# What do you call an art that integrates striking and grappling?



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.

What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?

For example, using an arm lock to tie up one of your opponent's arms and keep the other arm pointed away from you, so that you can strike with your free arm  unimpeded.

I've seen this kind of thing in the self defense portion of a more traditional Taekwondo class, and I've seen it in Kung Fu, Wing Chun and various Karate tutorials.  I've seen the concept in Hapkido and Aikido (although usually a strike isn't thrown from there).

It kind of also applies to the Muay-Thai clinch, although that is a slightly different application than the others on my mind.

But back to my question - is there a name for this concept?  We have "striking" and "grappling", but what about the concept of using one to break your opponent's structure, with which to allow you to use the other?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 7, 2019)

Generally an art that actively includes both is called a hybrid art.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 7, 2019)

In most Chinese martial arts it is called Chin na.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?


I call it "per-Marquis Boxing."  

Banned from Boxing, The forgotten grappling techniques of classic pugilism, 2nd Edition by Kirk Lawson (Paperback) - Lulu




19441 by lklawson




19442 by lklawson

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 7, 2019)

Danny T said:


> In most Chinese martial arts it is called Chin na.


I thought chin na was specifically joint locks/standing grappling, not striking and grappling?


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 7, 2019)

Okinawan Karate.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek (Jan 7, 2019)

@TSDTexan you beat me to the _punch_ line


----------



## Danny T (Jan 7, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I thought chin na was specifically joint locks/standing grappling, not striking and grappling?


Chin na is a part of most all Chinese arts and not exclusive to locking. Just as locks, breaks, takedowns are in other martial arts. While there are some arts exclusive to strikes or grappling most aren't. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has striking yet is considered a grappling art, Judo has striking in it but most don't train it because it isn't allowed in competition. Every kali system I've seen has grappling as a part of its system. Boxing has grappling in it.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Okinawan Karate.



Looking for a more general term than a specific art.  I did mention Karate in my OP.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?





skribs said:


> But back to my question - is there a name for this concept? We have "striking" and "grappling", but what about the concept of using one to break your opponent's structure, with which to allow you to use the other?


I would call such an art "Complete," as it looks at both aspects striking and grappling and most importantly, how the two are connected.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 7, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I would call such an art "Complete," as it looks at both aspects striking and grappling and most importantly, how the two are connected.


or Comprehensive vs specialist arts


----------



## Martial D (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...


MMA.

I know you said 'not MMA cause this' but 'this' is more how MMA fighting works. It's not strike to grapple and grapple to strike. Nobody does that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> is there a name for this concept?


I call it combat Shuai Chiao (or San Da).


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> MMA.
> 
> I know you said 'not MMA cause this' but 'this' is more how MMA fighting works. It's not strike to grapple and grapple to strike. Nobody does that.



I have plenty of examples of arts where I've seen this strategy used.  I don't think "nobody does that".


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2019)

I think any art with striking and grappling, including MMA, uses one to set up the other and vice versa.  So, call it whatever you want, really.  Call it "Frank." 

For what it's worth, there are tons of examples within MMA of using grappling to establish a dominant position for striking (not just one to set up the other, and/or doing one only when a stalemate occurs).  "Ground and Pound" is a prime example.  The entire point of ground and pound is get the other guy to the ground, establish a dominant position to isolate their limbs so that they cannot defend, and then punch it many times.  But there are more specific examples, as well, within ground and pound.  Ivan Salaverry was a master of establishing a strong side mount and then beating the crap out of guys from that position.  Crucifix position is a great way to literally lock down the opponent's arms.  In the clinch (which is grappling), you can isolate the arms to throw short punches or elbows.  Guys will strike to set up the takedown, and vice versa, feinting a takedown to set up a strike.  It's really all over the map in every possible permutation. 

Other styles do this to a lesser degree, but the integration of striking and grappling is a true art form in MMA.  And no one does it better, in my opinion, than Demetrious Johnson.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 7, 2019)

Call it fighting.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

I should have said "tactic" instead of "art" but I couldn't edit the title after I posted.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 7, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Okinawan Karate.



My son trains Korean karate and they will grab and punch......so I offer that as proof koreans created grabbing and striking.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...


Self Defense and/or Martial Arts


----------



## Martial D (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> I have plenty of examples of arts where I've seen this strategy used.  I don't think "nobody does that".


Just saying, the reason you excluded MMA is mostly how MMA is done. The idea that people in MMA aren't using one to set up the other constantly just tells me you've never trained with MMA guys


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 7, 2019)

Steve said:


> there are tons of examples within MMA of using grappling to establish a dominant position for striking ...


You can also use striking to obtain clinch such as:

- straight punch to set up pull guard.
- hook punch to set up under hook (or waist wrap).
- uppercut to set up under hook (or head lock).
- back fist to set up back arm control.
- ...


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Just saying, the reason you excluded MMA is mostly how MMA is done. The idea that people in MMA aren't using one to set up the other constantly just tells me you've never trained with MMA guys



Most of what I've seen from MMA is:

Fake a strike so you can shoot
Wait for a strike so you can shoot
Strike them for points while figuring out where to grapple
Aside from those emulating Muay Thai clinching, or the ground and pound, I don't see much of this concept used.  Typically if someone uses an armlock, they will try to get the submission from the armlock.  If they strike while they have an armlock, it's a backup because they couldn't get the submission.

Whereas someone in Karate, Kung Fu, or Taekwondo would use the armlock to intentionally create an advantaged striking position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

Christopher Adamchek said:


> @TSDTexan you beat me to the _punch_ line


That is just awful, Christopher. I hope you're proud of yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> Looking for a more general term than a specific art.  I did mention Karate in my OP.


When using the discrete terms "grappling" and "striking", I've usually heard those combining them called "hybrid" or "blended" arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> Most of what I've seen from MMA is:
> 
> Fake a strike so you can shoot
> Wait for a strike so you can shoot
> ...


That might be true of folks who are significantly more able on the ground (people whose primary focus is BJJ, for instance), but that wouldn't be true of those folks who are primarily strikers.

The reason people rarely strike while doing an armlock is that it can compromise the armlock. If the armlock is working, there's no need to add strikes. If it's not working as a submission, but is working as a restraint, a grappler might hold it for a bit to wait for a chance to transition to something more effective. Most strikers are less likely to get that arm lock than to be going for a control position to start ground-n-pound, as Steve pointed out.

Note that when I say "striker" or "grappler", I'm referring to their primary strength. Nobody I've seen in recent years in high-level MMA is entirely lacking either of these sides.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> Most of what I've seen from MMA is:
> 
> Fake a strike so you can shoot
> Wait for a strike so you can shoot
> ...



I think you are trying for something silat ish.

The reason MMA don't really do that is because you are farting around in pretty much your oponants best position to punch you.

I have tried it and I usually get panel beaten.

It is usually the domain of these street sort of guys because it feels super cool as a drill. 





Otherwise wrestling, collar tie, underhooks or two on one will kind of achieve the same result.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I think you are trying for something silat ish.
> 
> The reason MMA don't really do that is because you are farting around in pretty much your oponants best position to punch you.
> 
> ...



I'm  not looking for a specific art, but what would you categorize this as.

For example, if I said, "what would you call an art that mainly uses punches and kicks" you would call it "striking".


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm  not looking for a specific art, but what would you categorize this as.
> 
> For example, if I said, "what would you call an art that mainly uses punches and kicks" you would call it "striking".



Ok. Let's call it clinch striking.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm  not looking for a specific art, but what would you categorize this as.
> 
> For example, if I said, "what would you call an art that mainly uses punches and kicks" you would call it "striking".


