# Combat proven martial arts. What are the top real world effective arts?



## kip42 (Feb 26, 2011)

I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.

What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


 
Kabumei, the art of the sharpened grenade.

[yt]q1qR85kb4wA[/yt]

:lfao:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 26, 2011)

Combat effectiveness... against what? Do you want to survive a zombie apocalypse? Then kenjutsu would be ideal.

In all seriousness, the question is not easy to answer.
Do you have to stay within the law or not? Against whom would you fight? etc...
Are weapons in the picture? If so, what type? Bladed, blunt, guns, poisons, ...

Without specific scenarios, the term 'combat effective' is really too open to answer.
If you assume serious life or death, than it would be pointless not to choose a weapons based art, as well as guns. If everyone is unarmed, then that is different again, but not something I'd describe as 'combat'.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 26, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Kabumei, the art of the sharpened grenade.
> 
> [yt]q1qR85kb4wA[/yt]
> 
> :lfao:


Kinda hard on the laundry bill...


----------



## Big Don (Feb 26, 2011)

kip42 said:


> What styles have evolved through what worked in combat?


BRM... Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Works like a charm.


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.
> 
> What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


 
So, you're looking for a list of martial arts that are effective and have been proven in a real life SD situation?  Really, the list could be quite large.  Keep in mind, that its not necessarily the art, but the person doing it, and how that person is training.  CKM...well, there has been alot of negativity about that, so IMO, I'd steer clear.  If you want Krav Maga, go to a legit school, altough some KM schools, can be iffy as well, depending on where you go.  

I'm sure there are people out there who've successfully used Kenpo, BJJ, TKD, Kajukenbo, KM, and many others, with alot of success.  My suggestion would be to determine what your goals are, which it seems that you've already done.  Next, figure out what schools are in your area and what they offer.  I'd visit and take a trial lesson at those that interest you.  From there, pick one and start training.  

I'm not going to do the leg work for you, and I doubt anyone else will either.  However, if you gave us an idea of whats around, provided some links to schools, etc., I'd be happy to review and offer suggestions.


----------



## K831 (Feb 26, 2011)

MJS said:


> Really, the list could be quite large.  Keep in mind, that its not necessarily the art, but the person doing it, and how that person is training.



As usual, MJS gave you a great answer. Just to expand on it; there are arts that better fit "combat proven" then others, or rather, have better kept with there combat proven history by continuing to adapt. I prefer the "K" arts personally (Kenpo/Kajukenbo/Kali/Krav Maga) and typically encourage people to start there for real SD application. 

But I agree with MJS.. it is more about the instructor and the way they teach, train and run the school than it is about the style. Certain styles and systems may give and instructor more to work with or a better foundation, but thats it. I am a big American Kenpo and FMA fan. I have been in Kenpo schools and FMA schools that I would NEVER recommend to anyone who wanted real life self defense training. Same with Kaju and Krav... there are crappy schools run by crappy instructors, so even though I would consider the art combat proven, I wouldn't recommended the school. 



MJS said:


> I'm not going to do the leg work for you, and I doubt anyone else will either.  However, if you gave us an idea of whats around, provided some links to schools, etc., I'd be happy to review and offer suggestions.



Agreed. A lot of us can give you some good insight by looking over the website, what it says and how they market, watching videos if there are any etc... also, having been around a while, a lot of us will have a good idea of an instructor by seeing who he has trained with and where he is coming from. It's no guarantee, but may help narrow your search. Start with the "K" arts on google -put in some key words, and post what you find.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

Whatever you do, don't by in to the "it's not the style that matters, it's the practitioner" mentality too much.   It does have a little bit of truth, but some styles ARE better than others. This is a fact.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Whatever you do, don't by in to the "it's not the style that matters, it's the practitioner" mentality too much.   It does have a little bit of truth, but some styles ARE better than others. This is a fact.


I'd disagree.

The instructor and training methods are much more important than the style.  Some styles can be absorbed more quickly and thus be more likely to be effective more quickly but without the proper instruction -- they're still ineffective.  Other styles may take years to be integrated into the body's movement, but once the student does do so -- watch out.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I'd disagree.
> 
> The instructor and training methods are much more important than the style.  Some styles can be absorbed more quickly and thus be more likely to be effective more quickly but without the proper instruction -- they're still ineffective.  Other styles may take years to be integrated into the body's movement, but once the student does do so -- watch out.



They are not all created equal. 
Which do you think is a better style for learning self defense or fighting application?

Contemporary wushu (performance routines) Tao Lu    or       San Shou   ?

In regards to self defense/fighting application, one of those above IS inferior.
 Just like if you want to learn about the night sky, Astrology IS inferior to astronomy.


----------



## kip42 (Feb 26, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Combat effectiveness... against what? Do you want to survive a zombie apocalypse? Then kenjutsu would be ideal.
> 
> In all seriousness, the question is not easy to answer.
> Do you have to stay within the law or not? Against whom would you fight? etc...
> ...


 
I want to survive a modern street attack. Guns, knives, improvised weapons, multi attackers, etc. I went to a firearms school where the contractors for overseas jobs go. I know the laws but when it goes down I want to come out on top first and foremost. There has to be an art that would work better than others in a no rules no laws street defensive situation.

I am interested in the most effective techniques possible. Eye jabs, groin strikes, knee breaks, everything illegal in a competition that keeps you alive on the street...


----------



## clfsean (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> They are not all created equal.
> Which do you think is a better style for learning self defense or fighting application?


 
Doesn't matter as long as they both teach you how to go home.



fangjian said:


> Contemporary wushu (performance routines) Tao Lu or San Shou ?


 
Apples & oranges. One is a distillation of TCMA for the express purpose of physical demonstration following Mao's comment on martial arts that "comrades do not fight comrades" and one is a distillation of the non-combative art after being reinfused with fighting theories.



fangjian said:


> In regards to self defense/fighting application, one of those above IS inferior.


 
No... one focuses on one aspect of MAs, one focuses on another. Both can get you out of a scrape, but I prefer mine which covers both nicely. However, I've seen & met modern guys I wouldn't scrap with because they chose to incorporate sanda into their training. I've also met modern wushu people that wouldn't scare a stick of warm butter. They chose not to incorporate sanda into their training. BUT... if they had to, they could drop a dime on you that might be a tad unexpected.



fangjian said:


> Just like if you want to learn about the night sky, Astrology IS inferior to astronomy.


 
Apples != Oranges.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 26, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I want to survive a modern street attack. Guns, knives, improvised weapons, multi attackers, etc. I went to a firearms school where the contractors for overseas jobs go. I know the laws but when it goes down I want to come out on top first and foremost. There has to be an art that would work better than others in a no rules no laws street defensive situation.
> 
> I am interested in the most effective techniques possible. Eye jabs, groin strikes, knee breaks, everything illegal in a competition that keeps you alive on the street...


 
Well then I suggest taking what you already have in your bag of tricks, finding the nearest biker bar & have a go.

If you make it out, then you're fine. If not, I suggest picking one thing to practice, rinse & repeat.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

Play Streetfighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Killzone, Yakuza (PS2) and repeat. Memorize the moves, the targets, the fatalities, the combos and then go into your backyard and try them out against trees till you get real good. Then use that against an opponent who will do more than shed bark on you when you hit them. 

What you're talking about is brawling not an art. To boot it's the "illegal" stuff you want which IMO no legitimate school *should* be teaching to it's impressionable students (or at least not till they reach a certain level of skill and maturity and know what is appropriate for when). At least that's how it seems to me and I'm only a beginner to MA myself.

EDIT: Sorry Sean beat me to my post!  Kip, in a slightly serious note though, I train in Ninjutsu, I also train in Krav Maga. My primary art is always going to be the first and the latter helps me work on adrenaline based drills and free form expressions of things that I learn from both schools. In a fight I know which art is going to come out primarily. It's the same art that teaches me to perform joint/bone breaks, use improv weapons, eye gouges, groin hits and a range of other things that wouldn't even be allowed in the same arena as a competition. Krav just helps me try it out against people who fight their own way and have no idea what to expect. It IS the practitioner. Your attitude to the art determines what you get out of it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 26, 2011)

Isshin-Ryu.  'Nuff said.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Doesn't matter as long as they both teach you how to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is ludicrous to suggest that all martial arts styles are equal. Or even that all of them are even useful for their intended purpose. Some styles are good on the ground, some are good for stand up, some are good for knife fighting, and some are completely worthless.  All legit martial arts or fighting methods follow the scientific method.  

If you ask the question "What style is better, Muay Thai, Balintawak or Bjj?
of course, the question is meaningless because they all address different areas of combat

However if you ask "I want to compete in MMA competition and looking for the best kickboxing style"  
You will find only a few that can meet that criteria.

Or if someone asks " I have only 1 year to train, and I need to learn a style that kinda' has a little bit of everything for basic self defense. You know.  A little stand up, ground, knife, clinch.....  Real world self defense for the modern day just to feel 'safe'. There's a few schools in my area.  A Kyudo school. A contemporary wushu school. A Taiji school(who only works on performing 24 form).  And a Kajukenbo school. " Which would you recommend to this person?

Btw. I hope you are not suggesting that astrology and astronomy are two separate paths up the same mountain. One of those, just like some martial art styles, is based on evidence. The other is based on believing without evidence.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It is ludicrous to suggest that all martial arts styles are equal. Or even that all of them are even useful for their intended purpose. Some styles are good on the ground, some are good for stand up, some are good for knife fighting, and some are completely worthless. All legit martial arts or fighting methods follow the scientific method.


 
Of course they're not equal. You can't compare BJJ to Wing Chun or Goju-ryu to Muay Thai. Where did you come with that notion or incorrect assumption on your part that I made that statement??



fangjian said:


> If you ask the question "What style is better, Muay Thai, Balintawak or Bjj?
> of course, the question is meaningless because they all address different areas of combat


 
Exactly. Apples & Oranges. Hence, my previous statement concerning the fruit.



fangjian said:


> However if you ask "I want to compete in MMA competition and looking for the best kickboxing style"
> You will find only a few that can meet that criteria.


 
Not really. You will find schools that teach in a competative format vs a non-competative format. However, they will both teach you how to go home. Chances are the non-competative format will encompass ideas/theories/techniques that aren't focused on in the competative school due to fight regulations. Doesn't mean one is better than the other. It means they have different areas of focus.



fangjian said:


> Or if someone asks " I have only 1 year to train, and I need to learn a style that kinda' has a little bit of everything for basic self defense. You know. A little stand up, ground, knife, clinch..... Real world self defense for the modern day just to feel 'safe'. There's a few schools in my area. A Kyudo school. A contemporary wushu school. A Taiji school(who only works on performing 24 form). And a Kajukenbo school. " Which would you recommend to this person?


 
Loaded question. They all have pros & cons. This is a tit-for-tat setup.



fangjian said:


> Btw. I hope you are not suggesting that astrology and astronomy are two separate paths up the same mountain.


 
Nope... if you notice... Apples != Oranges was my statement.



fangjian said:


> One of those, just like some martial art styles, is based on evidence. The other is based on believing without evidence.


 
Martial evidence is survivability. That is a documented fact from all over Asia & the world. 

Astrology is a faith in a pseudo-religion. There's no evidence required, just faith, much like any other religion or belief system.

Apples != Oranges.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

clfsean said:


> Of course they're not equal. You can't compare BJJ to Wing Chun or Goju-ryu to Muay Thai. Where did you come with that notion or incorrect assumption on your part that I made that statement??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for your response. 
Sorry, I do not understand the ( ! ) thing. I'll have to google it. Also some martial arts ARE 'pseudo science and faith/no evidence required 

I get that you know they are all 'not equal'.  The point that I guess I am failing to make is that not only are they all 'not equal' but that some are just actually useless as a fighting or s.d. method. In regards to my loaded question, what exactly are the pros for going to a Taiji 24 form school ( for s.d./fighting techniques)?

You disagree?   If so, please explain why.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Thanks for your response.
> Sorry, I do not understand the ( ! ) thing. I'll have to google it. Also some martial arts ARE 'pseudo science and faith/no evidence required
> 
> I get that you know they are all 'not equal'. The point that I guess I am failing to make is that not only are they all 'not equal' but that some are just actually useless as a fighting or s.d. method.
> ...


 
Which ones are useless?


----------



## oaktree (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Thanks for your response.
> Sorry, I do not understand the ( ! ) thing. I'll have to google it. Also some martial arts ARE 'pseudo science and faith/no evidence required
> 
> I get that you know they are all 'not equal'. The point that I guess I am failing to make is that not only are they all 'not equal' but that some are just actually useless as a fighting or s.d. method. In regards to my loaded question, what exactly are the pros for going to a Taiji 24 form school ( for s.d./fighting techniques)?
> ...


 
Pros of learning Yang 24 Tajiquan form. Depending on the teacher you can learn quite alot of Qin na,Tui Shou, San Shou,Strikes,defensive moments and also learn all the other internal principles with it.

Anyway this thread is silly its an arguement that has been done to death on so many forums over the years. All I have to say about which art is the best is the one applied at the right moment and time needed to apply. Just my opinion it is worth only as much as you want it to be.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 26, 2011)

It's already been said about as well as I could.  I don't completely agree with him -- but Marc MacYoung has covered it pretty well HERE.  You'll also find something of relevance at Budo Blog and this post as well.  These are just fresh in my mind.  There are plenty of others.

Note, please, that I that I thought I made it pretty clear that some arts will give you functional skills more rapidly than others.  By logical extension, some arts are more immediately functional or applicable than others.  Some arts are a whole lot closer to their combative roots than others... and some live deep in fantasy land.  (Rod Sacharnoski's Combat Ki stuff leaps to my mind... along with Dillman's no touch stuff... and lots of others.)  But that doesn't mean that someone who trains in those arts with an attitude and emphasis on actual application for real violence can't use them effectively.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I get that you know they are all 'not equal'. The point that I guess I am failing to make is that not only are they all 'not equal' but that some are just actually useless as a fighting or s.d. method. In regards to my loaded question, what exactly are the pros for going to a Taiji 24 form school ( for s.d./fighting techniques)?
> 
> You disagree? If so, please explain why.


 
I think you need to define useless with examples since you carry that belief. 

Anything is better than nothing. Some have a longer track record so have a longer history of helping the practitioner survive. Some don't. 

As far as taiji 24 goes, it is based on martial principles. If you get a teacher that uses it as an introductory form to get your body aligned & moving, yet also understands the principles of taiji, it's as everybit useful & effective as anything else you practice & put time into.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective. 

This is true.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> It's already been said about as well as I could.  I don't completely agree with him -- but Marc MacYoung has covered it pretty well HERE.  You'll also find something of relevance at Budo Blog and this post as well.  These are just fresh in my mind.  There are plenty of others.
> 
> Note, please, that I that I thought I made it pretty clear that some arts will give you functional skills more rapidly than others.  By logical extension, some arts are more immediately functional or applicable than others.  Some arts are a whole lot closer to their combative roots than others... and some live deep in fantasy land.  (Rod Sacharnoski's Combat Ki stuff leaps to my mind... along with Dillman's no touch stuff... and lots of others.)  But that doesn't mean that someone who trains in those arts with an attitude and emphasis on actual application for real violence can't use them effectively.



Exactly!    Regarding your last sentence, it is the same as someone studying astrology, alchemy, homeopathy........    Yes, they will get SOME knowledge of a few things, but these studies are inferior to astronomy, chemistry, and proper medicine.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective.
> 
> This is true.


 
I think the issue comes back to the history of the art as much as the mentality of the practitioner as the others are saying. Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you read for comps. It's not designed for a street fight or a battlefield. Something like Traditional Jujutsu is designed for the battlefield and has been combat proven. The OP says he's leaving the Bujinkan as the school doesn't teach anything practical. Of course not if you look at the techniques as the sum of the their parts. No one today fights in armor and carries swords around. However the tactics and strategies are timeless and can be translated to suit modern environments if he applies himself. Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important. 

But that being said a well trained TKD practitioner can be deadly in a "real" fight using their speed and agility if nothing else. Someone who has a week of training in the most combative art on the planet however could quickly find themselves in a lot of trouble on the other hand. No matter what you train, train as if it's real, train as if you life depends on it and maybe, hopefully, you can use it when it counts the most. Tai Chi to me is quite easily to translate into combatives from the little I've seen of it. The current practice is a toned down version not involving combat but the basic movements and principles show through even to a beginners' eye.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important.




Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

1 last thing!

I see where I am going wrong with this I think. I am not saying that Taijiquan (all forms of it) or Karate(all forms of it) or whatever are useless. I think when I say the word 'style' you are assuming I mean ALL of a particular name. Like Kung Fu. Arnis etc. 

But what I mean is small substyles of those, of course. Or, like a hypothetical system let's say Jon Kwon Do.        It's basically a little TKD ( 'I' studied it for a year ) mixed with Anting-anting of some Filipino martial arts. So while 'Jon Kwon Do' is a martial arts style. It's a pretty crappy one.


----------



## Balrog (Feb 26, 2011)

kip42 said:


> Every one of them.  It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid


 
30% of Americans may be wrong but it's a belief system held in some form or another by more like 70 - 80% of people from Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Sri Lankan or whatever). Surely you can't state that over a billion people globally are wrong to believe in something because it's THEIR belief. Belief gives something it's power. As pointed out before, it's like religion. Saying that one religion is true or false based on the number of it's followers is a fallacy. *This* topic though is about a physical art, not esoteric beliefs and in that context you pointed out Tai Chi/Taiji was useless. That has since been rebutted stating the art's origins and base philosophies are martial no matter how they may be expressed today. I am of the opinion no art is useless. As JKS said even things like "no touch knockout" can be effective if used by a practitioner with the right mindset to their training and their application. 

With regards to Ninjutsu in particular (Buj or otherwise) as a practitioner of 3 and a half years (I still think I'm a beginner in the grand scheme of MA though) I can say that if you stick with it and apply some lateral thinking, it is completely useful in a range of situations and not limited to just phsyical violence. It's one of the most non competitive arts out there, it's designed to get soldiers and spies home alive out of battlefield situations with no refs or rules. To learn the deeper meanings of the techs though you do need to spend some time getting the basics right before you can appreciate the hidden lessons - which I assume is the same across most traditional arts


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

Balrog said:


> Every one of them.  It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist.



So my hypothetical style above your comment,  'Jon Kwon Do' is equal to let's say all the other 'actual' kickboxing methods? Like San Shou, Muay Lao, Muay Thai.............?


