mma vs sword fighter. That is apples and oranges.


I don't see it as a vs issue.  I see it as a comparison of fighting systems.  When you are just doing a comparison then you are taking 100% of a fighting system and comparing it to 100% of another fighting system.  By doing this you can compare where the fighting system is effective and where it's not effective.  But you have to look at 100% of a fighting system and not just 50% or even 20% of a fighting system and declaring that it's not effected based on the 20% or 50%.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, and you didn't answer my question.


"Swords are part of the Aikido fightnig system." That was probably my answer.  What was your question, just in case you asked me if I want  a million dollars.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Dropbear please dont bring up religious stuff pro or con in a argument to support a position in a MA related thread. It does your case more harm then good. Free advice.



Evidence based vs dogma. Not specifically about religion.
There are plenty of viable religious martial artists.

This guy for example.





There are even religious people who subscribe to Darwinism. So I don't see how this is a religious vs non religious argument.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> You do realize that attacking someone with a sword gives them grounds to blow off your head right?


Guns beat swords lol..except for one of those articles where the burglars had guns and still got the sword lol.  But 99.999% of the time gun beat swords lol.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see it as a vs issue.  I see it as a comparison of fighting systems.  When you are just doing a comparison then you are taking 100% of a fighting system and comparing it to 100% of another fighting system.  By doing this you can compare where the fighting system is effective and where it's not effective.  But you have to look at 100% of a fighting system and not just 50% or even 20% of a fighting system and declaring that it's not effected based on the 20% or 50%.



So akido is effective against completely untrained people hopefully.

Which is the point Joe rogan made as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> You ever used a knife on a guy or seen someone machetied?
> 
> Have you been in a weapon fight?
> 
> It is a pretty big step to take.
> The thing I like about unarmed S.D. is I have some control over whether I kill someone or not.
> 
> And you still don't know how you are actually going to go against this untrained guy.




No, I haven't. Yes, I have, lots. 

I've been attacked with weapons, but I've always been unarmed. 

This is an ignorant statement. I have at least as much control over the life or death decision when I am armed. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> And it is not necessarily mma vs sword fighter. That is apples and oranges. It would be training sword using mma training methods. Vs by rote kata and drills.


Yes.  It's about how people train more than what they train.  Some schools train in a more practical manner than others.  Feedback is critical, and if you aren't training in a way that is giving you reliable feedback, there will be a gap between what you know and what you think you know.  And if the stakes are high, that could be a pretty dangerous blind spot.



TSDTexan said:


> If you are going with my greater than 85%...
> Please allow my stipulated criteria.
> 
> If 100 fights happen between various mma vs Aikidoka
> And...
> If the instructor was orthodox (correct art transmission)
> and...
> If the instructor was proficient (knew how to correctly teach)
> and...
> the student was in proper shape (his body and mind could properly perform, the art he was correctly taught)
> and...
> The student had applied himself in learning the sword art.
> (He sought excellence and was good at aikido sword work)
> 
> With these conditions set... 85 fights of 100 would be won by Aikidoka... or more.
> 
> Now the reason I can estimate is I have seen UFC grade mma fighters go up against weapons. They have no training and have to reinvent the wheel (unarmed vs armed) while a lion is running at them.
> 
> Maybe 15 guys of a hundred will get lucky enough to see an opening and exploit it.
> 
> But I don't event believe 15 would. Maybe less.
> 
> But that would be a wager I would bet.


Not one word of what you just said is supported by anything more than your imagination.  I could just as easily say in a 100 matches between a 12 year old and a 13 year old, the 12 year olds would lose 85% of the time.  Complete fiction.  I have a pretty vivid imagination, so if we're going to pretend our imaginations are reality, I'm not sure you've got the chops.  92% of the time, my ability to make things up is going to submit your insistence that if you say it, it is so. 



TSDTexan said:


> I will take a samurai derived art user with a bokken any day vs mma guy.
> 
> View attachment 19550


FWIW, there are some Japanese arts that I would have a lot of confidence in, and some I would not.  Or more specifically, some schools, because as we've all acknowledged, some schools are better than others within any style.  And what makes one school better than another?  In most cases, it is how they train.



JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see it as a vs issue.  I see it as a comparison of fighting systems.  When you are just doing a comparison then you are taking 100% of a fighting system and comparing it to 100% of another fighting system.  By doing this you can compare where the fighting system is effective and where it's not effective.  But you have to look at 100% of a fighting system and not just 50% or even 20% of a fighting system and declaring that it's not effected based on the 20% or 50%.


I think this is actually pretty close.  I don't see it as a comparison of fighting systems.  Rather, it's a comparison of training and testing models.  How does the school decide what to teach?  How do they test for proficiency?  How to they ensure that the student is actually learning what the students thinks he/she is learning? 

Some styles adhere more consistently to one training model or another, which can lead to conclusions that are broader, but as we've all acknowledged, there are good schools and bad within every style.


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB said:


> Really? I broke twice as many boards so I would say that my board breaking demos are twice as superior to his, here's one that is three times as superior;.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, feel free to post your own board breaking demo to show us how it should be done.


\
NOW, NOW, rtkdcmb....that's just my point, though a bit elliptical... made 3x over now by your response.  I said your board breaks were pretty good.  <<< PLEASE NOTE THE COMPLIMENT.....
\
But more is not necessarily better. You also omitted Laszlos' demo was purely instruction in its objective.... don't make those mistakes with me in kumite....
\
BTW, I never break  boards down like in your demo because it is the easiest way to break them.... dropping one's body weight behind the strike.  Good practice though for schooling those unwitting\ guard Gracie-like grapple-rs who landed on the bottom.
'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
I specifically posted Laszlo as a stand-in.  So @ least I did that much.  The point is that 'dorky' Laszlo has technique is better than your form, especially in KIME.  Your instinctual KIME is pretty good & account for the strong breaks, no denying that...  You really pop those boards.  Laszlo, like me, is more disciplined mentally in applying that KIME, and it shows on how he moves.  Laszlo is SMOOTH & precise (pretty much so), you are somewhat forced.... to begin with.
\
These qualities can then be seen in the Bertel Kumite vid I posted.  Your form is more like the loser.  But I think your initial attack against Bertel would have had stronger KIME hence greater success ... based on your series of BB demos.  You also just might have gotten that block up against the KO  punch.... but you would likely had trouble recovering from the sweep based on your BB routine....
\
Laszlo & I share more with Bertel, smooth & precise....  which then engenders dynamic speed + requisite power which we then see deadly in the Bertel vid.
\
I'll take a rest here, but thanks for replying diligently....  P.. I have watched your BB vids many time... enjoyed thoroughly including as a + for TMA.  keep up the good work...


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> No, I haven't. Yes, I have, lots.
> 
> I've been attacked with weapons, but I've always been unarmed.
> 
> This is an ignorant statement. I have at least as much control over the life or death decision when I am armed.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



With a sword?


----------



## drop bear

Double post.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> With a sword?



With any weapon. Start with "I can choose to use it, or not" and then progress through the multitude of non-lethal ways in which the weapon can be used, until finally reaching the decision point of potentially lethal techniques. 
With a gun, for example, roughly 70% of confrontations ate ended by drawing the weapon and never firing. I don't know statistics, but I'd bet other weapons have a similar (though not identical) affect, in that they are used without any injury at all. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Yes.  It's about how people train more than what they train.  Some schools train in a more practical manner than others.  Feedback is critical, and if you aren't training in a way that is giving you reliable feedback, there will be a gap between what you know and what you think you know.  And if the stakes are high, that could be a pretty dangerous blind spot.
> 
> Not one word of what you just said is supported by anything more than your imagination.  I could just as easily say in a 100 matches between a 12 year old and a 13 year old, the 12 year olds would lose 85% of the time.  Complete fiction.  I have a pretty vivid imagination, so if we're going to pretend our imaginations are reality, I'm not sure you've got the chops.  92% of the time, my ability to make things up is going to submit your insistence that if you say it, it is so.
> 
> FWIW, there are some Japanese arts that I would have a lot of confidence in, and some I would not.  Or more specifically, some schools, because as we've all acknowledged, some schools are better than others within any style.  And what makes one school better than another?  In most cases, it is how they train.
> 
> I think this is actually pretty close.  I don't see it as a comparison of fighting systems.  Rather, it's a comparison of training and testing models.  How does the school decide what to teach?  How do they test for proficiency?  How to they ensure that the student is actually learning what the students thinks he/she is learning?
> 
> Some styles adhere more consistently to one training model or another, which can lead to conclusions that are broader, but as we've all acknowledged, there are good schools and bad within every style.



Writen from first hand ignorance of aikodo sword capabilities
Nuff said


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> With any weapon. Start with "I can choose to use it, or not" and then progress through the multitude of non-lethal ways in which the weapon can be used, until finally reaching the decision point of potentially lethal techniques.
> With a gun, for example, roughly 70% of confrontations ate ended by drawing the weapon and never firing. I don't know statistics, but I'd bet other weapons have a similar (though not identical) affect, in that they are used without any injury at all.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



So if you have you sword out and I slap you. You could use a restraint or something?

How do the other 30% of confrontations end?


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Writen from first hand ignorance of aikodo sword capacity
> Nuff said



So we could get an akido guy in and get first hand sword experience?

Cos a lot of guys here are getting their butts kicked.





You can even get larp swords. Which is cool.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> So we could get an akido guy in and get first hand sword experience?
> 
> Cos a lot of guys here are getting their butts kicked.
> 
> 
> You can even get larp swords. Which is cool.



Its Aikido, not akido, this is at least the 2nd time you have spelled wrong


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Its Aikido, not akido, this is at least the 2nd time you have spelled wrong



And now will continue to do so.
Acheeedo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So wait. Are you carrying a stick or a sword for S.D?
> Because I can't see how using a sword is not going to potentially maim someone.
> 
> But OK you are carrying a stick. And you think I can't generate a powerful strike without training as if anyone has not hit something with a stick. I can hit a small round ball pretty hard with a stick. But you are suggesting hitting a head with a stick will be harder? Or I am not going to hit them with enough force?
> 
> Good job nobody gets technical about swinging a stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So you are better than someone who dosent train stick.
> 
> (Let's tie the suri stick fighting in here)
> 
> You are better than someone who actually does stick fighting.
> 
> What evidence have you got that has taken you to this conclusion?
> 
> Training will make you better than someone who is untrained. Provided it is the right training. How do you know you are doing the right training?
> 
> And regarding the mma guy verses you and sticks. Why would it be so hard just to get some padded sticks find a mma fighter and find out for sure?
> 
> You seem to have your conclusions based on everything but evidence.



The issue with stick weapons or any weapon that you swing is that technique plays an important role in how effective that strike is. I'll use your cricket bat example. I've never played cricket before but I'm sure there's a technique to hitting a cricket ball.  What are the chances that I'll be able to hit that cricket ball at the same skill level of someone that has been hitting it for 2 years.  I'm sure that there will be a lot of force but none of it is of any use if I don't connect.  In the event that it does connect with bad technique, the outcome will be less than good and I'll probably hurt myself in the process. 

Here's a video of people who don't do martial arts swinging a 6ft wax wood bow staff.  My guess is that this is how most people who don't train to fight with a staff are going to swing a staff. They have force and it's good for tearing up that van but the technique isn't good for fighting with.  The big long swings where they hold the end of the staff and swing are easy to defend against.  The closer you get to their hands the less force that staff will have.





But if you use technique then you can still generate power with a staff without swinging it like a bat. Notice how close his target is. Even if I get close to his hands I would still be in trouble.





Fighting with sticks would be the same way. Brute force rarely defeats technique.
As for me fighting someone that does Suri stick fighting.
1. I didn't say I was better. I said I could easily defend against the way that they were hitting.
2. Wax wood staff (what I train with) will cause more damage than the suri fighting sticks.  They already know this which is why they use the type of sticks that they use. They aren't using hard wood staffs.  There is no way in the world a body can take a beating from a hardwood staff the same way they are taking a beating with the suri sticks.  If I jab them in the face with my wax wood staff then they fight will end (did you notice that they don' jab the sticks).
3. If I hit your knee with the same sticks they are using, you'll still have your knee.  If I hit your knee with a wax wood staff then you'll be lucky if you'll be able to walk without a limp for the the rest of your life.
4.  They get hit in the head with the stick and it's no problem.  If they get hit in the head with a wax wood staff it's a big problem and they'll need more than first aid to fix it.
5.  They don't do groin shots or upward shots in suri fighting.  In Jow ga we do those.
6. The suri sticks were breaking on each other's body.  If you get hit with a waxwood staff, the staff isn't going to break unless it's rotten or already cracked.

I know that I'm doing the right techniques because the techniques have been tested. I'm doing the right training because the training methods have been tested. I don't train in a Mcdojo fighting system or with a Mcdojo teacher or with light practice weapons.  Here's a picture of what I train with.  The staff on the far left is my staff. The broomstick is about the thickness of a wushu staff or extreme karate staff. The staff on the far right is what my 13 yr old son uses.  Neither of the staffs are going to break from hitting a body. Bone will break before those staffs break.  I can guarantee that if I hit anyone with either one of those staffs that they aren't going to the same smiles that the Suri Stick fighters had. 

padded sticks are not the same as real sticks. It's better to have the body protection instead of padded sticks.  Padded weapons make people think they can withstand blows from real sticks.


----------



## TSDTexan

Washing my hands of this one.
Folks can underestimate the speed of sword strikes.
And underestimate the ease at which a bokken will break hands, wrists, upper arms, clavicles, jaws, cheekbones, tempoeral orbits, skulls.
As well as hips, knees, shins, ankles and feet.

Also it is easy to write off 30 inches of reach.
It would be very hazardous to do so.

I hope no one here ever does this in real life.
But aikidoka with bokken is underestimated serverely be a few of us here.

It would behoove some of us to visit a legit Aikido school and receive a first hand appraisal of the sword capability there before casually dismissing it.


----------



## Hanzou

So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?



Yep. This is the latest debate.
And while I handicap a mma at 15%... folks says thats imagination. Yet they won't even say 50/50.

The other stipulation is no weapons/weapons defense in the MMA guy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So akido is effective against completely untrained people hopefully.
> 
> Which is the point Joe rogan made as well.



Out of all the street fights you see on you tube. How many were trained fighters? How many were UFC top fighters?
Out of all the violent attacks in the street,  How many of the attackers were trained fighters? How many of the attackers were UFC top fighters?
How many street fights have you had where you were fighting a top UFC or a trained fighter or as Joe says "A trained killer"

To be honest most people who actually train to fight are rarely in street fights. Being that the person that attacks you in the street will most likely be untrained then that's a good thing that it works.  How many people in here go downtown or to bad areas within the city and worry about someone like Anderson Silva popping out of the shadows and kicking your butt?  




Steve said:


> Rather, it's a comparison of training and testing models. How does the school decide what to teach? How do they test for proficiency? How to they ensure that the student is actually learning what the students thinks he/she is learning?
> Some styles adhere more consistently to one training model or another, which can lead to conclusions that are broader, but as we've all acknowledged, there are good schools and bad within every style.


  If the system is sound but the student is lazy to train then you can't discount the system because the student doesn't train to the level that they need to train at in order to fight using a specific training system. This is the same if the teacher is no good.  You can have a sound fighting system with horrible teachers, but it doesn't mean the system isn't effective.  For the most part the systems that were around when they were constantly being tested in real street fights or war, should be fairly solid minus a few things that may have been lost. If the system is solid then the only thing left is to make the student solid.

The new systems that are coming up or the systems that are designed for sporting are a little more questionable. Hard training looks similar no matter what the activity does. If a school isn't doing things to build strength, body conditioning, flexibility then it will be lacking as a fighting system. There as to be discussions about self-defense fighting tactics, applications, when to do a certain move, and sparring to practice these techniques in order for the students to be able to really use the techniques in a self-defense situation.

I can't speak for other schools but Jow ga test for proficiency based on 2 things:
1. You can do the forms / techniques. This doesn't mean that you can fight using the techniques. It just means that you have the capability to do so provided that they accomplish #2
2. You can actually fight using the technique. Once we learn a technique then we'll spend time sparring and learning how to execute the technique in a real fight.  Depending on the student, he or she may not even need the sparring in order to know how to execute the technique. Sweeps and kicks come naturally to me and I can learn the technique and execute it in sparring with no problem.  My first double leg sweep was executed without every having done it before. I did it just like I would in the form and it worked.  Other techniques may be more complicated and requires a deeper understanding.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I know that I'm doing the right techniques because the techniques have been tested. I'm doing the right training because the training methods have been tested. I don't train in a Mcdojo fighting system



Because you have tested them against other styles or mma fighters or wherever else you think you may actually need to use those techniques against?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So is the argument here that the only way an Aikido or traditional Jujitsu stylist stands a chance against an MMA/wrestler guy is to be armed with a sword or a boken?


 There's no argument about the only way a system can defend against another system..  If you compare 100% mma against another fighting system then compare 100% of that fighting system and not just 30% or 50%.  If a fighting system has a weapon then weapons are part of that system. If I want to use a weapon or technique from my system to fight someone then, why not? It's part of my fighting system.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Out of all the street fights you see on you tube. How many were trained fighters? How many were UFC top fighters?
> Out of all the violent attacks in the street, How many of the attackers were trained fighters? How many of the attackers were UFC top fighters?
> How many street fights have you had where you were fighting a top UFC or a trained fighter or as Joe says "A trained killer"
> 
> To be honest most people who actually train to fight are rarely in street fights. Being that the person that attacks you in the street will most likely be untrained then that's a good thing that it works. How many people in here go downtown or to bad areas within the city and worry about someone like Anderson Silva popping out of the shadows and kicking your butt?



And that is fine. But you are acknowledging that you are not as good as a trained fighter.
I acknowledge that I am not. More dedication and more natural talent would make me better. Going to a better gym would make me better. And should I want better striking grappling or weapons. There are better martial arts than what I do.

None of this has anything to do with I have a sword and you don't.

But this still aligns with Joe rogans point that some martial arts are better than others

People do martial arts for reasons other than self defence and that is as valid as any reason to do martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

I mean I did capoera for four years or so. It was never going to make me a good fighter. But then I wasn't getting into many fights.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Because you have tested them against other styles or mma fighters or wherever else you think you may actually need to use those techniques against?


OMG ..Why does everything need to be visual in here. It's not rocket science.  

MMA FIGHTER VS STICK.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And that is fine. But you are acknowledging that you are not as good as a trained fighter.
> I acknowledge that I am not. More dedication and more natural talent would make me better. Going to a better gym would make me better. And should I want better striking grappling or weapons. There are better martial arts than what I do.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with I have a sword and you don't.
> 
> But this still aligns with Joe rogans point that some martial arts are better than others
> 
> People do martial arts for reasons other than self defence and that is as valid as any reason to do martial arts.


You are right people do martial arts for other reasons other than self-defense but if they plan on doing self-defense then they better accept the idea that they have to conditioned and trained to be able to do the self-defense techniques when or if the time comes to use it in a real fight.  I don't train weapons just for the fun of it.  I train weapons so that I can actually use them in a real fight.  And that's my valid reason.  When I train with my staff I train so I can fight with it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> If the system is sound but the student is lazy to train then you can't discount the system because the student doesn't train to the level that they need to train at in order to fight using a specific training system. This is the same if the teacher is no good.  You can have a sound fighting system with horrible teachers, but it doesn't mean the system isn't effective.  For the most part the systems that were around when they were constantly being tested in real street fights or war, should be fairly solid minus a few things that may have been lost. If the system is solid then the only thing left is to make the student solid.


The system can be solid, but how the system is trained can be fundamentally flawed.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> The fact you bring up about the USMCMAP being more cop-jutsu and less killem-fu actually works for my case of unarmed mma guys vs akidoka with bokken.
> 
> I mean a weaker US marine core martial art handled the ufc guys


 
No. A weaker US marine core martial art handled UFC guys _at Marine Corps martial art *games*_

Having rolled with those guys straight up grappling and MMA, I gotta say that 99% of them would get creamed under UFC conditions.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> OMG ..Why does everything need to be visual in here. It's not rocket science.
> 
> MMA FIGHTER VS STICK.



The guy with the stick did akido?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You are right people do martial arts for other reasons other than self-defense but if they plan on doing self-defense then they better accept the idea that they have to conditioned and trained to be able to do the self-defense techniques when or if the time comes to use it in a real fight.  I don't train weapons just for the fun of it.  I train weapons so that I can actually use them in a real fight.  And that's my valid reason.  When I train with my staff I train so I can fight with it.



Against unarmed people or untrained ones?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> So we could get an akido guy in and get first hand sword experience?
> 
> Cos a lot of guys here are getting their butts kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can even get larp swords. Which is cool.


That looks like a blast, frankly.


----------



## JowGaWolf

At the moment I'm training to fight using the staff against unarmed people and untrained people.  The techniques in the staff form that I know have attacks that can be use against both unarmed people and armed people.  I haven't quite mastered connecting the power from my waist to my staff with all my techniques.  I don't have the skull cracking power with all of my techniques as well. 

This is similar to the staff form that my lineage does.  The form I use has many of the techniques in these videos just not in the same order.  










I go about the same speed as well because I don't have enough strength and connection with my body to the staff to do full force without my staff throwing me around.  The slow speed is because the staff they are using are heavier than what you see many karate practitioners use.  To give you an idea of how light some karate staffs are, skip to the 0:26 mark and watch it actually hit some people.  Clearly not a fighting weapon being used.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The guy with the stick did akido?


I don't know.  I just know one person had a stick and basically clubbed the guy without a stick (weapon vs no weapon).  No awareness either because the guy without the stick moved away from the stick when he should have been moving in towards the stick (mark 0:46)


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Yep. This is the latest debate.
> And while I handicap a mma at 15%... folks says thats imagination. Yet they won't even say 50/50.
> 
> The other stipulation is no weapons/weapons defense in the MMA guy.