Trapping?


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> Trapping?



I can see that working.

But traps I think of as reactive (i.e. you think of a trap as having a trigger), and this could be proactive as well.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Let's call it clinch striking.


Strappling?  Grab punching?  Grunching?


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> I can see that working.
> 
> But traps I think of as reactive (i.e. you think of a trap as having a trigger), and this could be proactive as well.


You clearly have something in particular in mind.  Why not share with the group?


----------



## Martial D (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> Most of what I've seen from MMA is:
> 
> Fake a strike so you can shoot
> Wait for a strike so you can shoot
> ...



You have created a false dichotomy.  Sure, most people will try to finish a clinched armbar, but that doesn't mean people don't also use it to transition or strike if that's the best option. The same goes with throwing strikes to get a grappling position.

Everyone that trains in MMA does this stuff.

What you are talking about may have been somewhat true in 2001, but not so much these days.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...


The Gracies do that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2019)

Steve said:


> You clearly have something in particular in mind.  Why not share with the group?



Yeah. I could set something up with underhooks and half Nelson's and stuff. 

It would be sort of doable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

Steve said:


> Strappling?  Grab punching?  Grunching?


I vote for "grunching". It has a satisfying onomatopoeia-ishness (what the heck is the adjective for that??).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

Steve said:


> You clearly have something in particular in mind.  Why not share with the group?


I think he's just reaching for a non-style-specific term, like we have with "grappling" and "striking". A way to refer in one word to arts and systems that do both.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 7, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he's just reaching for a non-style-specific term, like we have with "grappling" and "striking". A way to refer in one word to arts and systems that do both.


Hmm. Like, some sort of..hybrid..like..a mix of striking and grappling. A mix of martial arts that incorporates both...

What could we call it.  Hmmmmmmmmmm.

NO IDEA!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 7, 2019)

I'm actually a fan of strappling. Petition to make that the MartialTalk Approved (TM) word for any art sort of hybrid or mixed martial art/competition? I would just love to hear people talk about the importance of strappling in competition.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 7, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm actually a fan of strappling. Petition to make that the MartialTalk Approved (TM) word for any art sort of hybrid or mixed martial art/competition? I would just love to hear people talk about the importance of strappling in competition.



To me that sounds too much like some perverted millennial sex practice you could only learn about on urban dictionary...or maybe in Germany.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 7, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> My son trains Korean karate and they will grab and punch......so I offer that as proof koreans created grabbing and striking.


simultaneous discovery.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 7, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> My son trains Korean karate and they will grab and punch......so I offer that as proof koreans created grabbing and striking.


The block and grab are always applied before the CMA long fist punch.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he's just reaching for a non-style-specific term, like we have with "grappling" and "striking". A way to refer in one word to arts and systems that do both.


He alludes to something more in the op.  I'm suggesting maybe it's time to get there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Hmm. Like, some sort of..hybrid..like..a mix of striking and grappling. A mix of martial arts that incorporates both...
> 
> What could we call it.  Hmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> NO IDEA!


I used to call them mixed martial arts, then some bozos stole that name.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm actually a fan of strappling. Petition to make that the MartialTalk Approved (TM) word for any art sort of hybrid or mixed martial art/competition? I would just love to hear people talk about the importance of strappling in competition.


I'm imagining Joe Rogan discussing the finer points of strappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 7, 2019)

Steve said:


> He alludes to something more in the op.  I'm suggesting maybe it's time to get there.


But we're just starting to get the hang of this part of the thread.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 8, 2019)

I think what the OP is referring to is Chin-na.  Which is catch and seize.  It's an aspect of the striking art but it doesn't contain "felling" or throwing like judo.  I don't know of any other art other than kung fu that has a word for it. Most arts don't separate things in that way.  Kung fu does tend to be catagorical.  MMA is more about mixing more than one art, which is different than aspects of fighting.  There is overlap but an art is not the same as a catagorical aspect of fighting.  Karate has strikes, throws and grabs.  That's three aspects in one art.  But due to the current nomenclature we have generalized arts by there predominant aspect.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...



A striking art.

The only "arts" that don't try to immobilize an opponent are sports like boxing and Taekwondo where the game is to punch or kick. Pre mma striking arts included control methods.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

Wado Ryu karate.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> I can see that working.
> 
> But traps I think of as reactive (i.e. you think of a trap as having a trigger), and this could be proactive as well.



Trapping is both reactive and proactive.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> I think any art with striking and grappling, including MMA, uses one to set up the other and vice versa.  So, call it whatever you want, really.  Call it "Frank." .



Well now, I'm blushing. In my neck of the woods, we have always called it jiu jitsu.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?



Ameridote


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ameridote



The sad thing is...a lot of what he does is accurate.

Take for example the Thrust of Freedom.  It's a joke.  Until you watch him teach a seminar and show some ways of using it:  Thrust Right (or Thrust Left) combined with an arm grab is a great hip throw.  He has a combination that starts with Thrust Back which is a body grab defense...and the entire combination looks eerily similar to something we do in my Taekwondo class.


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> The sad thing is...a lot of what he does is accurate.
> 
> Take for example the Thrust of Freedom.  It's a joke.  Until you watch him teach a seminar and show some ways of using it:  Thrust Right (or Thrust Left) combined with an arm grab is a great hip throw.  He has a combination that starts with Thrust Back which is a body grab defense...and the entire combination looks eerily similar to something we do in my Taekwondo class.


When something you train earnestly bears an eerie resemblance to an extreme parody... Red flag...


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> When something you train earnestly bears an eerie resemblance to an extreme parody... Red flag...



There's always some truth to comedy.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 8, 2019)

How effective is chin na?  

Otherwise I don’t know of any art that relates to the OP question.  You have striking arts, and grappling arts.

Muay Thai offers some standing grappling and Judo offers mostly standing grappling with high emphasis on takedowns.  BJJ mostly ground although some can be used standing.  Wrestling is both standing and ground.


----------



## geezer (Jan 8, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm imagining Joe Rogan discussing the finer points of strappling.



Grappling + Striking = "strappling"?   IPerhaps Rogan would prefer   _..."griping"?_


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 8, 2019)

TMA17 said:


> How effective is chin na?


Old Chinese saying said, "A bad punch is still better than a good Chin Na." 

You can learned all 40 joint locking skill within 2 hours. But whether you can apply it on the street is something else.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 8, 2019)

geezer said:


> Grappling + Striking = "strappling"?   IPerhaps Rogan would prefer   _..."griping"?_


I thought he was already a master of that?


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> When something you train earnestly bears an eerie resemblance to an extreme parody... Red flag...



I suppose that's true sometimes. But other times it's just Martial Arts. I find more humor in Martial Training than almost anything else in life. 




 

Tell me you've EVER known an instructor who wasn't just like this.



 

Or a BB that didn't...



 

All parody. All so true.


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2019)

Buka said:


> I suppose that's true sometimes. But other times it's just Martial Arts. I find more humor in Martial Training than almost anything else in life.
> 
> View attachment 22039
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, those are all examples of jokes, but none of that is parody.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 8, 2019)

Buka said:


> I suppose that's true sometimes. But other times it's just Martial Arts. I find more humor in Martial Training than almost anything else in life.
> 
> View attachment 22039
> 
> ...


The black belt smile is the best!!!


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> There's always some truth to comedy.