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> 30% of Americans may be wrong but it's a belief system held in some form or another by more like 70 - 80% of people from Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Sri Lankan or whatever). Surely you can't state that over a billion people globally are wrong to believe in something because it's THEIR belief. Belief gives something it's power. As pointed out before, it's like religion. Saying that one religion is true or false based on the number of it's followers is a fallacy.


Sorry, but I do not understand your point. What I was saying is that just because something is old doesn't make it true. I then mentioned astrology. Which is a decent example of something that is not based on evidence yet has survived many years because of the superstitious. I don't think they are wrong because it's THEIR belief.  They are wrong because of overwhelming evidence. 


> *This* topic though is about a physical art, not esoteric beliefs and in that context you pointed out Tai Chi/Taiji was useless. That has since been rebutted stating the art's origins and base philosophies are martial no matter how they may be expressed today. I am of the opinion no art is useless. As JKS said even things like "no touch knockout" can be effective if used by a practitioner with the right mindset to their training and their application.


Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too, some styles of karate, kung fu.......) are inferior to other fighting methods. 
Also, 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'?  Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Sorry, but I do not understand your point. What I was saying is that just because something is old doesn't make it true. I then mentioned astrology. Which is a decent example of something that is not based on evidence yet has survived many years because of the superstitious.


 
Ahh my mistake! I read it as you meaning that certain MA can be just passed off as superstition similar to astrology. 



> Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too) are inferior to other fighting methods. Alse 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'? Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.


 
Again, sorry you posted that "1 more thing" message as I was typing my reply so didn't see it till afterwards. Agreed some substyles can focus on the wrong things and there are bad instructors out there who teach crap in the name of MA using a preset business module but it comes down to the instructors and/or founders themselves in that case, not the art. If you train your Jon Kwon Do but really apply yourself to perfecting all aspects covered in it then as the practitioner you are learning some form of combat which you can then apply. The art itself has no basis, your instructor may have no qualifications apart from a weekend course or online certificate but as the student if you approach it with the attitude of combat and adapt the techs to suit you then you will still learn something useful IMO. Technical perfection is non existant as is any understanding of why it does what it does, but you will know it does it. Similar to what the OP seems to want. Low investment, high return to use in bar brawls or street fights.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 26, 2011)

Hi FangJian,

What styles of Taijiquan are you talking about?
 Can you give examples. Maybe you can give examples of Kungfu or other styles.

When you speak that they are useless can you provide a reason why they are useless?

To me a style that is useless against defending yourself is the one where you punch yourself in the face why your opponent watches.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

Forgot this in my last post, with regards to logic and reason approaching Supernatural claims, I'm not seeing it so much as a Supernatural claim as much as a psychological attitude. I'm not advocating something like the Fire Palm technique advertised in one of Ashida Kim's books or anything of the sort but a psychological 'knock out' is possible. We train it often during our modern self defence section under Verbal De-Escalation. We don't knock out the physical opponent of course, just their mental attitude (aggression). That's what I meant it can be used, if you had the common sense to understand it's a psychological tool and not a physical combative method then you could apply it theoretically,


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Exactly!    Regarding your last sentence, it is  the same as someone studying astrology, alchemy, homeopathy........     Yes, they will get SOME knowledge of a few things, but these studies are  inferior to astronomy, chemistry, and proper medicine.





fangjian said:


> Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too, some styles of karate, kung fu.......) are inferior to other fighting methods.
> Also, 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'?  Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.



Seems like you've just worked your way around to agreeing that it comes down to how you train, not what you train.   

However, I won't rule out as absolutely impossible the no-touch stuff or other claims... I've seen stuff I don't pretend to understand, and I've seen it work.  But the wilder and more extreme the claim -- the more you're going to have to prove it.  One note, though...  Sometimes, the "esoteric" beliefs or explanations are just a tool to help someone understand or communicate the ideas.  Stuff that we might understand as "psychologic manipulation" or even simply techniques from the world of stage magic might easily appear as magic to someone without the scientific underpinning, no?


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Seems like you've just worked your way around to agreeing that it comes down to how you train, not what you train.



hehehe. Funny, but NO. It is not just how you train. But WHAT you are training. Like the astrology/alchemy etc. analogy. Yeah you can bust your *** for a couple decades studying these disciplines but ONE semester of a REAL science will get you further than what is possible with the others. 


> However, I won't rule out as absolutely impossible the no-touch stuff or other claims... I've seen stuff I don't pretend to understand, and I've seen it work.  But the wilder and more extreme the claim -- the more you're going to have to prove it.  One note, though...  Sometimes, the "esoteric" beliefs or explanations are just a tool to help someone understand or communicate the ideas.  Stuff that we might understand as "psychologic manipulation" or even simply techniques from the world of stage magic might easily appear as magic to someone without the scientific underpinning, no?


It will APPEAR as magical. But the placebo effect is so strong. You say you won't 'rule out' it's possibility'. You also can't rule out the 'possible' existence of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, leprechauns, ................, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in such things. 

Regarding Oaktree's question. ( I am very sorry to answer a question with a question but) Are there martial arts styles that exist that do not have an type of sparring. I'm talking no tuishou, chisao, sanshou...............?  I think the answer is 'yes'. So I would regard these styles' fighting technique about as relevant as learning 'american football'. 
Sure, well it's not 'useless'. I mean you got in pretty good shape, learned how to condition your body a little bit, I guess.  But as far as 'fighting ability'  ?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> San Shou,


 
Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal

Again, what styles are you talking about?

I get the Contemporary Wushu bits by the way but just so you know, a lot of those goys on mainland are also taught Sanshou.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 26, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal
> 
> Again, what styles are you talking about?
> 
> I get the Contemporary Wushu bits by the way but just so you know, a lot of those goys on mainland are also taught Sanshou.



Yes some of those guys have done a little sanshou. And they learned 'sport sanshou' for a reason. Because they know that xiandai wushu - tao lu is inferior as a s.d. / fighting method of instruction. Some guys ONLY do tao lu performances. Are they 'martial artists'? I think so. Is their style inferior for fighting technique instruction?  Yup.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 26, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Regarding Oaktree's question. ( I am very sorry to answer a question with a question but) Are there martial arts styles that exist that do not have an type of sparring. I'm talking no tuishou, chisao, sanshou...............? I think the answer is 'yes'. So I would regard these styles' fighting technique about as relevant as learning 'american football'.
> Sure, well it's not 'useless'. I mean you got in pretty good shape, learned how to condition your body a little bit, I guess. But as far as 'fighting ability' ?


 
We don't spar at all. We do free form responses. Students start with preset attacks and defences and then move to unnominated defences against the nominated attacks (to keep the attacker on their toes and targetting properly without preempting what you will do) before moving to complete free form as you get more comfortable with the basics. That comfort can be in the same class or it can be something you get exposed to over time with experience in the art overall. However there is no sparring element as we don't train in a fashion which encourages that approach. When your primary response to someone throwing a punch is to break their arm (ideal, not always black and white but that's the mentality behind certain techs) you don't want to be doing that in a free spar situation under chaos and full blown adrenaline where especially with the beginners control can be an issue. I can't comment on a forum and describe exactly how effective the style is without sounding overly biased though so the offer is here for you to come visit and maybe try a class. I'm sure my instructor wouldn't mind


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Feb 26, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> I think the issue comes back to the history of the art as much as the mentality of the practitioner as the others are saying. Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you read for comps. It's not designed for a street fight or a battlefield. Something like Traditional Jujutsu is designed for the battlefield and has been combat proven. The OP says he's leaving the Bujinkan as the school doesn't teach anything practical. Of course not if you look at the techniques as the sum of the their parts. No one today fights in armor and carries swords around. However the tactics and strategies are timeless and can be translated to suit modern environments if he applies himself. Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important.
> 
> But that being said a well trained TKD practitioner can be deadly in a "real" fight using their speed and agility if nothing else. Someone who has a week of training in the most combative art on the planet however could quickly find themselves in a lot of trouble on the other hand. No matter what you train, train as if it's real, train as if you life depends on it and maybe, hopefully, you can use it when it counts the most. Tai Chi to me is quite easily to translate into combatives from the little I've seen of it. The current practice is a toned down version not involving combat but the basic movements and principles show through even to a beginners' eye.


Here in lies the problem with threads such as these. You said "Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you ready for comps". A statement like this insinuates that ALL tkd clubs focus on sport bcause it is an art designed for competition, which couldnt be further from the truth. SPORT tkd clubs focus on the sport, martial arts tkd clubs focus on the martial side. The problem with so many martial arts discussions is that there are too many generalisations. A martial arts effectiveness comes down to the way its taught and the practitioner learning it. Ive seen too many martial artists from so many different arts kick *** on the 'street' to ever dismiss one of them as useless. Train in any art, make sure you get a good instructor and if "real street effectiveness" is what you want find an instructor who specialises in that form of the art. Enjoying what you do is a big part of getting good at it so find one you have fun doing.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 27, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Here in lies the problem with threads such as these. You said "Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you ready for comps". A statement like this insinuates that ALL tkd clubs focus on sport bcause it is an art designed for competition, which couldnt be further from the truth. SPORT tkd clubs focus on the sport, martial arts tkd clubs focus on the martial side. The problem with so many martial arts discussions is that there are too many generalisations. A martial arts effectiveness comes down to the way its taught and the practitioner learning it. Ive seen too many martial artists from so many different arts kick *** on the 'street' to ever dismiss one of them as useless. Train in any art, make sure you get a good instructor and if "real street effectiveness" is what you want find an instructor who specialises in that form of the art. Enjoying what you do is a big part of getting good at it so find one you have fun doing.


 
Allow me to apologise, I missed the word sport and didn't pick up on it when I went back to edit another typo. I wasn't implying all TKD schools are the same. In fact I say as much in my last paragraph that a well trained TKD practitioner could do a lot more damage in a street fight than someone with a week or so of training in the "most combative" art on the planet which is designed to kick ***. Simple reason being discipline, years of training means the TKD practitioner will have things in muscle memory that the untrained street fighter with a shorter time training.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Feb 27, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Allow me to apologise, I missed the word sport and didn't pick up on it when I went back to edit another typo. I wasn't implying all TKD schools are the same. In fact I say as much in my last paragraph that a well trained TKD practitioner could do a lot more damage in a street fight than someone with a week or so of training in the "most combative" art on the planet which is designed to kick ***. Simple reason being discipline, years of training means the TKD practitioner will have things in muscle memory that the untrained street fighter with a shorter time training.


No offence taken. I just felt the need to clarify that sometimes even within the one art there may be different 'aproaches' to training in so far as what they are trying to gain from it. I am no fan of olympic/sport tkd but had the opportunity to spar against a sport tkdist one time. I had absolutely no idea how quick those guys are, they could deadset kick you twice (and hard) before you would even realise you were in a fight. In saying that, its not aimed toward street effectiveness so other arts may benefit someone more if "the street" is what they were training for. The art itself is only the basic framework used for fighting, its a combination of instructor and student that can use that framework to its full potential.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 27, 2011)

Hmm, I think I'll jump in here...



kip42 said:


> I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.
> 
> What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


 
First things first, Kip, you've been through this with us before.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89388

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1313295#post1313295 (especially post #10)

and even http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89440

The next thing to address is that you don't seem to understand what you are asking for. Something that is "battle-tested", or has "survived hundreds of years" through combat doesn't necessarily make something in any way applicable to a modern self defence encounter. It depends on how it is trained. After all, there are plenty of old warrior traditions that have little to no place or relation to modern combat, whether street violence or a modern battlefield.

When it comes to looking for a "battle proven" system, unless you are looking for an old system that was proven on a battlefield unrelated to the one you may potentially face, you won't find one. The modern "testing ground" is combative themed sports, so if you are eschewing sporting systems, and older systems unrelated to your needs are also out, what will be left for you?

That also brings us to the concept of exactly what these old systems actually are, in terms of "battle proven", but I'm going to address that more in your other Ninjutsu thread. Suffice to say that you've misunderstood the very nature of these arts there. Honestly, the best advice you were given was the advice to visit rough bars and pick fights. But it's also not that practical.

I would ask how often you are in such potentially lethal, violent encounters to cause this to weigh so heavily on your mind? The way it reads from here is that your head is filled with fantasy and paranoia when it comes to violence here, and are looking for a magic technique that will make you unstoppable in three easy lessons.... and that doesn't exist outside of the movies.



kip42 said:


> I want to survive a modern street attack. Guns, knives, improvised weapons, multi attackers, etc. I went to a firearms school where the contractors for overseas jobs go. I know the laws but when it goes down I want to come out on top first and foremost. There has to be an art that would work better than others in a no rules no laws street defensive situation.
> 
> I am interested in the most effective techniques possible. Eye jabs, groin strikes, knee breaks, everything illegal in a competition that keeps you alive on the street...


 
The above post is what I'm refering to here. If you know the laws, then you know that there is no such thing as a "no laws defensive situation". You are asking for a movie fantasy. Eye jabs are not the most effective techniques possible. Groin strikes are not the most effective techniques possible. There are no such things as the most effective techniques possible, as it comes down to the situation itself.



fangjian said:


> All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective.
> 
> This is true.


 
Hmm, actually, I'd disagree with that straight out of hand. It is not true. All martial arts that I have ever come across have very real basis' in their approaches, what those approaches are for varies, though.

Oh, but for the record, I don't count such modern fantasy-based "systems" as the modern "koga ninjitsu", "combat ki", and so on as martial arts in this definition. They are martial fantasies. Your hypothetical Jon Kwon Do fits into this category, rather than martial arts. For them to be martial arts requires this practical basis in the first place.



fangjian said:


> Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid


 
The problem with this comment is that it is specifically the older systems that have far more basis in reality, what would be considered actual scientific principles, such as leverage, weight transference, efficacy of movement, power generation, and so on guiding them through their approaches, it's the modern made up systems that don't. Dismissing older systems as potentially "pseudo-scientific" lacks support.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> hehehe. Funny, but NO. It is not just how you train. But WHAT you are training. Like the astrology/alchemy etc. analogy. Yeah you can bust your *** for a couple decades studying these disciplines but ONE semester of a REAL science will get you further than what is possible with the others.
> 
> It will APPEAR as magical. But the placebo effect is so strong. You say you won't 'rule out' it's possibility'. You also can't rule out the 'possible' existence of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, leprechauns, ................, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in such things.
> 
> ...


 
Its ok to ask a question with a question.
 Define sparing please. I am guessing any type of resistance or pressure testing a technique. Plenty of arts that do not engage in sport like sparing but they still train with aliveness. I do not know every single martial art most likely no one does and I can not prove a negative the negative being prove a non martial art martial art exist.

However you brought up that one does exist so please share with us which arts.

 I also asked you to cite particular styles. You stated certain styles of Taijiquan. Since you or your school teaches Taijiquan(which you did not list as a self defense) do you not teach it with martial application? Which family styles of Taijiquan does not have martial application or is useless? What other styles are useless and why.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Its ok to ask a question with a question.
> Define sparing please. I am guessing any type of resistance or pressure testing a technique. Plenty of arts that do not engage in sport like sparing but they still train with aliveness. I do not know every single martial art most likely no one does and I can not prove a negative the negative being prove a non martial art martial art exist.
> 
> However you brought up that one does exist so please share with us which arts.
> ...


Yes, Sparring= pressure testing    Chi sao, 'rolling', etc..  
I have trained in many different styles of wushu, arnis, aikido, jiujitsu, etc.  and some of them do no type of pressure testing. OR, their 'pressure testing' is really let's say, 'outdated'. Not just taijiquan. I do not teach tuishou. I mostly teach tajiquan for performance/exorcize etc.  However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures for fun.  

And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar.  I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai     A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk. I think that is part of the reason that Kyokushin in it's present form, exists today. They realized that another style had superior techniques, and adjusted their style accordingly. I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident.  This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques. 


> Chris Parker
> Oh, but for the record, I don't count such modern fantasy-based "systems" as the modern "koga ninjitsu", "combat ki", and so on as martial arts in this definition. They are martial fantasies. Your hypothetical Jon Kwon Do fits into this category, rather than martial arts. For them to be martial arts requires this practical basis in the first place.


But a lot of these styles ARE considered 'martial arts'. I consider them to be. Some are just better than others. 


> Chris Parker
> The problem with this comment is that it is specifically the older systems that have far more basis in reality, what would be considered actual scientific principles, such as leverage, weight transference, efficacy of movement, power generation, and so on guiding them through their approaches, it's the modern made up systems that don't. Dismissing older systems as potentially "pseudo-scientific" lacks support.


Sorry. I am not saying that 'old' things are potentially pseudo-scientific. I am saying that 'just because something is old doesn't mean it's true'.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

martial arts cannot be combat proven, only the martial artist can be.

anything else is a foolish waste of time thinking about


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

> Yes, Sparring= pressure testing Chi sao, 'rolling', etc..
> I have trained in many different styles of wushu, arnis, aikido, jiujitsu, etc. and some of them do no type of pressure testing. OR, their 'pressure testing' is really let's say, 'outdated'. Not just taijiquan. I do not teach tuishou. I mostly teach tajiquan for performance/exorcize etc. However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures for fun.


 
If you do not teach Tuishou and just the form and little martial application are you really teaching Taijiquan or a type of Taijiquan dance. It is in some way kinda of hypocritical to say how Taijiquan styles are not very martial when you yourself are teaching it as more of a wushu routine than an actual martial art.

It is not the art that does not do the pressure testing it is the person teaching it that decides to do this. I mean you can pressure test all the styles you listed I have seen it and many on the boards have seen it. What I have seen is particular teachers refuse to pressure test,spar or what not because for what ever reason they don't but that in no way reflects the art as useless it just means that particular teacher within that particular art does not.




> And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar. I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk.


 if we use your logic then. A Taekwondo master vs a guy who started Muay Thai for 2 days well obviously the Taekwondo guy would win right? We are using style vs style.
  Does that mean Muay Thai is not good no does this mean Taekwondo is superior no.  
It simply means the person practicing the techniques is not able to use the techniques in a manner that provides proper execution.

What if another art defeats a high skill Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is better? When some other art beats the fighter who beat the Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is the supreme? What if a person who never took up a martial art beats a Muay thai figher does that mean all martial arts are useless? See how this arguement is a logic fallacy?



> I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident. This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques.