Yeah because people tend to not carry around medieval weapons to fight. They carry pepper spray, hidden knives, and guns.

Seriously, what's the difference between a guy who dresses up like a Japanese samurai from the Middle Ages, and the people who dress up for the Renaissance fair?


----------



## TSDTexan

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know.  I just know one person had a stick and basically clubbed the guy without a stick (weapon vs no weapon).  No awareness either because the guy without the stick moved away from the stick when he should have been moving in towards the stick (mark 0:46)



I think the bokken armed Aikidoka would do even better.
But youtube counts in dropbears system of evidence. 

Guy with a stick > mma fighter.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> It still remains that an unarmed opponent without training in weapons or weapon defence is going after a guy who has a deadly weapon, is proficient and has more then three feet of range.
> 
> Its very one sided.


 
While the guy with the nice long club might have an advantage (a weapon is a "force multiplier" and an advantage even for the untrained) I should also point out (since we've gone down this road) that most _aiki-ken_ training has next to nothing to do with actually cutting or even _hitting_ someone with a sword.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So if you have you sword out and I slap you. You could use a restraint or something?


 
You start with the false assumption that just because I have a sword (or knife, or whatever) that it is drawn. I do not have to choose to drawn the weapon.
If I did have it in hand, I could certainly choose to use it in any number of ways that are unlikely to be lethal.
You slap. I could block your slap using the flat of the blade. I could slap your head with the flat of the blade. I could inflict a superficial cut to your arm by blocking with the edge. I could cut you on various other body parts, in ways and locations that are very unlikely to be fatal. I could inflict more serious (but still survivable) cuts to the torso. I could do my best to remove your arm. I could run you through. 
This is by no means a complete list of the options available.



drop bear said:


> How do the other 30% of confrontations end?


 
Mostly, with the weapon being fired. Doesn't necessarily mean a fatal shot. of course. Statistically, the police will miss with roughly 3/4 of their shots. So it's reasonable to assume that if that entire 30% results in a weapon being fired, most will still result in no injury.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Yeah because people tend to not carry around medieval weapons to fight. They carry pepper spray, hidden knives, and guns.
> 
> Seriously, what's the difference between a guy who dresses up like a Japanese samurai from the Middle Ages, and the people who dress up for the Renaissance fair?


Medieval weapon attacks
Woman attacked with medieval weapon while walking her dog in California
Baltimore Man Was Attacked With Medieval Weapons While Chillin In The Park
Girl brings medieval weapons to school and attacks classmates

People who have carried swords to a fight
Samurai Vigilante Draws Sword On Phoenix Light Rail, Breaks Up Brawl (VIDEO)
Samurai sword-wielding Mormon bishop comes to aid of woman being attacked (Video)
Store Clerk Has A Bigger Blade
Sword Fights Break Out In A Clash At India's Golden Temple
Video of the sword fight in India
Couple arrested after hookah bar sword fight

 I don't think it's about carrying around medieval weapon. It's about using a weapon and that's what these things are.  It's just that these people choose to use these types of weapons. Some people shoot guns, others use knives, and then you have those who prefer the long blade. Cold Steel makes combat ready swords with the understanding that people who buy their swords have no problem with wanting to use it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> You start with the false assumption that just because I have a sword (or knife, or whatever) that it is drawn. I do not have to choose to drawn the weapon.
> If I did have it in hand, I could certainly choose to use it in any number of ways that are unlikely to be lethal.
> You slap. I could block your slap using the flat of the blade. I could slap your head with the flat of the blade. I could inflict a superficial cut to your arm by blocking with the edge. I could cut you on various other body parts, in ways and locations that are very unlikely to be fatal. I could inflict more serious (but still survivable) cuts to the torso. I could do my best to remove your arm. I could run you through.
> This is by no means a complete list of the options available.
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, with the weapon being fired. Doesn't necessarily mean a fatal shot. of course. Statistically, the police will miss with roughly 3/4 of their shots. So it's reasonable to assume that if that entire 30% results in a weapon being fired, most will still result in no injury.


I own 5 or 6 combat ready sword they aren't razor sharp, but they are heavy and getting hit with the flat of the blade is going to hurt. Wooden sheaths make an excellent secondary weapon as well, those things aren't soft either. When I first held a real sword, the first thing that went through my mind is just how strong a fighter would have to be to use a sword effectively.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dirty Dog said:


> Since fencing means "sparring with swords"...


Or 'hocking stolen merchandise'.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> If you defined this by scientific method. Many martial arts would just fall over.


The scientific method does not require everything to be personally witnessed as they happen in real time. If it did then chemical reactions and the atomic nucleus would not pass either. The pressure testing I assume you are referring to (full contact competition fighting) is not the only line of evidence for the determination of an arts effectiveness or the effectiveness of any of its techniques.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ShotoNoob said:


> But more is not necessarily better. ... don't make those mistakes with me in kumite....



I am not sure what you mean here.



ShotoNoob said:


> You also omitted Laszlos' demo was purely instruction in its objective.



Generally myself and those in my school do not do instructional videos of that sort, you might find some basic techniques and stances or patterns but not board breaking of self defense instructional videos. We have the philosophy of 'if you want to learn something come to class and learn it properly'. It can be irresponsible to teach some things online (I have seen people break their hands on just two boards), in other words "kids, don't try this at home'.



ShotoNoob said:


> TW, I never break boards down like in your demo because it is the easiest way to break them.... dropping one's body weight behind the strike. Good practice though for schooling those unwitting\ guard Gracie-like grapple-rs who landed on the bottom.



I generally don't break boards down like that because it is easier to break that way, if that were the case I would just foot stomp on them. I break them like that because they are downward techniques. I have broken the same amount of boards with a punch in the horizontal direction. Now I did the downward break on 3 boards first because I wanted to see how much resistance 3 boards would have in the punch before doing it horizontally but I broke the 3 boards with a downward strike because I had never tried breaking boards that way before (it was always with tiles before that).



ShotoNoob said:


> The point is that 'dorky' Laszlo has technique is better than your form, especially in KIME.



How so?



ShotoNoob said:


> Laszlo, like me, is more disciplined mentally in applying that KIME, and it shows on how he moves.



And how am I less disciplined, based on our respective videos?



ShotoNoob said:


> Laszlo is SMOOTH & precise (pretty much so), you are somewhat forced.... to begin with.



How so?



ShotoNoob said:


> but you would likely had trouble recovering from the sweep based on your BB routine....



That is conjecture as there is nothing in my videos that even hints at being unable to deal with sweeps. I have not included any sparring or anything that would suggest that is true.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> And now will continue to do so.
> Acheeedo.



No problem drip bear.....


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Medieval weapon attacks
> Woman attacked with medieval weapon while walking her dog in California
> Baltimore Man Was Attacked With Medieval Weapons While Chillin In The Park
> Girl brings medieval weapons to school and attacks classmates
> 
> People who have carried swords to a fight
> Samurai Vigilante Draws Sword On Phoenix Light Rail, Breaks Up Brawl (VIDEO)
> Samurai sword-wielding Mormon bishop comes to aid of woman being attacked (Video)
> Store Clerk Has A Bigger Blade
> Sword Fights Break Out In A Clash At India's Golden Temple
> Video of the sword fight in India
> Couple arrested after hookah bar sword fight
> 
> I don't think it's about carrying around medieval weapon. It's about using a weapon and that's what these things are.  It's just that these people choose to use these types of weapons. Some people shoot guns, others use knives, and then you have those who prefer the long blade. Cold Steel makes combat ready swords with the understanding that people who buy their swords have no problem with wanting to use it.



Actually most people use guns, most people use knives. A crazy minority uses weapons from centuries ago.

The point is this; If you want to train in weapons, it makes more sense to learn how to use a gun, or take a FMA and learn to use knives and batons. You can actually carry those around and protect yourself. The idea that learning an ancient Chinese sword form from the 12th century is a good idea for self defense purposes is pretty laughable.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> drip bear.....


A good antibiotic can clear that up


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Actually most people use guns, most people use knives. A crazy minority uses weapons from centuries ago.
> 
> The point is this; If you want to train in weapons, it makes more sense to learn how to use a gun, or take a FMA and learn to use knives and batons. You can actually carry those around and protect yourself. The idea that learning an ancient Chinese sword form from the 12th century is a good idea for self defense purposes is pretty laughable.




People give Wing Chun a hard time. Maybe because it hasnt done well in ufc. However, if a WC guy just happens to live in a jurisdiction where blades are permitted as SD and he just happens to live in a bad side of town... you would definitely develop an appreciation for the butterfly swords.

This art is pretty old, and comes out of whitecrane which is far older and white crane has sword forms that can done with butterflies.

Dont knock it because it is old. A blade of steel a foot long or longer is a viable form of sd. Don't let prejudice make you blind. Because the training is old.

Guns are great til it jams or is out of ammo.
Knives are short and swords are long. I would say a machete is more sword than knife.

In Mexico there is an indigenous machete martial art. And there are machete dancers. Very dangerous dudes.
Federales might freak out on you for a gun if you dont have some bribe money.  But they never say a word about machetes. In the these area way out in deep Mexico only government shoots people. Men kill each other with Mexican swords.

Sometimes a group on group fight breaks out.
The federales show up.
And allow two individuals to keep on fighting.






Sometimes the duelist you think has the right moves will lose





This one happened in Nicaragua.  Notice his defense after the the guy was disarms.


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


Word is this guy died.


----------



## TSDTexan

ballen0351 said:


> A good antibiotic can clear that up


Bwahaha. I just spewed flaming hot coffee. Damn it burns.


----------



## elder999

TSDTexan said:


> I think the bokken armed Aikidoka would do even better.
> But youtube counts in dropbears system of evidence.
> 
> Guy with a stick > mma fighter.



What was so funny about my first post on this?

As someone with direct and relevant experience with aiki ken, and some experience with actual Japanese katana work, I can tell you that the focus of aiki ken, and the product of its training, has very little to do (for most) with actually using a sword in combat. It's all about body mechanics, and lessons that translate into empty hand movement. That isn't to say that someone who trained in aiki-ken couldn't bash someone decently enough with a stick....but they're *not* "swordsmen."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Actually most people use guns, most people use knives. A crazy minority uses weapons from centuries ago.
> 
> The point is this; If you want to train in weapons, it makes more sense to learn how to use a gun, or take a FMA and learn to use knives and batons. You can actually carry those around and protect yourself. The idea that learning an ancient Chinese sword form from the 12th century is a good idea for self defense purposes is pretty laughable.


Yes most people use guns and knives. The point is that its a weapon and is still used as a weapon.


----------



## TSDTexan

elder999 said:


> What was so funny about my first post on this?
> 
> As someone with direct and relevant experience with aiki ken, and some experience with actual Japanese katana work, I can tell you that the focus of aiki ken, and the product of its training, has very little to do (for most) with actually using a sword in combat. It's all about body mechanics, and lessons that translate into empty hand movement. That isn't to say that someone who trained in aiki-ken couldn't bash someone decently enough with a stick....but they're *not* "swordsmen."



Yes. They are not yet ready to go out into pre-Meji-restoration Japan and mix it up on the battlefield, With real Shogun Era samurai. 

Eh... this might make you laugh.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TSDTexan said:


> Guns are great til it jams or is out of ammo.


Every weapon has a weakness. From what I understand the 21ft rule is one, it's probably less because I can't see myself charging at someone from 21 feet. Depending on the length of the blade that distance becomes even smaller.

Some states in the U.S. make it illegal to walk with a sword in public, or have a knife with a blade of a certain length, yet people can walk with a  gun in public.  My guess is that these laws are put there because of the true danger that blade weapons present.  To have more restrictions on bladed weapons then on guns, especially since as hanzou put it, most people don't carry swords.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> People give Wing Chun a hard time. Maybe because it hasnt done well in ufc. However, if a WC guy just happens to live in a jurisdiction where blades are permitted as SD and he just happens to live in a bad side of town... you would definitely develop an appreciation for the butterfly swords.
> 
> This art is pretty old, and comes out of white crane which is far older and white crane has sword forms that can done with butterflies.



Again, in what scenario would you seriously be carrying around twin butterfly swords? Wouldn't it be more practical to learn how to use a butterfly knife, or a baton?







You can keep a butterfly knife (balisong) in your pocket, or you can have a collapsable baton on your keychain. Also the arts that teach you how to use those weapons have pretty solid disarms and defenses against knife attacks.

Again, something you're far more likely to encounter than a Manchu warrior armed with a pike, or a fully armored samurai warrior on horseback.



> Dont knock it because it is old. A blade of steel a foot long or longer is a viable form of sd. Don't let prejudice make you blind. Because the training is old.



No it's not. People tend to not carry machetes or swords with them to theaters, work, shopping centers, or sports events. 

At least not in the industrialized world.



> Guns are great til it jams or is out of ammo.
> Knives are short and swords are long. I would say a machete is more sword than knife.



The Boxer Rebellion resolved that argument over 100 years ago.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Again, in what scenario would you seriously be carrying around twin butterfly swords? Wouldn't it be more practical to learn how to use a butterfly knife, or a baton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep a butterfly knife (balisong) in your pocket, or you can have a collapsable baton on your keychain. Also the arts that teach you how to use those weapons have pretty solid disarms and defenses against knife attacks. Again, something you're far more likely to encounter than a Manchu warrior armed with a pike, or a fully armored samurai warrior on horseback.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. People tend to not carry machetes or swords with them to theaters, work, shopping centers, or sports events.
> 
> At least not in the industrialized world.
> 
> 
> 
> The Boxer Rebellion resolved that argument over 100 years ago.




When I lived in Texas, I found myself with a machete daily clearing land occupationaly. When I went in Mexico which was 3 or 4 times a year, and outside of San Miguel... I carried a chete everywhere.

Sometimes I carried butterflies. I learned butterflies from my Judo Coach who was a WC man. I stopped doing Judo after my second sholder sepperation. While recuperating he had me doing blade work.

You will find machetes in almost every third world country.
It IS viabile there. Pethaps not so much where you are.
But if SHTF a machete or BF swords with training will be better than knuckles.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> When I lived in Texas, I found myself with a machete daily clearing land occupationaly. When I went in Mexico which was 3 or 4 times a year, and outside of San Miguel... I carried a chete everywhere.



I'd be carrying a lot more than a machete if I was walking through some parts of Mexico.

Just saying.



> Sometimes I carried butterflies. I learned butterflies from my Judo Coach who was a WC man. I stopped doing Judo after my second sholder sepperation. While recuperating he had me doing blade work.



Hopefully he taught you how to use knives, not butterfly swords.



> You will find machetes in almost every third world country.
> It IS viabile there. Pethaps not so much where you are.
> But if SHTF a machete or BF swords with training will be better than knuckles.



Hence why I said the industrialized world. Again, if I'm traveling through the third world, I'd be carrying way more than just a machete.


----------



## geezer

TSDTexan said:


> Yes. They are not yet ready to go out into pre-Meji-restoration Japan and mix it up on the battlefield, With real Shogun Era samurai.
> 
> Eh... this might make you laugh.



They subdued him with a hose, a ladder and an animal noose!  Animal control!

Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> Again, in what scenario would you seriously be carrying around twin butterfly swords? Wouldn't it be more practical to learn how to use a butterfly knife, or a baton? .



Not so practical. Butterfly knives -- Balisongs that is, are illegal to carry in many locals, as are collapsible batons. On the other hand, where I live,* guns can be carried openly or concealed most public places without a permit. Some consider carrying almost a civic duty.* Lacking a gun, an ordinary locking knife is a popular alternative.

Carrying guns in AZ, a civic duty!






Personally, I depend on avoiding conflict. Failing that, I practice a lot identifying and using improvised weapons available in the kinds of places I frequent. I'm short, middle-aged, polite and unassuming, and sometimes ...angry.  Call me _Lester_. Check this clip 1:10 - 1:20:


----------



## TSDTexan

geezer said:


> They subdued him with a hose, a ladder and an animal noose!  Animal control!
> 
> Absolutely hilarious.


Cause beanbag shotshells don't work on crazy


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Cause beanbag shotshells don't work on crazy


Dont forget the ladder


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB said:


> The scientific method does not require everything to be personally witnessed as they happen in real time. If it did then chemical reactions and the atomic nucleus would not pass either. The pressure testing I assume you are referring to (full contact competition fighting) is not the only line of evidence for the determination of an arts effectiveness or the effectiveness of any of its techniques.


\
Good one RTKDCMB.  Good to see the TMA emphasis on _PRINCIPLES.
\
BTW: Thought I saw one of your TKD kata's on YT...  Now if only the TKD sport competitors could latch on to that training...._


----------



## ShotoNoob

HA, HA, fair enough.  ONE I could say I *over-replied* to your post on the 3x times better....



RTKDCMB said:


> I am not sure what you mean here.


\
That's ok.  many @ my dojo don't understand me either...


RTKDCMB said:


> Generally myself and those in my school do not do instructional videos of that sort, you might find some basic techniques and stances or patterns but not board breaking of self defense instructional videos. We have the philosophy of 'if you want to learn something come to class and learn it properly'. It can be irresponsible to teach some things online (I have seen people break their hands on just two boards), in other words "kids, don't try this at home'.


\
Well, I think you're being overly critical of LAsZLO.  If he wants to post an instructional video, he can; just like you can post your demo's for whatever reason.
\
Of course the whole traditional karate / TKD / TKD model of coming to classes on a regular schedule is the proper way to train.  Once a certain level of proficiency is gained, one can practice outside of class.  The standard class training is always a good approach, IMO... and I heavily endorse same.
\
Your clear emphasis on the traditional training methods should put your school @ the upper end of the choices for serious practitioners.  BTW, I am impressed by Laszlo's serious demeanor....  I'm going to see if I can find that TKD kata (poomsae?) I think you have on YT.
\
OTOH, if someone like me watches a cake baking demo on YT and then assumes I can bake a quality cake off the bat.... well, I would never assume my first cakes would turn out to the the new rave.  again, let's be serious....


RTKDCMB said:


> I generally don't break boards down like that because it is easier to break that way, if that were the case I would just foot stomp on them. I break them like that because they are downward techniques. I have broken the same amount of boards with a punch in the horizontal direction.


\
Well, I've seen common demos of breaking that way.  Foot stomp is better self defense many times.  So TKD is self defense oriented the way you train... more goodness.  The Gracie rolling all around might happen & become necessary -- it's not where one wants to go, ever.... for SD.
\
The standard karate curriculum starts with the lunge or middle punch, at torso height.  Specific  target is the solar plexus.  Stance is horse stance or lunge / front stance.  That is the traditional  punching standard off the bat.  In my mind, then, the introductory board breaking should be exactly the same exercise.
\
Actually, my current dojo and most karate schools start board breaking otherwise.  These still use a middle level punch, but use the reverse punch from a front stance.  This is easier because one's punch is closer to one's center of gravity & the involvement of hip is maximized by the reverse hand striking off of the rear leg.
\
Our school even deviates from this and currently uses a reverse elbow strike which is easier because the stroke is shorter and there is more mass in the forearm which furthermore is easier to leverage one's body weight into the strike.
\
Lot's of structural helping new students make the break...


RTKDCMB said:


> Now I did the downward break on 3 boards first because I wanted to see how much resistance 3 boards would have in the punch before doing it horizontally but I broke the 3 boards with a downward strike because I had never tried breaking boards that way before (it was always with tiles before that).


\
Makes sense.


RTKDCMB said:


> How so?


\
I have to go back and read your quote...


RTKDCMB said:


> And how am I less disciplined, based on our respective videos?


\
This is tricky over the internet 'cause we are trying to convey mental concepts & principals which are intangibles physically... though the physical results can be empirically witnessed.
\
I've posted extensively on this here @ MT.  Just let me say that mind / body unity is key.  On the dominating factor in mind / body unity, it is the mind which is directing the physical movement.  This is separate & distinct from the similar looking good body mechanics of athletics & sport activity including sport fighting, where muscle memory & quick reactions carry the day.  In TMA or traditional karate we have the conscious mental direction controlling the movements at all times.  KIME is the essential mental building block here.  However, the Shotokan karate manual spells out several additional mental concepts & principles which are always in action.  These have been the subject of threads @ MT.[/quote]


RTKDCMB said:


> How so?


\
I have to go reread your quote.


RTKDCMB said:


> That is conjecture as there is nothing in my videos that even hints at being unable to deal with sweeps. I have not included any sparring or anything that would suggest that is true.


\
On a purely technical basis, your objection of 'conjecture' is correct.  Traditional karate or TMA is not defined by technical s.  But your question is valid & demands an answer....  TMA or traditional karate is defined by principles....  So by extension of mental discipline, that principle, your physical movements in the board breaking indicate a wanting in mental discipline.  Hence when you are forced to make an adjustment like Bertel's opponent was when Bertel swept him (aided by some of the undisciplined sport exaggeration in his opening strike gambit by the opponent which then put himself in a weak, high stance), your reactive, improper movement will cause you to be vulnerable.
\
That's a general description to premise the issue.  Of course I need to be more specific in order to honor your request.  BTW, this is where Rogan-ites go off the rails.  A more readily observable example of this is when Rogan states that his TKD kicking left him unprepared for boxer hand fighters.  HUH?  As you demonstrate very well, and your board breaking demos really drive home, TKD is all about being effective + powerful with hands....  So Rogan clearly leveraged off his athletic kicking skills to dominate in sport fighting,,,,, and completely omitted serious study of the application of hand techniques presented in the traditional TKD curriculum.  WOW!
\
That is a lack of thinking mental discipline in one's training = karate fail.
\
Hope that gives you a start....
\
EDIT: On the mind, reactions & instincts as K_MAN would say, are involved & engaged.  The conscious, thinking mind, however, is kind of like the chairman of the board, always alert & intent on changing one's action's into a new direction at any moment on a second's notice.