Comedy and parody aren't synonyms.  While you could say that there is always something truth in parody, it is, by definition a form of mockery.   While it often is, it doesn't even have time funny to be parody.  Parody is more about shining a spotlight on things we may do that are a bit... Questionable.   It's laughing at something, not with it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 8, 2019)

TMA17 said:


> How effective is chin na?
> 
> Otherwise I don’t know of any art that relates to the OP question.  You have striking arts, and grappling arts.
> 
> Muay Thai offers some standing grappling and Judo offers mostly standing grappling with high emphasis on takedowns.  BJJ mostly ground although some can be used standing.  Wrestling is both standing and ground.


How effective  it is , is going to depend on a lot of things. A big piece is how you define it and how you use it.  Catching a punch in mid air is dream world stuff but leaning on a guy pushed against the octagon fence is CHIN-NA heaven to me.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> Comedy and parody aren't synonyms.  While you could say that there is always something truth in parody, it is, by definition a form of mockery.   While it often is, it doesn't even have time funny to be parody.  Parody is more about shining a spotlight on things we may do that are a bit... Questionable.   It's laughing at something, not with it.



Parody is a type of comedy.  Therefore that which is true of comedy is true of parody.

I think Master Ken sprinkles in enough actual martial arts to make his parody all the more funny.  For example, his two-hand grab escape.


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> Comedy and parody aren't synonyms.  While you could say that there is always something truth in parody, it is, by definition a form of mockery.   While it often is, it doesn't even have time funny to be parody.  Parody is more about shining a spotlight on things we may do that are a bit... Questionable.   It's laughing at something, not with it.



I, too, own a dictionary. Several actually. But thanks for pointing that out, I’m sure your heart was in the right place.


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2019)

Buka said:


> I, too, own a dictionary. Several actually. But thanks for pointing that out, I’m sure your heart was in the right place.


I'm sure you do, and they are easily found on the internet, if you do not.  I'm not sure how you guys can disagree with fact.  What I'm saying isn't controversial.  It's not like I'm about to go on national TV and lie to the American people or anything.  

Parody is inherently mean spirited, and the subjects of parody are often justifiably insulted.  That's kind of the point of parody.  As I said before, it's not parody if it's not making fun of something recognizable.  So, if your training resembles a parody, that... well, it's hilarious.  And a red flag.  




skribs said:


> Parody is a type of comedy.  Therefore that which is true of comedy is true of parody.


No.  That logical leap just made my left eye twitch.  It's a kind of association fallacy.  Memes such as what Buka posted aren't the same as what Master Ken does.  Different breeds of cat.





> I think Master Ken sprinkles in enough actual martial arts to make his parody all the more funny.  For example, his two-hand grab escape.


 This is true.  Which is why I think it's kind of hilarious that you volunteered that you recognized your own training in the parody.  An eerie similarity, I think is what you said.  Come on, man.


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

Steve said:


> I'm sure you do, and they are easily found on the internet, if you do not.  I'm not sure how you guys can disagree with fact.  What I'm saying isn't controversial.  It's not like I'm about to go on national TV and lie to the American people or anything.
> 
> Parody is inherently mean spirited, and the subjects of parody are often justifiably insulted.  That's kind of the point of parody.  As I said before, it's not parody if it's not making fun of something recognizable.  So, if your training resembles a parody, that... well, it's hilarious.  And a red flag.
> 
> ...



With parody being inherently mean spirited and insulting, was your use of the word parody (the red flag statement) meant in a mean spirited and insulting way?

That ain’t right. And it certainly isn’t like you.


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

But, wait, there’s more. Google the greatest parodies of all time....or anything like that.


----------



## skribs (Jan 9, 2019)

Buka said:


> With parody being inherently mean spirited and insulting, was your use of the word parody (the red flag statement) meant in a mean spirited and insulting way?
> 
> That ain’t right. And it certainly isn’t like you.



Wait, parody is inherently mean-spirited and insulting?  This is the first time I've EVER heard that.  Every parody I've ever seen has loved the source material (including Master Ken, who the actor is a 2nd Dan in Kenpo).


----------



## geezer (Jan 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Wait, parody is inherently mean-spirited and insulting?  This is the first time I've EVER heard that.  Every parody I've ever seen has loved the source material (including* Master Ken, who the actor is a 2nd Dan in Kenpo*).



^^^^Yeah, and one of his most hilarious parodies was is "Kenpo is BS" roast. I agree that parody doesn't have to be "mean spirited". It can be light-hearted and silly too ..like friendly teasing!


----------



## pdg (Jan 9, 2019)

I'm not surprised some stuff is recognised, and it's really not a "red flag" - unless the application is described as exactly the same.

Instead of "some of our stuff looks like what master Ken does" - just flip it around to "master Ken parodies some of the things we do."

For a parody to work, you have to be able to recognise what is being parodied...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> Comedy and parody aren't synonyms.  While you could say that there is always something truth in parody, it is, by definition a form of mockery.   While it often is, it doesn't even have time funny to be parody.  Parody is more about shining a spotlight on things we may do that are a bit... Questionable.   It's laughing at something, not with it.


Basically that's an accurate description, except for the last part. There are parodies that definitely show a love for the subject.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Basically that's an accurate description, except for the last part. There are parodies that definitely show a love for the subject.


I’d say the best parodies are ones where the parodist has a deep appreciation and understanding of the original subject being poked fun of.


----------



## skribs (Jan 9, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'm not surprised some stuff is recognised, and it's really not a "red flag" - unless the application is described as exactly the same.
> 
> Instead of "some of our stuff looks like what master Ken does" - just flip it around to "master Ken parodies some of the things we do."
> 
> For a parody to work, you have to be able to recognise what is being parodied...



The only difference between this particular drill in our school and what Master Ken does is the opening "move" I think of as a lift with the hips and he calls it a strike.

In this case, it seemed to me that this was a technique he's used in Kenpo, and he found a funny way of demonstrating it.  (Unlike his Hurticane and Kill Face).  It's funny because it's a practical use of a joke technique.


----------



## Steve (Jan 9, 2019)

Buka said:


> With parody being inherently mean spirited and insulting, was your use of the word parody (the red flag statement) meant in a mean spirited and insulting way?
> 
> That ain’t right. And it certainly isn’t like you.


Totally.  I didn't parody anything, buka.  I observed that Master Ken videos are parody and then made a joke.  I should have posted a picture of the Snl fake ad on Chanel Red Flag perfume, as that is what I had in mind.

But full disclosure, i sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between mean and funny.


----------



## Steve (Jan 9, 2019)

I think you guys are attaching too much emotion (like and hate) to it.  Parody absolutely has to come from a familiarity.   But its shining a spotlight on dysfunction.  It's in the same family as teasing, which can be lighthearted or vicious but is always poking fun of something and not (regardless of what is said) laughing with someone . in fact, the differemce between one and the other is often tje relationship between the parodier and the parodied.   

I'm very surprised this has struck such a nerve.  I misjudged the seriousness of this thread.  I was reading every post as tongue in cheek.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> I think you guys are attaching too much emotion (like and hate) to it.  Parody absolutely has to come from a familiarity.   But its shining a spotlight on dysfunction.  It's in the same family as teasing, which can be lighthearted or vicious but is always poking fun of something and not (regardless of what is said) laughing with someone . in fact, the differemce between one and the other is often tje relationship between the parodier and the parodied.
> 
> I'm very surprised this has struck such a nerve.  I misjudged the seriousness of this thread.  I was reading every post as tongue in cheek.


It's one of the annoying things about this format-it's tough to tell when someone is joking, and even tougher to tell if someones going along with a joke, or actually upset by the joke. For what it's worth, I just assumed you were having fun with skribs, in a lighthearted way.