 Sakaruba beat alot of the Gracies using Wrestling. Many wrestlers beat BJJ players does that make BJJ not effective? Does it mean Wrestling is more effective?
Shamrock used wrestling against Gracie and lost. See how again this arguement is a logic fallacy.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

oaktree said:


> If you do not teach Tuishou and just the form and little martial application are you really teaching Taijiquan or a type of Taijiquan dance. It is in some way kinda of hypocritical to say how Taijiquan styles are not very martial when you yourself are teaching it as more of a wushu routine than an actual martial art.


 Yes I do not teach the tui shou. I also do not practice TKD or catch wrestling or Pekiti Tersia. However I can make observations. 



> It is not the art that does not do the pressure testing it is the person teaching it that decides to do this. I mean you can pressure test all the styles you listed I have seen it and many on the boards have seen it. What I have seen is particular teachers refuse to pressure test,spar or what not because for what ever reason they don't but that in no way reflects the art as useless it just means that particular teacher within that particular art does not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am thinking that if 'style A' let's say has 100 techniques. 'Style B' has all of 'style A's 100 techniques and then adds let's say 30 more. 'Style B' has a significant advantage, no? 

Also I'm NOT thinking about a veteran TKD guy vs. a 2 day Muay Thai guy.  I'm thinking more like, ALL things being equal. ie. 5 years training-4 days/week, 170 lb, 5'8",

Also, it's not the end all for anything but, I think that statistics/evidence suggests the most important style to be proficient in for MMA is wrestling.  Numbers don't tell the whole story. But they don't lie either.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> martial arts cannot be combat proven, only the martial artist can be.
> 
> anything else is a foolish waste of time thinking about



I have to disagree. Techniques and 'bodies of techniques' can be tested and observed.  This is how martial arts come to be.

My hypothetical 'Jon Kwon Do' style I made up is absolutely inferior as a fighting/s.d. method as compared to other styles. I am surprised so many disagree with me on that. You can have all the heart in the world as a 'Jon Kwon Doist', and you can be tough as nails. But the training you received in 'Jon Kwon Do' is not up to par with other styles like MT or TKD.


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2011)

K831 said:


> As usual, MJS gave you a great answer. Just to expand on it; there are arts that better fit "combat proven" then others, or rather, have better kept with there combat proven history by continuing to adapt. I prefer the "K" arts personally (Kenpo/Kajukenbo/Kali/Krav Maga) and typically encourage people to start there for real SD application.
> 
> But I agree with MJS.. it is more about the instructor and the way they teach, train and run the school than it is about the style. Certain styles and systems may give and instructor more to work with or a better foundation, but thats it. I am a big American Kenpo and FMA fan. I have been in Kenpo schools and FMA schools that I would NEVER recommend to anyone who wanted real life self defense training. Same with Kaju and Krav... there are crappy schools run by crappy instructors, so even though I would consider the art combat proven, I wouldn't recommended the school.
> 
> ...


 
Good points.  Thanks for expanding on that.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes I do not teach the tui shou. I also do not practice TKD or catch wrestling or Pekiti Tersia. However I can make observations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You still have not answered the question about which family style of Taijiquan are ineffective. You do not teach tuishou yet those who do you deem ineffective then?
If style A has 100 techniques and Style B has all of the techniques of A and adds 30 more this just means it has 30 more than style A. It does not mean B has an advantage(except 30 more) or A is at a disadvantage it simply is a quantity issue. 

Baguazhang has 8 basic palms Taijiquan has depending on counting 108 movements Xingyiquan has 5 element fist to say that one is better than the other simply on how many techniques is silly.


 It is a logic fallacy to think that 2 people engaging in combat are equal in every way.
  This would mean both would have to be equal height,weight,speed,power,experience and the big difference *think exactly* the same without any varation which would be impossible making your arguement about 2 fighters being equal logic fallacy.

Interesting how you were saying before that BJJ was the best


> I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident


 
But then Sakaruba who does wrestling lost many times to BJJ practicers and many practicers of BJJ have lost to wrestlers. Helio Gracie lost to Kimura who did Judo.

The evidence shows its not about the art or techniques but it is the person who can see the way to apply the technique and make it work at that moment in time.



> My hypothetical 'Jon Kwon Do' style I made up is absolutely inferior as a fighting/s.d. method as compared to other styles. I am surprised so many disagree with me on that. You can have all the heart in the world as a 'Jon Kwon Doist', and you can be tough as nails. But the training you received in 'Jon Kwon Do' is not up to par with other styles like MT or TKD.


 
Depends on what Jon Kwon Do is and how they train. 1.Jon Kwon Do sits around and punches air for 2 hours 2.Second Jon Kwon Do does full contact sparing,pressure tests techniques has resistance and real life scenerios. Both use the same techniques in the curriculum so its not the techniques in question or style its the methodology of applied techniques that makes it a successful art or not.

I suppose FangJian we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for letting me see things from your perspective.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures *for fun.*


 
Sorry but this is something that comes up a bit in our classes. You are training and teaching martial arts. Generally speaking, how to fight. Body movements, strikes, defences the whole works. If you are going to train/teach MA then do it because it means something and not "just for fun". Something like XMA is just for fun.



> And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar. I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk. I think that is part of the reason that Kyokushin in it's present form, exists today. They realized that another style had superior techniques, and adjusted their style accordingly. I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident. This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques.


 
Actually I take the opinion that no technique is superior, every tech is equal as long as it's used in the right context. A kick to the head in a sport TKD match is appropriate but not so much in a street fight, a Muay Thai knee might be better. The applies in reverse too. Some techs from Muay Thai would work great in a Muay Thai ring but not a TKD floor. Also it really just comes down to the students, what's brilliant for me wouldn't necessarily work as well for you. I can't do kicks to the head, I get about shoulder height before I start to seriously lose balance but my stomping kicks are very very effective. One of my training partners can kick me in the head any day of the week but his stomps are weak and tend to deflect off the target. Doesn't make one kick "better" just better suited for the person using it. As for the BJJ guys winning most of the fights, yes on the ground which is their world with their rules you can't match them. Also they are amazingly fit and I have no doubt they can improvise like hell when they need to. But you can't use that to say BJJ is the ultimate art. No art is the ultimate art, it's just the best art for a particular person. So going round and round in circles, it still comes down to the student.

Oh and just as a quick reply to your other post about 100 techs vs 130 techs - the second style isn't necessarily better. You would need to look at why the first style sticks to 100 techs. Also if you can end a fight using one or two solid techs, why would you want to bother learning an extra 30 apart from a desire to get full transmission of the art? It's been said to death on several threads here there are only so many ways your body can move and hit. You'd be much better off going for the style that teaches you the principles and strategies behind the movements in a way that lets you apply tech 1 to situation 1 or situation 100 equally as opposed to attack a means response b etc. Especially when you're talking about street fighting like the OP wanted which has no rules and is chaotic and random at best. I don't personally want to stand there and run through a catalogue of techs I've been taught in my head while a punch or a broken bottle comes into my face


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes some of those guys have done a little sanshou. And they learned 'sport sanshou' for a reason. Because they know that xiandai wushu - tao lu is inferior as a s.d. / fighting method of instruction. Some guys ONLY do tao lu performances. Are they 'martial artists'? I think so. Is their style inferior for fighting technique instruction? Yup.


 
okie dokie

Let me say this one more time

_Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal_

Now let me ask this for the third and final time

_Again, what styles are you talking about?_

If you do not answer I will assume you do not want to or you do not know but I will not ask agian so you do not need to worry about it popping up from me again


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

oaktree said:


> You still have not answered the question about which family style of Taijiquan are ineffective. You do not teach tuishou yet those who do you deem ineffective then?
> If style A has 100 techniques and Style B has all of the techniques of A and adds 30 more this just means it has 30 more than style A. It does not mean B has an advantage(except 30 more) or A is at a disadvantage it simply is a quantity issue.


Style B DEFINITELY has an advantage. I think that the history of western boxing shows this. All things (size, height, etc. )  being equal, the new techniques of bobbing, weaving, using jabs, was superior to the J. Sullivan style. The fighter with these new techniques has a HUGE advantage.  Does that make sense?  

Also, it is my opinion that Muay Thai is a superior fighting system to western boxing. I think that is a decent example as well. MT has more techniques, more ways of defeating the opponent, etc. 
Regarding tui shou.  Tuishou is very cool, but some schools, it's ALL they do. Some schools don't do it at all. I think it's great but also a bit limited. Through observation I would suggest that there are many other types of 'sparring' that are better, and may prepare a person for combat more effectively.  I also did aikido for some time. Some of it is ok. But there are better methods found in other styles to prepare for combat. If you could run like a supercomputer 'holodeck' star trek technology simulation where you get a person who trains, let's say, 'sport san shou' (the style of liu Hailong so there's no confusion) and put it up against an aikidoka of the same experience, weight etc. , I would bet 99 times out of 100 the san shou guy would win. 



> Depends on what Jon Kwon Do is and how they train. 1.Jon Kwon Do sits around and punches air for 2 hours 2.Second Jon Kwon Do does full contact sparing,pressure tests techniques has resistance and real life scenerios. Both use the same techniques in the curriculum so its not the techniques in question or style its the methodology of applied techniques that makes it a successful art or not.


 Yeah but Jon Kwon Do's techniques are high risk and low percentage moves. They're not as refined as other styles. 


> I suppose FangJian we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for letting me see things from your perspective.


 Likewise. Please respond to this one though, if you have time.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> okie dokie
> 
> Let me say this one more time
> 
> ...


'Sport San Shou'. Let's say the one they teach to the Zhejiang Wushu San Shou Team. I'd be willing to bet that their fighting system is superior to some other styles in the world, no? Whatever one you wanna 'insert here'  -  Villari karate style, combat ki style, idk. 

You're right. They all are not equal. I know. That's what I've been trying to say.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Style B DEFINITELY has an advantage. I think that the history of western boxing shows this. All things (size, height, etc. ) being equal, the new techniques of bobbing, weaving, using jabs, was superior to the J. Sullivan style. The fighter with these new techniques has a HUGE advantage. Does that make sense?
> 
> Also, it is my opinion that Muay Thai is a superior fighting system to western boxing. I think that is a decent example as well. MT has more techniques, more ways of defeating the opponent, etc.
> Regarding tui shou. Tuishou is very cool, but some schools, it's ALL they do. Some schools don't do it at all. I think it's great but also a bit limited. Through observation I would suggest that there are many other types of 'sparring' that are better, and may prepare a person for combat more effectively. I also did aikido for some time. Some of it is ok. But there are better methods found in other styles to prepare for combat. If you could run like a supercomputer 'holodeck' star trek technology simulation where you get a person who trains, let's say, 'sport san shou' (the style of liu Hailong so there's no confusion) and put it up against an aikidoka of the same experience, weight etc. , I would bet 99 times out of 100 the san shou guy would win.
> ...


 
You are refering to Bare Knuckle boxing vs Gloved boxing? The rules of engagement were different. Punches thrown with gloves are thrown different then thrown bare knuckled.
Was one better than the other hard to say the rules for London Prize which did not wear gloves and had wrestling in it VS. QueenBerry which had gloves and no wrestling so its not very fair to say one is superior to the other. 


But your arguement was if one style had all the techniques of a pervious style and modern boxing does not have all the techniques of bare knuckle because modern boxing does not wrestle.

Since BJJ comes from Judo it has most of the techniques of Judo. BJJ has more emphasis on Ground work but against Kosen Judo they are pretty even. Judo has more emphasis on throwing techniques even though BJJ does have it. It does not mean one is superior over the other just simply means one focuses more on one aspect more.

A Muay Thai fighter would have a hard time fighting under boxing rules same as a Boxer would have a hard time fighting under Muay Thai rules. If it is a street Brawl who knows One might get a lucky punch,slip fall one might use a weapon as you can see its never fair and equal.

Tuishou depends how hard you want to do it:
Here is Chen Bing doing Tuishou:




 
Tuishou is just one part of Taijiquan. Chen Xiaowang spoke about Chen Taijiquan and Sanshou with Taijiquan so you can see the martial aspects:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqKHOg9DZfU&feature=related

Its all there.

Plenty of people who find Aikido to be great:




 




 
Aikido vs San shou who knows if the Aikidoka knows how to use Irimi,timing,space correctly then he may win if the San shou person knows how to close the gap and bring the person into a throw then maybe the San shou person wins who knows really. It depends on the 2 people involved. It may be also that on that particular day the one person wins but 2 weeks later for the match that person looses now.

I saw a video of a black belt in Kenpo loose a fight to a con with no martial experience got knocked out cold does this mean Kenpo is useless or that this person was either 1.not good at Kenpo or 2.the con was better at fighting then him.

Its not the techniques any technique can be useful if applied at the right time and place.
 Thinking one technique is superior or inferior fails to grasp the concept of application. 

I like to speak about Ninjutsu for a minute because they get alot of flack for not sparing in the general sense of the word. However there is nothing wrong with their technique the throws locks and strikes work if they are trained in a live manner and are applied in the right time and right place.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Since BJJ comes from Judo it has most of the techniques of Judo. BJJ has more emphasis on Ground work but against Kosen Judo they are pretty even. Judo has more emphasis on throwing techniques even though BJJ does have it. It does not mean one is superior over the other just simply means one focuses more on one aspect more.


I'd like to stick with this for a minute. In my way of thinking, I would assume that if you run all possibilities ( like on the 'holodeck'   )   , one style will outperform another consistently. I would assume that if you got all 'ground fighting systems' (Bjj, catch, harimau, kosen ...) to go through this exorcize, one would prove through probability to come out 'on top' more often. In all probabilities. 

The same for all stand up styles ( Boxing, Muay Thai, Villari Karate, Kyusho Jitsu......) I I would imagine a few would come out on top more often.  
You disagree?
Hope I am making myself clearer.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

@ Oak Tree

Thanks for the clips btw.  You know it's funny. My best friend's a police officer. Out of all of the techniques I've ever shown him from Bjj, Aikido, Muay Thai, Wushu, Balintawak......   He always told me he uses 'Irimi Nage' the most. 

I'd be interested to see a video of someone who is considered an expert in tuishou to have a clinch sparring session with other 'clinch ' styles ( Freestyle, Greco, some FMA etc....)


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'd like to stick with this for a minute. In my way of thinking, I would assume that if you run all possibilities ( like on the 'holodeck'  ) , one style will outperform another consistently. I would assume that if you got all 'ground fighting systems' (Bjj, catch, harimau, kosen ...) to go through this exorcize, one would prove through probability to come out 'on top' more often. In all probabilities.
> 
> The same for all stand up styles ( Boxing, Muay Thai, Villari Karate, Kyusho Jitsu......) I I would imagine a few would come out on top more often.
> You disagree?
> Hope I am making myself clearer.


 
But from what we have seen is that there is no one great style over the other.
We have seen Judo beat BJJ(Kimura vs Gracie) we have seen BJJ beat wrestling
(Gracie vs Shamrock) we have seen wrestling beat BJJ(Sakuraba vs Gracie)

Then it can go into strikers and Grapplers and we have seen each style win which in some way is why it is called MMA. 

Stand up depends. 
TKD VS Thai Boxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siNuSax8uQU&feature=related
You can see both styles are great and both fighters are great too. As you can see it really depends on the person in the style.
 We can find TKD who focus more on Olympic type fighting and we can find people who focus more on kickboxing for health. The techniques are there
but its how you train that makes the difference between them. So its not the style or techniques that matter but the person who uses them correctly for what ever purpose at hand.


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2011)

K831 said:


> As usual, MJS gave you a great answer. Just to expand on it; there are arts that better fit "combat proven" then others, or rather, have better kept with there combat proven history by continuing to adapt. I prefer the "K" arts personally (Kenpo/Kajukenbo/Kali/Krav Maga) and typically encourage people to start there for real SD application.
> 
> But I agree with MJS.. it is more about the instructor and the way they teach, train and run the school than it is about the style. Certain styles and systems may give and instructor more to work with or a better foundation, but thats it. I am a big American Kenpo and FMA fan. I have been in Kenpo schools and FMA schools that I would NEVER recommend to anyone who wanted real life self defense training. Same with Kaju and Krav... there are crappy schools run by crappy instructors, so even though I would consider the art combat proven, I wouldn't recommended the school.
> 
> ...


 


fangjian said:


> Whatever you do, don't by in to the "it's not the style that matters, it's the practitioner" mentality too much. It does have a little bit of truth, but some styles ARE better than others. This is a fact.


 


jks9199 said:


> I'd disagree.
> 
> The instructor and training methods are much more important than the style. Some styles can be absorbed more quickly and thus be more likely to be effective more quickly but without the proper instruction -- they're still ineffective. Other styles may take years to be integrated into the body's movement, but once the student does do so -- watch out.


 
Just to expand on what I said to K831 earlier, and to touch on what JKS and fangjian said...I agree that some arts are better than others.  For example...if I wanted to improve my knife skills, I'd most likely pick a FMA, instead of Kenpo or TKD or Shotokan.  OTOH, is it possible that the Kenpo, TKD or Shotokan teacher realizes that the knife defenses suck and finds ways to improve them, without looking at another art, and staying within the confines of their art?  I doubt every Kenpo teacher teaches the same.  

If someone wanted to learn some quick, effective things, I'd probably suggest something like KM.  Why?  No kata, no forms, just the barebones stuff.  Could someone who does Kenpo, do the same thing?  I'd say yes.  I should be able to take the art, strip it down, and teach someone how to defend themselves, in a relatively short amount of time, less the kata, weapons forms, etc.  That being said, thats why I said its how the art is trained.  Some people perfer to train with little to no contact, some prefer to train with lots of contact.  Some offer no resistance and stand there like a limp dummy when doing techs, others add resistance and aliveness.  Same art, two different ways of training it.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 27, 2011)

There's a thread in the Aikido forums discussing what a fight would look like between 2 Aikidoka and also Aikidoka vs other styles, it was agreed that a real fight between 2 Aikidoka would go something like this: 2 Aikidoka enter the ring, bow, then leave.  

Apples to Oranges was a great analogy used before. That said, seeing 2 opponents from different styles spar can be fun and very educational. I know I learn a few things when sparring with someone at KM who has a different background and likewise they learn from me but in the end neither is better and the number of 'wins' is fairly equal (assuming same level or experience with MA). Size doesn't factor into it as much neither does strength or weight because that's what the old techs were all about, utilizing what you have to defeat an opponent of all shapes and sizes. 