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB: Here's a look @ you how so's.  I really like the Laszlo demo for FORM.  IT'S THE PRINCIPLES OF MENTAL DISICPLINE BEHIND THE OUTWARD FORM THAT MAKE'S HIS DEMO COMPETENT.


ShotoNoob said:


> Hey, some here like to poke fun @ me.  Here's a board breaking demo that is superior to RTKDCMB's demos.  And it's presented by a dorky looking / dorky acting instructor similar to me....  so all that want a good laugh on my account, pay attention....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> As dorky as this guy is (I am), he does a good presentation of board breaking form, IMO.
> [edit]
> \
> edit: Here's the Shotokan demo vid equation: Sound body mechanics + Disciplined KIME = Disabling Effect.


\
I'll try to do this point by point.
\
1. ON LASZLO'S LEAD IN EXPLANATION.  Guy's got 'dork' written all over him.  So what is the value of us dorks.  Intelligent thinking.  keys right into the recipe for mental discipline.  Laszlo is exactingly deliberated & detailed @ what he's going to do and how he's going to do it.  So in that sense, dorky personality is perfect for training mentally disciplined action...  the latter what really makes karate work over sports.
\
2. LASZLO DESCRIBES THE BREAKING MECHANICS.  Once the board in place, he shows concisely how to position for the break, where he will strike, the choice of weapon (technique)  he will apply & the physical motion he will employ.  Notice, however,  he uses a reverse punch, which is easier than the standard front or lunge punch.  THIS approach IS CALLED THE tma / traditional karate base.
\
Also notice he approaches with the kihon karate stance he calls a "walking stance," to me a standard front or high lunge stance.  The purpose of that kihon stance is to enable one to [mentally disciplined] call upon & draw upon all the internal & external strength of the entire body and place it into the intent to complete that break.  KIME is the driver, mentally.  The body works under the auspices of KIME.
\
3. LASZLO'S FORM.  Notice Laszlo doesn't move off balance or out of his stance.  both legs remain squarely planted. His body mechanics are tight & controlled, no extraneous movements or wiggle-waggling around.  He uses a short 'windup,' a bit unnatural yet accurate chambering for the strike.  The purpose of the chambering is to facilitate, like the 'walking' stance, the 2nd paragraph in Pioint2. above.  In a sense, this helps Laszlo put his center of gravity into the strike.
\
4. TMA / TKD IS ALL ABOUT MIND / BODY UNITY.  Also note how Laszlo breaks the board without any kiai.  Moreover, he is not straining, stressing, overcompensating through extra windups, extra - excessive body movement, contortions or jerky muscle tension attempting to 'force,' the break - some of which were evident in your demos.  The use of KIAI is competent & helps foster, create & can supercharge the KIME.  Laszlo has sufficient KIME power without the Kiai, with breathing alone.  Laszlo's pretty relaxed, really.
\
There are some additional kumite-level qualities in Laszlo's form, but this is enough to think about.  Laszlo demo, he's got the principles of karate power down pretty darn good.  Yes guys, dorky Laszlo's  got karate....  He exudes other key mental martial qualities in his execution  of that break.
\
5. LEST I FORGET, THE TARGET. Laszlo also make a definite point of where to strike the board in order to succeed @ the break.  And his KIME does that right on target.  Not here, not there, not like MMA striking typically throwing haphazard strikes out there hoping to catch the opponent (most of sport karate equally guilty) -- Laszlo is precisely on target.  No need, really to be some big weight lifter to smash with massive brute force.  Laszlo has the capability to readily knock one into starry land.
\
Hope that helps.... Laszlo luv ya.


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB... spotted your suspended-in-air spinning back / hook ? kick board break YT vid.  Take that TMA / TKD critics...  How Wonderboy cleaned Ellenberger's clock, who had a entire pre-match YT vid devoted to ridiculing such 'karate nonsense.'
\
EDIT: just cam across a reverse - Laszlo vid... karate-not... looks to be TKD school... later.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> They subdued him with a hose, a ladder and an animal noose!  Animal control!
> 
> Absolutely hilarious.


ha ha ha..that's the power of the sword.  This is what the bring out for someone who has a sword and two machetes.
As many swords that police have to deal with you would think that they would have some kind of body armor that would allow them to just walk in and light him up with a taser.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> That looks like a blast, frankly.



Yeah would totally do it. Words look like they are a hundred bucks which is about a set of gloves. So doable.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know.  I just know one person had a stick and basically clubbed the guy without a stick (weapon vs no weapon).  No awareness either because the guy without the stick moved away from the stick when he should have been moving in towards the stick (mark 0:46)



OK. So a bunch of guys and a weapon can beat down a pro fighter. I am happy to go with that.

I am not sure how you are making a link to anything there.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> At the moment I'm training to fight using the staff against unarmed people and untrained people.  The techniques in the staff form that I know have attacks that can be use against both unarmed people and armed people.  I haven't quite mastered connecting the power from my waist to my staff with all my techniques.  I don't have the skull cracking power with all of my techniques as well.
> 
> This is similar to the staff form that my lineage does.  The form I use has many of the techniques in these videos just not in the same order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I go about the same speed as well because I don't have enough strength and connection with my body to the staff to do full force without my staff throwing me around.  The slow speed is because the staff they are using are heavier than what you see many karate practitioners use.  To give you an idea of how light some karate staffs are, skip to the 0:26 mark and watch it actually hit some people.  Clearly not a fighting weapon being used.



So how do you know that works better than wild swinging? Who have you tested it on?

I don't know if it works or doesn't to find out I would have to get a stick and beat on someone with it. This is the same way I test all my martial arts.

I have done stick and knife by the way. I am not confident in the practicality of all but the simplest stuff.

Hand trapping was something I could never pull off safely. Nobody could pull off hand trapping safely on me. And I would not have known that if I did not test with resistance.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> I think the bokken armed Aikidoka would do even better.
> But youtube counts in dropbears system of evidence.
> 
> Guy with a stick > mma fighter.



Based on evidence? Or feelings. Some things that seem intuitive or sensible. Just don't work.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> You start with the false assumption that just because I have a sword (or knife, or whatever) that it is drawn. I do not have to choose to drawn the weapon.
> If I did have it in hand, I could certainly choose to use it in any number of ways that are unlikely to be lethal.
> You slap. I could block your slap using the flat of the blade. I could slap your head with the flat of the blade. I could inflict a superficial cut to your arm by blocking with the edge. I could cut you on various other body parts, in ways and locations that are very unlikely to be fatal. I could inflict more serious (but still survivable) cuts to the torso. I could do my best to remove your arm. I could run you through.
> This is by no means a complete list of the options available.
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, with the weapon being fired. Doesn't necessarily mean a fatal shot. of course. Statistically, the police will miss with roughly 3/4 of their shots. So it's reasonable to assume that if that entire 30% results in a weapon being fired, most will still result in no injury.



That is some pretty extreme mental gymnastics. But OK the non leathal version of guns and swords is to not use them. Or to miss.and to be honest trying to block a punch with a sword sounds like trying to shoot a robber in the leg.

But I get it in America guns are not for killing people unlike every other country in the world. And the deaths are just unhappy accidents.

Guns in Australia are (in my opinion) justly considered leathal force. Plain and simple. You point them at people you intend to kill. Not threaten. Not deter and not miss. I treat gun carry when I use it.(which is not often) pretty seriously and treat it as a responsibility. Not a right. And honestly do not see myself changing my stance on this any time soon.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> No problem drip bear.....


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK. So a bunch of guys and a weapon can beat down a pro fighter. I am happy to go with that.
> 
> I am not sure how you are making a link to anything there.


Only one guy beat him with the weapon.  He was the smart one.  The others beat him after he was laying on his back after the weapon attack. So no, it wasn't a bunch of guys that beat him, just the guy with the stick.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So how do you know that works better than wild swinging? Who have you tested it on?
> 
> I don't know if it works or doesn't to find out I would have to get a stick and beat on someone with it. This is the same way I test all my martial arts.
> 
> I have done stick and knife by the way. I am not confident in the practicality of all but the simplest stuff.
> 
> Hand trapping was something I could never pull off safely. Nobody could pull off hand trapping safely on me. And I would not have known that if I did not test with resistance.



Because wild swinging isn't targeted and it's always over committed. Wild swinging opens you up to brutal counters.
Do you need to test finger break to know if you bend a finger backwards that it will eventually break?

I'm confident in my staff skills and I don't have any doubt about my abilities to some of the techniques. Including dealing with someone who is wildly swinging a stick.

I can do hand trapping with no problem.  I do it all the time and it's not a difficult technique in Jow Ga. If you put your hands in the wrong position not only will I trap that hand I'll punch you with the same hand that I used to trap.  I can't speak for your system, but Jow Ga has excellent techniques that use traps and parries.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> Because wild swinging isn't targeted and it's always over committed. Wild swinging opens you up to brutal counters.
> Do you need to test finger break to know if you bend a finger backwards that it will eventually break?
> 
> I'm confident in my staff skills and I don't have any doubt about my abilities to some of the techniques. Including dealing with someone who is wildly swinging a stick.
> 
> I can do hand trapping with no problem.  I do it all the time and it's not a difficult technique in Jow Ga. If you put your hands in the wrong position not only will I trap that hand I'll punch you with the same hand that I used to trap.  I can't speak for your system, but Jow Ga has excellent techniques that use traps and parries.



Yoda say: To Jow Ga you are what to BJJ Hanzou is.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Yoda say: To Jow Ga you are what to BJJ Hanzou is.


How is that?  I've actually shown videos of myself doing traps. I've actually shown videos of myself defending against a shoot. From what I can tell I'm the only who has shown their ability to do a technique other than one other person who showed a video of him using a backfist to break boards.

So when I say I can hit someone with a staff using a technique from Jow Ga, do you know what technique that I'm talking about using? I do Jow Ga kung fu so I know about the techniques and that it has excellent techniques that use traps. Do you take Jow Ga Kung Fu? Do you know which techniques in Jow Ga use the traps? Do you specifically know which techniques I'm talking about?

Just saying.  When I talk about Jow Ga I'm talking about what I do using the techniques in Jow Ga.  I'm not saying Jow Ga is better than another martial art.  I'm telling you what I actually do.  

If you are a person who needs to actually break someone's fingers, or actually hit someone in the head to actually understand that something works then that's on you.  You are more than welcome to come to my school and I'll show you how the business end of a staff technique works.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Only one guy beat him with the weapon.  He was the smart one.  The others beat him after he was laying on his back after the weapon attack. So no, it wasn't a bunch of guys that beat him, just the guy with the stick.


It dosent matter if a guy beat him with bad breath. What does that have to do with either kung fu or akido weapons training?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Because wild swinging isn't targeted and it's always over committed. Wild swinging opens you up to brutal counters.
> Do you need to test finger break to know if you bend a finger backwards that it will eventually break?
> 
> I'm confident in my staff skills and I don't have any doubt about my abilities to some of the techniques. Including dealing with someone who is wildly swinging a stick.
> 
> I can do hand trapping with no problem.  I do it all the time and it's not a difficult technique in Jow Ga. If you put your hands in the wrong position not only will I trap that hand I'll punch you with the same hand that I used to trap.  I can't speak for your system, but Jow Ga has excellent techniques that use traps and parries.



Yes I understand that you are confident in your skills. How have you gained that confidence?

Boxing also has traps and parries. Try it with a stick or knife and i just don't seem to have the time to do it. And I know this because I have gotten a rubber knife and a padded stick and tested it against the best people I could find.

For me it was more like this






Than this.


----------



## paitingman

It's easy to hate on Rogan here, but I feel like most of us ultimately share the same sentiment and frustration as Joe. He just tends to speak in pretty absolute terms whether he intends to or not, and it stirs up a fuss on here. BUT the root of those absolute statements he makes I think is common within a lot of us.

He's not a fan of trickery/fraud/mcdojo/or just poor training. period.

Just like his statements about sparring; a lot here stated that "no sparring equals not a real tma(or an improperly trained tma)" 
but most of us would sort of agree that for combatives or martial arts training, it's pretty empty without sparring or ring time of some sort. sparring is huge in developing yourself. 
Joe says you gotta spar-most of us would agree sparring is super beneficial if not necessary. 

or when we talk about true tma training vs mcdojo stuff (not properly training aspects of the system, no context/or reasoning with traditional training methods, no sparring, etc.)

Joe does the same. In one of the videos he states that they definitely are  "a lot of guys who are legit about it" as in they train their *** off and in the context of what he was specifically talking about "the real unification of mind and body 'zen thing'" 
same as us, he makes a clear distinction between those are legit in tma and those who aren't.
The way he speaks just sorta pisses people off.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yes I understand that you are confident in your skills. How have you gained that confidence?
> 
> Boxing also has traps and parries. Try it with a stick or knife and i just don't seem to have the time to do it. And I know this because I have gotten a rubber knife and a padded stick and tested it against the best people I could find.
> 
> For me it was more like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than this.


just to be clear, from my perspective, both of those videos are examples of aspects of training that are important.  Drills are important,,and I'd go so far as to say that every martial arts school does this.   What the dog brothers gathering shows is also extremely important, and I think we all agree that not all ma schools meet this need.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yes I understand that you are confident in your skills. How have you gained that confidence?
> 
> Boxing also has traps and parries. Try it with a stick or knife and i just don't seem to have the time to do it. And I know this because I have gotten a rubber knife and a padded stick and tested it against the best people I could find.
> 
> For me it was more like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than this.



Yep. The Dog Brothers clip teaches us that fighting ain't pretty, and even if you're armed someone can wrap you up and take you to the pavement.


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> Not so practical. Butterfly knives -- Balisongs that is, are illegal to carry in many locals, as are collapsible batons. On the other hand, where I live,* guns can be carried openly or concealed most public places without a permit. Some consider carrying almost a civic duty.* Lacking a gun, an ordinary locking knife is a popular alternative.
> 
> Carrying guns in AZ, a civic duty!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I depend on avoiding conflict. Failing that, I practice a lot identifying and using improvised weapons available in the kinds of places I frequent. I'm short, middle-aged, polite and unassuming, and sometimes ...angry.  Call me _Lester_. Check this clip 1:10 - 1:20:



Well yeah they're illegal to carry, but they're also easy to conceal and deploy. I mean, you're more likely to get stopped by the cops for carrying around a samurai sword than having a balisong in your back pocket. For that matter, learning to use a baton makes more sense than learning to use a 6ft staff.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> I'd be carrying a lot more than a machete if I was walking through some parts of Mexico.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully he taught you how to use knives, not butterfly swords.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence why I said the industrialized world. Again, if I'm traveling through the third world, I'd be carrying way more than just a machete.




This is what he trained me in.




Which were immediately comfortably as I had learned how to use a Scotish short cutlass (left handed because I am a Clan Kerr decendant who is left handed)


 

And a main gauche in the right hand (very unorthodox)
Like the one below sans compass.

I had become accustomed to the weight of ratan based versions of these two while "playing" in the SCA heavy weapons group. I learned the finer points of using them when I was in Stuttgart, and in Scotland (freazing my arze off)


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Yes I understand that you are confident in your skills. How have you gained that confidence?


I gain confidence by doing effective training and conditioning. The Sunday class is specifically designed for focusing on strength, power, speed, accuracy, and conditioning of the body, joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles, and bone.  The exercises that we do are designed to make us more effective with the techniques. The I practice how to stay calm during a flurry of attacks both controlled and wild (with and without charging). I practice how to analyze while chaos is beating down on me.  My confidence comes from my purpose and intent in my training which is to be a better fighter than I was the day before using the techniques of the fighting system. My confidence also comes from the validity of the fighting system and that the techniques work, and that all I need to learn is how to use the techniques properly and at the right time.



drop bear said:


> Boxing also has traps and parries. Try it with a stick or knife and i just don't seem to have the time to do it


The traps and parries for weapons are not the same as traps and parries for punching.  Boxing doesn't train against weapons so it makes no sense for someone to use a trap/parry that is designed for a punch against a weapon. 

I've watched the dog brother's video that you posted and out of all of the attacks that you showed there were 2 things that worked and I knew would work without ever having to test it against someone.  The front kick and getting closer to the opponent reduces the impact of the swing those are basic concepts of fighting.  I don't know of any fighting system that doesn't have this basic understanding. I also saw a lot of over committed swings.  As a counter fighter my opponent's over commitment is my advantage.  The heavier a weapon is the more problems over committed swings will cause for the person using it.

My question to is this:  If you don't trust your fighting system or your teacher when he/she says that a technique will work, then why are you learning that system and from that person? Why would you learn from someone or a system that you don't trust?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> just to be clear, from my perspective, both of those videos are examples of aspects of training that are important.  Drills are important,,and I'd go so far as to say that every martial arts school does this.   What the dog brothers gathering shows is also extremely important, and I think we all agree that not all ma schools meet this need.



Yeah. I agree with that as well.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> My question to is this: If you don't trust your fighting system or your teacher when he/she says that a technique will work, then why are you learning that system and from that person? Why would you learn from someone or a system that you don't trust?



Because I take that technique and test it. There are plenty of techniques that work for my instructor that don't work for me.

I trust my instructor because he doesn't just tell me a technique will work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Because I take that technique and test it. There are plenty of techniques that work for my instructor that don't work for me.
> 
> I trust my instructor because he doesn't just tell me a technique will work.


ahhh now I see where the confusion is.  You aren't testing the technique you are testing your ability to use the technique. Just because you can't use a technique effectively doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  This has more to do with your abilities than the technique.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> ahhh now I see where the confusion is.  You aren't testing the technique you are testing your ability to use the technique. Just because you can't use a technique effectively doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  This has more to do with your abilities than the technique.


Nothing matters if you can't perform the technique.  The technique may work, but if you can't execute it, it is worthless to you.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Nothing matters if you can't perform the technique.  The technique may work, but if you can't execute it, it is worthless to you.


I agree which is why I continue to practice the techniques that are difficult for me to do or use. I increase my ability to use the technique and if I can't raise my ability high enough then it becomes a technique that is beyond my ability. I don't find fault in the technique, I find fault in my limitation.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree which is why I continue to practice the techniques that are difficult for me to do or use. I increase my ability to use the technique and if I can't raise my ability high enough then it becomes a technique that is beyond my ability. I don't find fault in the technique, I find fault in my limitation.


And so the question for you is, when people criticize martial arts schools for things you seem to agree with, why are you still arguing?  You seem to agree with the criticisms.  I truly don't understand.  When I read what drop bear says and what you say, it looks like the same thing to me.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> And so the question for you is, when people criticize martial arts schools for things you seem to agree with, why are you still arguing?  You seem to agree with the criticisms.  I truly don't understand.  When I read what drop bear says and what you say, it looks like the same thing to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What I'm saying and what I've said in the past is the same thing I've said since I joined the site. I don't question the effectiveness of the self-defense techniques used in karate, aikido, bjj, or kung fu, like some of the posters in this long discussion. My technique is questioned every time I've mentioned that I can use a technique or that my school teaches a technique.  Think of how many years and how many generations have been involved in developing a fighting system, then all of a sudden someone who is younger than the fighting system comes out and calls the techniques useless, non-effective.  Testing a technique is not the same as testing your ability to do a technique.

But time and time again I get questioned about the techniques I use from people who say that I can't do what I'm claiming and not once has anyone asked me what techniques I would use in a particular situation.  

Everytime I talk about a technique working it's like I actually have to show a video of myself showing that it works.

The only criticisms that I agree with are in regards to martial art schools that are of  "McDojo" quality where schools and instructors make people believe that they have advanced fighting skills that they really don't have. You have never heard me say that a technique is useless simply because I couldn't do it or simply because I'm not in that fighting system.  People doubt me when I say that dealing with wild punches and attacks are easy for me to defend against, and not one person has asked me "why is it easy for me to defend against them.  It's like people's responses are set on default to call "BS" when some body says that they can do a technique and actually use it.  It's all of that stuff that I have issues with.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> What I'm saying and what I've said in the past is the same thing I've said since I joined the site. I don't question the effectiveness of the self-defense techniques used in karate, aikido, bjj, or kung fu, like some of the posters in this long discussion. My technique is questioned every time I've mentioned that I can use a technique or that my school teaches a technique.  Think of how many years and how many generations have been involved in developing a fighting system, then all of a sudden someone who is younger than the fighting system comes out and calls the techniques useless, non-effective.  Testing a technique is not the same as testing your ability to do a technique.
> 
> But time and time again I get questioned about the techniques I use from people who say that I can't do what I'm claiming and not once has anyone asked me what techniques I would use in a particular situation.
> 
> Everytime I talk about a technique working it's like I actually have to show a video of myself showing that it works.
> 
> The only criticisms that I agree with are in regards to martial art schools that are of  "McDojo" quality where schools and instructors make people believe that they have advanced fighting skills that they really don't have. You have never heard me say that a technique is useless simply because I couldn't do it or simply because I'm not in that fighting system.  People doubt me when I say that dealing with wild punches and attacks are easy for me to defend against, and not one person has asked me "why is it easy for me to defend against them.  It's like people's responses are set on default to call "BS" when some body says that they can do a technique and actually use it.  It's all of that stuff that I have issues with.