----------



## Buka (Jan 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> Totally.  I didn't parody anything, buka.  I observed that Master Ken videos are parody and then made a joke.  I should have posted a picture of the Snl fake ad on Chanel Red Flag perfume, as that is what I had in mind.
> 
> But full disclosure, i sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between mean and funny.



Oh, heck, I know you're just a big old Teddy Bear. In fact, what I desperately tried to find for the last hour, and post, was a pic I posted a long time ago of Master Ken grappling with a big stuffed animal. I looked everywhere, googled it, searched my files. Couldn't find the damn thing.

And while I was doing that, at that very time, you mentioned Master Ken. Just goes to show the old adage is correct, _All great minds run in the same channel._

Or maybe it's _fools think alike_. I dunno, one of those two.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Steve said:


> I think you guys are attaching too much emotion (like and hate) to it.  Parody absolutely has to come from a familiarity.   But its shining a spotlight on dysfunction.  It's in the same family as teasing, which can be lighthearted or vicious but is always poking fun of something and not (regardless of what is said) laughing with someone . in fact, the differemce between one and the other is often tje relationship between the parodier and the parodied.
> 
> I'm very surprised this has struck such a nerve.  I misjudged the seriousness of this thread.  I was reading every post as tongue in cheek.


Sometimes parody is poking fun at something because it bugs people - because it _appears_ dysfunctional, rather than because it's _actually_ dysfunctional. And sometimes, it's simply making fun of something that would be dysfunctional, except for the situation that made it useful/necessary/prudent. As you said, it's much the same as teasing sometimes, and we sometimes tease people for something they do that is unusual and noticeable, even if it's not actually dysfunctional. For instance, we might tease a friend about always dressing nicer than everyone else in the group, without actually thinking there's anything wrong with it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 9, 2019)

If you think about it, pretty much all forms of humor have some degree of cruelty to them (other than the pun, and some would debate if that actually qualifies as humor...). Making fun of someone is cruel, but can you think of a single joke that doesn't make fun of someone? 
But it's a matter of intent and (somewhat) degree. Example: My loss of an eye is something of a running joke with family and friends. As a result, one of my friends gave me a new shift knob for my car. It's an eyeball. Because of course it is. Another friend once gave me a stuffed One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater (for you young punks, that was the topic of a song when I was young...). We can laugh about these things because I'm not the least bit sensitive about the loss. But if I were, these exact same actions would be hurtful.
And that's the problem. Jokes are inherently hurtful (at least potentially) and the line isn't exactly static. So humor sometimes isn't, and there will always be someone offended by your joke.

On to the original topic...
I call a Martial Art that integrates striking and grappling a Martial Art. Because so far as I know, all arts do this. You will learn striking in Aikido. You'll learn grappling in TKD. Each art has a different focus, certainly, but you'll still learn both.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques



functional. 


actual terminology if you wish to go down the route of dividing the two (as some people dont), hybrid.    As its a mix of both the groups made.    Mixed would be acceptable but then people conflate mixed to mean MMA MMA rather than a  mixing of arts/styles.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 10, 2019)

skribs said:


> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?


Like DD, I'd call it a martial art. Just about any functional martial art will include both striking and grappling and use one to set up the other. The exception would be martial sports where one or the other aspect is forbidden by the rules. (And even then you'd be surprised at how much can creep in. Most people don't realize how much skilled grappling can some into play in modern boxing or the hidden strikes that wrestlers can get away with.



skribs said:


> For example, using an arm lock to tie up one of your opponent's arms and keep the other arm pointed away from you, so that you can strike with your free arm unimpeded.



I'd have to see a picture of what you're attempting to describe there. In general, arm locks don't make great control positions for landing strikes.

Here are some of the common ways that grappling and striking can be blended:

Striking to enter into range for a clinch or takedown
Striking to force an opponent to cover, opening an pathway for a clinch or takedown
Grabbing/pushing/pulling/pinning an opponent's guard to clear a pathway for strikes
Pulling/pushing/steering an opponent's body or head to position them as a target for strikes
Sweeping an opponent's feet to off-balance them and open them up for strikes
Punching an opponent to distract them from a foot sweep
Establishing a dominant clinch position to give an advantage in striking. Examples include single collar tie, double collar tie, single underhook, half-nelson, Russian two-on-one, front headlock, etc.
Establishing grips with impact - for example a snap-down into a headlock can be a clubbing forearm strike to the back of the neck, a single-leg entry can begin with a penetrating head-butt to the ribs to shift the opponent's weight, etc.
Threatening a takedown and then striking as the opponent defends the takedown
Taking an opponent down and striking them from standing while they are down
Taking an opponent down and establishing a dominant top control position for strikes - examples include mount, side mount, knee ride, kesa gatame.
On the ground, using strikes to force an opponent to change positions or open up opportunities for the striker to improve position
On the ground, using strikes to force an opponent to open up for a submission
On the ground, a few submissions can also double as control positions for strikes - i.e. the triangle choke

There are more possibilities, but the above are pretty common.


----------



## skribs (Jan 10, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pulling/pushing/steering an opponent's body or head to position them as a target for strikes
> Sweeping an opponent's feet to off-balance them and open them up for strikes
> Establishing a dominant clinch position to give an advantage in striking. Examples include single collar tie, double collar tie, single underhook, half-nelson, Russian two-on-one, front headlock, etc.
> Establishing grips with impact - for example a snap-down into a headlock can be a clubbing forearm strike to the back of the neck, a single-leg entry can begin with a penetrating head-butt to the ribs to shift the opponent's weight, etc.
> ...




The ones I quoted are the types of things I'm talking about.

A single overhook with a lock on the elbow can open up the ribs and torso, and push their other hand away, making it harder for them to counter.  An armlock from the outside position can do an even better job.

I guess what we use a lot isn't so much an arm lock, but grabbing the arm and twisting them into a position that's easier to knee strike or downward elbow.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 10, 2019)

skribs said:


> A single overhook with a lock on the elbow can open up the ribs and torso, and push their other hand away, making it harder for them to counter. An armlock from the outside position can do an even better job.


The reason you don't see the single-overhook with pressure on the elbow used as a control position for striking very often in MMA is that when you turn to strike the opponent it relieves enough of the overhook pressure that the opponent is typically able to turn it into a dominant underhook which is more of an advantageous control position for them to strike. You _can_ combine the overhook with head control using the other hand to set up knees. You'll see that sometimes.

The reason you don't see a full arm lock from an outside position used to set up kicks/knees is that standing armlocks are incredibly difficult to establish and even harder to maintain against a skilled fighter in a full-out fight. They're more appropriate for bouncers corralling a rowdy drunk or police officers controlling a non-compliant suspect.


----------



## skribs (Jan 10, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The reason you don't see the single-overhook with pressure on the elbow used as a control position for striking very often in MMA is that when you turn to strike the opponent it relieves enough of the overhook pressure that the opponent is typically able to turn it into a dominant underhook which is more of an advantageous control position for them to strike. You _can_ combine the overhook with head control using the other hand to set up knees. You'll see that sometimes.
> 
> The reason you don't see a full arm lock from an outside position used to set up kicks/knees is that standing armlocks are incredibly difficult to establish and even harder to maintain against a skilled fighter in a full-out fight. They're more appropriate for bouncers corralling a rowdy drunk or police officers controlling a non-compliant suspect.



There's a guy named Jesse Enkamp who calls himself "The Karate Nerd" on YouTube, he talks about how some of the techniques you're training aren't for fighting against a skilled fighter in the ring, but the typical fighter on the street.