Also the biggest issue with crossing styles is going to be the different rules. A Judo player will have their set of rules in their mind whereas an MMA guy would have his own. To have a truly fair contest you would need to design a whole new set of rules that doesn't favour one or the other and still manage to keep the match meaningful. In terms of different wrestling styles an example that was given to me a while ago by my instructor was: In Olympic wrestling you win if the opponents back touches the ground so when taken down you will try stay on your side or front as much as possible. In MMA you want to be on your back and have them in your guard so you can block/parry/attack/submit etc. If you get them both into a match, the MMA guy will say he wins in that situation because the opponent is on their front allowing a choke or submission but the Greco Roman wrestling guy will say he's managed to stay on his front so he hasn't lost. See the issue?


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Style B DEFINITELY has an advantage. I think that the history of western boxing shows this. All things (size, height, etc. )  being equal, the new techniques of bobbing, weaving, using jabs, was superior to the J. Sullivan style. The fighter with these new techniques has a HUGE advantage.  Does that make sense?


No, because there was also a change in rules.  The rules that John Sullivan and others fought under weren't the same as today's rules; they were much closer to modern MMA than modern boxing.  One of our members (who escapes me for the moment) has several excellent articles about how things changed as the rules changed.





> Also, it is my opinion that Muay Thai is a superior fighting system to western boxing. I think that is a decent example as well. MT has more techniques, more ways of defeating the opponent, etc.


For kickboxing, Muay Thai is superior to boxing.  But put the same gloves on, limit the targets to the front of the upper body and head, and you'll find them about the same, I suspect.  A Golden Gloves boxer going up against a comparably skilled Thai boxer under Muay Thai rules will probably get his *** handed to him, unless he really prepares for the specifics of the fight.  Do it under US Amateur Boxing rules, and I'd say the events stacked in the boxer's corner.  Comparing sporting martial arts is easy -- but you have to hold them to the same rules.  Comparing arts for real combat is different...

When you look at any hand to hand or DT training, whether it's a formal martial arts class, a self defense course, or a LE/Military Defensive Tactics program, you're asking a different question -- which does it bring us back to the OP's question, in a roundabout way.  Rory Miller summed up a good tool for assessment:
I agree completely, but  (and  I was thinking about something/somebody specific) sometimes you get  incredible insight into becoming more efficient at things that dont  work.  Thinks that have no tactical application.
And that was my blindspot.  US Marshal Jones said that in order for a technique to be valid it must have three elements.  The list now has four, so I must have added one and Im not sure which it was:
·      Anything you teach must have a tactical use.  Reholstering quickly doesnt have a tactical use.  Outside  of handcuffing, breaking a turtle (the judo guys know what I mean) not  only has no self-defense use but theres no way to do it without being  the bad guy, legally.
·      It must work moving or standing still.  If you cant hit hard when both you and the threat are moving, you cant hit hard.  If  you cant put a bullet on target on a moving target while you, yourself  are moving, for all tactical purposes you cant shoot.
·      It  must work whether you can see or not (and this is likely the one I  added, because JJ is primarily a shooter and there are lots of shooting  skills that rely on sight but at the same time he insisted that  everything except target acquisition be done by touch.)
·      The technique must work when you are scared, under an adrenaline dump.  If the technique needs a clear head and pinpoint precision to work, it doesnt work.

These are classic, and I apply them to my trainingbut I am training for things.  For very specific things.  Not just one thing, either.  Getting out of a place alive when things go to **** is a different skill than handcuffing.  Its also a different problem armed than it is unarmed.  But the skills and training always serve the goals.

​To reiterate:  One way to determine if a given art or technique is combat effective, ask yourself 4 questions;


Does it serve a tactical purpose?
Does it rely on either being able to move -- or being unable to move?
Will it work in conditions where you can't see clearly?
Will it work when you're not at optimal -- in the adrenaline dump, when you're exhausted, or hurt, or whatever moves you out of ideal?
When you look at an art -- look at more than one technique.  Are the tactics designed for the battlefield you're preparing to face?  A tanker today probably isn't well served by studying even the best manual or treatise on tactics for 18th century set-piece battles, or even WWI trench warfare.  The tactics being used by the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for house clearing don't work and aren't applicable to LE here in the US.  Different rules... different missions... different tactics.  Civilian self-defense is different than LE arrest and control.

Look at how the art trains, too.  Is it recognizing real situations -- or does it require mats and no obstructions?  Is it built around attacks that are likely?  Does the training put the practitioners at controlled risk?  (If not -- how are they really preparing for actual attacks?  Ever seen people practice "self defense" with attacks that never enter into range?)

Something else I'll throw in, since the "100 vs 130 techs" argument was pulled...  There's a point where too many choices and too many options can lead to paralysis.  Most of the folks I know with real experience facing real violence pare their training down to the fewest and simplest responses that handle the most threats.  I move forward, off the line, covering.  Everything else is built from that.  If you're in the way; I go through you, or I move you.   Bruce Lee is quoted as saying that he "didn't fear the man who knows a thousand punches; I fear the man who practiced one punch a thousand times."

Any art can be effective in handling real violence.  Some arts most certainly are closer to being effective than others -- if trained with that emphasis.  But in the end, it's not the art -- it's how it's trained.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 27, 2011)

MJS said:


> Just to expand on what I said to K831 earlier, and to touch on what JKS and fangjian said...I agree that some arts are better than others. For example...if I wanted to improve my knife skills, I'd most likely pick a FMA, instead of Kenpo or TKD or Shotokan. OTOH, is it possible that the Kenpo, TKD or Shotokan teacher realizes that the knife defenses suck and finds ways to improve them, without looking at another art, and staying within the confines of their art? I doubt every Kenpo teacher teaches the same.
> 
> If someone wanted to learn some quick, effective things, I'd probably suggest something like KM. Why? No kata, no forms, just the barebones stuff. Could someone who does Kenpo, do the same thing? I'd say yes. I should be able to take the art, strip it down, and teach someone how to defend themselves, in a relatively short amount of time, less the kata, weapons forms, etc. That being said, thats why I said its how the art is trained. Some people perfer to train with little to no contact, some prefer to train with lots of contact. Some offer no resistance and stand there like a limp dummy when doing techs, others add resistance and aliveness. Same art, two different ways of training it.


 
I'm still reading that as it comes down to the practitioner  For instance with Ninjutsu, how the Bujinkan train is different to how the Genbukan train if I'm not wrong and that's different to how we train. Different attitudes and approaches to the one art. Plus the instructors' persoanlity and other experience would come into play as you said. I think you've also mentioned in the past that you've covered a range of weapons in different arts but found some to be more adaptable to todays environment etc. In the context of the particular art though, it would be highly appropriate and adequate I would think?


----------



## fangjian (Feb 27, 2011)

I'll see if I can simplify it even more. If I have a boxing style that only has straight punches and I face a boxing style that has straight punches and hooking punches?  I am at a disadvantage. 


Is this not a relevant way to ask the question?

-It's why we add new stuff to our curriculums. To get an 'edge'.


----------



## oaktree (Feb 27, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'll see if I can simplify it even more. If I have a boxing style that only has straight punches and I face a boxing style that has straight punches and hooking punches? I am at a disadvantage.
> 
> 
> Is this not a relevant way to ask the question?
> ...


 
Its very general. Lets say someone thinks they have the advantage and throws hooks you could duck and throw plenty of straight leads into the mid-section.
If you have good timing you could bob and weave and make him overshoot the hook leaving a nice opening. 

Just because you have more than one technique does not mean you are at an advantage. Fighting is about outsmarting your opponent, looking for openings,explotation of your opponents weakness. 
Many people think Wing Chun is inferior again it depends on the person and the training involved. Just because your experience or my experience tells us one thing does not make it the absolute experiences for all others.

Have a wonderful night. :wavey:


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2011)

oaktree said:


> Its very general. Lets say someone thinks they have the advantage and throws hooks you could duck and throw plenty of straight leads into the mid-section.
> If you have good timing you could bob and weave and make him overshoot the hook leaving a nice opening.
> 
> Just because you have more than one technique does not mean you are at an advantage. Fighting is about outsmarting your opponent, looking for openings,explotation of your opponents weakness.
> ...


 
Good points.  Its funny, because many times, when I'm working techs., I tend to find myself repeating specific defenses for a particular attack.  Now, I have numerous right punch defenses, yet why is it I fall back on the same one?  

Your post also got me thinking about Bill Wallace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wallace_(martial_arts)

 "He was known for his fast left leg kicks,[5] especially his roundhouse kick and his hook kick, which was clocked at about 60 mph.[4] He focused on his left leg due the Judo-related injury to his right knee, using the right leg primarily as a base."

So here you have a guy who used 1 leg, had 2 bread and butter kicks, and constantly scored with them.


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> I'm still reading that as it comes down to the practitioner  For instance with Ninjutsu, how the Bujinkan train is different to how the Genbukan train if I'm not wrong and that's different to how we train. Different attitudes and approaches to the one art. Plus the instructors' persoanlity and other experience would come into play as you said. I think you've also mentioned in the past that you've covered a range of weapons in different arts but found some to be more adaptable to todays environment etc. In the context of the particular art though, it would be highly appropriate and adequate I would think?


 
Yup, thats primarily my stand on this.   Yes, I've looked at different arts, and have adapted my training accordingly.  Yet others in Kenpo dont agree with that line of thinking.  This is all fine of course, but I think it goes to show that its the person more than the art.


----------



## K831 (Feb 27, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> To reiterate:  One way to determine if a given art or technique is combat effective, ask yourself 4 questions;
> 
> 
> Does it serve a tactical purpose?
> ...



Great response, the only part I am not sure I agree with is the Bruce Lee quote... pretty sure it was kicks, not punches. 

Seriously though, the list 1-4 is pretty good. I remember when I tested with the police department, looking at all the gear (boots, duty belt, chest rig etc) and thinking, wow, I'm glad I moved from a school/style that focused on high kicks and spinning moves to Kenpo. Hard and unrealistic to jump and kick in all that gear. How well the style fits a realistic situation (when its dark, your tired or hurt or scared) and what tactics drive its techniques is pretty key. 

Agreed that how the art trains and whether or not it uses real situations is key too. However, this is part art, and again, part instructor. 

On the subject of "analysis paralysis"... I couldn't agree more. This has always been my main frustration with Kenpo. I love the art, but too many techniques, forms etc. The simplicity and streamlined approach of Krav or Kali with the mechanics of Kenpo. There we go! 

Anyhow, great response. 

As to the topic of style 1 vs style 2 - yes, I believe some styles are better than others for all purpose real life SD, however, that is all negated by the right (or wrong) instructor.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 27, 2011)

*I think even more important* than anything else is finding a way to stick with your training. (irregardless of what it is)  To many people start training then stop mostly never to return.  Some people train, stop, train, stop, train always getting a little skill and then because they stop it diminishes and they start over again.  Instead by finding someone that is good and also is teaching what you are looking for you can train and continue to train and get better over time and keep your skills because you are training!  Instead of being that guy/gal in a conversation who "use to" train whose skills are relatively gone at this point!

Taking the above in consideration it is important to find some thing that you like, train in, can understand and have faith in your training and finally let go and let your training come forth in a violent encounter where you have to protect yourself or your loved ones!  That part is the hard part! :shrug:  

If combative or personal protection is what you are looking for there are *lot's* of systems that may work for you.  However, in the end *you either have it or you don't!*  It does boil eventually on you being able to make your training work!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> 'Sport San Shou'. Let's say the one they teach to the Zhejiang Wushu San Shou Team. I'd be willing to bet that their fighting system is superior to some other styles in the world, no? Whatever one you wanna 'insert here' - Villari karate style, combat ki style, idk.
> 
> You're right. They all are not equal. I know. That's what I've been trying to say.


 
Thanks for the answer.

You do realize that what the Chinese Government teaches their Military and police is also called Sanshou don't you?  

And it is very VERY different from what you see in the ring


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> 'Sport San Shou'. Let's say the one they teach to the Zhejiang Wushu San Shou Team. I'd be willing to bet that their fighting system is superior to some other styles in the world, no? Whatever one you wanna 'insert here'  -  Villari karate style, combat ki style, idk.
> 
> You're right. They all are not equal. I know. That's what I've been trying to say.


 
Funny choice... I happen to know one of the coaches of the Zhejiang team from Hangzhou. Met him years back & learned xingyi from him. 

He's paid by day to teach wushu at the university & for the team the modern stuff that he has to. At night, he teaches the police in Hangzhou the stuff he learned as a kid & other TMA styles.

Chances are the sport sanda guys wouldn't exactly know what to do with him.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Thanks for the answer.
> 
> You do realize that what the Chinese Government teaches their Military and police is also called Sanshou don't you?
> 
> And it is very VERY different from what you see in the ring


Well I know that sanshou is the word that is used to generally refer to any free sparring, so that doesn't surprise me. 
I can't say I am aware of what they teach there. I assume all the different units would get different types of training depending on what their specialty is. I was in the US Army for about 10 years. I learned about zero hand to hand skills. It was all about 'basic' CQB. Now they got a lot of great stuff for hand to hand for many different MOS's. 

I'd love to see what they teach to their soldiers/LE and where they draw their techniques from. Sport SanShou?  Traditional BaJi?


----------



## clfsean (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Well I know that sanshou is the word that is used to generally refer to any free sparring, so that doesn't surprise me.
> I can't say I am aware of what they teach there. I assume all the different units would get different types of training depending on what their specialty is. I was in the US Army for about 10 years. I learned about zero hand to hand skills. It was all about 'basic' CQB. Now they got a lot of great stuff for hand to hand for many different MOS's.
> 
> I'd love to see what they teach to their soldiers/LE and where they draw their techniques from. Sport SanShou? Traditional BaJi?


 
Gung Lik Kuen, Ying Yi Kuen Ng Ying, San Da... smidgets of everything they have available really. Things that are easy & quick to digest with effectiveness.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It is ludicrous to suggest that all martial arts styles are equal.



I couldn't be bothered to read thru the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been asked.

Fangjian,  since you feel so strongly about this, could you give us a list of methods that you feel are objectively superior, and a list of methods that you feel are objectively inferior?  And maybe some reasons why you think so?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 28, 2011)

fangjian said:


> -It's why we add new stuff to our curriculums. To get an 'edge'.



maybe.  It could also be because you don't really understand how to use what you have and you are on a quest for a magic bullet that doesn't exist.  You'll have to decide for yourself what your reasons are.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I couldn't be bothered to read thru the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been asked.


I hate when that happens. Sometimes I wanna respond to a certain question or comment, but I don't wanna' read through 22 pages of a thread. lolz


> Fangjian,  since you feel so strongly about this, could you give us a list of methods that you feel are objectively superior, and a list of methods that you feel are objectively inferior?  And maybe some reasons why you think so?



Well, when I use the word ' style ', let's say that all I mean is a 'body of techniques and methodologies' that a 'school' adheres to. Now let's say that I have a system of fighting that uses the techniques: Hook punches, Uppercuts, Overhands, and no defense besides just 'putting your arms up in a basic 'shell'. The rules?: Only striking with the fists and no, let's say 'dirty tricks'. 

Now let's say a new system evolves some time after that uses all of the same techniques of our old system but also now uses: straight punches, 8 different kinds of kicks, complex footwork, parrying, methods of bating, intricate combinations, etc. Also the rules are less strict. Allows use of kicks, elbows, clinch work etc. 

All I am saying is that it seems reasonable that our newly evolved system is superior to the old one.  Is it possible that someone from the old system can win?   Of course!!!  But his/her chances are not as good ( in ALL scenarios ).  That doesn't seem unreasonable. 



> maybe. It could also be because you don't really understand how to use what you have and you are on a quest for a magic bullet that doesn't exist. You'll have to decide for yourself what your reasons are.


I understand SOME of what I have. I know it makes me sound arrogant to say 'some styles are superior/inferior'.  I  KNOW.  But it just seems like an observation of reality to me.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 28, 2011)

I think you can find cases of every MA having a practitioner that used it to defend him/herself. Under that condition all MA are valid.

I just pointed out in another thread you started that tactics and strategy determine the effectivness of the techniques that are used. many MA have a wrist lock, how  and when they apply that wrist lock is what makes them different and their differing philosophies would decide whether such a technique is appropriate for them in the first place.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think you can find cases of every MA having a practitioner that used it to defend him/herself. Under that condition all MA are valid.


 Yes I am aware that all MA are 'valid'. But that doesn't mean they are all 'equal'


> I just pointed out in another thread you started that tactics and strategy determine the effectivness of the techniques that are used. many MA have a wrist lock, how  and when they apply that wrist lock is what makes them different and their differing philosophies would decide whether such a technique is appropriate for them in the first place.


Wristlocks. I have landed a few wristlocks from Chin Na on a few BJJ'rs. Which was totally awesome, btw!!!  hehe

Let's have a style of martial arts and call it Bjj. Now lets say someone 'masters' all of the stuff in their 'curriculum'. Then he/she adds tons and tons of chin na ( plus let's say tons of catch as catch can too) that they incorporated into ground fighting and called their style  '..ummmmm Ecuadorian Jiu Jitsu  Ejj.  Wouldn't the Ejjr's have a huge edge?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 28, 2011)

Sorry. I practice only JMA, i don't really know what Chin na is.

I believe I understand your thought behind the more is better arguement. After all my martial art practices striking, grappling, groundfighting, classical and modern weapons, multiple attackers and de-escalation. But it is not the techniques that matter here, it is how well one can apply the principles of the art in a different situation.

Some martial arts have principles that do not work well with the principles of another system. Neither is better just different and it comes down to taste. The question shouldn't be "what is the more effective art?" it should be "what is effective for me?"

I think you are missing clfsean's point about apples and oranges. You say arts aren't equal. He is basically saying the same but for a different reason. You basically say an art can be inferior (1 does not equal 2, because 1< 2) Clfsean, I believe is saying arts are not inferior because they are not meant for the same thing (1 does not equal "A" because "A" is not a number) I agree with this second approach.

Adding techniques does not make a person more effective. If a boxer spends time practicing punching only, and fights a person with both various striking and grappling abilities it doesn't matter how many different things they know, what matters is how well the person is trained at what he will do during the fight. Whichever fighter  has the better strategy will set up his technique better. It doesn't matter how many techniques you know, what matters is how well you apply what you know.  

That's why you can't really compare some martial arts

By the way Clifsean, if I am misinterpreting you please correct me.


----------



## fangjian (Feb 28, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I believe I understand your thought behind the more is better arguement. After all my martial art practices striking, grappling, groundfighting, classical and modern weapons, multiple attackers and de-escalation. But it is not the techniques that matter here, it is how well one can apply the principles of the art in a different situation.