Ah.  Okay.  So, you do agree that McDojos are bad.  So does Joe rogan.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Ah.  Okay.  So, you do agree that McDojos are bad.  So does Joe rogan.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've never heard Joe Rogan talk about McDojos.  I've heard him talk down in a general manner about fighting systems but as far as McDojos go I haven't heard him talk about those.  He makes blanket statements about kung fu, tkd, karate, and aikido.  Show me a video where he talks about McDojos without mentioning a fighting system.
His statements are always fake kung fu, fake tkd, fake karate, fake aikido. Real MMA Real BJJ.  If you can show me a video or article where he talks about McDojos, then I'll take a look at it and see if he agrees with me about McDojos.

My personal opinion is that he likes McDojos because that gives him stuff to talk about and as a commentator that's a good thing.

I don't like McDojos.  I have no idea of how Joe feels about them.


----------



## Steve

He talks about training that is unrealistic.  Why are yiu personalizing everything?  When you talk about your training, you go to great lengths to demonstrate that yiu train in a way that is practical, where you spar and pressure test your individual skills.  Good on ya.   

I don't think you realize that you aren't the victim here.   From what I've seen, you have a pretty good thing going.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> How is that?  I've actually shown videos of myself doing traps. I've actually shown videos of myself defending against a shoot. From what I can tell I'm the only who has shown their ability to do a technique other than one other person who showed a video of him using a backfist to break boards.
> 
> So when I say I can hit someone with a staff using a technique from Jow Ga, do you know what technique that I'm talking about using? I do Jow Ga kung fu so I know about the techniques and that it has excellent techniques that use traps. Do you take Jow Ga Kung Fu? Do you know which techniques in Jow Ga use the traps? Do you specifically know which techniques I'm talking about?
> 
> Just saying.  When I talk about Jow Ga I'm talking about what I do using the techniques in Jow Ga.  I'm not saying Jow Ga is better than another martial art.  I'm telling you what I actually do.
> 
> If you are a person who needs to actually break someone's fingers, or actually hit someone in the head to actually understand that something works then that's on you.  You are more than welcome to come to my school and I'll show you how the business end of a staff technique works.




Very good, all that. My comment had nothing to do with videos or proof, ...just a reflection on your _great confidence_ in your system. Hanzou is equally an enthusiastic advocate of his BJJ. Kindred spirits, perhaps? 

Hanzou, however, is a big advocate of pressure testing through rolling, sparring and competition. I take it you are not? No matter. I respect your devotion to hard training and belief in your system. I've become more of a skeptic regarding mine (WC). It has some great stuff. It also has some BS. Hanzou can be a bit obnoxious when he points out those flaws. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. So having people actually test each system is a good thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Very good, all that. My comment had nothing to do with videos or proof, ...just a reflection on your _great confidence_ in your system. Hanzou is equally an enthusiastic advocate of his BJJ. Kindred spirits, perhaps?
> 
> Hanzou, however, is a big advocate of pressure testing through rolling, sparring and competition. I take it you are not? No matter. I respect your devotion to hard training and belief in your system. I've become more of a skeptic regarding mine (WC). It has some great stuff. It also has some BS. Hanzou can be a bit obnoxious when he points out those flaws. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. So having people actually test each system is a good thing.



If I had not confidence in the fighting system then I wouldn't take it. I've felt the power (physical strength) of the instructors and know without a doubt the validity of the system.  The best way I can describe it, is that it's almost how one would sense the power of a person's grip via handshake even when they shake your hand softly without crushing it. When my sifu's (both past and current) demonstrated a technique, they were gentle with it but the power still came through. 
I'm not sure if you have experienced that before but that's what it was like.

Here's how it works for me:
When I spar it's more about my ability than the technique.  
Pressure testing is about me and not the technique. For Hanzou, pressure testing is about the technique and not the ability of the user.  When a person looks at it like Hanzou does, then the person may say the technique failed him.  Which is what he said about the Jow Ga Sifu that used a striking technique to stop a shoot.

When a person looks at it the way I do then he is more likely to say his lack of ability failed the technique.  In the case of the Jow Ga Sifu, my perspective was that the Jow Ga Sifu's inability to pick the correct technique to deal with the shoot is what failed the technique that should have been used instead of striking.

When a technique works for some and not for others, then it's not the technique that is failing, it's the ability to pick and execute the correct technique that determines the success. This isn't saying that a person sucks at what they do, it's just saying that our abilities for certain things will outshine others techniques regardless of what we do.

This is how I think Hanzou and I are different.


----------



## drop bear

Double post so I will throw the idea in here. Don't fault the technique?

Some styles are just dumb. There is no quality control in martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> ahhh now I see where the confusion is.  You aren't testing the technique you are testing your ability to use the technique. Just because you can't use a technique effectively doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  This has more to do with your abilities than the technique.



I am testing the technique. I am testing my ability to use the technique and I am testing the other guys ability to resist the technique.

All three factors are vital in determining whether the technique works or not.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Double post so I will throw the idea in here. Don't fault the technique?
> 
> Some styles are just dumb. There is no quality control in martial arts.


Aerobic Self Defense -  At least you would be fit when you get beaten up.


----------



## Marnetmar

> It's not that my art is lacking in certain areas, it's just that nobody knows how to use it properly but me!


^95% of this thread


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Double post so I will throw the idea in here. Don't fault the technique?
> 
> Some styles are just dumb. There is no quality control in martial arts.



Before I get accuse of supporting bad technique, I don't.  Skip to the end where I say the techniques are faulty for a fighting system.

That's horrible and I mean the music. lol.  Their approach is just terrible 
Well the good news is that they are still in business.  They push their product as aerobics self-defense mix. They don't consider themselves as a fighting system
Self-Defense has no quality control.  Martial arts has quality control limited to the association that monitors the quality if any.  Self-defense doesn't mean good fighting. Here's a good example of great self defense actually being used by a 6 year old. Is it the best fighting technique? Not even close. Does it work as a self-defense technique?  yeah it seems to work really well because she's not the only child that has used this tactic.





I give self defense tactic a little more breathing room for effectiveness than I do fighting systems because doing something is better than doing nothing. It turns out clawing at the face works sometimes.





I would never recommend those techniques as part of a fighting system because they are faulty and obviously weren't designed by someone who understands fighting.  It look to me as if someone took a look at a martial arts movie and decided that it would be a good idea for self defense. However a lucky elbow to the head or  a fist to the nuts is better than doing nothing. From the videos 2 different people did less than that and it worked.
Not justifying the video to be of any value, but next month I'm holding a self-defense course and part of the challenge that I have is showing self-defense methods that can be done with the minimum amount of conditioning.  There aren't many, even the simple grab escapes are only going to be limited to certain grabs and they would still need to practice them in order for the movement to be natural. I already know that part of the lesson is going to be. "better to do anything than to go quietly" that includes doing stuff like that in the video.  Like the 6 year old girl said, kick and scream as hard as you can.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RTKDCMB said:


> Aerobic Self Defense -  At least you would be fit when you get beaten up.


I would be shocked if I haven't seen or heard worse lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I would agree with Joe on this one... This is crap, bad technique, fake fighting, bad fighting system. This is where I could see testing the fighting system comes into play. If I walked him into the school I would have instantly show me how it works.  Like literally use it on me lol.  Definitely test any crap that looks unrealistic not by trying it yourself.  Don't waste your time, but have the teacher, who has more experience to pull it off, show you how it will works.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I would be shocked if I haven't seen or heard worse lol.



There was worse. I don't think I would be allowed to show it. It involved rape defence and a cucumber.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I would agree with Joe on this one... This is crap, bad technique, fake fighting, bad fighting system. This is where I could see testing the fighting system comes into play. If I walked him into the school I would have instantly show me how it works.  Like literally use it on me lol.  Definitely test any crap that looks unrealistic not by trying it yourself.  Don't waste your time, but have the teacher, who has more experience to pull it off, show you how it will works.



OK so why isn't that principle sound across the board. Like every time you escape a bear hug and the partner let's go. Or suddenly you do flips to help a wrist lock throw work.

I use bear hug because if they don't let go you generally don't get out.





Good back control is a really dominant position. So S.Ders get stuck in this choice between a technique that may not work and a situation that is not realistic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There was worse. I don't think I would be allowed to show it. It involved rape defence and a cucumber.


ha ha ha.. if you are talking about that video where the guy says crap on yourself and then rub it all over you then. too late.  If you aren't talking about that video then I'm glad I haven't seen it.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> The point is this; If you want to train in weapons, it makes more sense to learn how to use a gun, or take a FMA and learn to use knives and batons. You can actually carry those around and protect yourself. The idea that learning an ancient Chinese sword form from the 12th century is a good idea for self defense purposes is pretty laughable.



Most of what is learned from the Chinese sword forms we do can be applied to a stick weapon down to about the length of a forearm, like a baton. Some can be applied to a weapon of any length. Sword forms and basics are good for arm conditioning, which is good for empty hand.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Actually most people use guns, most people use knives. A crazy minority uses weapons from centuries ago.
> 
> The point is this; If you want to train in weapons, it makes more sense to learn how to use a gun, or take a FMA and learn to use knives and batons. You can actually carry those around and protect yourself. The idea that learning an ancient Chinese sword form from the 12th century is a good idea for self defense purposes is pretty laughable.



As mentioned in the previous post...it can be transferable in to







care to talk more about things you do not know about...like the whole Sanda thing


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK so why isn't that principle sound across the board. Like every time you escape a bear hug and the partner let's go. Or suddenly you do flips to help a wrist lock throw work.
> 
> I use bear hug because if they don't let go you generally don't get out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good back control is a really dominant position. So S.Ders get stuck in this choice between a technique that may not work and a situation that is not realistic.


Which principle are you referring to?   
As for the bear hug in that video I know nothing about that technique they are showing. I'm going to assume that the technique works when the grip isn't locked. I'm also going to assume that it only works when groin is within striking range and that's not always the case, with bear hugs from behind. It may work against your average attacker but with so many people taking MMA classes. I wouldn't want bet all my money on the hopes that I hit the groin hard enough to cause the attacker to naturally flinch or loosen the grip.

I like the BJJ approach and similar approaches because they are simple and they address the issue of leverage which prevent the slam that usually follows a bear hug.  On a personal level I rather have to deal with that type of bear hug than the one that goes under the arms or the one that pins one of my arms to my body. The under the arms bear hugs makes leaning forward useless.  Like you state back control is a really dominant position.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> OK so why isn't that principle sound across the board. Like every time you escape a bear hug and the partner let's go. Or suddenly you do flips to help a wrist lock throw work.
> 
> I use bear hug because if they don't let go you generally don't get out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good back control is a really dominant position. So S.Ders get stuck in this choice between a technique that may not work and a situation that is not realistic.




What do you think of this defense in comparison?






Interestingly, I was taught a completely different defense in my Bjj gym. If I find it I'll post it up.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> What do you think of this defense in comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, I was taught a completely different defense in my Bjj gym. If I find it I'll post it up.



When I step behind them I bring/jam my outside leg close in to their legs. It seems to help me the best, maybe because I'm a lightweight. Sometimes I throw that inside leg out behind their legs, (like the vid) bringing them down (me meeting floor first) kind of similar to the counter of a standing arm drag. Then I scramble like crazy, almost in a panic.

Sometimes I grab their legs and pull the legs up, depending. (You know how it is.) And sometimes a rear head but starts it off or comes somewhere in the middle - as was taught to me in, of all things, BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> When I step behind them I bring/jam my outside leg close in to their legs. It seems to help me the best, maybe because I'm a lightweight. Sometimes I throw that inside leg out behind their legs, (like the vid) bringing them down (me meeting floor first) kind of similar to the counter of a standing arm drag. Then I scramble like crazy, almost in a panic.
> 
> Sometimes I grab their legs and pull the legs up, depending. (You know how it is.) And sometimes a rear head but starts it off or comes somewhere in the middle - as was taught to me in, of all things, BJJ.



Interesting. I was taught to do pretty much exactly the same as the vid above until the step behind them. At that point, I would place my hands on the side of their knees, and pop my hip forward. If done correctly, the person should go flying behind you while you stay standing. 

I use that throw when people ask me to show them Jiujitsu.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> What do you think of this defense in comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, I was taught a completely different defense in my Bjj gym. If I find it I'll post it up.



Still dosent work well.I mean go to you bjj gym and try i t and see who you catch


----------



## RTKDCMB

Xue Sheng said:


>


All illegal in Australia.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> What do you think of this defense in comparison?


We do a similar one except the defender remains standing.

If you notice the defender goes into a horse stance.


----------



## Xue Sheng

RTKDCMB said:


> All illegal in Australia.



I don't live in Australia..

Are short staffs and Escrima sticks illegal in Australia?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Xue Sheng said:


> Are short staffs and Escrima sticks illegal in Australia?


Not sure but I know extendable batons are.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think escrima sticks are also illegal, but it may only be for Victoria.
That means if I move there then all of my kung fu weapon training will have to be a broom stick and a branch from a tree.  There must be some really big fights in Victoria using weapons.


----------



## TSDTexan

Its funny about some jurisdictions.

In the US, our 2nd Amendment recognized the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.  These days all folks think this means is firearms. But George Washington carried both a sword and a gun, as did quite a few others.

I see a great deal of stupid in our local ordinances.

This is legal to carry in its packaging. Even if the clear bubblepack is slit for knife removal.




But this is not. Even though it is very unlikely that I can actually kill someone with it.
Its a bokken knife (_tantō bo)_


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> What do you think of this defense in comparison?


When my arms are inside of my opponent's hug, I would

- separate both of my elbows sideway as far as I can (this can be difficult if my opponent's arms are right on my elbow joints), and
- drop down into a wide horse stance as low as I can

to break that "bear hug from behind" and make my opponent to feel that I just slide off his hug as a "slippery fish". But I may have to do that before my opponent's hug is completely locked on me.


----------



## Flying Crane

TSDTexan said:


> Its funny about some jurisdictions.
> 
> In the US, our 2nd Amendment recognized the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.  These days all folks think this means is firearms. But George Washington carried both a sword and a gun, as did quite a few others.
> 
> I see a great deal of stupid in our local ordinances.
> 
> This is legal to carry in its packaging. Even if the clear bubblepack is slit for knife removal.
> View attachment 19559
> 
> But this is not. Even though it is very unlikely that I can actually kill someone with it.
> Its a bokken knife (_tantō bo)_
> View attachment 19560


Oh I could certainly kill someone with it.


----------



## TSDTexan

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I could certainly kill someone with it.



You could thrust and crush a windpipe or bury it in an eye socket. 
Or maybe get lucky with a "deadly" pressure point strike.

But certainty is being able to do it a required ability to do it consistently and with a great measure of reliability(sp).

I cannot say that about myself.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> In the US, our 2nd Amendment recognized the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.


Everyone in the US has the right to wear singlets and short sleeve shirts (you have the right to bare arms). .


----------



## TSDTexan

I think this guy could take Joe Rogan and spank him across his knee after ragdolling him..


----------



## Steve

TSDTexan said:


> I think this guy could take Joe Rogan and spank him across his knee after ragdolling him..


Maybe.  Maybe not.  But that guy does very impressive demonstrations.


----------



## kuniggety

TSDTexan said:


> I think this guy could take Joe Rogan and spank him across his knee after ragdolling him..


Demos look cool but demos against over reaching compliant partners is exactly the kind of thing Joe Rogan complains about. I'm not saying if this guy could or couldn't take Joe Rogan because I don't know what his fighting prowess is from the video.


----------



## TSDTexan

kuniggety said:


> Demos look cool but demos against over reaching compliant partners is exactly the kind of thing Joe Rogan complains about. I'm not saying if this guy could or couldn't take Joe Rogan because I don't know what his fighting prowess is from the video.




About his prowess:
*"the most dangerous man in japan in a real fight"*

Said:
*Donald Frederick "Donn" Draeger (Captain, USMCRetired)*
Who was ranked:
Kyoshi menkyo in Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū, 5th-dan judo, 7th-dan kendo, 7th-dan iaido, Menkyo (post.) in Shindō Musō-ryū Jōdō and 7th-dan in jōdō.

Combat experience: Fought in "the battle of Iwo Jima" and was part of the marine detachment specially trained to invade mainland Japan...

How broad a view and wide an exposure of Japanese martial arts did he have?

His most influential books were probably:
_
Asian Fighting Arts_ (written with Robert W. Smith, Tuttle, 1969) and
_
Martial Arts and Ways of Japan_ (Weatherhill, 3 volumes, 1973-1974).

He wrote dozens of books on MA.
He was a martial artist.
Was a combat experienced marine from WW2 fighting in one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific.

Draeger's research, theories, and concepts inspired a generation of martial art researchers and practitioners, and as of 2012, many of his books remain in print.

He reasearch wss 1st hand and exhaustive. . . His view was very broad and at the same time deep.

His fighting assessment of Morio Hiaganna was not something causally tossed out there. A professional who could make such an assessment actually did make that assessment.

It is easy to dismiss a demo.
It can be dangerous to do so.

Morio... isnt just some magic finger pointing Aiki invisible force user. He is a guy who enjoys beating up quite large rocks and concrete walls/support columns, and students  who want to "play" with him in his Honbu Dojo.


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> I think this guy could take Joe Rogan and spank him across his knee after ragdolling him..



Yeah, I don't think so. I love pretty demos though.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I don't think so. I love pretty demos though.


\
The trouble is, then, we see some many, many TM Artist's present these 'pretty' demos.  Then, go into full contact competitions & fight like kick boxers, often sloppy ones @ that.  Get their lights punched out.
\
We don't know if the pretty-demo karate practitioners can do real karate until  they either do it or don't do it.  Me though, I would never write off an Okinawan karate master 'cause his form looked good (pretty).
\
But then again, you're trying to recruit self-defense students who will never aspire to the strict standards of Higaonna.
\
So good luck with all of that....


----------



## Buka

TSDTexan said:


> I think this guy could take Joe Rogan and spank him across his knee after ragdolling him..



That was awesome! I could watch that stuff all day. (probably while hiding behind the couch, peeking)

I'll bet Joe Rogan would love that video as well. Probably praise the heck out of it because he has a great eye for the Arts. He's a really good Martial Artist. Really good. Monkey strong, too.


----------



## drop bear

I am confused.we are looking for a traditional guy to flog Joe rogan and we didn't pick an Andy hug or Sam Greco or something.


TSDTexan said:


> About his prowess:
> *"the most dangerous man in japan in a real fight"*
> 
> Said:
> *Donald Frederick "Donn" Draeger (Captain, USMCRetired)*
> Who was ranked:
> Kyoshi menkyo in Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū, 5th-dan judo, 7th-dan kendo, 7th-dan iaido, Menkyo (post.) in Shindō Musō-ryū Jōdō and 7th-dan in jōdō.
> 
> Combat experience: Fought in "the battle of Iwo Jima" and was part of the marine detachment specially trained to invade mainland Japan...
> 
> How broad a view and wide an exposure of Japanese martial arts did he have?
> 
> His most influential books were probably:
> _
> Asian Fighting Arts_ (written with Robert W. Smith, Tuttle, 1969) and
> _
> Martial Arts and Ways of Japan_ (Weatherhill, 3 volumes, 1973-1974).
> 
> He wrote dozens of books on MA.
> He was a martial artist.
> Was a combat experienced marine from WW2 fighting in one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific.
> 
> Draeger's research, theories, and concepts inspired a generation of martial art researchers and practitioners, and as of 2012, many of his books remain in print.
> 
> He reasearch wss 1st hand and exhaustive. . . His view was very broad and at the same time deep.
> 
> His fighting assessment of Morio Hiaganna was not something causally tossed out there. A professional who could make such an assessment actually did make that assessment.
> 
> It is easy to dismiss a demo.
> It can be dangerous to do so.
> 
> Morio... isnt just some magic finger pointing Aiki invisible force user. He is a guy who enjoys beating up quite large rocks and concrete walls/support columns, and students  who want to "play" with him in his Honbu Dojo.



So who did he fight to validate his karate works. Or is he just a tough guy who happens to do karate.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> I am confused.we are looking for a traditional guy to flog Joe rogan and we didn't pick an Andy hug or Sam Greco or something.
> 
> 
> So who did he fight to validate his karate works. Or is he just a tough guy who happens to do karate.




Bwahaha.
/sigh.

You are more than welcome to go to okinawa and call him out. Dont be surprised if one of his students whip the snot outta ya first and then admit they themselves are not ready to tackle the Grandmaster of his organization.

He is a tough guy made tough by doing his father's karate.

I dont see a lot of TMA critics flying out to Okinawa to actually test the Karate schools. In the old days, it was surprisingly common for a teacher to get challenged. 
If you won the teach usually would retire.
If you lost... you would become his student.

Some schools honor od ways.


----------



## renc

Steve said:


> Ah.  Okay.  So, you do agree that McDojos are bad.  So does Joe rogan.



We can all agree that McDojos are bad, I can, you can, Joe Rogan can, a marginally introspective chicken can, it's like the evil twin of motherhood and apple pie.
If that's all Joe Rogan were saying, there wouldn't be a discussion.
The point for Joe Rogan is ... if  you're saying that McDojos are bad, then say that McDojos are bad and *don't* over-generalize (stereotype) to 'Kung Fu'... hundreds of martial art systems, thousands of clubs and millions of practitioners.
That's sloppy communication. Sloppy communication drives sloppy thought drives sloppy action.
Like not recovering the hip from kicks.
Joe Rogan misidentifies the problem. Wrong problem wrong solution. Then I doubt that McDojo-ism is his driving concern.

Joe Rogan and his pal Nic Gregoriades trade in stereotypes. Repeatedly from their soap boxes. These aren't one-off casual remarks.
They poison the well for newcomers.

If McDojos and training methods are open for criticism, so are Joe and Nic for their repeated public comments.
If martial arts are to be held to a high standard, so *must* communication about martial arts.

A common theme I hear in MMA circles is 'science' / 'empiricism'. I like the idea. I admire Drop Bears' approach to his training. It's a positive can-do attitude. It's also *fun*.