----------



## angelariz (Sep 11, 2021)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...


Ju jutsu, Judo, Systema, and JKD all work on that idea


----------



## Unkogami (Sep 12, 2021)

skribs said:


> .....
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  ...


Strappling?


Griking?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2021)

Unkogami said:


> Strappling?
> 
> 
> Griking?


Griping? I'm a BB in Gripedo.


----------



## Koryuhoka (Sep 12, 2021)

Okinawan Karate.


----------



## MadMartigan (Sep 12, 2021)

skribs said:


> But back to my question - is there a name for this concept? We have "striking" and "grappling", but what about the concept of using one to break your opponent's structure, with which to allow you to use the other?


As the OP mentioned somewhere near the middle of this thread; his intended question was more about a name for the concept than a cheeky martial art name. (Though I really liked 'Griking' also)

I submit 'Clinch Fighting'.

For me, the issue is divided by the fighting range it occurs in. Striking, Clinch (standing), and Grappling (on the ground). I've found this (perhaps over-simplification) very useful for my own classes. Working on drills from a clinch position allows us to improve this (often transitional) stage between striking and ground fighting.

Of course, standing grappling is a commonly used term too. I just use it as more of a synonym for my preferred term of '*clinch fighting*'. 
This applies to the range it occurs in, and can involve anything from strictly grip fighting to grabbing the clothes and striking like a hockey fight. Whether the aim is to grab, off balance, then strike... or grab, off balance, and take down. Both happen within that same fighting range.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2021)

MadMartigan said:


> As the OP mentioned somewhere near the middle of this thread; his intended question was more about a name for the concept than a cheeky martial art name. (Though I really liked 'Griking' also)
> 
> I submit 'Clinch Fighting'.
> 
> ...


While my preferred term in that middle section is "standing grappling", I agree that it implies a separation that's not really there. I apply the same thought to ground grappling, which I usually refer to as "ground fighting" or "groundwork".

In any case, prefer the clarity of "clinch fighting" over "standing grappling". I might even talk myself into chaning my own usage.


----------



## Buka (Sep 12, 2021)

We just call it rock and roll.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 12, 2021)

skribs said:


> some of the techniques you're training aren't for fighting against a skilled fighter in the ring, but the typical fighter on the street.


This is true.  And some techniques _can_ be used against trained competitors. Also, there is a spectrum of skills found in street fighters. The typical Joe Thug is usually easy prey for a trained martial artist.  

But there is an increasing number of nasty predators that have some sort of combat training, whether from you tube, practice with their cribmates, military service, prison, or formal training. These guys can be dangerous.  Losing will likely mean a hospital stay.  This kind of fight lasts seconds.  TMA techniques as a whole may not be effective against them as this kind of threat was not common when TMA was developed.

However, the principles and skills of TMA (non-sport oriented) are good and can be effective, _providing some of the techniques are modified_ to account for this new threat. Weapon and target selection, and power to take the opponent out by breaking something significant or render him unconscious become more important. Counters must be denied. Attacks normally done in 2 or 3 steps have to be done in 1 beat. Techniques explosively executed with minimum set up and chambering provides shock and awe.

Nonstop striking, a bit of grappling and more striking is key IMO.


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2021)

Buka said:


> We just call it rock and roll.


But what if it’s also a little bit country?


----------



## Buka (Sep 13, 2021)

Steve said:


> But what if it’s also a little bit country?


Then we need some cowbell!


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 13, 2021)

Clackledockling.

Alright COME ON guys now we're just being SILLY.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 13, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> Clackledockling.
> 
> Alright COME ON guys now we're just being SILLY.


Google does not recognize this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Google does not recognize this.


If we refer to clackledockling enough here, searches for it will find this thread.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> This is true.  And some techniques _can_ be used against trained competitors. Also, there is a spectrum of skills found in street fighters. The typical Joe Thug is usually easy prey for a trained martial artist.


In my opinion, they are definitely useful against trained opponents.  You are trained, they are trained.  It comes down to who is better at what they do than the other guy.  It might be you or it might be the other guy and it might depend on the day of the week and what mood you happen to be in.  But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that traditional martial arts were meant to be effective against an untrained opponent only.  I do not buy it. 

Now, there are top-level competitors who train more and train harder and may be in prime physical condition, against whom someone who does not train at that same level is unlikely to prevail.  Of course that is true.  But it boils down to who is better at what they do.  I cannot fathom why the fact that a thug has some training suddenly makes him so much better than his intended victim who also has some training.


isshinryuronin said:


> But there is an increasing number of nasty predators that have some sort of combat training, whether from you tube, practice with their cribmates, military service, prison, or formal training. These guys can be dangerous.  Losing will likely mean a hospital stay.  This kind of fight lasts seconds.  TMA techniques as a whole may not be effective against them as this kind of threat was not common when TMA was developed.


I need to disagree with this notion as well.  I suspect that some generations ago when many of the older systems were developed, the police (if they existed) were not readily accessible when you needed help, and were probably more of a tool of oppression for the benefit of the ruling class.  You couldn’t just call 911 and get help quickly, and there wasn’t a well developed and fair criminal justice system to go after the bad guys.  So the individual needed to be able to take care of himself if he was jumped on his way home at night from working in the fields, or his caravan was attacked by robbers on the highway, with nobody to help or witness.  Violence always has existed, and often it can be extreme, particularly when there was nobody to witness or no aid to be had.  The martial methods that grew up during such an era were meant to maim and kill quickly and decisively, because your life was literally on the line.

Of course modern violence follows this pattern too.  Traditional fighting methods, highly effective a few generations ago, remain so today if they are trained appropriately.


isshinryuronin said:


> However, the principles and skills of TMA (non-sport oriented) are good and can be effective, _providing some of the techniques are modified_ to account for this new threat. Weapon and target selection, and power to take the opponent out by breaking something significant or render him unconscious become more important. Counters must be denied. Attacks normally done in 2 or 3 steps have to be done in 1 beat. Techniques explosively executed with minimum set up and chambering provides shock and awe.
> 
> Nonstop striking, a bit of grappling and more striking is key IMO.


I see this as being probably the same now as it was some generations ago.  Violence continues on.  Much of what worked then, still works just as well today.  The caveat that I make is simply that a karate day-care class for toddlers isn’t the training needed to be effective.  Training needs to be carried out on an adult level with a real understanding of how to use it, and I suspect that is often not done in many schools today.  But that is not a failure of the system, rather it is a failure of the teachers and the folks practicing them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 13, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> If we refer to clackledockling enough here, searches for it will find this thread.


I just checked-sadly clackledockling is still not showing up on google.


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, they are definitely useful against trained opponents.  You are trained, they are trained.  It comes down to who is better at what they do than the other guy.  It might be you or it might be the other guy and it might depend on the day of the week and what mood you happen to be in.  But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that traditional martial arts were meant to be effective against an untrained opponent only.  I do not buy it.
> 
> Now, there are top-level competitors who train more and train harder and may be in prime physical condition, against whom someone who does not train at that same level is unlikely to prevail.  Of course that is true.  But it boils down to who is better at what they do.  I cannot fathom why the fact that a thug has some training suddenly makes him so much better than his intended victim who also has some training.



I think the prevailing belief here is that a "thug" is someone who has likely been in a fight or two (or more) and so has some actual experience applying anything they have learned.  In contrast, an intended victim who has some training, but has never been in a fight, will just need to hope for the best.  This is where I wish we had the data to look into it, as my theory is there would be no statistical difference between untrained and trained in a compliant TMA style training model with regards to crime.

Unless you have in mind someone who routinely applies their training.  I would agree with that, but somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind.  