 Not necessarily 'more' is better either. It could be that 'less' (bs) is better. 

Ok you sound like you have a good curriculum where you are. Let's say you know everything I do. But you know what? I don't train or teach for 'multiple attackers'. I've addressed it a couple times. I've thought about doing it at my place, but just never got around to it. ( which is true, btw hehe)
But all other things being equal, and you having everything I have. These added methods of dealing with multiple attacker, I would consider your style superior to mine. Is this not reasonable, Himura san?


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think you are missing clfsean's point about apples and oranges. You say arts aren't equal. He is basically saying the same but for a different reason. You basically say an art can be inferior (1 does not equal 2, because 1< 2) Clfsean, I believe is saying arts are not inferior because they are not meant for the same thing (1 does not equal "A" because "A" is not a number) I agree with this second approach.



'they are not meant for the same thing'

This is exactly why I feel one may be superior than another. One style may be opted for just use of the hands or just use of the right knee etc. . The other style is opted for use of 'everything' let's say MMA rules. the 'styles' created for the more flexible rule system will be superior than the styles created for the more strict rule system. The one with the more flexible rule system will be a better approximation to actual combat. And then, let's take it one step further. Let's say that 'flexible rule system' got ever more flexible. Let's say, inside the cage they put random items to possibly be used as weapons. Whatever, a towel, a book, etc. It sounds silly but I think new styles would be born that would prepare someone for even more circumstances. Which seems reasonable to believe. Not make sense?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> where they draw their techniques from. Sport SanShou? Traditional BaJi?


 
Neither.

It is kicking and punching, Qinna and Shuaijiao. It is hard and painful training and basically a quick way to learn how to hurt someone very badly


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Neither.
> 
> It is kicking and punching, Qinna and Shuaijiao. It is hard and painful training and basically a quick way to learn how to hurt someone very badly



I'd love to see what they do. I would imagine it would be a style based on easy to learn, high %, maximum effect , efficient techniques. I would imagine they wouldn't learn to much 1, 2 round kick ....  But more like headbutt, rifle butt-stroke push them away, center-mass and fire.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'd love to see what they do. I would imagine it would be a style based on easy to learn, high %, maximum effect , efficient techniques. I would imagine they wouldn't learn to much 1, 2 round kick .... But more like headbutt, rifle butt-stroke push them away, center-mass and fire.


 
Simply hand to hand no weapons usage involved, that is a separate training issue. There are weapons defenses taught. It is trained to police and military.  

It is hard training; limited kicks, palm strikes, elbows, punches (actually not so many punches), qinna, shuaijiao


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 1, 2011)

I feel my training is quite beneficial not because of the art itself, but because how it is taught to me. My teacher makes sure we internalize the principles from the kata to be used in self-defense scenarios. Another person teaching my art could be awful at it and therefore not teach effectively and no one would be able to defend themselves. You can have a good teacher of an art and a bad teacher. the art itself does not matter, the specific training methods do.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 1, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I feel my training is quite beneficial not because of the art itself, but because how it is taught to me. My teacher makes sure we internalize the principles from the kata to be used in self-defense scenarios. Another person teaching my art could be awful at it and therefore not teach effectively and no one would be able to defend themselves. You can have a good teacher of an art and a bad teacher. the art itself does not matter, the specific training methods do.



Yes I agree. This is obvious, of course.  I am just thinking that if you combined all of the techniques/ideas.methods of let's say TKD and Muay Thai and call it 'whatever' I guess, it would be a superior system. I'm still waiting to see someone in MMA competition pull off one of those TKD spin kicks. Those ones that come form 'underneath', like in the blind-spot or something. Love those.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 1, 2011)

I think this thread is essentially becoming the same thing in the other thread about "beliefs in MA". Perhaps they should be merged? Or else I'm not really seeing a distinction between the two anymore.


----------



## kip42 (Mar 1, 2011)

Thanks for all the replys. I suppose I am looking for the style that anything goes, fight multi attackers, and prepare for the worst. I have rulled out all competition styles since they dont allow, eye, groin, ear claps, join dislocations, and any of the stuff that works extra well. I liked MMA bc I could roll full contact but it would have been easier to rip the bad guys eyes out then role for a choke. I am going to look through all the suggestions on here.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 1, 2011)

kip42 said:


> Thanks for all the replys. I suppose I am looking for the style that anything goes, fight multi attackers, and prepare for the worst. I have rulled out all competition styles since they dont allow, eye, groin, ear claps, join dislocations, and any of the stuff that works extra well. I liked MMA bc I could roll full contact but it would have been easier to rip the bad guys eyes out then role for a choke. I am going to look through all the suggestions on here.


 

Just a thought. If you were to train in a contact style of martial arts, you would gain valuable experience in dealing with resisting opponents, setting up situations to enable you to go for the deadly eye pokes and joint dislocations.

If you spend all your time training and practicing the uber deadly moves, you can't practice at full speed or with realistic contact. Can be a big surprise if the first time you go for an eye strike, the BG doesn't just stand there and accept your technique. If you can control a heavily resisting opponent, it is easier to do all the illegal things you want to do.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 1, 2011)

kip42 said:


> Thanks for all the replys. I suppose I am looking for the style that anything goes, fight multi attackers, and prepare for the worst.


 
Do they teach that style anywhere near where you live? If not , what are your options?


----------



## Mike Hamer (Mar 2, 2011)

Your best bet in my opinion is to study a variety of combat orientated  arts and take what you like best from them, and make it your own. Every  style wont suit every person, just like every technique wont suit each  individual practitioner. Was there something you liked from Budo  Taijutsu that stood out to you? A particular variation of a gun disarm  in Krav Maga? You get the point. You gotta find what works for you, then work on transforming what you've learned from different arts into a group of skill sets that you can call your own.
I will definitely echo what others have said in the regards to firearm training. This is a must in today's world no doubt, but you already know that as many others here do.

If you'd like to learn a little bit about what we do in Instinctive Response Training than you can visit http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com
If you can make it to Nevada, Texas, or Michigan, you can stop by and train with us!


----------



## blindsage (Mar 7, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I liked MMA bc I could roll full contact but it would have been easier to rip the bad guys eyes out


 
Which style would allow that in training?


----------



## fangjian (Mar 7, 2011)

blindsage said:


> Which style would allow that in training?



Hehe. Maybe Harimau Silat?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 7, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Whatever you do, don't by in to the "it's not the style that matters, it's the practitioner" mentality too much. It does have a little bit of truth,


 
Actually, it has a lot of truth, though not entirely in the way that most people are thinking when they make the statement. Most people say this with an eye towards training hard, and certainly, if I'm training hard, I have a better chance in a violent encounter than I do if I train haphazardly. 

However, outside of training, the practitiioner does matter. An 135 pound 85 year old man practicing MMA will likely be at a distinct disadvantage against a twenty five year old TKD heavyweight tournament fighter. An absurd comparison, I know, but the twenty five year old heavyweight TKDist will have the advantage because he's twenty five and his opponent is eighty five.

They have weight classes in MMA, boxing, wrestling, TKD, etc. for a reason; size does matter. They separate competitors by age and gender because like it or not, it does matter (though regarding gender, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the art). 

A friend loaned me a book a while back about a diminutive female vampire hunter. The books were so-so, but one line stuck in my head. The main character said, "I've trained hard in several martial arts and I'm more than a match for *any* badbuy my size. Unfortunately, there aren't many bad guys my size."

Andre the Giant would have been a tough opponent for anyone no matter what he trained in.  Because he was a frickin' giant.



fangjian said:


> but some styles ARE better than others. This is a fact.


Every style is better than every other for something and for some people. Figure out what you want to do and what is best for you. 

If you learn a presentation/demonstration art, whatever it may be, be realistic about what it is designed to do. XMA is 'better' for flashy demonstrations and presentations than jujutsu. 

If you take a fitness oriented tai chi class for health and wellness, chances are that it is better for health and wellness than sport karate, particlarly if you are starting the art as an over fifty years of age student.

Taekwondo is better for learning high kicks than boxing. Aikido is better for joint manipulation and grapples than taekwondo. BJJ is better for groundfighting than aikido.

Everything has its strong suit. Not everyone takes to every art equally well either. That is why some people are utterly frustrated in one style and in Heaven in another.

If you are in the wrong art for *you*, then regardless of its statistical superiority, it is not better than one that is the right art for *you*. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 7, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.
> 
> What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


 
Try Autojutsu. 

It is the ancient art of mobile combat. It was developed for millenia, but achieved its truest expression in the twentieth century. Special touraments are held each year at county fairs and autojutsu masters demonstrate their skill with this crushingly powerful art.Autojutsu is the only art that has acknowledged the unvarnished truth that no punch, kick, or ground fighting technique can prevail against horsepower and torque. 

Not to mention an average of two tons of steel! Twentieth century grandmasters of this art include such luminaries as Enzo Ferrari, Soichiro Honda, Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler, Kiichiro Toyoda, Louis Chevrolet, Karl Benz, and Ferdinand Porsche.

The deadly weapons used in autojutsu are legal in all nations and in all states, and is the only street legal weapon that can conceal *you*!

Police of every state practice this traditional art, as do sport autojutsu masters such as Danika Patrick, Jeff Gordon, and Dale Earnhardt Junior.

The art has also been adapted to all terrain fighting by Grandmaster John Willys, making it one of the most versatile armed combat methods in the world.

Be you law enforcement, high society, or a regular man on the street or offroad, or even a back woods country boy (or girl), autojutsu is an art that you should be practicing. Best of all, if you drive to work on a regular basis, you are practicing!

Cinematic examples of autojutsu:
LeMans
Deathrace
James Bond
The Dukes of Hazzard
Bullitt
The French Connection
The Italian Job
Speedway
Days of Thunder

Daniel


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 9, 2011)

I say train to fight. Train hard. Spar hard. Compete in the ring/cage. See if you can knock somebody out. Fake strikes at the eyes, throats, nuts, etc. aren't the same as actually punching someone in the face at max power or getting punched the same....regularly every week. Any trained and experienced fighter will develop more power, precision, agility, reflex, confident, etc...it wouldn't be hard at all to target nuts, throats, kneecaps, etc. on the streets where there's no rules. Elbowing and kneeing someone in the face repeatedly and it too, the face, will become a pressure point. 

This is why MT & BJJ for MMA is so effective and practical. You learn to fight. You practice fighting. Then you fight.


----------



## Indie12 (Mar 9, 2011)

It varies!


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 9, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> This is why MT & BJJ for MMA is so effective and practical. You learn to fight. You practice fighting. Then you fight.


 and 20 years down the track you end up with chronic injuries and Parkinson's disease..... nice.


----------



## Indie12 (Mar 9, 2011)

I love it when people say "Hand To Hand Combat is not Martial Arts"

If that's the case, then what exactly are we fighting with?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 10, 2011)

H2H isn't necessarily martial arts. Any goon can get into a fight with his fists. Martial arts have to have skills organized from principles that can be passed on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2011)

Mike Hamer said:


> Your best bet in my opinion is to study a variety of combat orientated arts and take what you like best from them, and make it your own.
> 
> ...
> 
> Was there something you liked from Budo Taijutsu that stood out to you? A particular variation of a gun disarm in Krav Maga? You get the point.


 
Personally, I have less faith in this approach.  It is my opinion that different martial systems, if taught properly, have a very specific and underlying method for delivery of every technique.  It isn't so much the technique itself, the specific movement or combination of movements, or the defensive action that matters so much as understanding and mastering the underlying method of delivery.  Once you understand that underlying method, you can deliver any technique with devastation.  If you only focus on the specific technique and movement and combination, then you are really looking a the system on a very superficial level.  

Once you understand the underlying method, you will find that you do not need to cherry pick from various different arts.  But it takes a very deliberate and focused study to make the breakthrough to be able to do this, and it takes an instructor who can bring you there.  Not everyone out there is up to snuff.

Your suggestion raises a few very practical questions as well.  You state that if there was something from budo taijutsu, or a gun disarm from krav maga, as examples, that you liked, then adapt that.  Well, how long to you need to practice these systems in order to get those components that you specifically want?  What if those schools do not exist in your area?  

Personally, if I was running a school and someone showed up with the idea that he wanted me to teach him specific things about my art that he was going to just cherry pick and probably go on his way in short order, I'd show him to the door immediately.  I have no interest in working with someone like that.  With that kind of approach, he absolutely cannot learn what I have to offer, so I won't waste his time or mine.

I suggest one find a system that appeals to him, an instructor who is knowledgeable and capable, and study as deeply as he can.  More answers will be found there, than by jumping from one thing to another like someone with ADHD.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 10, 2011)

*Some times....* the internet allows for misconmunication and or a perception that does not match reality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Flying Crane, Mike is a *long time* IRT practitioner and not a person who jumps from one style to another. He is a very hard working and dedicated martial practitioner who is very skilled. In IRT we have a delivery system that allows for a practitoner once they understand the principles and concepts that we use to interact with other martial practitioners and hopefully pick up on what they do and incorporate what works for them personally. (or at least an understanding of them that can allow for good defensive strategy) We focus in the following areas: 

Weapons
Kicking
Hand Strikes
Trapping Hands and Joint Manipulation
Grappling

It is a large curriculum but.... once someone gets the feel for things it allows for a lot of exploration within the principles and concepts that we use! So an IRT practitioner who has trained for say around three or four or more years can go to a seminar or work out with another practitoiner from a different style and see what they are doing and incorporate it within the principles and concepts that we use. I think if you look at almost all martial systems they do the same. That is if they are still growing......

*Hope that clears things up.....*


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 10, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> and 20 years down the track you end up with chronic injuries and Parkinson's disease..... nice.



Everybody's going to die of something. Even wusses. But that's why they make headgear. And not talking about having to go pro. Just that at some point, it's time to fight for real and not just tap and dance around. The strongest guy in our Muay Thai class has one of the best techniques, kills the pads/bags, 3+ years of experience and strong as an ox...but he's scared to spar. He gets all disoriented and quits training.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Everybody's going to die of something. Even wusses. But that's why they make headgear. And not talking about having to go pro. Just that at some point, it's time to fight for real and not just tap and dance around. The strongest guy in our Muay Thai class has one of the best techniques, kills the pads/bags, 3+ years of experience and strong as an ox...but he's scared to spar. He gets all disoriented and quits training.



Hmm so not wanting to get into fights makes you a wuss? Put me down in that column then! The guy who gets scared to spar wouldn't be a wuss in my books either, just someone who needs to work on controlling his adrenaline and train his techs under controlled chaos. A lot of people do that, a very close friend of mine who trains with me (also about 3 and a half years experience) gets flustered when put under pressure suddenly but it's something she's working on she gets better each time we stress test/pressure test stuff from class. Training for that can and IMO should be under controlled conditions though and not necessarily limited to getting to a fight. As for the comment that at some point it's time to fight for real and not just tap and dance around, not sure what style you train in (or rather how your particular school trains!) but let me assure you even when training with strict control what we do is nothing close to dancing or tapping. Sometimes our instructor makes it look it like he's dancing though the way he flows between moves... 

Also I may be reading this completely wrong but that logic to *me* seems to be like saying when doing firearms training, to become a truly good marksman, you need to get off the range and start shooting people....


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 11, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Mike is a long time IRT practitioner and not a person who jumps from one style to another. He is a very hard working and dedicated martial practitioner who is very skilled. In IRT we have a delivery system that allows for a practitoner* once they understand the principles and concepts that we use* to interact with other martial practitioners and hopefully pick up on what they do and incorporate what works for them personally. (or at least an understanding of them that can allow for good defensive strategy) We focus in the following areas:
> 
> Weapons
> Kicking
> ...



Hey Brian,

I've removed a couple of the bold formatting points you made and bolded a few bits of my own to make things a bit easier. Hope you don't mind! With that said, in your post you repeatedly say that "once someone gets the feel for things" and "three or four or more years" of experience...

The point here is that the OP is the one I think being referred to as someone with ADHD jumping between the arts (not Mike) as he has very limited experience in the systems he mentions (a few months at most in each if I'm not mistaken). By his own admission during his short stay at the Bujinkan Kip has already approached his instructors about training with another instructor. Certainly nothing long enough that would suggest he has a solid understanding of the basics of any of them and ergo not in a position to be able to cherry pick techs from different arts with any real efficiency or effectiveness. I mean I may just be a slow learner but I've been training for about 3 and a half years and I wouldn't say I have enough of an understanding of the art side of things to be able to pick and choose what I want to learn. Even the absolute basics still carry lessons within them that will take me years more to uncover let alone master. 

Just my take on things, no disrespect intended to either yourself or Flying Crane for jumping into this exchange!


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Everybody's going to die of something. Even wusses. But that's why they make headgear. And not talking about having to go pro. Just that at some point, it's time to fight for real and not just tap and dance around. The strongest guy in our Muay Thai class has one of the best techniques, kills the pads/bags, 3+ years of experience and strong as an ox...but he's scared to spar. He gets all disoriented and quits training.



That's true everbody is going to die of something , but that doesn't mean we have to hasten the process do we?

Even with head gear on , the cumulative aspect of repeated trauma to the head will in the long term cause damage , this is only one sparring or reflex training methodology , there are many other ways that don't involve taking blows to the head , every now and then is ok but it is not something that should make up the bulk of the training.

A martial art should be about enhancing your health , not about tearing it down , and something that can and should be practiced well into your twighlight years.
Not only practiced by those segments of the population that are young , buff and fit.

As for your example of the strongest guy in your class that is scared to spar as you put it , he is probably a classic example of someone who was dropped into the deep end too early and likely used as a punching bag by a senior student and has never forgotten it.
If he went through a gradual progression leading up to the point of absorbing hard contact , then he probably wouldn't be as fearful as he seems to be.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 11, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> Even with head gear on , the cumulative aspect of repeated trauma to the head will in the long term cause damage , this is only one sparring or reflex training methodology , there are many other ways that don't involve taking blows to the head , every now and then is ok but it is not something that should make up the bulk of the training.
> 
> A martial art should be about enhancing your health , not about tearing it down , and something that can and should be practiced well into your twighlight years.
> Not only practiced by those segments of the population that are young , buff and fit.



This is very important. I use to like training hard, sparring hard, and of course I would like my students too as well. I use to like the idea of training people for MMA competition and wanted to bring Chinese and Filipino boxing back on the map. 

However, evidence is evidence. I will have no part in the eventual brain damage of my students. 