I think Rogan subscribes to this idea of doing science when he talks of MMA as "the science of fighting". He also styles himself as a scientific skeptic on a number of issues.

An empirical approach to your own training is relatively easy to accomplish. An empirical comparison between techniques -> training methods -> principles -> martial arts systems is increasingly difficult.

A central claim made by Joe Rogan is 'effectiveness'. I have yet to see Joe Rogan define effectiveness in a way that is measurable, that we can at least in theory put numbers to. So the problem is ill defined. So we are not doing science yet. So Joe talking in no uncertain terms is hubris.

Science is a high bar.

Rogan's hypothesis is that 'Kung Fu' are stuffed with sub-optimal techniques as a result of not sparring, and his evidence is an illogical claim about the effectiveness of a backfist vs an overhand right and talking of the effectiveness of a technique (monkey fist) which he isn't sure exists (!) Not rigorous and not scientific. Plenty of shaky assumptions there too.

Science has peer review which is a low pass filter on communications. The internets by comparison has no filter and no marginal competence. Bad ideas infects minds and spreads through and changes cultures. The same tired old discredited themes recirculate instead of dying out.



> "It's that it doesn't work on the right people, you can probably knock on an 86 year old grandmother with the white crane dancing tiger technique" - Nicolas Gregoriades





> "If you look at some of those more ridiculous martial arts [...] without fail, every single 45 year old plus traditional martial artist is the one who's got a slouch and a beer belly and you can see he hasn't done a pushup for like fifteen years" - Nicolas Gregoriades



Hyperbole, ridicule and stereotype. Rhetorical devices, not good communication. Not scientific nor productive.


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> The trouble is, then, we see some many, many TM Artist's present these 'pretty' demos.  Then, go into full contact competitions & fight like kick boxers, often sloppy ones @ that.  Get their lights punched out.
> \
> We don't know if the pretty-demo karate practitioners can do real karate until  they either do it or don't do it.  Me though, I would never write off an Okinawan karate master 'cause his form looked good (pretty).
> \
> But then again, you're trying to recruit self-defense students who will never aspire to the strict standards of Higaonna.
> \
> So good luck with all of that....




We have venues where Okinawan karate masters or their students are more than welcome to step up and show the world their prowess. Such venues even exist in Japan and other parts of Asia.

The fact that not a single one has stepped up should speak volumes.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Bwahaha.
> /sigh.
> 
> You are more than welcome to go to okinawa and call him out. Dont be surprised if one of his students whip the snot outta ya first and then admit they themselves are not ready to tackle the Grandmaster of his organization.
> 
> He is a tough guy made tough by doing his father's karate.
> 
> I dont see a lot of TMA critics flying out to Okinawa to actually test the Karate schools. In the old days, it was surprisingly common for a teacher to get challenged.
> If you won the teach usually would retire.
> If you lost... you would become his student.
> 
> Some schools honor od ways.



He is more than welcome to come to airlie beach and call me out.

Something something about how cool my training is. And how nobody challenges me because they are too scared.

And from that we can conclude that we are obviously both world class martial artists and resolve that we should never meet lest the resulting conflict destroys the earth.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> We can all agree that McDojos are bad, I can, you can, Joe Rogan can, a marginally introspective chicken can, it's like the evil twin of motherhood and apple pie.
> If that's all Joe Rogan were saying, there wouldn't be a discussion.
> The point for Joe Rogan is ... if  you're saying that McDojos are bad, then say that McDojos are bad and *don't* over-generalize (stereotype) to 'Kung Fu'... hundreds of martial art systems, thousands of clubs and millions of practitioners.
> That's sloppy communication. Sloppy communication drives sloppy thought drives sloppy action.
> Like not recovering the hip from kicks.
> Joe Rogan misidentifies the problem. Wrong problem wrong solution. Then I doubt that McDojo-ism is his driving concern.
> 
> Joe Rogan and his pal Nic Gregoriades trade in stereotypes. Repeatedly from their soap boxes. These aren't one-off casual remarks.
> They poison the well for newcomers.
> 
> If McDojos and training methods are open for criticism, so are Joe and Nic for their repeated public comments.
> If martial arts are to be held to a high standard, so *must* communication about martial arts.
> 
> A common theme I hear in MMA circles is 'science' / 'empiricism'. I like the idea. I admire Drop Bears' approach to his training. It's a positive can-do attitude. It's also *fun*.
> 
> I think Rogan subscribes to this idea of doing science when he talks of MMA as "the science of fighting". He also styles himself as a scientific skeptic on a number of issues.
> 
> An empirical approach to your own training is relatively easy to accomplish. An empirical comparison between techniques -> training methods -> principles -> martial arts systems is increasingly difficult.
> 
> A central claim made by Joe Rogan is 'effectiveness'. I have yet to see Joe Rogan define effectiveness in a way that is measurable, that we can at least in theory put numbers to. So the problem is ill defined. So we are not doing science yet. So Joe talking in no uncertain terms is hubris.
> 
> Science is a high bar.
> 
> Rogan's hypothesis is that 'Kung Fu' are stuffed with sub-optimal techniques as a result of not sparring, and his evidence is an illogical claim about the effectiveness of a backfist vs an overhand right and talking of the effectiveness of a technique (monkey fist) which he isn't sure exists (!) Not rigorous and not scientific. Plenty of shaky assumptions there too.
> 
> Science has peer review which is a low pass filter on communications. The internets by comparison has no filter and no marginal competence. Bad ideas infects minds and spreads through and changes cultures. The same tired old discredited themes recirculate instead of dying out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole, ridicule and stereotype. Rhetorical devices, not good communication. Not scientific nor productive.



Then you would go to simplest terms. Does martial art come with evidence. Mma does,boxing does,bjj kick boxing and so on.

Does kung fu? Sanda does mabye a few others. But a lot don't. Which is much more stark and brutal than Joe rogans commentary.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> The fact that not a single one has stepped up should speak volumes.


 
How is that a "fact?"


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> The fact that not a single one has stepped up should speak volumes.



Expecting evidence to present itself whilst drawing a conclusion from its absence would underwhelm a scientist.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> How is that a "fact?"



There's examples of Okinawan karate masters winning in NHB competitions?

Where?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> There's examples of Okinawan karate masters winning in NHB competitions?
> 
> Where?


*You're* the one making definitive statements, not me: absence of evidence *is not* evidence of absence.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> *You're* the one making definitive statements, not me: absence of evidence *is not* evidence of absence.



And you're the one saying that my statement that there's no Okinawan karate masters in NHB or MMA isnt a fact.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> And you're the one saying that my statement that there's no Okinawan karate masters in NHB or MMA isnt a fact.



If you make a statement you have to prove it. So if it is a fact that there no Okinawan karate masters in nhb you have to show that which of course you can't do. Facts have sources.
(I know we have walked down the road to insane town before with this idea but that is the generally accepted way to go.)

But what the issue is here is a case of terminology. What you should have said is there is no evidence of Okinawan karate masters performing in nhb or mma.

Which I would not have a clue either way.

But there are probably guys who do Okinawan karate who do mma. Is kyokkushin Okinawan? Cos then there are a few fairly decent guys running around.

Otherwise I bet the Japanese Kudo team has some krotty guys as well. But regardless none of these guys are defined by methods like kata or demos and so on. The common element will generally be they train like fighters.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> We have venues where Okinawan karate masters or their students are more than welcome to step up and show the world their prowess. Such venues even exist in Japan and other parts of Asia.
> 
> The fact that not a single one has stepped up should speak volumes.


\
That's a valid point.  Yet one that has been addressed before through other venues & forums.  Your point, while valid, is not conclusive.
\
For a counterpoint, the Gracie's stepped into MMA and soon gained an aura of invincibility.  So BJJ became the new martial religion.
\
Then came along some true MMA talent the likes of Matt Hughes.  The Gracie style was flattened like a pancake with MMA striking & wrestling.
\
I have faced the same attitude as from yourself when other karate traditionalist's failed against kick boxers, boxers, grapplers -- or even other aggressive & physically intimidating members @ my dojo..  Because one trains the form of a style, doesn't mean they represent the style competently.  I've defeated opponent after opponent when the vast majority @ my school initially thought I had no chance.
\
May be the Okinawan's are busy training true to karate standards and don't desire the fairly pitiful risk / reward of an MMA career?  A distinct possibility.


----------



## ShotoNoob

OK, YOU ASKED FOR IT.  HERE I AM IN ALL MY GLORY!





Hanzou said:


> We have venues where Okinawan karate masters or their students are more than welcome to step up and show the world their prowess. Such venues even exist in Japan and other parts of Asia.
> 
> The fact that not a single one has stepped up should speak volumes.


\




\
Notice "i've" mustered enough athletics to hipty-hop spin wheel kick the board.  It's that _darndedededed_ backfist nobody "eats very often."
\
Shake it out, shake it out.  Yeah us TKD guys just need to shake it out to do the cool break.  Break board, cool-Oh.
\
Why we see TKD sometimes pull through in MMA.  Nothing speaks volumes _Hanzou_ like "Shake it out."
|

Edit: Notice how the rest of the class is vigorously working out in preparation for their future MMA careers...  Why aren't they working harder?  Well TKD is nifty cool, let's shake it out and clap, clap, clap Billy-sue's nifty TKD technique.  Speaks volumes about the how the real way to fight is to ditch TKD & train Joe Rogan-MMA (Rogan should have a vid-set out anytime now, dont' you think?).
|
Edit2: Notice how the 2 TKD Master's (black gi's) get involved. Their ministrations & all their moral support doesn't aid in breaking the board.  Funny.  They mus'ta thought they were that Kiai Master for a moment, the one you all panned......
\
Edit3: LOL.
|
Edit4: Send this guy a plane ticket to Michigan.  Fed x right away....


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> [edit]
> 
> Otherwise I bet the Japanese Kudo team has some krotty guys as well. But regardless none of these guys are defined by methods like kata or demos and so on. The common element will generally be they train like fighters.


|
More "Self Defense" school dogma.  Snore.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> More "Self Defense" school dogma.  Snore.



Well that seems the trend for successful fighters. There is no evidence that suggests that kata has been the defining actor in the majority of fighters. I don't even know of a minority of fighters that use kata soley or even as the bulkof their traning. It. Tends to be used as a supplemental training.

Arts like Kudo,like kyokkushin, like sanda and any other art that could actually show a proven result,spar. They spar hard and with good people. They invest in conditioning and fitness. And they are evoking martial artists.

These trends have been repeated club to club,system to system.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> May be the Okinawan's are busy training true to karate standards and don't desire the fairly pitiful risk / reward of an MMA career? A distinct possibility.



So they avoid competition because they dont want to risk loosing and therefore loosing their standings as martial artists.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So they avoid competition because they dont want to risk loosing and therefore loosing their standings as martial artists.



That's it, you have uncovered the hidden secret of non-competitive martial arts, however shall we live down the shame of being found out?


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> I dont see a lot of TMA critics flying out to Okinawa to actually test the Karate schools.


And you probably won't. It's all talk, people say a lot of things. I have had a few people criticizing me over the years  when they heard I study a martial art, saying things like they would easily take me or that if they did this I would have no way to stop them but not one of them, ever, has tried to test their 'theory' because it's all talk.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Then you would go to simplest terms. Does martial art come with evidence.



What evidence are you looking for?



> Which is much more stark and brutal than Joe rogans commentary.



Stark and brutal - and accurate, logical and productive is fine. Rogan's isn't.


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> And you're the one saying that my statement that there's no Okinawan karate masters in NHB or MMA isnt a fact.



No he didn't...


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> If you make a statement you have to prove it. So if it is a fact that there no Okinawan karate masters in nhb you have to show that which of course you can't do. Facts have sources.
> (I know we have walked down the road to insane town before with this idea but that is the generally accepted way to go.)



Expecting the evidence to present itself then drawing strong conclusions with a bunch of hidden assumptions is the insanely risky road. A working scientist might agree.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> If you make a statement you have to prove it. So if it is a fact that there no Okinawan karate masters in nhb you have to show that which of course you can't do. Facts have sources.
> (I know we have walked down the road to insane town before with this idea but that is the generally accepted way to go.)
> 
> But what the issue is here is a case of terminology. What you should have said is there is no evidence of Okinawan karate masters performing in nhb or mma.
> 
> Which I would not have a clue either way.
> 
> But there are probably guys who do Okinawan karate who do mma. Is kyokkushin Okinawan? Cos then there are a few fairly decent guys running around.



Nope, Kyokushin is not Okinawan, it's Japanese.

And yeah, we tend to see Kyokushin guys pop up in MMA because fighting is such a big part of the style.



> Otherwise I bet the Japanese Kudo team has some krotty guys as well. But regardless none of these guys are defined by methods like kata or demos and so on. The common element will generally be they train like fighters.



Yep.


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> That's a valid point.  Yet one that has been addressed before through other venues & forums.  Your point, while valid, is not conclusive.
> \
> For a counterpoint, the Gracie's stepped into MMA and soon gained an aura of invincibility.  So BJJ became the new martial religion.
> \
> Then came along some true MMA talent the likes of Matt Hughes.  The Gracie style was flattened like a pancake with MMA striking & wrestling.



You're behind the times. Bjj guys continue to pop up in MMA and do fairly well.



> May be the Okinawan's are busy training true to karate standards and don't desire the fairly pitiful risk / reward of an MMA career?  A distinct possibility.



Making millions is pitiful compared to living in poverty?


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Expecting the evidence to present itself then drawing strong conclusions with a bunch of hidden assumptions is the insanely risky road. A working scientist might agree.



Mate you have no idea. People were their own sources. There were sources third party anecdotes evidence in locked bunkers across the world. The idea that they did not have to do my research for me.  all sorts of cool stuff going on. 

I had to do a whole thing on the celestial tea cup and everything..


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Mate you have no idea. People were their own sources. There were sources third party anecdotes evidence in locked bunkers across the world. The idea that they did not have to do my research for me.  all sorts of cool stuff going on.
> 
> I had to do a whole thing on the celestial tea cup and everything..



Russell put it that the rational view is agnostic - even if the practical impact is negligible. You can find good TMA schools and decide if there's anything worth learning. Or you can wait for someone to come to your club. Either way is ok. Neither way is an exhaustive search. The problem is people in their ponds claiming they've got the whole ocean wrapped up. Even MMA is a pond. Most of us live happily in our ponds. That's ok too.

I am my own source. I don't think any better can be reasonably claimed from the current state of knowledge. Claims about 'effectiveness' of techniques / training methods / systems are statistical and there is nothing *remotely* close to passing for a valid statistical study. Starting with a consistent, measurable definition of 'effective'. Instead there is illogic, rhetoric and hubris under the banner of science. This is bad for communication, bad for martial arts, regardless of whose art is more effective blah blah blah.

I've trained Sanda for 'many' years. Some individuals who've trained forms for 'many' years have rolled me over with consummate ease in gloves off nhb sparring, some of those same have done similar in self defence. They've got no interest in entering an MMA competition and nothing to prove by doing so. Put gloves on them and spar Sanda rules with me and their dominance vanishes. That's my experience. I know that the 'traditional' arts we train can be applied effectively and that I can apply them effectively against some individuals. I also know that context matters. I don't know if I could apply other arts *more* effectively given the same amount and quality of training. My plate is full at the moment with enough to learn - good enough for me. But then I'm not claiming my art / training methods to be more effective than others.


----------



## Steve

renc said:


> Hyperbole, ridicule and stereotype. Rhetorical devices, not good communication. Not scientific nor productive.


Here's the root of this entire thread.  It's not what Joe Rogan said.  It's how he said it.


----------



## TSDTexan

Perhaps somethings... already have been proven amongst themselves and have no need to prove themselves to others.


----------



## TSDTexan

Found this for you hanzou


----------



## ShotoNoob

RTKDCMB said:


> And you probably won't. It's all talk, people say a lot of things. I have had a few people criticizing me over the years  when they heard I study a martial art, saying things like they would easily take me or that if they did this I would have no way to stop them but not one of them, ever, has tried to test their 'theory' because it's all talk.


\
Don't worry RTKDCMB.  They have to go through the TKD black-belt in my board break-fail video 1st!
\
Backfist, no; but he's still got that 'wicked' hopity spin wheel kick.
|
Edit: Shake it out, shake it out.


----------



## ShotoNoob

BEAR-BABY.  Thanks for answering so conclusively.


drop bear said:


> Well that seems the trend for successful fighters. There is no evidence that suggests that kata has been the defining actor in the majority of fighters. I don't even know of a minority of fighters that use kata soley or even as the bulkof their traning. It. Tends to be used as a supplemental training.


\
K-man, Rafa, where are you'se guys?



drop bear said:


> Arts like Kudo,like kyokkushin, like sanda and any other art that could actually show a proven result,spar. They spar hard and with good people. They invest in conditioning and fitness. And they are evoking martial artists.


\
"They invest in conditioning  fitness."  I see the TKD practitioners in my back-fist fail vid, I see what you're saying.  Sitting around, playing around, waking aimlessly around.  Oh, I forgot, staring @ the ceiling.  Not to mention the woman black-belt observing / watching "me" fail repeatedly in my backfist break.... wishing / hoping, no / praying I won't ask her out to dinner after class....
\
All top TKD performers, they are.....



drop bear said:


> These trends have been repeated club to club,system to system.


\
Followers, not leaders.



drop bear said:


> So they avoid competition because they dont want to risk loosing and therefore loosing their standings as martial artists.


\
Retirement like Ali,? NOT.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> You're behind the times. Bjj guys continue to pop up in MMA and do fairly well.


\
Hanzou, what do you think I'm doing on this forum????????????????????
\
Not a one of the TMA schools, their legacy from all over the world - was ever able to help me (see TKD back fist FAIL vid).  'Til I came here & met you.
\


Hanzou said:


> Making millions is pitiful compared to living in poverty?


\
Thanks, Hanzou.  I never knew why that TUF house was so easy to fill.  And heck, where are all those TUF house guys, where are they now?
\
EDIT: How'd Gustafsson's BJJ do against Comier?  Fairly well is right.  Since you're so handy, why not cancel the plane flight to OKY-land & re-charter a trip out to Gus following his _2nd title fight loss._  Gus & his much-vaunted BJJ need you badly.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Nope, Kyokushin is not Okinawan, it's Japanese.
> 
> And yeah, we tend to see Kyokushin guys pop up in MMA because fighting is such a big part of the style.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.


Your distinction is a bit off. Re k.k. being Japanese.

It appears that:
Kyokushin is rooted in Funikoshi's okinawan (Itosu taught Shuri-te), and Miyagi's okinawan gojo karates(Naha-te). Also, It wasnt founded by a Japanese individual but a Korean.

Goshin-jutsu, the specific self-defense techniques of the style draw much of their techniques and tactics from Mas Oyama's study of Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu. But you will be hard pressed to find a school that is not sport oriented that still teaches his self defense curriculum. 

I don't think Mas Oyama would have bothered with learning drajj or teaching it as his self defense curriculum, if he felt it didn't actually have validity in a real life fight.

With this curriculum heading to extinction it loses any real Japanese-ness and becomes very Oki.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Steve said:


> Here's the root of this entire thread.  It's not what Joe Rogan said.  It's how he said it.


\
I knew you were going to say that.


----------



## TSDTexan

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> I knew you were going to say that.


Meee ttttoooooo


----------



## Steve

Simple truths are easy to predict, guys.  Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't saying it.


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> Hanzou, what do you think I'm doing on this forum????????????????????



Frankly, I don't really care.



> How'd Gustafsson's BJJ do against Comier?  Fairly well is right.  Since you're so handy, why not cancel the plane flight to OKY-land & re-charter a trip out to Gus following his _2nd title fight loss._  Gus & his much-vaunted BJJ need you badly.



Er... What?

Gustafsson's base style is boxing, not Bjj. He also practiced shoot fighting. His Bjj training is fairly recent, and he is a purple belt.

Cormier is actually ranked higher in Bjj than Gustafsson is. Cormier has a brown belt, and that brown belt is complemented well by his stellar wrestling background.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Russell put it that the rational view is agnostic - even if the practical impact is negligible. You can find good TMA schools and decide if there's anything worth learning. Or you can wait for someone to come to your club. Either way is ok. Neither way is an exhaustive search. The problem is people in their ponds claiming they've got the whole ocean wrapped up. Even MMA is a pond. Most of us live happily in our ponds. That's ok too.
> 
> I am my own source. I don't think any better can be reasonably claimed from the current state of knowledge. Claims about 'effectiveness' of techniques / training methods / systems are statistical and there is nothing *remotely* close to passing for a valid statistical study. Starting with a consistent, measurable definition of 'effective'. Instead there is illogic, rhetoric and hubris under the banner of science. This is bad for communication, bad for martial arts, regardless of whose art is more effective blah blah blah.
> 
> I've trained Sanda for 'many' years. Some individuals who've trained forms for 'many' years have rolled me over with consummate ease in gloves off nhb sparring, some of those same have done similar in self defence. They've got no interest in entering an MMA competition and nothing to prove by doing so. Put gloves on them and spar Sanda rules with me and their dominance vanishes. That's my experience. I know that the 'traditional' arts we train can be applied effectively and that I can apply them effectively against some individuals. I also know that context matters. I don't know if I could apply other arts *more* effectively given the same amount and quality of training. My plate is full at the moment with enough to learn - good enough for me. But then I'm not claiming my art / training methods to be more effective than others.



Yeah but you are not making the weird logic jump though. Where you validate your untested methods with stories about street or lineage or that sort of junk. And that is where it goes.