Flying Crane said:


> Of course modern violence follows this pattern too.  Traditional fighting methods, highly effective a few generations ago, remain so today if they are trained appropriately.
> 
> I see this as being probably the same now as it was some generations ago.  Violence continues on.  Much of what worked then, still works just as well today.  The caveat that I make is simply that a karate day-care class for toddlers isn’t the training needed to be effective.  Training needs to be carried out on an adult level with a real understanding of how to use it, and I suspect that is often not done in many schools today.  But that is not a failure of the system, rather it is a failure of the teachers and the folks practicing them.



Hm.  See above.  I agree with your high level, philosophical statement here.  But I would guess that you and I have very different things in mind when it comes to what type of training constitutes "adult level with a real understanding of how to use it."


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I just checked-sadly clackledockling is still not showing up on google.


Did someone ask about clackledockling?  I have been really curious about clackledockling.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think the prevailing belief here is that a "thug" is someone who has likely been in a fight or two (or more) and so has some actual experience applying anything they have learned.  In contrast, an intended victim who has some training, but has never been in a fight, will just need to hope for the best.  This is where I wish we had the data to look into it, as my theory is there would be no statistical difference between untrained and trained in a compliant TMA style training model with regards to crime.
> 
> Unless you have in mind someone who routinely applies their training.  I would agree with that, but somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind.
> 
> ...



So this would be my definition of a thug and their level of training.






So what you would probably face from some drunken rando.


----------



## Buka (Sep 13, 2021)

We are currently forming a Clackledockling Association. Clackledockling membership cards and the Clackledockling flag are being designed now. 

Long live Clackledocklers.


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2021)

Buka said:


> We are currently forming a Clackledockling Association. Clackledockling membership cards and the Clackledockling flag are being designed now.
> 
> Long live Clackledocklers.


Clackledockling is so fetch!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2021)

Steve said:


> Did someone ask about clackledockling?  I have been really curious about clackledockling.


Someone mentioned clackledocking several posts ago. It's had me thinking deeply about clackledocking since.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2021)

drop bear said:


> So this would be my definition of a thug and their level of training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With a bit less fitness (and maybe strength?), and less coordination, both because of being drunk and because they're likely not as athletic.

Otherwise, yes. That level of aggression and overwhelm, and for at least a significant portion of them, some experience using it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> With a bit less fitness (and maybe strength?), and less coordination, both because of being drunk and because they're likely not as athletic.
> 
> Otherwise, yes. That level of aggression and overwhelm, and for at least a significant portion of them, some experience using it.



Kind of. That is the most popular sport in my area.


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Google does not recognize this.


Oh it will.......

It........ will...........


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 14, 2021)

🤣🤣🤣 made my day you guys


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2021)

drop bear said:


> So this would be my definition of a thug and their level of training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably being the key word. I have met some guys that grew up fighting who could really swat. 
“Thug” in general use is a rather broad term so using it as a defining term could be easily misunderstood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2021)

_Simon_ said:


> 🤣🤣🤣 made my day you guys


If you think that was fun, you should try clackledocking.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2021)

drop bear said:


> So this would be my definition of a thug and their level of training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





dvcochran said:


> Probably being the key word. I have met some guys that grew up fighting who could really swat.
> “Thug” in general use is a rather broad term so using it as a defining term could be easily misunderstood.


A friendly warning, I would exercise some caution using the term "thug" in certain parts of the USA.  Sure, it can be used generally, to refer to someone who is thuggish.  But there are a lot of folks who will interpret it with a racial undertone.  I know some folks will dismiss this as PC, but this is intended as a practical warning... if you call someone a thug around the wrong people, it's like calling the wrong person "kid" or "boy."  You may find yourself using your self defense skills.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> A friendly warning, I would exercise some caution using the term "thug" in certain parts of the USA.  Sure, it can be used generally, to refer to someone who is thuggish.  But there are a lot of folks who will interpret it with a racial undertone.  I know some folks will dismiss this as PC, but this is intended as a practical warning... if you call someone a thug around the wrong people, it's like calling the wrong person "kid" or "boy."  You may find yourself using your self defense skills.


Many, many people (wonder who) need to get over such things. In the south all bets are off on what someone may call you. So you are either the kind of person who is offended be everything or the person who is big enough to laugh off anything.
That said, 'thug' is on the lower end of the flattering scale:


Steve said:


> A friendly warning, I would exercise some caution using the term "thug" in certain parts of the USA.  Sure, it can be used generally, to refer to someone who is thuggish.  But there are a lot of folks who will interpret it with a racial undertone.  I know some folks will dismiss this as PC, but this is intended as a practical warning... if you call someone a thug around the wrong people, it's like calling the wrong person "kid" or "boy."  You may find yourself using your self defense skills.


Please, please, please, not the racial thing again. It has been so overused it is sickening. 'Thug' has nothing to do with color. In the USA, none; Period. See the 2nd definition reference. It could be argued that , in the pats, color had something to do with it. But again,  not at all in the racial reference you made. Quit poking the bear.

Merrian-Webster says: 
thug​ noun
1.) a violent or brutish criminal or bully
2.) a member of a group of murderous robbers in India's past whose activities were suppressed in the early nineteenth century

As usual, I have no idea where you get your diatribe but it is completely off base. 
In the south you better be ready to get called all manner of names. You are either the kind of person who is offended by everything (sound familiar) or the kind of person who laughs it off and is offended by nothing.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Many, many people (wonder who) need to get over such things. In the south all bets are off on what someone may call you. So you are either the kind of person who is offended be everything or the person who is big enough to laugh off anything.
> That said, 'thug' is on the lower end of the flattering scale:
> 
> Please, please, please, not the racial thing again. It has been so overused it is sickening. 'Thug' has nothing to do with color. In the USA, none; Period. See the 2nd definition reference. It could be argued that , in the pats, color had something to do with it. But again,  not at all in the racial reference you made. Quit poking the bear.
> ...


To be clear, it's black folks in the South who could be reacting poorly to the terms.  My impression is that southern white dudes are a little too used to telling southern black dudes that they shouldn't be offended by the things the white dudes say.  But I'm sure if we just ignore it, it will go away.  

The salient point is, if you say thug (or boy or kid) to the wrong person, you will find out what they think of it.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> To be clear, it's black folks in the South who could be reacting poorly to the terms.  My impression is that southern white dudes are a little too used to telling southern black dudes that they shouldn't be offended by the things the white dudes say.  But I'm sure if we just ignore it, it will go away.
> 
> The salient point is, if you say thug (or boy or kid) to the wrong person, you will find out what they think of it.


I had no idea you were such an expert on the south. Regale me with how you became so wise. 
As someone who has lived here my whole life I cannot tell you how far off base you are.

The funny thing is most black and white folk have been over this for sooo long. It is Too many people like you who choose to keep trying to stir up something that no longer exists. It is some kind of phobia? 
Sad and hugely misinforming for impressionable minds. Dude, get out of the 60's.

I have black adults, adopted black kids and mixed kids in my family. So what? They treat and are treated just like everyone else. They get and give crap when it is deserved. And believe me when I say we cut no slack. 

Say the wrong thing to anyone from anywhere and you will find out what they think of it. You truly do not get that?

Saying boy or kid here in the south is about as common as saying sir or ma'am. Just weird that you feel these words are some kind of taboo.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I had no idea you were such an expert on the south. Regale me with how you became so wise.
> As someone who has lived here my whole life I cannot tell you how far off base you are.
> 
> The funny thing is most black and white folk have been over this for sooo long. It is Too many people like you who choose to keep trying to stir up something that no longer exists. It is some kind of phobia?
> ...