We still spar. Mostly medium contact though.  Full contact sparring, even once per month, is dangerous and unnecessary.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Everybody's going to die of something. Even wusses. But that's why they make headgear. And not talking about having to go pro. Just that at some point, it's time to fight for real and not just tap and dance around. The strongest guy in our Muay Thai class has one of the best techniques, kills the pads/bags, 3+ years of experience and strong as an ox...but he's scared to spar. He gets all disoriented and quits training.


Headgear does not address the issue of the brain taking impact as it moves about inside the skull.  Head gear will only absorb but so much of the blow.  Headgear also does not address the neck either.

If that's what you're into, great.  But don't confuse good common sense for 'wusses.'  As MJM said, once in a while is okay, but on a repeated basis over a prolonged period of time, the detriments outweigh any benefits.

Also, don't confuse hard core sparring with "fighting for real."  It isn't.  I know guys who trained very hard core and found that out the hard way. 

Daniel


----------



## clfsean (Mar 11, 2011)

Put a cantaloupe in a piece of head gear & smack it good & hard. Check the inside after 2 or 3 good shots. 

You should get the picture. It's the same thing with the human head.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 11, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Hey Brian,
> 
> I've removed a couple of the bold formatting points you made and bolded a few bits of my own to make things a bit easier. Hope you don't mind! With that said, in your post you repeatedly say that "once someone gets the feel for things" and "three or four or more years" of experience...
> 
> ...


 
Thanks between the two of us I am sure we cleared it up!


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Also I may be reading this completely wrong but that logic to *me* seems to be like saying when doing firearms training, to become a truly good marksman, you need to get off the range and start shooting people....



This is silly to compare hand to hand combat with guns. And marksmanship can be measured  through shooting targets w/o needing to engage in an actual firefight. Bad analogy on your part.

If you've never fought before nor even sparred hard, then you really don't know how you'll react. You'll probably freak out in your first ever real life situation. What do you think boxers do at a boxing gym. They don't stay on the heavy bag all day. At some point, it's time to man up.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 11, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Some times....* the internet allows for misconmunication and or a perception that does not match reality.


 
yes, I think so.  It did come across as a recommendation to jump around and cherry pick from the beginning.  When a beginner is asking what is a good art to study, I think such a recommendation is inappropriate, where an experienced practitioner might get some value from cross training.



> Flying Crane, Mike is a *long time* IRT practitioner and not a person who jumps from one style to another. He is a very hard working and dedicated martial practitioner who is very skilled. In IRT we have a delivery system that allows for a practitoner once they understand the principles and concepts that we use to interact with other martial practitioners and hopefully pick up on what they do and incorporate what works for them personally. (or at least an understanding of them that can allow for good defensive strategy) We focus in the following areas:
> 
> Weapons
> Kicking
> ...


 
Thanks for the clarification, and yes I was not directing the ADHD comment at Mike or your method, rather i was using it analogously.

I do stand by my earlier comments overall, in that I feel one's best chance at getting good answers is a deep study of one system, with a good instructor.  

I also recognize that an experienced person can get some benefit from cross training and taking elements from different systems.  However, I also believe that many people put more stock in that approach than perhaps is appropriate, and perhaps many people believe THEY have the experience to effectively do it, when most of them really do not.  People tend to not be honest with themselves about such things.

I also stand by my comment that if someone came to me asking to learn elements to cherry pick from my art, with a short timer's attitude, I would not comply.  Even with an experienced person, I do not believe he would get anything of value from the experience.


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> A martial art should be about enhancing your health , not about tearing it down , and something that can and should be practiced well into your twighlight years.
> Not only practiced by those segments of the population that are young , buff and fit.



That's just your take on what MA should be about. MA is merely a tool to some. Many just want to use MA to fight. You can even train in MA to become a better rapist if you want.



> As for your example of the strongest guy in your class that is scared to spar as you put it , he is probably a classic example of someone who was dropped into the deep end too early and likely used as a punching bag by a senior student and has never forgotten it.



Absolutely not. He's a very nice guy but he's the one who's the bully when doing constructive sparring....where we throw a punch and the partner knows exactly what's coming to block...and back & forth to train a technique. This guy hits hard as hell for no good reason that most people are scared to be his partner. The instructors are constantly telling him to stop hitting people so hard. But in real sparring, he can't take it b/c it's not choreographed. 



> If he went through a gradual progression leading up to the point of absorbing hard contact , then he probably wouldn't be as fearful as he seems to be.



Man, he's been there over 3 years and trains regularly. His techniques are at the top 10%. His power is probably in the top 5%. Every time I spar against him, I have to go 100% b/c everything that he's throwing are bombs. Just slowass bombs, which is 1 of his problems.


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Also, don't confuse hard core sparring with "fighting for real."  It isn't.  I know guys who trained very hard core and found that out the hard way.
> 
> Daniel



I'll take hard core sparring over not sparring hard at all as the superior litmus test for being better off in a "real fight" any day.


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Headgear does not address the issue of the brain taking impact as it moves about inside the skull.  Head gear will only absorb but so much of the blow.  Headgear also does not address the neck either.
> 
> If that's what you're into, great.  But don't confuse good common sense for 'wusses.'  As MJM said, once in a while is okay, but on a repeated basis over a prolonged period of time, the detriments outweigh any benefits.
> Daniel




This is a great testament as to why BJJ is so awesome compared to other MA's. You can train 90-100% everyday and even spar at 80-95% intensity everyday with very low  chances of getting hurt and especially in the long term.

Even JJJ can't compare b/c in JJJ, sparring 80-95% everyday would destroy your wrists, fingers, etc. from all the small joint manipulations & holds while damaging your body & limbs from all the throws. 

No argument for Muay Thai being the safest, just that it's a risk you take for joining a fighting gym.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> I'll take hard core sparring over not sparring hard at all as the superior litmus test for being better off in a "real fight" any day.


You do realize that nobody has advocated not sparring hard at all?

Daniel


----------



## Indie12 (Mar 11, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> H2H isn't necessarily martial arts. Any goon can get into a fight with his fists. Martial arts have to have skills organized from principles that can be passed on.


 
True! Although Martial Arts can be H2H. Martial Arts does include H2H along with other variables. Same goes with Defensive Tactics, it's based on Martial Arts principles, but have different approches.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Every time I spar against him, I have to go 100% b/c everything that he's throwing are bombs. Just slowass bombs, which is 1 of his problems.


 
If you are going 100%, how many times have you put him in the hospital? Aren't you concerned about killing him?

If you are not aiming to cripple your training partner (which no one should do) then you are not going 100%. You many be moving as fast as you can (which is good for pressure testing if you are experienced but awful for learning how something works), but there is no way you are hitting as hard as you can _at the right targets_ without having the intention of causing serious injury. Unless of course you are talking about sports, which do not resemble how fights work in self-defense situations.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> This is silly to compare hand to hand combat with guns. And marksmanship can be measured  through shooting targets w/o needing to engage in an actual firefight. Bad analogy on your part.
> 
> If you've never fought before nor even sparred hard, then you really don't know how you'll react. You'll probably freak out in your first ever real life situation. What do you think boxers do at a boxing gym. They don't stay on the heavy bag all day. At some point, it's time to man up.


Range marksmanship and actual gunfighting are often worlds apart.

As a very loose guide -- typically, we expect that a police officer will not shoot better than about 60% of their best range performance in a real gunfight.  And often much worse.

Sparring and real violence are also worlds apart.  There's a reason that most effective police DT systems concentrate on simple, direct movements.  

Sparring is a tool that allows you to practice your techniques under one sort of pressure.  It's not the same pressure as real violence.  Especially predatory violence.  Generally, in sparring you and your opponent work from agreed rule sets.  You know there's going to be a "fight" and you have a chance to prepare for it -- sometimes to prepare for the particular opponent you will be facing.  Sparring very easily becomes a game about "winning"; a fight for your life is all about survival.  The experience is dramatically different.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> This is silly to compare hand to hand combat with guns. And marksmanship can be measured through shooting targets w/o needing to engage in an actual firefight. Bad analogy on your part.
> 
> If you've never fought before nor even sparred hard, then you really don't know how you'll react. You'll probably freak out in your first ever real life situation. What do you think boxers do at a boxing gym. They don't stay on the heavy bag all day. At some point, it's time to man up.


 
Granted on it's own it's a bad analogy but I think it works well for the pressure test you are talking about. You can stay on the range and shoot clay pigeons under competition conditions and be under a hell of a lot of pressure if any of the guys I've spoken to are to be believed. You don't need to get into a war and learn to shoot while taking cross fire.

Even if you've fought in real life you have no idea how you'll react in a certain situation though. Every fight is unique. I've been in a couple over the years and it was different everytime. What came out was different (ranging from freeze response to verbal de-escalation to pre emptive strikes) each time. Thinking you'll be awesome in a fight based on hard sparring with fellow students at a gym can get you killed quick smart cause the bad guy doesn't know what your tapping means...



FriedRice said:


> That's just your take on what MA should be about. MA is merely a tool to some. Many just want to use MA to fight. You can even train in MA to become a better rapist if you want.


 
As for the first part of that sentence, a lot of people share that view of MA I'd say. As for the second... seriously?





> He's a very nice guy but he's the one who's the bully when doing constructive sparring....where we throw a punch and the partner knows exactly what's coming to block...and back & forth to train a technique. This guy hits hard as hell for no good reason that most people are scared to be his partner. The instructors are constantly telling him to stop hitting people so hard. But in real sparring, he can't take it b/c it's not choreographed.
> 
> Man, he's been there over 3 years and trains regularly. His techniques are at the top 10%. His power is probably in the top 5%. Every time I spar against him, I have to go 100% b/c everything that he's throwing are bombs. Just slowass bombs, which is 1 of his problems.


 
By your criteria then I'm a bully. So are my friends who train with me and are at the same level (Green belts). So is my instructor. Oh my other instructor that I had briefly qualifies too. We train the same against each other as we do with a white belt who just walked into the school. We expect less from them in terms of technique obviously but we attack with the same intensity. Note I said intensity not power or speed. My first class had me scared of one of the seniors because of how powerful his blocks were. Few more classes though and that fear just became respect. This guy was insane with what he could do. In terms of not coping with free sparring, again I refer to my friend from the previous example. Give her a technique and time to break it down and practice and she's brilliant. Throw her into chaos and she gets flustered and something else comes out. Work in progress. Same as the rest of us. It's why we're students and not teachers. 

That being said, his techs are at the top 10%, his power is at the top 5%, what about control? Where's your control? As Himura said, how many times have you had him sent to hospital if you're going 100%? 



FriedRice said:


> This is a great testament as to why BJJ is so awesome compared to other MA's. You can train 90-100% everyday and even spar at 80-95% intensity everyday with very low chances of getting hurt and especially in the long term.
> 
> Even JJJ can't compare b/c in JJJ, sparring 80-95% everyday would destroy your wrists, fingers, etc. from all the small joint manipulations & holds while damaging your body & limbs from all the throws.
> 
> No argument for Muay Thai being the safest, just that it's a risk you take for joining a fighting gym.


 
Uhh you've never been hurt doing BJJ? I've played around on the ground with a mate once or twice who does BJJ and trust me, it's a very very fine line between a submission and a break.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I have less faith in this approach. It is my opinion that different martial systems, if taught properly, have a very specific and underlying method for delivery of every technique. It isn't so much the technique itself, the specific movement or combination of movements, or the defensive action that matters so much as understanding and mastering the underlying method of delivery. Once you understand that underlying method, you can deliver any technique with devastation. If you only focus on the specific technique and movement and combination, then you are really looking a the system on a very superficial level.
> 
> Once you understand the underlying method, you will find that you do not need to cherry pick from various different arts. But it takes a very deliberate and focused study to make the breakthrough to be able to do this, and it takes an instructor who can bring you there. Not everyone out there is up to snuff.
> 
> ...


 
While I am 100% behind the idea of crosstraining, I approach it slightly different.  Myself, I dont jump from art to art, spending 2mos here, a year or two there, etc.  I stick with it.  Now, were someone to attend a seminar, yeah, I'd say it'd be fairly easy to 'cherry pick' a few things, drill the hell out of them, and add them to their toolbox.  I've done this myself many times.  Its pretty much impossible, IMO, to remember everything from a seminar, but you should be able to do that with a few things.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> I'll take hard core sparring over not sparring hard at all as the superior litmus test for being better off in a "real fight" any day.


 
I'll agree with that!  OTOH, it may start taking a toll on the body if its that hardcore each time but even med. contact is better, IMO, than nothing.


----------



## Indie12 (Mar 11, 2011)

"The Most Proven Combat Martial Art System, Is The One That Doesn't Get You Killed!"
-Unknown Author


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> If you are going 100%, how many times have you put him in the hospital? Aren't you concerned about killing him?
> 
> If you are not aiming to cripple your training partner (which no one should do) then you are not going 100%. You many be moving as fast as you can (which is good for pressure testing if you are experienced but awful for learning how something works), but there is no way you are hitting as hard as you can _at the right targets_ without having the intention of causing serious injury. Unless of course you are talking about sports, which do not resemble how fights work in self-defense situations.



Have you ever sparred full contact before? It's not the same as hitting the bag or some pads. The other guy is moving and trying to not get hit. And he's countering and returning. You get tired real quick compared to pad work. You're also more stressed, scared, w/e especially when going up against someone who's scary. Going 100% while exhausted does not deliver the same power, precision, etc. as when your hitting foam at 100%.  You seem to think that there's some kind of death touch or something or that someone will just stand still for you to hit them. 

Your attempt to differentiate sports fighting and self defense situation is pretty absurd. Maybe you've never fought before.


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Sparring is a tool that allows you to practice your techniques under one sort of pressure.  It's not the same pressure as real violence.  Especially predatory violence.  Generally, in sparring you and your opponent work from agreed rule sets.  You know there's going to be a "fight" and you have a chance to prepare for it -- sometimes to prepare for the particular opponent you will be facing.  Sparring very easily becomes a game about "winning"; a fight for your life is all about survival.  The experience is dramatically different.



C'mon dude, give me a break. My best friend, who I train with has been in over 50 street fights b/c he used to be a gang banger, drug dealer, etc. He fought with knives, vs. knifes, firefights where he expended over 50 rounds of .223  in one exchange. This is a hell of a lot for an urban firefight. He used to take all sorts of drugs, especially meth and I think PCP to just train hard in MA. He was crazy. I haven't been in as many streetfights as him, not even close, but our conclusion is...the average loudmouth idiot on the streets can't fight worth a crap. Toughguys come and go into our dojo all the time. With no training, they all suck and get all flustered when they get a simple jab to the face for that very first time. Marines, Army Ranger, w/e ....they all suck unless the had training.

So you think a boxer who trains 40 hours a week, full sparring, etc. for years and years....that don't really care about these anti-rape tactics nor self defense, w/e....can't handle himself in a street situation b/c he's training for the sport of boxing?


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Even if you've fought in real life you have no idea how you'll react in a certain situation though. Every fight is unique. I've been in a couple over the years and it was different everytime. What came out was different (ranging from freeze response to verbal de-escalation to pre emptive strikes) each time. Thinking you'll be awesome in a fight based on hard sparring with fellow students at a gym can get you killed quick smart cause the bad guy doesn't know what your tapping means...



Dude, sell this to ladies who are scared of getting raped. I'll pass, thanks. 



> By your criteria then I'm a bully. So are my friends who train with me and are at the same level (Green belts). So is my instructor. Oh my other instructor that I had briefly qualifies too. We train the same against each other as we do with a white belt who just walked into the school. We expect less from them in terms of technique obviously but we attack with the same intensity. Note I said intensity not power or speed.



Intensity but not power nor speed? So you scream at them loudly as you slowly tap them I guess? You're definitely not this bully I was referring to. 



> That being said, his techs are at the top 10%, his power is at the top 5%, what about control? Where's your control? As Himura said, how many times have you had him sent to hospital if you're going 100%?



Obviously you've never sparred hard if you think 100% sparring is the same as hitting the bag/pads at 100%. 



> Uhh you've never been hurt doing BJJ? I've played around on the ground with a mate once or twice who does BJJ and trust me, it's a very very fine line between a submission and a break.



The both of you are noobs then.  I've been training in BJJ for nearly 3 years now in a 100+ student dojo. We have over 6 black belts. The master is 5th dan and the #2 instructor is 3rd dan. I haven't broken nor dislocated anything. I'm working on my purple belt in BJJ and you're trying to tell me to take advice from you? You just said that you "play around on the ground" once or twice.


----------



## K831 (Mar 11, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> C'mon dude, give me a break. My best friend, who I train with has been in over 50 street fights b/c he used to be a gang banger, drug dealer, etc. He fought with knives, vs. knifes, firefights where he expended over 50 rounds of .223  in one exchange. This is a hell of a lot for an urban firefight. He used to take all sorts of drugs, especially meth and I think PCP to just train hard in MA. He was crazy. I haven't been in as many streetfights as him, not even close, but our conclusion is...the average loudmouth idiot on the streets can't fight worth a crap. Toughguys come and go into our dojo all the time. With no training, they all suck and get all flustered when they get a simple jab to the face for that very first time. Marines, Army Ranger, w/e ....they all suck unless the had training.
> 
> So you think a boxer who trains 40 hours a week, full sparring, etc. for years and years....that don't really care about these anti-rape tactics nor self defense, w/e....can't handle himself in a street situation b/c he's training for the sport of boxing?




What are you putting in your fried rice, homie?


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'll agree with that!  OTOH, it may start taking a toll on the body if its that hardcore each time but even med. contact is better, IMO, than nothing.



I train about 3 hours per day 3x a week. Only about 30-40 minutes of full sparring per day. Technically, we are supposed to go only 70% or so.  Sometimes it's just light sparring (until someone gets hit harder than they think they should of, then it escalates). Then another 2 days of about 90 min/day on the bag only. This is for standup Muay Thai, which I'm currently working hard on for my next fight.

Maybe my stating "100%" is kind of misleading. The intensity is not the same in sparring as in a our fights. It starts out pretty tamed and we try to work different things in. Not looking for that KO all the time. Like if someone was in trouble or getting wobbly, the other guy would ease up and we reset. We aren't trying to kill each other.

But in BJJ, there's sparring in every class. 30-60 minutes and pretty much at 80-95%. That last 5% is saved for tournament intensity which certainly is noticeable as compared to average sparring.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 12, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Have you ever sparred full contact before? It's not the same as hitting the bag or some pads. .


 
Obviously.



FriedRice said:


> The other guy is moving and trying to not get hit. And he's countering and returning.