Ok Mma(or whatever but let's keep is simple) as a test of effectiveness is not an exhaustive test. But that does not validate no testing or conclusions based on dogma. What it does is test under a certain set of conditions. When you spar your kata friends it is a test under a certain set of conditions.

Eventually you start to build a trend. There is absolutely enough information for statistical analysis. Especially the amount of information we are getting at the moment.

Now mma is not tested on the street.(well again there is quite a bit of data. But we just pretend there isn't) this does not make the link that therefore krav (just keeping it simple) does work on the street. Even if we say IDF or something or train in camouflage pants.

Does chi balls work?
Well it has been tested scientifically and has so far failed to.

But have we tried it on the street? Well no so therefore it must work.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> The problem is people in their ponds claiming they've got the whole ocean wrapped up. Even MMA is a pond. Most of us live happily in our ponds. That's ok too.



Except mma is not a pond. It is a river. It draws from other martial arts and feeds back into them. When it ceases to do that then you will have your issue.

Any system can do mma at any level using their own system using a combination or using mma. I mean we are starting to see medievil sword fighting in mma now.

This is why we can both do sanda against a guy who only trains in forms and see what happens.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> But there are probably guys who do Okinawan karate who do mma. Is kyokkushin Okinawan? Cos then there are a few fairly decent guys running around.
> 
> Otherwise I bet the Japanese Kudo team has some krotty guys as well. But regardless none of these guys are defined by methods like kata or demos and so on. The common element will generally be they train like fighters.



I would argue that the krotty guys, as you call them are not Karateka at all.... but karateka in name only.

Ancient okinawa saying: Karate is Kata, Kata is karate.
Before Kumite was a common practice.... everyone did Kata. KATA WAS Karate.

No one ever heard the old masters say
Kihon is Karate.
Or
Kumite is Karate.


*5.*_ “In the past, it was expected that about three years were required to learn a single kata, and usually even an expert of considerable skill would only know (specifically have mastered) three, or at most five, kata.”_* – Gichin Funakoshi*

After Gitchen went to Japan... He told one of his students there were 15 forms and they could be learned in about 5 years, a year and a half if they were already a martial artist.

However,
The old masters used to keep a narrow field but plough a deep furrow.

Present day students have a broad field but only plough a shallow furrow." Genshin Hironishi says -- with what authority I don't know -- that Funakoshi's' karate practice involved the study of 100 kata, but that seems unlikely. When he settled in Japan he taught 15 kata, and by the standards of the day that was a fairly large number.

All the more remarkable because GF admitted to spending 10 years learning the three Nahanchi forms.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Here's the root of this entire thread.  It's not what Joe Rogan said.  It's how he said it.



Well yeah but media. What do people expect.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> I would argue that the krotty guys, as you call them are not Karateka at all.... but karateka in name only.
> 
> Ancient okinawa saying: Karate is Kata, Kata is karate.
> Before Kumite was a common practice.... everyone did Kata. KATA WAS Karate.
> 
> No one ever heard the old masters say
> Kihon is Karate.
> Or
> Kumite is Karate.
> 
> 
> *5.*_ “In the past, it was expected that about three years were required to learn a single kata, and usually even an expert of considerable skill would only know (specifically have mastered) three, or at most five, kata.”_* – Gichin Funakoshi*
> 
> After Gitchen went to Japan... He told one of his students there were 15 forms and they could be learned in about 5 years, a year and a half if they were already a martial artist.
> 
> However,
> The old masters used to keep a narrow field but plough a deep furrow.
> 
> Present day students have a broad field but only plough a shallow furrow." Genshin Hironishi says -- with what authority I don't know -- that Funakoshi's' karate practice involved the study of 100 kata, but that seems unlikely. When he settled in Japan he taught 15 kata, and by the standards of the day that was a fairly large number.
> 
> All the more remarkable because GF admitted to spending 10 years learning the three Nahanchi forms.



Ony if krotty is the stagnant reflection of hironishi. That will slowly devolve as a copy of a copy does rather than evolve into something better.


----------



## TSDTexan

ShotoNoob said:


> BEAR-BABY.  Thanks for answering so conclusively.
> 
> \
> K-man, Rafa, where are you'se guys?
> 
> 
> \
> "They invest in conditioning  fitness."  I see the TKD practitioners in my back-fist fail vid, I see what you're saying.  Sitting around, playing around, waking aimlessly around.  Oh, I forgot, staring @ the ceiling.  Not to mention the woman black-belt observing / watching "me" fail repeatedly in my backfist break.... wishing / hoping, no / praying I won't ask her out to dinner after class....
> \
> All top TKD performers, they are.....
> 
> 
> \
> Followers, not leaders.
> 
> 
> \
> Retirement like Ali,? NOT.


I guess Dropbear is unaware of the Uechi-ryu Sanchin and how doing this kata the Uechi way makes monsters of conditioning.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Mate you have no idea. People were their own sources. There were sources third party anecdotes evidence in locked bunkers across the world. The idea that they did not have to do my research for me. all sorts of cool stuff going on.
> 
> I had to do a whole thing on the celestial tea cup and everything..



The definition of evidence is much broader than what you personally accept or have seen with your own eyes in person or on video.



drop bear said:


> Does chi balls work?
> Well it has been tested scientifically and has so far failed to.
> 
> But have we tried it on the street? Well no so therefore it must work.



Reductio absurdum:

Chi balls don't work therefore TMA's don't either.

In regards to testing an art the test has to be appropriate because inappropriate testing can be just as detrimental as not testing at all. Full contact competition fighting in a cage is not an appropriate test for everything. To test a competition style then competition is required. The test of a self defense style occurs when it is used in a real self defense situation.In either case you will not know for sure if or how well something will work in any given situation until you are in that situation


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Making millions is pitiful compared to living in poverty?


What makes you think the Karate master is living in poverty and what percentage of  MMA fighters earn millions?


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> What makes you think the Karate master is living in poverty and what percentage of  MMA fighters earn millions?



A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions. He would be a massive draw for the sport.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions. He would be a massive draw for the sport.


 To be honest a traditional karate "master" probably could care less about MMA.  That person's life long desire was to master karate and not MMA.  But if any MMA student feels that it's all crap then they are more than welcome to go to one of the "bonafide traditional karate" schools and call the master out for being a fraud.  I can't guarantee the MMA guy would win or even survive, but that's the only way you'll see that type of fight.  So far I haven't seen an MMA fighter do that.  Probably because MMA fighters don't get hung up in this TMA is whack attitude that non-MMA fighters carry.  I'm willing to bet that many MMA fighters actually train in a TMA still today.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> The definition of evidence is much broader than what you personally accept or have seen with your own eyes in person or on video.



It is not just tales from the street either.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Reductio absurdum:
> 
> Chi balls don't work therefore TMA's don't either.
> 
> In regards to testing an art the test has to be appropriate because inappropriate testing can be just as detrimental as not testing at all. Full contact competition fighting in a cage is not an appropriate test for everything. To test a competition style then competition is required. The test of a self defense style occurs when it is used in a real self defense situation.In either case you will not know for sure if or how well something will work in any given situation until you are in that situation



I think that is an unreasonable yard stick. But we will explore the idea.

So how many fights does an instructor of self defence have to have before he can say he has a legitimate system?

A sport system you would either have to wina lot of fights or win consistantly against some good guys.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, I don't really care.


\
Not nice.


Hanzou said:


> Er... What?
> 
> Gustafsson's base style is boxing, not Bjj. He also practiced shoot fighting. His Bjj training is fairly recent, and he is a purple belt.
> 
> Cormier is actually ranked higher in Bjj than Gustafsson is. Cormier has a brown belt, and that brown belt is complemented well by his stellar wrestling background.


\
T'anks for setting the record straight, I guess.
\
It's a _good_ forum with you here, thnx gawd.
\
Can't wait for more 'substance,' from Hanzou.


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> I would argue that the krotty guys, as you call them are not Karateka at all.... but karateka in name only.
> 
> Ancient okinawa saying: Karate is Kata, Kata is karate.
> Before Kumite was a common practice.... everyone did Kata. KATA WAS Karate.
> 
> No one ever heard the old masters say
> Kihon is Karate.
> Or
> Kumite is Karate.
> 
> 
> *5.*_ “In the past, it was expected that about three years were required to learn a single kata, and usually even an expert of considerable skill would only know (specifically have mastered) three, or at most five, kata.”_* – Gichin Funakoshi*
> 
> After Gitchen went to Japan... He told one of his students there were 15 forms and they could be learned in about 5 years, a year and a half if they were already a martial artist.
> 
> However,
> The old masters used to keep a narrow field but plough a deep furrow.
> 
> Present day students have a broad field but only plough a shallow furrow." Genshin Hironishi says -- with what authority I don't know -- that Funakoshi's' karate practice involved the study of 100 kata, but that seems unlikely. When he settled in Japan he taught 15 kata, and by the standards of the day that was a fairly large number.
> 
> All the more remarkable because GF admitted to spending 10 years learning the three Nahanchi forms.


\
Yeah, I couldn't EVER image what the old Masters could know.  I mean, Joe Rogan has _EVOLVED.
\
Edit: Plus MMA has "evolved."  Shake it out, Shake it out..._


----------



## ShotoNoob

TSDTexan said:


> I guess Dropbear is unaware of the Uechi-ryu Sanchin and how doing this kata the Uechi way makes monsters of conditioning.


\
Yeah, that's a superb example.  I always did tons of push ups, sit ups, running-in-place, etc.
\
And Hanzou was so busy being mean to me (aGAIN), he missed the one Black-Gi'd TKD Instructor's self-defense gambit against the woman TKD black-belt in "my" SHAKE-IT-OUT backfist break demo.  NO comment Hanzou?  Too busy memorizing MMA competitors' belt's in BJJ, whatever?  Gotcha, Hanzou.  Shake it out, bro.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So how many fights does an instructor of self defence have to have before he can say he has a legitimate system?


That is not the only criteria for a successful system.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions.



How about a bonafide traditional karate instructor;

Instructors

A bonafide traditional karate master (or other TMA) can make loads of money running a successful nationwide school too. Do you think the head of the ATA or GKR is living in poverty?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That is not the only criteria for a successful system.



The test of a self defence system is when it is used in self defence.  

So what ten fights. Fifty?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> The test of a self defence system is when it is used in self defence.
> 
> So what ten fights. Fifty?


Depends on if the number is for each individual or the combined population of those doing the self defense system and how conclusive you want the results to be. If a student of a self defense system is getting into fifty fights then he would be failing at using the self defense system.Then I guess the 30 or so single matches in the first 4 UFC's is enough for you to conclude that all traditional martial arts are inferior to combat sports.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Depends on if the number is for each individual or the combined population of those doing the self defense system and how conclusive you want the results to be. If a student of a self defense system is getting into fifty fights then he would be failing at using the self defense system.Then I guess the 30 or so single matches in the first 4 UFC's is enough for you to conclude that all traditional martial arts are inferior to combat sports.



Well I would of course like to know that these self defence situations are not just made up. Let's say it would be reasonable if your system kept a log of self defence situations that could at least be verified in some way.

Do you have anything like that?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> .Then I guess the 30 or so single matches in the first 4 UFC's is enough for you to conclude that all traditional martial arts are inferior to combat sports.




Not sure where you pulled this from. Let's just leave this be for now.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> How about a bonafide traditional karate instructor;
> 
> Instructors
> 
> A bonafide traditional karate master (or other TMA) can make loads of money running a successful nationwide school too. Do you think the head of the ATA or GKR is living in poverty?



Machida has too much non-Karate influence (he's also a black belt in Bjj).

Additionally he's past his prime.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest a traditional karate "master" probably could care less about MMA.  That person's life long desire was to master karate and not MMA.  But if any MMA student feels that it's all crap then they are more than welcome to go to one of the "bonafide traditional karate" schools and call the master out for being a fraud.  I can't guarantee the MMA guy would win or even survive, but that's the only way you'll see that type of fight.  So far I haven't seen an MMA fighter do that.  Probably because MMA fighters don't get hung up in this TMA is whack attitude that non-MMA fighters carry.  I'm willing to bet that many MMA fighters actually train in a TMA still today.



Really? TMA guys used to be all about competitions. Some styles were even created from the founders victory in NHB combat. Ueshiba, Motobu, Yuanija, etc. were all about accepting challenges.

I wonder what changed......


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Additionally he's past his prime.


So are most Karate masters.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Well I would of course like to know that these self defence situations are not just made up.



You have stated a number of times during your time as a doorman where you were in a scuffle and had to use some of your fighting skills. How do we know you have not just made up those?



drop bear said:


> Let's say it would be reasonable if your system kept a log of self defence situations that could at least be verified in some way.
> 
> Do you have anything like that?


Sorry but we don't walk around everywhere with official record keepers or a camera crew to capture the moments we find ourselves having to defend ourselves.

If tell you that I have been in a self defense situation and what happened and i do not have police reports, video or newspaper articles to show you then you have only my word and your assessment of my honesty and whether my report seems reasonable and consistent with reality.

Question - do you accept atomic theory to be a true and correct explanation of the properties of matter? (this may seem irrelevant and unrelated but I will use it to make a point).


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions. He would be a massive draw for the sport.



Really?

Cause theres a pretty long list......

Even in Karate alone, theres a huge percentage of people who dont care at all about competition....Heck, there are folks in boxing and MMA gyms that dont care to compete....



Hanzou said:


> Machida has too much non-Karate influence (he's also a black belt in Bjj).
> 
> Additionally he's past his prime.



Again....theres a pretty strong list in both kick boxing and MMA.....but whatever..


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions. He would be a massive draw for the sport.


It's been done, and they have.  But, you have to modify the way you train, and also cross train.  Guys like Lyoto Machida do very well because they train for the medium, and are aware of the gaps in their training that must be filled.


----------



## Steve

Drose427 said:


> Really?
> 
> Cause theres a pretty long list......
> 
> Even in Karate alone, theres a huge percentage of people who dont care at all about competition....Heck, there are folks in boxing and MMA gyms that dont care to compete....
> 
> Again....theres a pretty strong list in both kick boxing and MMA.....but whatever..


Once again, it's the training model, not the techniques.   If styles fall down, it's likely because there is a lack of practical feedback given to the students.

The association fallacy at work.  I train BJJ and Ryan Hall trains BJJ, therefore, I can do what Ryan Hall does.  Student A and Lyoto Machida are black belts in Shotokan Karate.  Lyoto Machida is successful using his Shotokan Karate in MMA.  Therefore, student A will also be successful in MMA.  Doesn't hold up. 

It works for self defense, too.  I am learning "Style A" from my instructor.  My instructor is able to use style A to successfully defend himself.  Ergo, I am able to defend myself.  Doesn't work.


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> Once again, it's the training model, not the techniques.   If styles fall down, it's likely because there is a lack of practical feedback given to the students.
> 
> The association fallacy at work.  I train BJJ and Ryan Hall trains BJJ, therefore, I can do what Ryan Hall does.  Student A and Lyoto Machida are black belts in Shotokan Karate.  Lyoto Machida is successful using his Shotokan Karate in MMA.  Therefore, student A will also be successful in MMA.  Doesn't hold up.
> 
> It works for self defense, too.  I am learning "Style A" from my instructor.  My instructor is able to use style A to successfully defend himself.  Ergo, I am able to defend myself.  Doesn't work.



that still kills the "style A is bad cause tim lost his bout" argument though,


----------



## Steve

Yeah.  I'm of the opinion that any style trained well is going to work pretty well.  Techniques that aren't practical will naturally weed themselves out.


----------



## TSDTexan

Hanzou said:


> Really? TMA guys used to be all about competitions. Some styles were even created from the founders victory in NHB combat. Ueshiba, Motobu, Yuanija, etc. were all about accepting challenges.
> 
> I wonder what changed......


American instant gratification and mahnee!


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> You have stated a number of times during your time as a doorman where you were in a scuffle and had to use some of your fighting skills. How do we know you have not just made up those?



We don't. So let's say that if I was to validate a system tales from some door man would not cut it.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Sorry but we don't walk around everywhere with official record keepers or a camera crew to capture the moments we find ourselves having to defend ourselves.
> 
> If tell you that I have been in a self defense situation and what happened and i do not have police reports, video or newspaper articles to show you then you have only my word and your assessment of my honesty and whether my report seems reasonable and consistent with reality.
> 
> Question - do you accept atomic theory to be a true and correct explanation of the properties of matter? (this may seem irrelevant and unrelated but I will use it to make a point).



OK. We will discount that as anecdotal as well.

What else do you have that shows your system is valid?

I don't have the background in physics to have an opinion.

Would you accept my defensive use of chi balls?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Really?
> 
> Cause theres a pretty long list......



Name them.



> Even in Karate alone, theres a huge percentage of people who don't care at all about competition....Heck, there are folks in boxing and MMA gyms that don't care to compete....



That wasn't the argument.



> Again....theres a pretty strong list in both kick boxing and MMA.....but whatever..



Sure, someone with a karate base that branched off. Not someone who *only* trained in traditional karate.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Really?
> 
> Cause theres a pretty long list......
> 
> Even in Karate alone, theres a huge percentage of people who dont care at all about competition....Heck, there are folks in boxing and MMA gyms that dont care to compete....
> 
> 
> 
> Again....theres a pretty strong list in both kick boxing and MMA.....but whatever..



Do you feel the mma guys who don't compete are at the same standard as the ones who do?


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> that still kills the "style A is bad cause tim lost his bout" argument though,



Depends who you fight. 

OK. So random kung fu guy vs a Gracie gun for hire is going to loose. Kung fu guy goes home takes control of the holes In his game gets better.

Becomes a good martial artist.

It is important to court loss.


----------



## renc

> renc said: Hyperbole, ridicule and stereotype. Rhetorical devices, not good communication. Not scientific nor productive.





Steve said:


> Here's the root of this entire thread.  It's not what Joe Rogan said.  It's how he said it.



No, the content and lack thereof is my primary interest here, the emphasis on 'rhetoric' vs 'scientific'.
Hyperbole = exaggeration = inaccuracy
Ridicule = lack of substance
Stereotype = over generalization = inaccuracy
Tone in as far as promoting discussion is a lesser concern... we can talk pleasantly about nothing at all.
By the way the above refers to Gregoriades. And this guy is meant to be a teacher. Yikes.
My issues with Joe Rogan's statements are to do with logic and rigor in the most part.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Really? TMA guys used to be all about competitions. Some styles were even created from the founders victory in NHB combat. Ueshiba, Motobu, Yuanija, etc. were all about accepting challenges.
> 
> I wonder what changed......


 from what I understand in CMA those guys didn't care about competition as a sport.  Some were known to be cruel and some were known for killing others in street fights. if you look back in history you'll see that this was common. The sport fighting that we know of today is tame compared to Rome's fighting arenas.   China was at war with itself for a long time and and the communist government outlawed martial arts so citizens couldn't fight back. Things like that is what makes me think that those fighting systems are valid.  I don't think the system changed as much as the people changed. We even see this worth how some people trash valid fighting systems and turn them into ineffective training. Example: extreme  karate ' s Bo staff twirling.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Except mma is not a pond. It is a river. It draws from other martial arts and feeds back into them.



I like that analogy! Gonna steal it.



drop bear said:


> When it ceases to do that then you will have your issue.
> 
> Any system can do mma at any level using their own system using a combination or using mma. I mean we are starting to see medievil sword fighting in mma now.
> 
> This is why we can both do sanda against a guy who only trains in forms and see what happens.



I need to be more precise - by MMA I was referring the sport as per Rogan, not as a general principle.
MMA the sport draws from the ocean. My impression is that sample is small relative to the ocean, so my issue remains the conclusions that can *potentially* be drawn are fairly limited in scope.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> Machida has too much non-Karate influence (he's also a black belt in Bjj).
> 
> Additionally he's past his prime.


\
Ha, Ha.... I said just that some months ago here & the east coast ridiculed my post....


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> from what I understand in CMA those guys didn't care about competition as a sport.  Some were known to be cruel and some were known for killing others in street fights. if you look back in history you'll see that this was common. The sport fighting that we know of today is tame compared to Rome's fighting arenas.   China was at war with itself for a long time and and the communist government outlawed martial arts so citizens couldn't fight back. Things like that is what makes me think that those fighting systems are valid.  I don't think the system changed as much as the people changed. We even see this worth how some people trash valid fighting systems and turn them into ineffective training. Example: extreme  karate ' s Bo staff twirling.



In Asia, CMA practitioners have no issue entering NHB tournaments.






They just don't do very well.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you are not making the weird logic jump though. Where you validate your untested methods with stories about street or lineage or that sort of junk. And that is where it goes.
> 
> Ok Mma(or whatever but let's keep is simple) as a test of effectiveness is not an exhaustive test. But that does not validate no testing or conclusions based on dogma. What it does is test under a certain set of conditions. When you spar your kata friends it is a test under a certain set of conditions.



Agreed.



drop bear said:


> Eventually you start to build a trend. There is absolutely enough information for statistical analysis. Especially the amount of information we are getting at the moment.



For sure there is a lot of data out there.
As a first step then someone would define a testable hypothesis with stated justifiable assumptions, that itself may be a tough problem.
Decide what measurements will be taken.
Analysis. Observational data is messy at the best of times. I feel this data is far from the best of times. So you'd want to factor out unwanted influences or otherwise include them in your model, and account for sample variation.
Test your hypothesis against others, decide which best explains the data, decide whether the differences are significant, and account for model-data discrepancies.
Interpret, draw inferences.
Conclusions. Writeup. Publish.