Hey, you know.  I was mistaken.  I encourage you to use the term extensively.  

Just, please... have someone record it.  Go call some folks you don't know, who aren't your relatives, a thug.  Call them boy or kid.  Just, please, post the video.  I would really get a kick out of seeing it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Many, many people (wonder who) need to get over such things. In the south all bets are off on what someone may call you. So you are either the kind of person who is offended be everything or the person who is big enough to laugh off anything.
> That said, 'thug' is on the lower end of the flattering scale:
> 
> Please, please, please, not the racial thing again. It has been so overused it is sickening. 'Thug' has nothing to do with color. In the USA, none; Period. See the 2nd definition reference. It could be argued that , in the pats, color had something to do with it. But again,  not at all in the racial reference you made. Quit poking the bear.
> ...


Slang usage doesn't always make it to the dictionary. There are definitely areas where the term "thug life" refers to a specific subset of a specific racial group.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I had no idea you were such an expert on the south. Regale me with how you became so wise.
> As someone who has lived here my whole life I cannot tell you how far off base you are.
> 
> The funny thing is most black and white folk have been over this for sooo long. It is Too many people like you who choose to keep trying to stir up something that no longer exists. It is some kind of phobia?
> ...


I don't recall what area of the South you are in. Where I grew up in South Carolina (about 45 minutes from where I now live), they are definitely not over it.

Steve didn't actually start this making any kind of racial statement. He started out just pointing out that the term has - at least in some areas - a racial connotation. Which it does.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I don't recall what area of the South you are in. Where I grew up in South Carolina (about 45 minutes from where I now live), they are definitely not over it.
> 
> Steve didn't actually start this making any kind of racial statement. He started out just pointing out that the term has - at least in some areas - a racial connotation. Which it does.


Also, we can say things to friends and families that would be taken differently of said by (or to) someone we don’t know well.  

And “thug” is a word that means different things to different people.  And has for a long time.  Saw a guy from Appalachia NC get himself into a lot of trouble in the barracks back in the 80s when he called a black dude a thug. Got his *** handed to him.  Maybe he should have just explained that they were taking it wrong.  😂


----------



## Koryuhoka (Sep 14, 2021)

*[*_We - People Of Color, have a grasp of the "covert" or subtle racism. And words like "thug" and "criminal element"... even "entitled" is often used as covert terms for us. Definitely. People want to erase the idea of racism by using terms like "race card" or insist that racism doesn't exist - which is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life.. but it is more insulting than anything. It is insulting to deny us the reality that we live on a daily basis_*]*

Karate, in its earliest form is a synthesis of "ti", the original Okinawan Art, which was purely a GRAPPLING art, and techniques introduced to the Okinawans through the Cultural Interchange with China that took place around 1394. 

This is actual history and he who "haha'd" my original entry needs to get passed his elementary school level training and grow in knowledge and truth. 

Okinawan Karate is a JUTSU - "skill" in its original form and was toned down to what most of it is today.. a shadow of its former self. It consists of Newaza AND Kansetsuwaza - Ground technique and Joint technique. 

Most importantly, no karateka who studies the deeper meanings of the art needs to prove this to anyone. But in a controlled environment with rules, the meathead would take advantage. Try maliciously attacking someone who has been properly trained in correctness of technique and skill, and you will see the truth.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 14, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> Karate, in its earliest form is a synthesis of "ti", the original Okinawan Art, which was purely a GRAPPLING art, and techniques introduced to the Okinawans through the Cultural Interchange with China that took place around 1394.


Okinawa had a native form of wrestling/grappling, but from what I've read, the exact nature of this particular skill is unknown having died out long ago, so its inclusion in early_ toude _is impossible to verify, or even give reason to strongly suspect.

The _Bubishi_, composed most likely in the early/mid 1800's, shows a throw or two and several takedowns, but no wrestling as such.  Plus, "ti/te" refers to "hand" which to me hints at striking and grabbing, not tying someone up on the ground. 

So I think calling "_ti_" a "purely grappling art" is making a leap too far.

To be sure, early karate (_toude_) had takedowns, joint locks, and especially other techniques involving grabbing and pulling (being mostly used in conjunction with striking.) These did lose importance as karate began to be _publicly_ taught in Japan (and Okinawa to some extent) due to 1.  safety for the school kids, and 2.  so as not to compete with the already well established judo/jujustu art.  However, they were still taught in Okinawa to the master's _private _students, and now finding their way back into mainstream traditional karate.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Hey, you know.  I was mistaken.  I encourage you to use the term extensively.
> 
> Just, please... have someone record it.  Go call some folks you don't know, who aren't your relatives, a thug.  Call them boy or kid.  Just, please, post the video.  I would really get a kick out of seeing it.





dvcochran said:


> Say the wrong thing to anyone from anywhere and you will find out what they think of it. You truly do not get that?


I included what I said before for the benefit of your memory. No one is saying to looking for trouble. That is easy whether you use derogatory terms or not.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I don't recall what area of the South you are in. Where I grew up in South Carolina (about 45 minutes from where I now live), they are definitely not over it.
> 
> Steve didn't actually start this making any kind of racial statement. He started out just pointing out that the term has - at least in some areas - a racial connotation. Which it does.


I am in Middle TN. So are you saying in SC you walk around on pins and needles when around black folk? Or vice-versa? 
I would say this is only true of the people here (white or black) that have other circumstances going on (criminal and such). 
It is a choice. Some unnecessarily but willingly wallow in the indoctrination. Some keep the indoctrination going (aka Steve). That squarely puts the wrong doing on both sides.

We as a country have to realize we have much bigger issues and enemies from within and come together. Bickering over ancient, irrelevant things is doing more damage than I can say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I am in Middle TN. So are you saying in SC you walk around on pins and needles when around black folk? Or vice-versa?
> I would say this is only true of the people here (white or black) that have other circumstances going on (criminal and such).
> It is a choice. Some unnecessarily but willingly wallow in the indoctrination. Some keep the indoctrination going (aka Steve). That squarely puts the wrong doing on both sides.
> 
> We as a country have to realize we have much bigger issues and enemies from within and come together. Bickering over ancient, irrelevant things is doing more damage than I can say.


That's an extreme statement that reflects nothing I said. Here's some reality. I grew up next door to an active member of the KKK. Sheet and hood hanging in the garage, rebel flag flying in the yard, etc. Gene was mostly a "nice guy" if you didn't pay attention to the racism and sexism (the latter was less overt). This in a relatively nice middle-class neighborhood in an agricultural area.

It's more subtle than that in most places now, but you can still see some pretty open racism in rural areas. It's not that hard to find.

None of this is really tied to other criminal activities in my experience. There are just some racist bastards out there.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> *[*_We - People Of Color, have a grasp of the "covert" or subtle racism. And words like "thug" and "criminal element"... even "entitled" is often used as covert terms for us. Definitely. People want to erase the idea of racism by using terms like "race card" or insist that racism doesn't exist - which is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life.. but it is more insulting than anything. It is insulting to deny us the reality that we live on a daily basis_*]*
> 
> Karate, in its earliest form is a synthesis of "ti", the original Okinawan Art, which was purely a GRAPPLING art, and techniques introduced to the Okinawans through the Cultural Interchange with China that took place around 1394.
> 
> ...


I did a search to try and find out who said your opening quote but came back with zero. Who did you quote? And may I ask why?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Slang usage doesn't always make it to the dictionary. There are definitely areas where the term "thug life" refers to a specific subset of a specific racial group.