 
If your "fight" lasts longer than 8 seconds, you are doing something wrong. If he is able to counter you then you did not properly set up your technique. Obviously he is moving and trying not to get hit, if you use tactics you can manuver him into a poor position.  



FriedRice said:


> You get tired real quick compared to pad work. You're also more stressed, scared, w/e especially when going up against someone who's scary. Going 100% while exhausted does not deliver the same power, precision, etc. as when your hitting foam at 100%.


 
Of course it is tiring when you ramp things up. I'm all for going faster and a little rougher at times. I'm just saying you cannot honestly go 100% with having someone injured. When things go faster and harder people cannot respond quickly enough when you do things right and they will get injured if they resist when your technique is applied properly.



FriedRice said:


> You seem to think that there's some kind of death touch or something or that someone will just stand still for you to hit them.


 
That's a pretty odd assumption in your part. I'm not saying their is a death touch or even that one or two strikes are enough. I'm saying that when you hit people, they should have their balance effected and be damaged pretty badly if you strike them the right way in the right targets which can be set up if you practice tactics. Clearly people will try to block or evade strikes, that is why you use strikes to set up throws. If I punch towards someones face with the idea of using it as a way to get him to move his arms so I can put an arm bar on him, I am using tactics. You can't beat anyone with skill without have a strategy.



FriedRice said:


> Your attempt to differentiate sports fighting and self defense situation is pretty absurd.


 
So you would fight for your life the same way you would fight in a cage or ring? That's insane.



FriedRice said:


> Maybe you've never fought before.


 
Another ballzy and false assumption.



FriedRice said:


> The both of you are noobs then .


 
That's a rather insulting and childish thing to say.



FriedRice said:


> I haven't broken nor dislocated anything
> 
> 
> FriedRice said:
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 12, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> C'mon dude, give me a break. My best friend, who I train with has been in over 50 street fights b/c he used to be a gang banger, drug dealer, etc. He fought with knives, vs. knifes, firefights where he expended over 50 rounds of .223  in one exchange. This is a hell of a lot for an urban firefight. He used to take all sorts of drugs, especially meth and I think PCP to just train hard in MA. He was crazy. I haven't been in as many streetfights as him, not even close, but our conclusion is...the average loudmouth idiot on the streets can't fight worth a crap. Toughguys come and go into our dojo all the time. With no training, they all suck and get all flustered when they get a simple jab to the face for that very first time. Marines, Army Ranger, w/e ....they all suck unless the had training.
> 
> So you think a boxer who trains 40 hours a week, full sparring, etc. for years and years....that don't really care about these anti-rape tactics nor self defense, w/e....can't handle himself in a street situation b/c he's training for the sport of boxing?


Interestingly enough, that's not at all what I said.  What I said was that the experience of true violence, especially predatory violence, is dramatically different than any dojo or ring fight.  

Nor did I say that sparring has no place in training.  Experience under various forms of pressure is the best way to prepare yourself for other pressure; it's how we can rein in our reaction to pressure.  But I've seen people with extensive ring experience freeze the first time someone really tried to hurt 'em.  I've seen them freeze when placed into a well constructed and properly conducted scenario training environment.  Any training has inherent flaws; sparring's flaws include what I listed.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 12, 2011)

kip42 said:


> I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.
> 
> What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.


 
I've said it many times over and I'm finding myself saying it even more as time goes by that if I had to choose a single art to cover "all my needs in one package" I'd choose Eskrima. Given there are many differant flavors as is with most arts but chosen wisely, Eskrima is a very good choice indeed.


----------



## K831 (Mar 12, 2011)

James Kovacich said:


> I've said it many times over and I'm finding myself saying it even more as time goes by that if I had to choose a single art to cover "all my needs in one package" I'd choose Eskrima. Given there are many differant flavors as is with most arts but chosen wisely, Eskrima is a very good choice indeed.



The longer I study Eskrima the more eclectic I realize it is. Pretty good empty hand, weapons, contact manipulation, and depending on lineage/ flavor, it has enough grappling for dirty SD.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 12, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Have you ever sparred full contact before? It's not the same as hitting the bag or some pads. The other guy is moving and trying to not get hit. And he's countering and returning. You get tired real quick compared to pad work. You're also more stressed, scared, w/e especially when going up against someone who's scary. Going 100% while exhausted does not deliver the same power, precision, etc. as when your hitting foam at 100%. You seem to think that there's some kind of death touch or something or that someone will just stand still for you to hit them.
> 
> Your attempt to differentiate sports fighting and self defense situation is pretty absurd. Maybe you've never fought before.


 
Your inability to differentiate sports fighing and SD astounds me. Maybe you've spent too much time with your friend on PCP or Meth getting shot at.



FriedRice said:


> C'mon dude, give me a break. *My best friend, who I train with has been in over 50 street fights b/c he used to be a gang banger, drug dealer, etc. He fought with knives, vs. knifes, firefights where he expended over 50 rounds of .223 in one exchange. This is a hell of a lot for an urban firefight. He used to take all sorts of drugs, especially meth and I think PCP to just train hard in MA. He was crazy*. I haven't been in as many streetfights as him, not even close, but our conclusion is...the average loudmouth idiot on the streets can't fight worth a crap. Toughguys come and go into our dojo all the time. With no training, they all suck and get all flustered when they get a simple jab to the face for that very first time.* Marines, Army Ranger, w/e ....they all suck unless the had training*.


 
And you think this is something to be proud of? I'd suggest you stop, think before you type and realise where it is that you are posting. A serious forum for serious dedicated martial artists with experience far far far far superior to yours. What makes you think you are even remotely qualified to reach a joint conclusion with a gang banger and dealer about the current climate of street violence as a whole when the people you are talking down to are LEO's or military? Aside from your training in the 3 or so arts mentioned on your profile, what are your qualifications? What's your background? It's easy to talk big under the guise of Internet annonimity but what's the reality here?

Marines, Army Ranges w/e all suck? I'd loooove to see you go up against one on a mat, forget the street. Now I'm not part of any of those groups myself but broadly saying army combatives suck is a little ridiculous. Marines don't strictly need to train in H2H combat, they have GUNS! Plus a range of other tools... H2H is a back up from what I understand. 



FriedRice said:


> Dude, sell this to ladies who are scared of getting raped. I'll pass, thanks.


 
 Your attitude worries me



> Intensity but not power nor speed? So you scream at them loudly as you slowly tap them I guess? You're definitely not this bully I was referring to.


 
 See above



> Obviously you've never sparred hard if you think 100% sparring is the same as hitting the bag/pads at 100%.


 
 I love how you deem it appropriate to waltz in and start making assumptions about people you've never met, trained with or had a decent conversation with. Make a lot of friends do you?



> The both of you are noobs then. I've been training in BJJ for nearly 3 years now in a 100+ student dojo. We have over 6 black belts. The master is 5th dan and the #2 instructor is 3rd dan. I haven't broken nor dislocated anything. I'm working on my purple belt in BJJ and you're trying to tell me to take advice from you? You just said that you "play around on the ground" once or twice.


 
Again, wow your ignorance is astounding! For the record though, I'm a noob to BJJ, I'll be the first person to admit that. He on the other hand has been training for about 10 years (a helluva lot longer than getting a Purple Belt) and has competed in international tournaments for under 18's and now under 21's consistently acheiving high results. I said play around because that's how it is for me. I have no chance to think before he moves in for a submission when on the ground. Stand up is a different ball game but the ground is his world. If you've been training for 3 years and can't realise that BJJ can be devastating to joints/limbs etc then you're not training right. Oh and just to be clear, at no point did I tell you to take advice from me about BJJ, I just suggested you had a long way to go when it comes to understanding SD as it happens in real, sober, non drug induced life. 

To everyone else who read that, 

Well that was fun... Hope I didn't come off as too emotional, tried to keep it level headed but I had to go back and restart a few times because all my responses just kept saying "you're a tool"  What's the ettiquette on that around these parts anyway?


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 12, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Your inability to differentiate sports fighing and SD astounds me. Maybe you've spent too much time with your friend on PCP or Meth getting shot at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And quite fixated on rape it would seem.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 12, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> And quite fixated on rape it would seem.


 
indeed...


----------



## MJS (Mar 12, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> I train about 3 hours per day 3x a week. Only about 30-40 minutes of full sparring per day. Technically, we are supposed to go only 70% or so. Sometimes it's just light sparring (until someone gets hit harder than they think they should of, then it escalates). Then another 2 days of about 90 min/day on the bag only. This is for standup Muay Thai, which I'm currently working hard on for my next fight.
> 
> Maybe my stating "100%" is kind of misleading. The intensity is not the same in sparring as in a our fights. It starts out pretty tamed and we try to work different things in. Not looking for that KO all the time. Like if someone was in trouble or getting wobbly, the other guy would ease up and we reset. We aren't trying to kill each other.


 
Yes, I see what you're saying.  When I spar, I gear the intensity to whatever it is that I'm working on for that session.  When I'm working something specific, I'll vary the intensity.  If I'm just going out to do whatever, then I may go a bit harder.  Again, alot depends on a) what, if anything I'm working on and b) how I'm feeling that day. 



> But in BJJ, there's sparring in every class. 30-60 minutes and pretty much at 80-95%. That last 5% is saved for tournament intensity which certainly is noticeable as compared to average sparring.


 
But, the sparring done while rolling isn't the same as the stand up, but I dont think I have to tell you that.   But, even when I grapple, I gear it to what I'm looking to do.  

But, in any case, I think we're all (myself included) getting a bit off topic.  If we want to talk about sparring, lets start a new thread.


----------



## fangjian (Mar 12, 2011)

Oh yeah?!!  Well tell me what you're gonna do against these guys!! 





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5GAb5MQapo


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 14, 2011)

Oh dear me...


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 14, 2011)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Obviously.



I questioned this based on your statement about how come I don't kill my sparring partners when I spar against them at 100%.



> If your "fight" lasts longer than 8 seconds, you are doing something wrong. If he is able to counter you then you did not properly set up your technique. Obviously he is moving and trying not to get hit, if you use tactics you can manuver him into a poor position.


Sell this to women who are scared to get raped in a dark parking lot, I'll pass thanks.



> Of course it is tiring when you ramp things up. I'm all for going faster and a little rougher at times. I'm just saying you cannot honestly go 100% with having someone injured. When things go faster and harder people cannot respond quickly enough when you do things right and they will get injured if they resist when your technique is applied properly.


We are wearing at least 12oz gloves and headgear. We don't use anti-rape techniques while sparring.



> That's a pretty odd assumption in your part. I'm not saying their is a death touch or even that one or two strikes are enough. I'm saying that when you hit people, they should have their balance effected and be damaged pretty badly if you strike them the right way in the right targets which can be set up if you practice tactics.


Which is why I question whether you've fought at at all. You seem to think that people stand still for you to hit them in a real fight.



> Clearly people will try to block or evade strikes, that is why you use strikes to set up throws. If I punch towards someones face with the idea of using it as a way to get him to move his arms so I can put an arm bar on him, I am using tactics. You can't beat anyone with skill without have a strategy.


Guess you only spar with noobs and girls? I'm sparring against people my level. Why is this so difficult to understand that during hard sparring and real fights, the other guy is looking to hurt me just the same. You've never fought before that's why you think fights shouldn't last more than "8 seconds". 



> So you would fight for your life the same way you would fight in a cage or ring? That's insane.


There's no way to know whether a street fight is just going to be a couple of punches that gets broken up or a guaranteed, fight to the death. Do people really fight to the death outside of chopsocky movies? Are you going to rip someone's eyeballs out the first chance you get in any situation? This is absurd.



> Then you are not going "100%" because "100%" implies that that is how you would do it in a real fight where someone should be injured.


Wrong, I'm throwing punches and kicks at 100% power but it doesn't mean the other guy is going to stand still and take it all.



> FriedRice said:
> 
> 
> > I'm working on my purple belt in BJJ and you're trying to tell me to take advice from you? You just said that you "play around on the ground" once or twice.
> ...


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 14, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Interestingly enough, that's not at all what I said.  What I said was that the experience of true violence, especially predatory violence, is dramatically different than any dojo or ring fight.



Yea, the violence in the ring is a lot worse b/c you're fighting against someone who's equally trained vs. some clown in the streets.  How many times have you used your death touches in the streets? Usually it's just yelling or 1 or 2 punches. Predatory violence? No dudes ever tried to rape me before, you?



> Nor did I say that sparring has no place in training.  Experience under various forms of pressure is the best way to prepare yourself for other pressure; it's how we can rein in our reaction to pressure.  But I've seen people with extensive ring experience freeze the first time someone really tried to hurt 'em.  I've seen them freeze when placed into a well constructed and properly conducted scenario training environment.  Any training has inherent flaws; sparring's flaws include what I listed.



I just gave you the example of my best friend who's had over 50 street fights and numerous tournament fights. He has a whole room for his trophies. He doesn't freeze in a streetfight and neither do I. So do our experiences negates yours?

You make it sound like every situation is a life or death one. I say, none of us knows squat as to what can happen. That's why I chose to spar often and fight in tournaments. How does building up my strength, power, endurance, agility, precision, experience, etc... not help me more than fake fighting using death touches to the throat and pretend testicle strikes?  It's obvious that people are no longer buying this which is why they're flocking to MMA.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 14, 2011)

Fred, you might want to read what people are saying before responding.  Nobody has mentioned death touches except for you.  

You also seem to assume that predatory violence is limited to rape.  Not sure where you get that idea, but there are predators that are not sexual predators and who have no interest in raping their victims.  Plenty of predators who only want to 'rape' their victim's wallet and who are willing to do injury to them in order to do so.  They choose their victims based on whether or not they can reasonably succeed in taking from them what they want (cash, credit cards, i-phone) and avoid those who they feel would be too much trouble.  That is a predator.       

The story about the street fighter is nice, and maybe even true, but it neither supports your arguments nor effectively counters those of anyone else.

Daniel


----------



## FriedRice (Mar 14, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Your inability to differentiate sports fighing and SD astounds me. Maybe you've spent too much time with your friend on PCP or Meth getting shot at.



Are you mad b/c you can't make an argument?



> And you think this is something to be proud of? I'd suggest you stop, think before you type and realise where it is that you are posting.



Show me where I said this. Why do you lie?



> A serious forum for serious dedicated martial artists with experience far far far far superior to yours.



Why are you here then?



> What makes you think you are even remotely qualified to reach a joint conclusion with a gang banger and dealer about the current climate of street violence as a whole when the people you are talking down to are LEO's or military?



Well if you worked on your reading comprehension, you'd realize that I was using my friend as an example of someone who's been in multiple fights vs. yourself who only talks about it.



> Aside from your training in the 3 or so arts mentioned on your profile, what are your qualifications? What's your background? It's easy to talk big under the guise of Internet annonimity but what's the reality here?



Background for what? I train, I spar and I fight. There are plenty of cops & miltary in our MMA dojo. I can whoop some and others can whoop me. 



> Marines, Army Ranges w/e all suck? I'd loooove to see you go up against one on a mat, forget the street. Now I'm not part of any of those groups myself but broadly saying army combatives suck is a little ridiculous.



Are you a child? Learn to read.  I never said this. Why do you make up lies? 



> I love how you deem it appropriate to waltz in and start making assumptions about people you've never met, trained with or had a decent conversation with. Make a lot of friends do you?



I'd rather not have friends like you who make up lies.



> Again, wow your ignorance is astounding! For the record though, I'm a noob to BJJ, I'll be the first person to admit that. He on the other hand has been training for about 10 years (a helluva lot longer than getting a Purple Belt) and has competed in international tournaments for under 18's and now under 21's consistently acheiving high results. I said play around because that's how it is for me. I have no chance to think before he moves in for a submission when on the ground. Stand up is a different ball game but the ground is his world.   Oh and  just to be clear, at no point did I tell you to take advice from me  about BJJ, I just suggested you had a long way to go when it comes to  understanding SD as it happens in real, sober, non drug induced life.



I've never taken any illegal drugs, once again you're just a liar. And if you realize that  you're a noob then don't try to give me advice about BJJ. Anybody can compete in international tournaments, you just have to get there and pay the fee(s), duh?




> If you've been training for 3 years and can't realise that BJJ can be  devastating to joints/limbs etc then you're not training right.



Really Sherlock, but most of us know when it's about to be "devastating" and we stop, duh?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 14, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> More obvious that you don't spar nor have fought b/c you made a statement about how come I don't kill my sparring partners when I spar against them at 100%..


 
100% by definition is the absolute most you could possible do. If a person is not injured then it is not 100%. 100% requires commitment to attack which is not what happens in sparring. Sparring is more or less a painful game of tag. Randori remembles actual fighting because there is an aggressor comming at you with the intention to harm you. 

So I wasn't fighting when a man tried to choke me to death in my own home and I collapsed his face in for it? Please enlighten me what fighting is.



FriedRice said:


> Sell this to women who are scared to get raped in a dark parking lot, I'll pass thanks.


 
This again, what is with you and rape?





FriedRice said:


> We are wearing at least 12oz gloves and headgear. We don't use anti-rape techniques while sparring..


 
So you are wearing protection which limits your ability to accurately go 100% as padds, gloves, and headgear are meant to lessen the effect. 12oz gloves also limit your ability to grapple. Take off your gloves, pads, and headgear then go full force and speed. See what happens.




FriedRice said:


> Which is why I question whether you've fought at at all. You seem to think that people stand still for you to hit them in a real fight.


 
That's not what I'm saying at all, if you actually read what I posted I stated people don't let you hit them that's why you have to set them up. You obviously missed the point.



FriedRice said:


> Guess you only spar with noobs and girls?


 
1. That is insulting towards women
2. It's out right wrong
3. I don't spar anymore because it didn't prepare me for self-defense fighting scenarios. That's why I practice randori



FriedRice said:


> I'm sparring against people my level. Why is this so difficult to understand that during hard sparring and real fights, the other guy is looking to hurt me just the same. You've never fought before that's why you think fights shouldn't last more than "8 seconds".


 
People your level? Kyu ranks? You understand that not even having a black belt qualifies a person as an expert right? If you and your training parter were going 100% with the intention to cause injury, someone would get an injury. Why does that not make sense to you? If there is no injury it is because someone drops the commitment to attack. 

watch a video of a street fight on youtube where one person is committed to harming the other and not just swinging in anger because of an arguement. That situation is what JKS is talking about when it comes to predator type people. Predators don't always want to rape someone, sometimes they just want to rob, beat, kill, or humilate you. They have an agenda and they are committed to it. That's why it only lasts a brief moment.