Personally - I don't think it's possible to compare martial art systems this way, in a way that is both logical/meaningful and not overly limited. I can't see many getting past problem definition. But it would be interesting if someone gave it a serious go. Until then, folks chucking around 'more effective' like it's meaningful and even scientifically proven - well, whatever.



drop bear said:


> Now mma is not tested on the street.(well again there is quite a bit of data. But we just pretend there isn't) this does not make the link that therefore krav (just keeping it simple) does work on the street. Even if we say IDF or something or train in camouflage pants.
> 
> Does chi balls work?
> Well it has been tested scientifically and has so far failed to.
> 
> But have we tried it on the street? Well no so therefore it must work.



Yeah


----------



## ShotoNoob

BY TMA STANDARDS, THIS POSITION IS BUNK.


Steve said:


> It's been done, and they have.  But, you have to modify the way you train, and also cross train.


\
The fallacy of this was completely made plain in my Bertel kumite vid.  Bertel's opponent is coming out just as you say.... repeating technique he's seen demonstrated in kumite competition....  Then the guy is completely flummoxed against Bertel's dynamic  response....
\
There's people doing karate form / and then there's people doing karate.
\
Your statement's 1st 2 sentences are applicable to that group doing karate in physical form.  Probably at least 75% of the karate participants; so in terms of percentages of the populace your statement (1st two) is correct.  And attractive as a marketing approach.  





Steve said:


> Guys like Lyoto Machida do very well because they train for the medium, and are aware of the gaps in their training that must be filled.


\
This is the part that is complete bunk.....  Completely.  This dogma has been blasted all over the internet since the origins of the UFC.  NOW is 'written in stone,' from being blabbed & rehabbed so incredibly often.  Every Laptop mMA observer recants the same rhetoric over & over.
\
TRUTH: Guys like Machida do well 'cause of their traditional karate base.  Guys like Machida fall short because they train to physical form & conventions instead of to principles....



Steve said:


> Once again, it's the training model, not the techniques.   If styles fall down, it's likely because there is a lack of practical feedback given to the students.


\
Great again for self advocacy.  Styles fall down because those training don't understand what TMA is doing in it's approach.  Styles fall down because students aren't serious or dedicated, or the instructor same.  Of course feedback playS into that dynamic.



Steve said:


> The association fallacy at work.  I train BJJ and Ryan Hall trains BJJ, therefore, I can do what Ryan Hall does.  Student A and Lyoto Machida are black belts in Shotokan Karate.  Lyoto Machida is successful using his Shotokan Karate in MMA.  Therefore, student A will also be successful in MMA.  Doesn't hold up.


\
I would hope not.  If so, we should close all the institutions of higher learning.  Yet what you say is much too often the UNDISCIPLINED attitude we see in sports...  Again, good marketing dogma....
\
Edit: And in McDojo's too.



Steve said:


> It works for self defense, too.  I am learning "Style A" from my instructor.  My instructor is able to use style A to successfully defend himself.  Ergo, I am able to defend myself.  Doesn't work.


\
Doesn't _AUTOMATICALLY_ work.  Shake it out, Steve: shake it out.....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> In Asia, CMA practitioners have no issue entering NHB tournaments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just don't do very well.


\
Well, what about my TKD McDojang[?].   How's for a testable hypothesis?
\
The kung fu guys in your vid vs. the guys in my TKD backfist break fail vid.... Now there is match the UFC could appreciate....  TKD fail club, good luck with that....


----------



## renc

Hanzou said:


> A bonafide traditional karate master wrecking people in MMA would make millions. He would be a massive draw for the sport.



TMA are really not a magnet for those motivated by money and glory. 
Well kiddo, what do you want to be when you grow up?
I wanna be a TMA master!
*whack*

I doubt many sports fighters are either.


----------



## TSDTexan

Steve said:


> Once again, it's the training model, not the techniques.   If styles fall down, it's likely because there is a lack of practical feedback given to the students.
> 
> The association fallacy at work.  I train BJJ and Ryan Hall trains BJJ, therefore, I can do what Ryan Hall does.  Student A and Lyoto Machida are black belts in Shotokan Karate.  Lyoto Machida is successful using his Shotokan Karate in MMA.  Therefore, student A will also be successful in MMA.  Doesn't hold up.
> 
> It works for self defense, too.  I am learning "Style A" from my instructor.  My instructor is able to use style A to successfully defend himself.  Ergo, I am able to defend myself.  Doesn't work.




Many people who properly train in tma (with competent instructors have defended themselves in RL.




drop bear said:


> OK. We will discount that as anecdotal as well.
> 
> What else do you have that shows your system is valid?
> 
> I don't have the background in physics to have an opinion.
> 
> Would you accept my defensive use of chi balls?



Ibid.


----------



## Steve

ShotoNoob said:


> BY TMA STANDARDS, THIS POSITION IS BUNK.
> 
> \
> The fallacy of this was completely made plain in my Bertel kumite vid.  Bertel's opponent is coming out just as you say.... repeating technique he's seen demonstrated in kumite competition....  Then the guy is completely flummoxed against Bertel's dynamic  response....
> \
> There's people doing karate form / and then there's people doing karate.
> \
> Your statement's 1st 2 sentences are applicable to that group doing karate in physical form.  Probably at least 75% of the karate participants; so in terms of percentages of the populace your statement (1st two) is correct.  And attractive as a marketing approach.
> \
> This is the part that is complete bunk.....  Completely.  This dogma has been blasted all over the internet since the origins of the UFC.  NOW is 'written in stone,' from being blabbed & rehabbed so incredibly often.  Every Laptop mMA observer recants the same rhetoric over & over.
> \
> TRUTH: Guys like Machida do well 'cause of their traditional karate base.  Guys like Machida fall short because they train to physical form & conventions instead of to principles....
> 
> 
> \
> Great again for self advocacy.  Styles fall down because those training don't understand what TMA is doing in it's approach.  Styles fall down because students aren't serious or dedicated, or the instructor same.  Of course feedback playS into that dynamic.
> 
> 
> \
> I would hope not.  If so, we should close all the institutions of higher learning.  Yet what you say is much too often the UNDISCIPLINED attitude we see in sports...  Again, good marketing dogma....
> \
> Edit: And in McDojo's too.
> 
> 
> \
> Doesn't _AUTOMATICALLY_ work.  Shake it out, Steve: shake it out.....


I honestly do not understand a word you write, my friend.  I can't tell if you're being serious or glib, but either way, I can't make heads or tails of it.  

I quite honestly don't know whether you agree with me or not, at this point.  Is English your native language?  I ask only because if you are not a native speaker, it might explain your writing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> In Asia, CMA practitioners have no issue entering NHB tournaments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just don't do very well.


Here you go again with the trash posting a video saying that CMAs don't do good in competition.  You fail to understand my comments, which is simple.  If you train to fight then you become a good fighter.  If you don't train to fight then you won't become a good fighter.  I can be a boxer and punch a bag all day long and I'll never be a good fighter because my focus isn't to train to fight.  If a person's focus of learning a Martial Art's isn't to be a good fighter, then none of the training that's required to be a good fighter will be done.  This is the same with BJJ.  You can take BJJ classes all day long, but if you don't train to be a fighter, then your BJJ only becomes an exercise.

If I'm training in a CMA for the purpose of going to war during China's dynasty eras then my CMA training will reflect that purpose.  If I train in a CMA for the purpose of fighting then my CMA training will reflect that purpose.  If I only do CMA for exercise then my CMA training will reflect that purpose.  This is the same logic that fits almost every activity in life.  If I train to be a good basketball player then my training reflects that purpose.  If I only train just enough to say that I can dribble a ball then my training will only reflect that.

People take martial arts for different reasons and it's not always focused on being a good fighter or even getting into a fight.  The only thing that video you posted shows is a guy who didn't train in his martial arts with the purpose of fighting.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Steve said:


> I honestly do not understand a word you write, my friend.  I can't tell if you're being serious or glib, but either way, I can't make heads or tails of it.
> 
> I quite honestly don't know whether you agree with me or not, at this point.  Is English your native language?  I ask only because if you are not a native speaker, it might explain your writing.


\
Answer's in the Bertel vid.  Simple as that...


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I don't have the background in physics to have an opinion.
> 
> Would you accept my defensive use of chi balls?


No, because I do have a background in physics.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> I need to be more precise - by MMA I was referring the sport as per Rogan, not as a general principle.
> MMA the sport draws from the ocean. My impression is that sample is small relative to the ocean, so my issue remains the conclusions that can *potentially* be drawn are fairly limited in scope.



See it depends what we are comparing it to. I grew up with martial arts before the ufc. And the information was so scattered and unreliable as to be ludicrous by today's standards. It was all just black belts saying stuff with no background or experience in what they were saying.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> TMA are really not a magnet for those motivated by money and glory.
> Well kiddo, what do you want to be when you grow up?
> I wanna be a TMA master!
> *whack*
> 
> I doubt many sports fighters are either.



Well it is. Not all of them but there are plenty drawn to the money and power.

We get plenty of tma cults that are defined by the desire to take money and power.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> No, because I do have a background in physics.



Was this physics tested in a real self defence situation?


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Many people who properly train in tma (with competent instructors have defended themselves in RL.



Many people who play the flute have defended themselves in RL.

George Harrison famously defended himself against a knife wielding attacker.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Was this physics tested in a real self defence situation?


It wouldn't be necessary to test something that you know to be nonsense..


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> What else do you have that shows your system is valid?


Valid to whom? You? Me? Potential new students? Other martial arts?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> It wouldn't be necessary to test something that you know to be nonsense..



How do you know it is nonsense?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Valid to whom? You? Me? Potential new students? Other martial arts?



All of the above I guess.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> Many people who play the flute have defended themselves in RL.
> 
> George Harrison famously defended himself against a knife wielding attacker.



Fair point, correlation not causation. That's a tough one. What's a TMA to do? Someone whose personal experience gives them highly justified confidence that a) they can apply their art effectively and b) their training gives them an edge, but they cannot objectively demonstrate the worth of their art to the world at large. That's a frustration when people come trash talking their art. No random sampling to help out of street fights involving TMA-trained and untrained. They can adapt their art to a sport fighting event, and if MMA mix it in with other arts, and be a sample size of one. If they have the motivation, if they believe they can prove something. Or they can position on the sidelines, avoid overextending and snipe the Roganites claiming they got the thing wrapped up - perhaps not the most admirable but I think the most rational choice.


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> See it depends what we are comparing it to. I grew up with martial arts before the ufc. And the information was so scattered and unreliable as to be ludicrous by today's standards. It was all just black belts saying stuff with no background or experience in what they were saying.



So more data = an improvement, if you can extract the information you need and use it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> How do you know it is nonsense?


Because I understand basic physics and because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise or that it is even possible.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> What else do you have that shows your system is valid?


What do you have that shows your system is valid?


----------



## renc

drop bear said:


> We get plenty of tma cults that are defined by the desire to take money and power.



Yeah, but they're the real low-end. Not representative of the average, definitely not the high-end. My impression of the high-end - a CMA grandmaster who teaches interested and determined students for free or next to nothing, and won't teach the uninterested for $$$.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Yeah, but they're the real low-end. Not representative of the average, definitely not the high-end. My impression of the high-end - a CMA grandmaster who teaches interested and determined students for free or next to nothing, and won't teach the uninterested for $$$.



Like william Chung?

At a cheeky $650 a month. Gradings extra.
Full-Time Training Grandmaster William Cheung's Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> What do you have that shows your system is valid?



Competition.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Because I understand basic physics and because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise or that it is even possible.



There is no evidence to show something that is untested works?

That is because it is untested.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> So more data = an improvement, if you can extract the information you need and use it.



 More data and less noise. The Internet helps. It mean I can talk to a ufc fighter or a kung fu grand master a lot more easily.


----------



## renc

JowGaWolf said:


> People take martial arts for different reasons



Right, the human factor. Training follows interest and enjoyment, which feeds back into dedication, time spent and quality of training, which feeds back into 'effectiveness'. Makes me wonder what a universal 'effectiveness' measure for a martial art could achieve. Argus threw this spanner in the experiment way back...



Argus said:


> I find that the specific TMA's that I study fit my psychology and learning style far better than most sportive arts such as western boxing, or even some contrasting TMAs that I appreciate but nonetheless don't practice. And while I don't have anything against such arts, I simply feel that the particular TMA methods that I study cater better to my learning style, and my natural skills, goals, psychology, and physiology. I do consider myself a bit of an oddity in this respect, and I see where many people struggle with or get hung up on the very methods that I find helpful, however.
> 
> I think that there's much to be said for practicing the martial art(s) that are most in line with your particular learning style, general psychology, and/or goals, and that some _tend_ excel in styles that others simply don't, and vice versa. And for that reason (and others), I think it's very important to get as wide and diverse an experience in the martial arts as you can, in order to learn about yourself and how you can better reach your goals and potential.
> 
> All arts have something to offer. And all arts offer something better for some people than others.



Demanding what people's motivations 'should' be is not realistic. As you've noted before Joe Rogan stipulates that people 'should' want to be training to fight a trained killer. A noble aim.

So an objective 'effectiveness' measure could - theoretically - be a factor in decision making. Then the question becomes effect sizes - how much more/less effective would Jow-Ga need to be than other arts to make a difference to your choice - 0.1%, 5%, 10%, 50%? Theoretically - a future where the 'effectiveness of a martial art' is meaningfully defined, assumptions justified, metrics chosen, the various signals, noise and confounding factors in observational data accounted for, everything which hasn't been done is done.

In the meantime I have no idea what people hope to - realistically - achieve by soapboxing on the relative 'effectiveness' of TMA.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Right, the human factor. Training follows interest and enjoyment, which feeds back into dedication, time spent and quality of training, which feeds back into 'effectiveness'. Makes me wonder what a universal 'effectiveness' measure for a martial art could achieve. Argus threw this spanner in the experiment way back...
> 
> 
> 
> Demanding what people's motivations 'should' be is not realistic. As you've noted before Joe Rogan stipulates that people 'should' want to be training to fight a trained killer. A noble aim.
> 
> So an objective 'effectiveness' measure could - theoretically - be a factor in decision making. Then the question becomes effect sizes - how much more/less effective would Jow-Ga need to be than other arts to make a difference to your choice - 0.1%, 5%, 10%, 50%? Theoretically - a future where the 'effectiveness of a martial art' is meaningfully defined, assumptions justified, metrics chosen, the various signals, noise and confounding factors in observational data accounted for, everything which hasn't been done is done.
> 
> In the meantime I have no idea what people hope to - realistically - achieve by soapboxing on the relative 'effectiveness' of TMA.



A martial arts school makes claims of effectiveness. Are you saying they shouldn't deliver on a promise.

What you suggest also validates me selling chi balls to the general public.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> A martial arts school makes claims of effectiveness. Are you saying they shouldn't deliver on a promise.
> 
> What you suggest also validates me selling chi balls to the general public.


A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective.  They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student.  Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches?    It's like me selling a gun to you.  I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately.  A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts.  The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for.

Joe Rogan may have been a beast against other fighting styles had he taken a martial art system that was designed for more for self defense than for sport like some of the TKD schools out there. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective in TKD competitions?  If so, then his school delivered on them being effective in the sporting arena of TKD which is probably the main focus of all of his training back then.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Competition.


Since you do a competition style that is hardly surprising, however not all arts are interested in competition.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> There is no evidence to show something that is untested works?
> 
> That is because it is untested.


That is because the concept of throwing Chi balls is inconsistent with physics and biology, just like farting rainbows.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches? It's like me selling a gun to you. I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately. A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts. The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for




Ahh. Good. Another argument that supports my chi balls for self defence. The method obviously works but the individual failed to employ it properly.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because the concept of throwing Chi balls is inconsistent with physics and biology, just like farting rainbows.



And there would be evidence of that. Being from a physicist and biologist a peer reviewed article would be fine.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Since you do a competition style that is hardly surprising, however not all arts are interested in competition.



That's fine I didn't say you have to be. So evidence that your style works in areas it is interested in is fine.


----------



## drop bear

renc said:


> Fair point, correlation not causation. That's a tough one. What's a TMA to do? Someone whose personal experience gives them highly justified confidence that a) they can apply their art effectively and b) their training gives them an edge, but they cannot objectively demonstrate the worth of their art to the world at large. That's a frustration when people come trash talking their art. No random sampling to help out of street fights involving TMA-trained and untrained. They can adapt their art to a sport fighting event, and if MMA mix it in with other arts, and be a sample size of one. If they have the motivation, if they believe they can prove something. Or they can position on the sidelines, avoid overextending and snipe the Roganites claiming they got the thing wrapped up - perhaps not the most admirable but I think the most rational choice.



Diversity. It is still important it is not that martial arts need to change. But the dogma certainly does.

Mma gets beaten by mma all the time. Wrestling by judo judo by bjj and so on. But by courting loss they strip away some of the bs.

If you enjoy karate you don't have to pretend you can stop a wrestler taking you down.


----------



## Steve

If a martial art is trained in an unrealistic manner, it's like selling a gun that doesn't fire.   No matter how earnestly you train, it won't work.   ..[/QUOTE]


JowGaWolf said:


> A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective.  They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student.  Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches?    It's like me selling a gun to you.  I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately.  A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts.  The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for.
> 
> Joe Rogan may have been a beast against other fighting styles had he taken a martial art system that was designed for more for self defense than for sport like some of the TKD schools out there. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective in TKD competitions?  If so, then his school delivered on them being effective in the sporting arena of TKD which is probably the main focus of all of his training back then.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Ahh. Good. Another argument that supports my chi balls for self defence. The method obviously works but the individual failed to employ it properly.


 You are correct. Chi balls is your argument.  Not mine. No where in any of my statements have I mentioned Chi balls or anything about chi. You can debate yourself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> If a martial art is trained in an unrealistic manner, it's like selling a gun that doesn't fire.   No matter how earnestly you train, it won't work.   ..


 It just depends on what they are actually training for. If they are going to fight in the UFC then the training needs and the fighting system needs to reflect that goal.  Don't go into a UFC fight by training hard with sport TKD. People need to pick the right tool for the job.  If I train hard in a fighting system but can't use what I'm learning then my training is all wrong. This guy for example:  13 years training in martial arts and he still turns his back to his opponent? If he really has been studying martial arts for 13 years then he didn't train to spar or fight. If I'm wrong an he really did have sparring as part of his training, then it's clear that he was sparring incorrectly.





My Sifu wrote a good article about training Tradition vs Modern 
This is a quote from his article.   So many martial arts train this way.  There have been so many times where I've watch this on youtube videos and thought. If someone really connected with the first shot then there's no way I'll still be in a position to get that third or 4th combo off.  I'm either going to turn on my own or turn from the force of the hit"  _2. Use common sense – If you’re partner performs one attack and you perform 2-5 counters while he stands there, then you’re doing it wrong. The exchange has to be realistic._"

Training like this isn't going to go far.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You are correct. Chi balls is your argument.  Not mine. No where in any of my statements have I mentioned Chi balls or anything about chi. You can debate yourself.



I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument. So your argument would defend my use of chi balls as sefl defence. Something that is obviously made up. So the argument itself needs work.

Or it could be addressed directly as Steve just did. And your argument still needs work.

If I taught absolute rubbish and my student couldn't use my crap to defend himself how would that be the students fault?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument. So your argument would defend my use of chi balls as sefl defence. Something that is obviously made up. So the argument itself needs work.
> 
> Or it could be addressed directly as Steve just did. And your argument still needs work.
> 
> If I taught absolute rubbish and my student couldn't use my crap to defend himself how would that be the students fault?


Like I said. Chi Balls is your argument not mine.  My argument doesn't defend chi balls as self defense.  When I defend something I do it directly.  I'm not here to go through a "debate team" nonsense.  If you can't determine when my statements applies and when it doesn't then that's on you.  If I have to explain everything to you like I would a child then I would recommend skipping my comments.  If you want to get into a debate where everything is an argument then talk to hanzou.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Like I said. Chi Balls is your argument not mine.  My argument doesn't defend chi balls as self defense.  When I defend something I do it directly.  I'm not here to go through a "debate team" nonsense.  If you can't determine when my statements applies and when it doesn't then that's on you.  If I have to explain everything to you like I would a child then I would recommend skipping my comments.  If you want to get into a debate where everything is an argument then talk to hanzou.



OK. We will skip the chi balls for now. Your two direct posts one being it is the student responsible for the effectiveness of the system and on being the system is responsible.



JowGaWolf said:


> A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student.





JowGaWolf said:


> People need to pick the right tool for the job. If I train hard in a fighting system but can't use what I'm learning then my training is all wrong.



Which one is it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> And there would be evidence of that. Being from a physicist and biologist a peer reviewed article would be fine.


A quick search on Google Scholar did not find an article but I did find a patent for a Chi energy amplifier:

Patent US20070285325 - Chi energy amplifier

And here is the National Geographic Channel debunking it:


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument.


You are using Chi balls as an argument for self defense arts having no evidence for claims of their effectiveness. Your argument is based on faulty logic..You are basically trying to say that because the use of Chi balls for self defense is not even remotely plausible then using a self defense art (that does not take part in competitions) for self defense is equally implausible. The two elements of that claim are not equivalent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK. We will skip the chi balls for now. Your two direct posts one being it is the student responsible for the effectiveness of the system and on being the system is responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is it.


It's both. The system has to be effective for the purpose of it intended use and the student has to be effective in using it, which includes training properly for it.  This is why I said Joe Rogan TKD training was effective.  When he trained in TKD he was training for the purpose of winning TKD fights and kickboxing fights. So in that light his fighting system and training was effective. He made the error in thinking that the same training would translate in fighting other fighting systems.  

It's a big mistake to think that the same training that you do when fighting against people who use the same style, will work equally as well against other fighting styles. Train according to purpose and train properly for that purpose.  If the martial art is fake and no good for fighting then get out of it and choose one that has training that focuses on the type of fighting you want to do.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RTKDCMB said:


> A quick search on Google Scholar did not find an article but I did find a patent for a Chi energy amplifier:
> 
> Patent US20070285325 - Chi energy amplifier
> 
> And here is the National Geographic Channel debunking it:


take it for what it's worth
Medical Study of QiGong


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


>


4:25 - it defies science. They are just not looking hard enough.There are a number of points that are easily explainable.

1) The as angle of the spear changes when it is bent the direction of the force changes from directly into the throat to a more downwards direction towards where the  the clavicles meet.
2) The skin on the area of the throat the spear is resting against is stretched tight which provides an additional barrier.
3) The spear is held against the throat horizontally so that it can sit straddling both clavicles, keeping the tip away from the soft area of the throat.
4) The wooden rod is very long compared to its width and the assistant hits with it close to where he is holding it which means there is a significant portion of its mass is beyond the fulcrum point (point of impact). This makes the rod easier to break. Plus its small mass does not significantly impart any movement on the body of the performer.

All that being said it is still a dangerous practice because if the person performing this feat does not know what he is doing it still could result in serious injury.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> A quick search on Google Scholar did not find an article but I did find a patent for a Chi energy amplifier:
> 
> Patent US20070285325 - Chi energy amplifier
> 
> And here is the National Geographic Channel debunking it:



Well that is in the dojo with rules. Not the street.


----------



## JowGaWolf

electric eel man







RTKDCMB said:


> 4:25 - it defies science. They are just not looking hard enough.There are a number of points that are easily explainable.
> 
> 1) The as angle of the spear changes when it is bent the direction of the force changes from directly into the throat to a more downwards direction towards where the  the clavicles meet.
> 2) The skin on the area of the throat the spear is resting against is stretched tight which provides an additional barrier.
> 3) The spear is held against the throat horizontally so that it can sit straddling both clavicles, keeping the tip away from the soft area of the throat.
> 4) The wooden rod is very long compared to its width and the assistant hits with it close to where he is holding it which means there is a significant portion of its mass is beyond the fulcrum point (point of impact). This makes the rod easier to break. Plus its small mass does not significantly impart any movement on the body of the performer.
> 
> All that being said it is still a dangerous practice because if the person performing this feat does not know what he is doing it still could result in serious injury.


The good thing about science is that it's not absolute and it's only based on what we understand.  .  This to me sounds like the Chi (QI) that some people talk about but as science sees it.  Heres a harvard article of tai chi notice how the benefits are similar to the article about electricity in the body. Things just sound crazy when people start making it more than what it is. 

Animals have been defying science for a long time and it takes a while for our knowledge to catch up to what we thought wasn't possible. Animals do such a good job in defying science as we know it, that the science community is now more open minded than they have been in the past.  For example: Animal that can survive in space and possible live in space is new and goes against what scientist in the past have stated when I was a kid. Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore by science. Science is always changing. Thank goodness.


----------



## Koshiki

JowGaWolf said:


> The good thing about science is that it's not absolute and it's only based on what we understand.  .  This to me sounds like the Chi (QI) that some people talk about but as science sees it.



Very true; the diversity of ideas and explanations available, coupled with processes of logic, rationality, and scientific testing, as well as just basic knowledge of the physical world makes for an excellent way to determine what may and may not be the truth of a given subject, as well as what may or may not be a viable solution to a given problem.

With that in mind, here's another way to view certain aspects attributed to Qi, but as you say, "as science sees it."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zack Cart said:


> Very true; the diversity of ideas and explanations available, coupled with processes of logic, rationality, and scientific testing, as well as just basic knowledge of the physical world makes for an excellent way to determine what may and may not be the truth of a given subject, as well as what may or may not be a viable solution to a given problem.
> 
> With that in mind, here's another way to view certain aspects attributed to Qi, but as you say, "as science sees it."


I've seen that one before.  I don't like videos like that mainly because I don't know how scientific that is.  Science has the ability to say. "hey this is what I think is going on and this how they are burning the paper based on what we know."  In science they would actually meet the person who can do it and have him repeat the paper burning trick in a controlled environment. So that they can eliminate any possible contamination.  Basically they would need to have him strip down place him in a room where there are no external elements that could have been planted ahead of time and then give him the paper to burn.  Science will be able to say what didn't start the fire but still be lost as to how the fire was started. At the most videos like that just show how it can be faked. My entire look on chi is that it's energy, maybe bio electric, or chemical or both. We control this energy everyday when we move our hands, eyes, mouth. etc. The question I would ask is are we able to condition our bodies so we can pool this energy and store it in certain points in our body. If we can pool this energy then what are the results of doing so if any.

 I personally have my doubts about the "newspaper fire" with chi because most people who practice using Qi gong don't claim to be able to burn paper with their chi (Qi) nor do they claim that they can throw people around with it.  You will however hear many talk about how they can use Qi to help heal people. This for example:





This is an example of where where "science" shows us that what is being done is real, but science still isn't any closer to knowing how are they able to do it.  Stan Lee Superhuman Unbreakable:

Here are some humans baffling science: Video 1 with testing and video 2 below.  Also check slavisa pajkic who claims he can store enough electricity in his body to light a light bulb and set things on fire by using the stored electricity. Things like that remind me to keep my mind a little more open, not so much as believe or not believe but to admit to myself that there are things that happen around us all the time where science has no answer. 





There is more than enough strange stuff in the world to keep science busy.


----------



## Koshiki

JowGaWolf said:


> ...I don't like videos like that mainly because I don't know how scientific that is...
> ...There is more than enough strange stuff in the world to keep science busy.



Right. However, when there are several explanations for a phenomena, several of which are simple parlor magic tricks like I did as a kid (I used to love magic) and there is one explanation that defies all known laws of physics and testable analysis and relies on the faith of a few witnesses, I am sometimes inclined to go with the more simplistic explanations.

For example, with the newspaper burning, we have the option to believe that that fine chap is either a mystical member of a secret sect whose powers of meditation allow them to project electricity by focusing the energy from their belly button and and balls.

Alternatively, we can just believe that the guy is dishonest. There are a number of ways he could have done a trick like that with simple materials.

One of those two options seems many times more likely to me. Is he a secret undercover magic-man, or just a liar?

EDIT:

Regarding the hand-swelling. It's pretty well known that compression on swelling will reduce swelling, just like elevation or a cold pack. And yes, if you do it quickly on initial swelling, it works swiftly, for a few minutes. Try it next time you get a bruise.

Regarding a lot of impressive Shaolin performance style breaking, there's a lot of info out there on how it is done, including the placement of the impact point (fulcrum) and the creation of lots of leverage on the other end of the pole/bar etc, also treatment of bricks, also known aspects of conditioning on the human body in contemporary physiology. All of which _can_ be attributed to Qi, if you like, but all of which is also explainable _without_ Qi.

Regarding Slavisa Pajkic and his electrical ilk... For starters, I'm not sure about his Guinness World Record Claim, since I sure can't find him on their World Record List... Beyond that, anyone who's insulated and ungrounded can, more or less safely do what he's doing. The current runs through the circuit, not through your body. While I don't recommend attempting it, it's just something that you more need good boots and a bit of wiring to do, rather than Qi or any superhuman force. The human body is mostly salt water. If the current could boil a hot dog, it would boil him if it was running through him.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zack Cart said:


> For starters, I'm not sure about his Guinness World Record Claim, since I sure can't find him on their World Record List... Beyond that, anyone who's insulated and ungrounded can, more or less safely do what he's doing. The current runs through the circuit, not through your body. While I don't recommend attempting it, it's just something that you more need good boots and a bit of wiring to do


  You are telling how it can be done, but it doesn't explain how he's doing it.  When I watch the video of the Indian guy doing the same thing, he's not wearing any shoes and he puts a live wire in his mouth while a guy places the other wire on his foot. Even if he's naturally insulated or naturally grounded then that still doesn't tell us how and why his body is naturally grounded or naturally insulated.

With the shaolin monk and the drill, there's no way you can physically condition your skin to prevent a drill bit from cutting through the skin. If it's not magic, not fake, and not the physical conditioning of the skin, and science can't explain it to you, then that only leaves their explanation of Qi and Alien.  ha ha ha.
I understand things can be faked but if they aren't faking it then what is the explanation? If science has no answer but the person is sitting there telling you that it's Qi then that may actually be the answer.

For example, people have been talking about the benefits of Tai Chi for a long time, even longer than science has studied it.  Then science studies it and the research results show the some of the same things that people have been claiming that Tai Chi does.  Sometimes the explanation is exactly what people are saying and sometimes it's not. Remember science can't explain everything because it's based on what we know and what we understand. It wasn't too long ago that science said there wasn't water on Mars based on what "science knew and understood"  Qi may be one of those things where science can only discuss an test Qi from the perspective of what it knows today. 5 years down the road Qi may even be real to science.

I've experience strange things in my life and I'm so glad most of these things have happened when I was with someone else that saw or experienced the same thing (which gives me the relief that I'm not crazy.) This is probably why I'm a little more open to possibilities. I don't like to talk about those things because crazy is definitely the first things that will come to people's minds. lol


----------



## Koshiki

JowGaWolf said:


> With the shaolin monk and the drill, there's no way you can physically condition your skin to prevent a drill bit from cutting through the skin.



Riiight, but watching that section, the entire reason the guys were impressed by it was because he was applying a signifigant amount of pressure to the handle of the drill, which they reasoned must be focussed against his stomach, neck, and temple.

For some reason, they completely ignore the fact that his other arm is placed on the stabilizer of the drill, and is clearly straining.

So again, the question remains, is the guy honest and taking 200 lbs of pressure on a spinning drill bit against his skin, or is he using that arm which is clearly straining against the drill to take the pressure, and letting the bit push slightly against his skin, where it would likely chew up the top layers of skin, but not bite in. Which is exactly what it does...

Again, I might be biased, but when the choice is between trusting performers doing unbelievable things, or considering that they may be dishonest, I tend to opt for dishonesty. Put another way, a guy shows you a magnificent, shiny trophy and tells you he won it in a secret deathmatch tournament in the Philippines, do you believe him, or consider it more likely that he just bought the thing from Century Martial Arts? (Do they sell trophies, I don't really know...)

I mean, I can't tell you why or how every impressive, supposedly "science-denying" claim is likely explainable without Qi. I'm not even claiming that every claim _is_ currently explainable without Qi. (Although I would guess that yes, they are...) However, when a guy who makes comic books about superheroes starts a TV show about superheroes, I don't take it as 100% when some nice chap on his show tells me, off the cuff, that "science can't explain it." 

The sheer enormousness of the body of knowledge attained through the myriad disciplines of science is vast, and a real scientist in any field will be the first to tell you that they don't know enough about other fields of science to proclaim absolutely that "science" can or cannot explain a phenomena. Which is why, when the claim that science cannot explain something comes from Stan Lee on a TV show about superheroes, I don't take it at face value...



JowGaWolf said:


> You are telling how it can be done, but it doesn't explain how he's doing it.



I'm saying that I, off the top of my head, can think of at least one way to do that as a trick. I'll be honest, I didn't analyze every moment of every guy playing with electricity, but my point is this:

Electromagnetism is a complex thing, and there are many ways to safely do things that seem horrifically dangerous, like Tesla channeling what looked like lightning bolts through his body, etc, etc, etc...

If there are a number of non-magical, non-supernatural, non-Qi-based ways to do something as a trick, and I see someone doing something that looks remarkably like said trick, I tend to lean on the side of, "it's a trick," rather than, "well, it sure looks like a trick, but I guess it's magic/Qi/force/whatever."



JowGaWolf said:


> It wasn't too long ago that science said there wasn't water on Mars...



Regarding what "science" does and does not "know," there's a common misconception here. "Science" is either a process or basically the way in which every area of rational study conducts itself, depending on your definition. It is _not_ and never has been, a concrete body of knowledge.

There are many areas of scientific disciplines which are in flux, and many areas in which certain aspects of related knowledge are relatively settled.

As far as I know, the enourmous body of cosmologists, planetary scientists, astronomers, terrestrial scientists, etc did not all sit down and agree that there was no water on mars. The Daily Mail or CNN or Fox News may have aired segments with titles like, "Scientists say No Water on Mars," but that doesn't mean the scientific community had reached a consensus on the subject, it means that, say, the Daily Mail issued an article with an extremely lax, sensationalist version of something that probably should have read more like, "In latest exploration, group finds still little to no evidence for liquid water on Mars."

People seem to have this idea that, as popular outlets follow a few key findings on the more palatable and publicly interesting aspects of scientific research, "Science" as a whole, oscillates and say "Red meat is good!" and then ten years later, "Wait, it's bad!" and then a bit later, "No, I guess it is good!" but that's not what happens.

Research plugs along in whatever discipline, slowly, plodding, largely boringly, and yes, mindsets shift, and yes people in the field hold various and contrary opinions, but generally is a gradual building of a body of evidence and explanation. As more and more knowledge is gained, opinions become more similar, cohesive, and accurate.

So yes, there very likely were scientists of varying fields saying that they didn't believe there to be water on Mars, and yes, finding water will have disproved there viewpoint, but it's not as though the bulk of the research community was utterly convinced that there was no water anywhere to be found. If they had, why would the search have been so long and funded and staffed?

Many people expected water on Mars, had theoretical, hypothetical, and empirical reasons to believe that there might be or should be water on Mars, and they searched for water on Mars until it was found. The difference with Qi being, it tends to be more of a faith-based belief, while it _can_ explain some things, there are nearly always other explanations.

Am I ruling out that "science" will ever find Qi? No, but currently it's not something for which there is a body of evidence, aside from anecdotes with completely plausible and verifiable alternative explanations.

------------------------------

So in short, can I rule out that the drill guy wasn't making his skin like iron? No, although I wonder why he chose to harden some layers of skin but not the top few. Incidentally, even wood bits will awkwardly bite into hardened steel, so his skin would have to be considerably _harder_ than steel. I have enough experience with tools to know that.

However, I also can't rule out that he was neutralizing the force applied to the handle with his right hand, equal force applied in the opposite direction with his left hand on the stabilizer, rather than actually taking that force with his stomach, throat, or temple.

And, while both options are on the table, I am inclined to go with the second.

Which is more likely, that a man should turn his flesh harder than steel, or that a performer should seek to deceive his audience?


----------



## Koshiki

There's a lot you can do with electricity that looks supernatural, looks like it should be lethal. Difference being, this guy isn't trying to deceive people or get money from his powers of "healing electric hands."


----------



## RTKDCMB

Zack Cart said:


> Riiight, but watching that section, the entire reason the guys were impressed by it was because he was applying a signifigant amount of pressure to the handle of the drill, which they reasoned must be focussed against his stomach, neck, and temple.
> 
> For some reason, they completely ignore the fact that his other arm is placed on the stabilizer of the drill, and is clearly straining.
> 
> So again, the question remains, is the guy honest and taking 200 lbs of pressure on a spinning drill bit against his skin, or is he using that arm which is clearly straining against the drill to take the pressure, and letting the bit push slightly against his skin, where it would likely chew up the top layers of skin, but not bite in. Which is exactly what it does...


Also check which way the drill bit is spinning.


----------



## Koshiki

RTKDCMB said:


> Also check which way the drill bit is spinning.



That was my first thought too, but in my experience, drill bits in reverse still chew into soft substances pretty well. I wouldn't want to press a drill in reverse against my throat, that's for sure!

Also, when he presses it against his belly, you can see it twist his skin around in the correct direction for "in", assuming the footage isn't mirror image.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I will state up front that I haven't watched the video. Nor do I intend to. I've seen enough similar ones. It's BS. If there is anyone who truly believes they are immune to sharp objects, I will be happy to demonstrate that they are not. I'll even repair the wound after, and provide referrals to reputable psychotherapists who can help them deal with their delusions. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Koshiki

Dirty Dog said:


> It's BS.



Not according to Stan Lee...


----------



## Koshiki

I will say though, that it's possible for some people, like perhaps the drill guy, to actually fool themselves. I mean, he can do things that most people wouldn't attempt, and he might even not realize that he's straining against the drill in two directions, (though it seems unlikely.)

It's not that every performer of his ilk is intentionally deceiving, though most are. Some people manage to delude themselves as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zack Cart said:


> For some reason, they completely ignore the fact that his other arm is placed on the stabilizer of the drill, and is clearly straining


  I saw that too and thought they should have put the pressure sensor on both handles, but either way. I'm not doing it. lol.

I think they said he was only taking 50 lbs of pressure.  I think they were saying with a smaller drill bit the pressure would have been has high as 200lbs.  He use a large drill bit instead of a small one.  It doesn't take much to get a small drill bit to go through stuff.  I'm still wondering why the skin wasn't catching the side of that drill bit when he pushed it into his stomach, it appeared to be deep enough to do so.  




Dirty Dog said:


> If there is anyone who truly believes they are immune to sharp objects, I will be happy to demonstrate that they are not


  I don't think they are saying that they are immune to sharp objects. The spears that they use are never razor sharp. They often have rounded points and no razor edge but even though the spears aren't sharp they can still hurt.  You can call sword swallowing BS but it doesn't mean that sword won't rip your esophagus.  Same with the spears, you can call it BS but it doesn't mean you can't get injured while doing it.  See not sharp but still dangerous





Here's a guy explaining how the spear to the throat is fake





Here is a guy not using his hands.


----------



## Koshiki

As I recall without re-watching, they were saying that his hand was applying 30-50 psi, spread over about 2 in2 of pressure pad, which they said, focused down to a 1/2 in2 of the head of the bit, would be 120 to 200 psi applied to his neck. No that any of that matters if we're all in agreement that he probably wasn't actually applying any of that pressure to his body with the bit, but rather the stabilizer.

I guess I misread/misunderstood your posts. I thought you were claiming all this stuff to likely be true, and thus evidence of extra-physical ability.

I fully agree that there is much which the scientific method and related research processes have yet to explain. I just don't think these particular clips and anecdotes fall into that category. As someone who has a passing interest in stage and close-up magic, most of these things seem quite easily explainable without invoking the supernatural, the unknown to rational observation. I've seen magic tricks that I can't begin to explain, but these are not among them.


----------



## Koshiki

However, on the note of sharp-ish things piercing versus stretching skin, speed plays a key element in whether an impact displaces or distorts. The longer a force is applied, the more it is able to disperse across the object. Think of how an extended push will move or displace a person several feet with no damage or pain, while potentially applying significantly more force than a simple strike, which should really displace the person at all, but rather distort and damage their body locally. Speed is a big factor here. You can push someone across a room with a chopstick, or you can stab it into hem.

Think about a bullet. Fired at, say, a paper target, it will punch a hole through the target. However, take that same bullet and push it against the paper, and the paper moves, but is not punctured. Same with strikes, as we all know, intuitively at least. Same with unsharpened, round-tipped, spear shaped props.

Very cool, very impressive stuff though, that I wouldn't like to try at home...


----------



## RTKDCMB

Zack Cart said:


> I will say though, that it's possible for some people, like perhaps the drill guy, to actually fool themselves. I mean, he can do things that most people wouldn't attempt, and he might even not realize that he's straining against the drill in two directions, (though it seems unlikely.)
> 
> It's not that every performer of his ilk is intentionally deceiving, though most are. Some people manage to delude themselves as well.


Not to mention he's boring.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> Here is a guy not using his hands.


I bet I could make it go in.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's a guy explaining how the spear to the throat is fake



Basically the same thing I said before.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zack Cart said:


> I guess I misread/misunderstood your posts. I thought you were claiming all this stuff to likely be true, and thus evidence of extra-physical ability.


 Amazingly enough stuff like this is too extreme for me to classify as extra-physical ability.  The more extreme something gets the less willing I am to believe it. I still "leave the door of possibility open" but it's not wide open in full belief.  The common thing I see when someone meets a person  who can actually do extraordinary things, the person who is doing the extraordinary thing doesn't see it as a big deal.  To them it's really not that big of a deal. This video to me is more amazing than a drill to the head and for them it's just a normal thing for them.







Zack Cart said:


> However, on the note of sharp-ish things piercing versus stretching skin, speed plays a key element in whether an impact displaces or distorts.


 Yep. That's why you never see iron shirt or the throat trick done with a stabbing motion. If someone took a sharp pointy knife and stabbed him once in the stomach, then he stops it from going through, then I'll be really impressed. I would learn that just so I could walk around being knife proof lol.



Zack Cart said:


> Very cool, very impressive stuff though, that I wouldn't like to try at home


 you and me both, real or fake it's definitely dangerous.  If it's fake and someone tries it for real then it's dangerous.  If it's real and someone tries it for real then it's still dangerous.  Out of the problems I have in life, a spear head in my throat is not one of them and I would like to keep it that way. lol. I've seen more than enough stunt men mess up and get injured to know what stuff to stay away from. AKA anything where a minor slip or miscalculation can result in serious injury.


----------



## kickboxnotthatgood

JowGaWolf said:


> That kickboxing video hurts my soul.  I had to go check their other videos to see what was going on.
> They don't care about self-defense nor are they a Martial arts school. People like that exploit martial and then markets their business as if it's a real martial arts place.  People who don't research join these places thinking that they are learning the real thing.  This is why I get so much back talk about Kung Fu because of people like this.
> Here is what you'll find on their website:
> "Martial Arts based Kickboxing"
> "4th Dan Black Belt in Kickboxing" (Is there such a thing?)
> "Lau Gar kung fu"  (I've never head of it but this is what it looks like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand that this stuff isn't kung fu, it's people who are taking advantage of others and making them think that they can fight with this mess.


i went to lau gar for a week nearly 30 years ago and jeremy yau happened to be there, i went in with an open mind and lets just say i never went again, its sad to see on youtube what it has become with poorly performed non realistic forms and flag waving.


----------