FriedRice said:


> There's no way to know whether a street fight is just going to be a couple of punches that gets broken up or a guaranteed, fight to the death. Do people really fight to the death outside of chopsocky movies?


 
Yes they do it is called murder sometimes and it is called war at other times. Obviously not all SD is as dramatic as a rape or murder situation, but if a fight lasts longer than a few seconds it is based on ego and the people have very limited understand of what to do. 



FriedRice said:


> Are you going to rip someone's eyeballs out the first chance you get in any situation? This is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Mar 14, 2011)

FriedRice said:


> Yea, the violence in the ring is a lot worse b/c you're fighting against someone who's equally trained vs. some clown in the streets. How many times have you used your death touches in the streets? Usually it's just yelling or 1 or 2 punches. Predatory violence? No dudes ever tried to rape me before, you?


 
I know that a) you wont be able to respond to this post at the moment and b) this wasnt directed at me, but I'll reply anyways.  I'm going to disagree with this.  The violence in the ring is IMO not worse due to the ref, whos #1 job is to protect the fighters, and the rule set, in addition to neither fighter really trying to kill the other.  





> I just gave you the example of my best friend who's had over 50 street fights and numerous tournament fights. He has a whole room for his trophies. He doesn't freeze in a streetfight and neither do I. So do our experiences negates yours?


 
I really can't believe you're comparing ring/tournament fighting to the real world.  



> You make it sound like every situation is a life or death one. I say, none of us knows squat as to what can happen. That's why I chose to spar often and fight in tournaments. How does building up my strength, power, endurance, agility, precision, experience, etc... not help me more than fake fighting using death touches to the throat and pretend testicle strikes? It's obvious that people are no longer buying this which is why they're flocking to MMA.


 
People flock to MMA because its the current flavor of the week.  70s it was Karate, 80s it was Ninjutsu, 90s its BJJ/MMA.  Make no mistake about it....I've trained in it, I have friends that train it, I think BJJ or any grappling art for that matter is the art to go to when you want to learn how to better yourself on the ground.  But I, unlike so many others, dont feel that its the end all, be all of training.  It has its weak points as well.  

As for every situation being life and death....no, it'll definately depend on the situation.  Something that starts as what appears to be nothing, could turn ugly very quick.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 15, 2011)

Hmm I was always taught you never argue with children or idiots because you always get dragged down to their level but it's 2:30 am, I have the worst headache because I had day surgery earlier and all the anasthetic wore off about 4 hours ago so I'm not going to sleep anyway so what the hell...



FriedRice said:


> Are you mad b/c you can't make an argument?


 
Did I sound mad in my previous post? I thought I made lots of arguments but clearly you either can't/didn't read them or chose to ignore them. That's fine.



> Show me where I said this. Why do you lie?



Where you said what exactly? About being proud of your friend? You didn't use so many words but 





> *My best friend, who I train with has been in over 50 street fights  b/c he used to be a gang banger, drug dealer, etc. He fought with  knives, vs. knifes, firefights where he expended over 50 rounds of .223  in one exchange. This is a hell of a lot for an urban firefight. He used  to take all sorts of drugs, especially meth and I think PCP to just  train hard in MA. He was crazy*.


 That's either pride or some desperate grab for attention. Why do we care how many rounds he fired in a street fight? Why did that feature in your response in the first place? 




> Why are you here then?



You choose to ignore the context completely and resort to immature retorts. How old are you? To answer your question though, listen kid, I may not have trained in as many arts as you or be as experienced as the majority of posters here but when it comes to being a serious martial artist, I think I can safely say I leave you dead in the water. If nothing else, I'm prepared to be corrected and to learn from my mistakes instead of blindly preaching my fantasy and passing it off as truth. 



> Well if you worked on your reading comprehension, you'd realize that I was using my friend as an example of someone who's been in multiple fights vs. yourself who only talks about it.



How do you know how many fights I've been in? You don't know me, my background, my friends or contacts, my line of work both current and in the past and still you assume that you and your friends are the only ones who have ever been in a fight and everyone else here is just out to talk big. 



> Background for what? I train, I spar and I fight. There are plenty of cops & miltary in our MMA dojo. I can whoop some and others can whoop me.


 
You tell me to learn to read. I'd strongly suggest you do the same. But I'll ask you a specific question since you seem to be having trouble connecting sentences together into context otherwise. What is your background that qualifies you to make an assumption on the "true" nature of street crime? You train, you spar and you fight. If you train and spar so you can get into street fights you are not a martial artist, you are a glorified thug. If you train and spar to get into tournaments and fight, then you are a sportsman or athlete not a SD expert. 



> Are you a child? Learn to read.  I never said this. Why do you make up lies?



I fail to see how I've lied at any point so far. It would make more sense to you if you quoted my entire post rather than taking out a little snippet and cutting out half the sentence but for your benefit here is what you said 





> With no training, they all suck and get all flustered when they get a simple jab to the face for that very first time.* Marines, Army Ranger, w/e ....they all suck unless the had training*.


 My response was that saying they suck is ridiculous and that none of those military style groups need to focus on Hand to Hand combat as much as your average civilian learning self defence because they have guns and bayonets and other weaponry available to them. I really would appreciate it if you read all of my reply before blinding commenting.




> I'd rather not have friends like you who make up lies.


 
Awww really? I'm shattered.....



> I've never taken any illegal drugs, once again you're just a liar. And if you realize that  you're a noob then don't try to give me advice about BJJ. Anybody can compete in international tournaments, you just have to get there and pay the fee(s), duh?



Once again your ignoring your own previous posts which is where I draw my information from. Read what you wrote again. Also once again, I never tried to give you advice about BJJ. I'm telling you that you have no concept of reality or self defence and are living in a delusional fantasy world. All the best to you, just don't try sell it on here. Also if we are going by your argument that any person can walk into a tournament and just compete by paying a fee, you've just tarnished the credibility of an entire system which I'm sure will go down really well with a lot of people on here who train it. 




> Really Sherlock, but most of us know when it's about to be "devastating" and we stop, duh?



So you go 100% and hit with full power but stop just before you do any damage. By definition you've lost your claim to 100% training. Most of you know when it's about to be devastating? What about the rest? How high is your schools' insurance premium? How many students have been crippled because their training partner wasn't one of the "most of us" who knew the limits? Again, you're living in a fantasy world where you are the ultimate fighter and everyone else is just full of themselves and are useless in a street fight because they don't have your friend with his 50 street fights worth of experience behind them. 

I know you can't reply at the moment, maybe never but if you are allowed to post again, don't post blindly based on emotions, try to think about what's been said and what you're saying. Drop this fascination with rape that you seem to have. If nothing else I'm starting to get highly offended by how callously you throw that around. I know quite a few victims of sexual abuse and trust me it's not something you bring up so lightly, especially when you are using it in what is clearly a derogatory manner. Base your arguments in fact and back them up with evidence of your credibility rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. 

My apologies to the Mods and other forum members if I've crossed any lines here


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 15, 2011)

*Funny* in that people always try to make what they do the absolute be all end all when in reality there simply are *"no absolutes"! *


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 15, 2011)

One thing that sticks out in the last couple of pages is that, as is often the case, a lot of time was spent debating the nature of fights and whether or not hard sparring is an analogue to 'a real fight.'

Hard sparring is an analogue to the kinds of fights guys used to get into when I was in high school, or that guys get into at gatherings where things get out of hand and there is usually freely flowing alcohol (not limited to just bars; the oft mentioned drunken uncle comes to mind). Or the kind of fight that might occur when two drivers have an accident and tempers flare. Or one kid's dad feels that the other kid was unsportsmanlike at the soccor game. Fights of this nature usually errupt because of the inability of both parties to back off. Usually, only one need back off. If neither one does, it only takes one to lose control of his temper. Mosr 'fights' of this nature can be averted by common sense and by exercising a bit of maturity. 

Fred kept emphasizing that he has never been the victim of rape or attempted rape, and seemed to equate predatory violence with rape.

Chances are, outside of prison, most guys won't be raped. But predators are not always rapists. More than likely, *unarmed* predators will avoid fit looking men who carry themselves like a trained figher. Too much potential for hassle.

A predator who is *armed*, on the other hand, will be less concerned with the fitness, gender, or size of his victim. 

The skills that most of us, including those of us who do MMA, drill in regularly are fairly useless against knives and guns. Often, the defenses against such weapons that are practiced are predacated upon unrealistic attacks. A guy with a box cutter can ruin the day of an MMA champ or a ninja master just as easily as they can ruin the day for a petite secretary. Not to mention that a 'fight' for which hard sparring is supposed to be an analogue to, can change in the blink of an eye with one opponent producing a knife.  This is why Kenshin commented that you want to end the conflict within a few seconds.  The longer it goes on, the more variables can come into play.

Guess what? If you are engaged in a struggle with an assailant and he produces a knife, he isn't going to produce it and pose for you. He'll produce it quickly and cut you before you realize that he has armed himself. 

And that dynamic is what separates a 'real' fight from hard sparring. There is also the possibility that the assailant is not working alone. The initial encounter may be a set up to keep you occupied while two more flank you. Or you may be assaulted by two or more partners in crime who may or may not be armed.

The fact is that if all of your experience with violence comes from the training hall, you are relatively unacquainted with violence. I'm sure that anyone in law enforcement knows how unpredictable the real world can be. I read the sad reports of officers killed in the line of duty, sometimes during a 'routine' traffic stop.

Bringing this back to the OP, there is no 'top' combat proven art. If you're attacked and your 'training saves you' then great! I salute you and chalk up another for the good guys. But for every person who's training saves them, there are more who are trained just as well or better who still die or end up seriously injured after being attacked. Every police officer who dies in the line of duty has training, often more than most of us, a side arm, and some kind of handheld blunt weapon, and perhaps even light body armor. 

If the police are not invincible, neither are the rest of us. Don't look for the uber art and don't assume that you're any better of than those who train in an art that you frown upon or who train differently.

Exercise common sense and maturity and keep your ego in check. No matter what you practice, you are not invincible.

Daniel


----------



## Rayban (Mar 15, 2011)

Very concise Daniel, Just what this thread needed.  Reason.

That being said I find this thread a constant source of both entertainment and insult.

I think "children" like M.r FriedRice need to seriously re-evaluate their life.  His constant retorts with "rape" and other various woman degrading comments disturb me.  I pity the next poor soul who accidentally looks at him the wrong way.

No matter how hard you think you are sparring, it is not real SD.  It is an artificial environment created by you and your training partner.  Its like bird versus an plane.  No matter how well a plane is designed, it will never be a bird.

Proving a MA in combat is pointless.  MA is too much more than "fighting" to be tested in this way.  Tai chi can't be combat proven for example.  MA is a way of life.  The only way to test a way of life is to simply live it.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Hmm I was always taught you never argue with children or idiots because you always get dragged down to their level but it's 2:30 am, I have the worst headache because I had day surgery earlier and all the anasthetic wore off about 4 hours ago so I'm not going to sleep anyway so what the hell...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Great post!  For the record, IMHO, no, I dont feel that you crossed any lines.   When people come on here, acting like a macho tough guy or an *** in general, sometimes its necessary to be a bit firm in posting.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> One thing that sticks out in the last couple of pages is that, as is often the case, a lot of time was spent debating the nature of fights and whether or not hard sparring is an analogue to 'a real fight.'
> 
> Hard sparring is an analogue to the kinds of fights guys used to get into when I was in high school, or that guys get into at gatherings where things get out of hand and there is usually freely flowing alcohol (not limited to just bars; the oft mentioned drunken uncle comes to mind). Or the kind of fight that might occur when two drivers have an accident and tempers flare. Or one kid's dad feels that the other kid was unsportsmanlike at the soccor game. Fights of this nature usually errupt because of the inability of both parties to back off. Usually, only one need back off. If neither one does, it only takes one to lose control of his temper. Mosr 'fights' of this nature can be averted by common sense and by exercising a bit of maturity.
> 
> ...


 
Great post Dan!  While I do feel that 'alive' training is important to ones training, esp. if they're dealing to train for a physical attack, what some seem to miss, is that alone is not the 1 ultimate answer, like they want to think it is.  I'm always amazed by people who think that by training in X art, they're somehow immune to a gunshot, a stab or slice or just getting beat with hands and feet.  Last I checked, the black belt that my teacher gave to me, didn't come with a blue suit with a red S on it. LOL.  

I for one, want to get the hell out of the situation asap.  Training and going 5 rounds, IMO, isn't going to help me reach that goal.  This is also why I mentioned, in an earlier post, people in the LE field or military.  IMHO, these are people who're going to see and understand real violence and deal with it on a much more regular basis, than the average Joe martial artist.  Of course, no, they're not supermen either, but I think you know what I'm saying. 

In closing I'll give a plug to Rory Miller.  That book he wrote should be required reading for all martial artists.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 16, 2011)

I always remember a girl I knew. She was very out of shape and overweight about 5'2 tall. She only practiced her techniques in the air or doing drills with semi-compliant partners.

While at college, she was attacked by a guy who was quite a big larger in size than her and tried to pull her into a bathroom (weekend classroom building with almost no one there) to rape her. He hit her several times in the face to try and get her to stop, and afterwards her face was very bruised and an eye very swollen. She attempted to punch him back, but it had no effect. Finally, she was able to knee him in the groin and he dropped and she ran from the building.

Did she "win"? I say so, she got away safely and protected herself. Many times when guys talk about "self-defense", they don't figure in the aspect of doing enough to get away. They still have the mindset of fighting it out with the attacker until they put him down. Self-defense on the street isn't a match, there really isn't a winner. There are just those who go home intact.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 16, 2011)

Rayban said:


> Very concise Daniel, Just what this thread needed. Reason.
> 
> That being said I find this thread a constant source of both entertainment and insult.
> 
> I think "children" like M.r FriedRice need to seriously re-evaluate their life. His constant retorts with "rape" and other various woman degrading comments disturb me. I pity the next poor soul who accidentally looks at him the wrong way.


His posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of how predators work.  His comments are predacated on the idea that the primary SD concern for men is fights resembling hard sparring with other men (par for the course in high school) and that the primary SD concern for women is being molested and/or raped.

Certainly, being raped is a greater concern for women (though purse snatching is a greater concern than that).  But his posts gravitate towards this 'our sparring is as real as it gets' and that *anything else* is useless stuff that belongs in a women's self defense course, the implication being that guys who aren't training like him are 'wusses' and an unspoken but certainly present implication that women are weaklings incapable of handling themselves in 'real' fights.

Both men *and* women are more likely to be held at knife or gunpoint, regardless of the ultimate aim of the predator, than they are to be faced with 'street fight.'  And men are more likely to be confronted with a weapon than women are; most good sized men can overpower most women with out the use of a weapon.  Part of what makes them predators is that they prey upon those smaller and less powerful than themselves.  

Some women *do* successfully fight off their attackers, and an unarmed woman is more likely to have success against a larger male than a male of any size is against an armed assailant.

It doesn't really matter what your gender, or even your size, is.  A predator will only go after those against whom he or she feels they have a reasonable chance of success with.  That's one reason why predators target children.  A predator who targets a guy the size of Hulk Hogan wouldn't do so unless he or she had some reason to believe that they could succeed.  If they are armed with a firearm or a knife, then they have a reasonable chance of success.  

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> Great post Dan! While I do feel that 'alive' training is important to ones training, esp. if they're dealing to train for a physical attack,


Absolutely.  At some point, the techniques trained in cooperative partner work need to be pressure tested without the benefit of cooperation and with a partner actively resisting. 



MJS said:


> what some seem to miss, is that alone is not the 1 ultimate answer, like they want to think it is. I'm always amazed by people who think that by training in X art, they're somehow immune to a gunshot, a stab or slice or just getting beat with hands and feet. Last I checked, the black belt that my teacher gave to me, didn't come with a blue suit with a red S on it. LOL.


Some people never grow out of high school mentality.  Others think like consumers, and are looking for that 'best product.'  And one thing about consumerism, those who are driven by it have an innate need to feel that their purchase decision is the best and that those who chose differently chose _less_ wisely. 



MJS said:


> I for one, want to get the hell out of the situation asap. Training and going 5 rounds, IMO, isn't going to help me reach that goal. This is also why I mentioned, in an earlier post, people in the LE field or military. IMHO, these are people who're going to see and understand real violence and deal with it on a much more regular basis, than the average Joe martial artist. Of course, no, they're not supermen either, but I think you know what I'm saying.
> 
> In closing I'll give a plug to Rory Miller. That book he wrote should be required reading for all martial artists.


Agreed with one qualifier:  Training and going five rounds has its benefits; it builds endurance under pressure and trains you to keep your head on while someone is pounding on you.  I still want to escape, however, and once I've effectively disengaged, that endurance and a cool head is a great thing.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Absolutely. At some point, the techniques trained in cooperative partner work need to be pressure tested without the benefit of cooperation and with a partner actively resisting.
> 
> 
> Some people never grow out of high school mentality. Others think like consumers, and are looking for that 'best product.' And one thing about consumerism, those who are driven by it have an innate need to feel that their purchase decision is the best and that those who chose differently chose _less_ wisely.


 
Agreed.




> Agreed with one qualifier: Training and going five rounds has its benefits; it builds endurance under pressure and trains you to keep your head on while someone is pounding on you. I still want to escape, however, and once I've effectively disengaged, that endurance and a cool head is a great thing.
> 
> Daniel


 
Oh I agree.  Having the stamina is certainly important.  I was just getting the impression that a certain someone was trying to say that a street fight and ring fight were the same in addition to justify the rounds rather than trying to escape.  Of course, I may've misunderstood, but thats the impression I got.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 21, 2011)

MJS said:


> Oh I agree. Having the stamina is certainly important. I was just getting the impression that a certain someone was trying to say that a street fight and ring fight were the same in addition to justify the rounds rather than trying to escape. Of course, I may've misunderstood, but thats the impression I got.


I got the same impression, along with the impression that that same individual has little to no idea what an actual fight is, that a certain street fighting character was entirely fictitious, and that the closest thing to ring fighting that he gets is about ten feet from his television.

Daniel


----------



## Supra Vijai (Mar 21, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I got the same impression, along with the impression that that same individual has little to no idea what an actual fight is, that a certain street fighting character was entirely fictitious, and that the closest thing to ring fighting that he gets is about ten feet from his television.
> 
> Daniel



Similar to an issue I have on facebook from time to time.. there are not enough ways to thank this post!


----------