True enough but a term that is more often used as a term of endearment by said subset(s). Again a two way street. Nothing more than a poor choice of a gang/club title. 

It is a never ending rabbit trail. For example Daft Punk sounds like a self imposed derogatory name for a band. However 'Daft' is an acronym for Dogs, Androids, Fireman, Tomato's. So a person has to know the background meaning. 
That said, I am not aware of an acronym for the word 'thug'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> True enough but a term that is more often used as a term of endearment by said subset(s). Again a two way street. Nothing more than a poor choice of a gang/club title.
> 
> It is a never ending rabbit trail. For example Daft Punk sounds like a self imposed derogatory name for a band. However 'Daft' is an acronym for Dogs, Androids, Fireman, Tomato's. So a person has to know the background meaning.
> That said, I am not aware of an acronym for the word 'thug'.


It's true some terms are used familiarly, but seen as insults from outside that familiar group. I think that's what Steve was getting at in his post. Remember that he didn't raise a real stink with that - just supplied some context for someone outside the US that the term can be seen as less-than-friendly across racial lines in some places in the US.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> It's true some terms are used familiarly, but seen as insults from outside that familiar group. I think that's what Steve was getting at in his post. Remember that he didn't raise a real stink with that - just supplied some context for someone outside the US that the term can be seen as less-than-friendly across racial lines in some places in the US.


If only the intentions were that noble. Overt undertones is such an understatement. 

I do not recall this site ever needing a schoolmarm. 

Impression usually needs a trigger. He is the worst instigator of such triggers that I have ever seen on here.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think the prevailing belief here is that a "thug" is someone who has likely been in a fight or two (or more) and so has some actual experience applying anything they have learned.  In contrast, an intended victim who has some training, but has never been in a fight, will just need to hope for the best.  This is where I wish we had the data to look into it, as my theory is there would be no statistical difference between untrained and trained in a compliant TMA style training model with regards to crime.
> 
> Unless you have in mind someone who routinely applies their training.  I would agree with that, but somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind.
> 
> ...



I would largely agree that if you're training in a very compliant manner, or you're doing nothing but katas, your fighting skills are probably slightly better than an untrained person who jogs. Sorry, that's simply the reality. And yeah, there are people out there who have been getting into physical altercations their entire lives, so they have experience with dealing with and dishing out violence.

I often times raise an eyebrow when someone says that their martial art of choice trains them how to fight untrained people. What does that mean exactly? Like your ancient martial art from the mountains of Asia were designed for you to bully people, or did your sifu/sensei tell you that the "thug" you encounter (who probably grew up fighting mentally and physically for survival every day of their lives) will have poor fighting skills?

BS either way.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I would largely agree that if you're training in a very compliant manner, or you're doing nothing but katas, your fighting skills are probably slightly better than an untrained person who jogs. Sorry, that's simply the reality. And yeah, there are people out there who have been getting into physical altercations their entire lives, so they have experience with dealing with and dishing out violence.
> 
> I often times raise an eyebrow when someone says that their martial art of choice trains them how to fight untrained people. What does that mean exactly? Like your ancient martial art from the mountains of Asia were designed for you to bully people, or did your sifu/sensei tell you that the "thug" you encounter (who probably grew up fighting mentally and physically for survival every day of their lives) will have poor fighting skills?
> 
> BS either way.


Well you are grossly crossing over timelines with your agrument but I do agree in part. 

When kata/forms/poomsae, even patterns are taught and practiced correctly they have a degree of SD value. Unfortunately this isn't done with regularity. I excluded the word patterns because this is the chief reason they do not work. When taught as a 'pattern' only it is just a group of disparate movements . More like an organized dance pattern. 

I fully agree resistance training and sparring must be included. But then there are so many intangibles you are not discussing (either by not knowing about them or choosing to exclude them) that are taught and trained when forms are learned the correct way. 
Yes, it can be argued that it is a longer and more indirect path to carnal fighting but again, there are tons of intangibles that are taught in the process.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I would largely agree that if you're training in a very compliant manner, or you're doing nothing but katas, your fighting skills are probably slightly better than an untrained person who jogs. Sorry, that's simply the reality. And yeah, there are people out there who have been getting into physical altercations their entire lives, so they have experience with dealing with and dishing out violence.
> 
> I often times raise an eyebrow when someone says that their martial art of choice trains them how to fight untrained people. What does that mean exactly? Like your ancient martial art from the mountains of Asia were designed for you to bully people, or did your sifu/sensei tell you that the "thug" you encounter (who probably grew up fighting mentally and physically for survival every day of their lives) will have poor fighting skills?
> 
> BS either way.


I actually think that if you train in an impractical way, you can actually be less capable of managing a dangerous situation.  Learning to fight and defend yourself from someone who has never been in a fight creates a disconnect between what you think you can do and what you can do.  So, you think you can fight better than X, but you really can't.  And that belief leads to some faulty decision making.  

It's like deciding to walk across a sketchy looking bridge.  Your eyes tell you it won't hold your weight.  Your instincts tell you it won't hold your weight.  Everyone else avoids that bridge because it's obvious to them that it won't hold your weight.  But some guy says, "I'm an expert.  Everyone else just doesn't know what they're talking about.  I've studied the art of crossing bridges for 20 years.  Don't listen to those engineers, I learned from some guy who learned from the builder of this bridge, and he was a structural engineer.  And besides, it doesn't need to hold an elephant... just you."  

Over time, that guy convinces you to believe him, because he's an expert, so you actually start arguing with everyone else who tries to warn you.  And then one day, you need to actually cross the bridge.  So, off you go, and in that moment before you fall, you think, "I was mistaken, and that guy didn't know what he was talking abouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut." <splat>


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> True enough but a term that is more often used as a term of endearment by said subset(s). Again a two way street. Nothing more than a poor choice of a gang/club title.
> 
> It is a never ending rabbit trail. For example Daft Punk sounds like a self imposed derogatory name for a band. However 'Daft' is an acronym for Dogs, Androids, Fireman, Tomato's. So a person has to know the background meaning.
> That said, I am not aware of an acronym for the word 'thug'.


First, you listen to Daft Punk?  Huh.  My oldest is 25 and they were one of his favorites.  We listened to a lot of Daft Punk over the years.  And you're right... to a fan of Daft Punk, the word "daft" can mean something more than it does to most people.  It means silly to everyone, but to a fan of the band, it also refers to their collection of videos from the early 2000's.  

As you say, we don't always know the background meanings of a word.  That's exactly the same point I was making. 
If you are from Australia (or apparently parts of the American South), you may not be aware that some folks don't appreciate being called a thug, and the word means things you may not intend.  As you say, it's good "to know the background meaning."


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Well you are grossly crossing over timelines with your agrument but I do agree in part.
> 
> When kata/forms/poomsae, even patterns are taught and practiced correctly they have a degree of SD value. Unfortunately this isn't done with regularity. I excluded the word patterns because this is the chief reason they do not work. When taught as a 'pattern' only it is just a group of disparate movements . More like an organized dance pattern.
> 
> ...



Yet the most effective martial arts tend to be the ones that have dropped kata/forms entirely.

EDIT: You disagree? That's rather amusing.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 15, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> That's an extreme statement that reflects nothing I said. Here's some reality. I grew up next door to an active member of the KKK. Sheet and hood hanging in the garage, rebel flag flying in the yard, etc. Gene was mostly a "nice guy" if you didn't pay attention to the racism and sexism (the latter was less overt). This in a relatively nice middle-class neighborhood in an agricultural area.
> 
> It's more subtle than that in most places now, but you can still see some pretty open racism in rural areas. It's not that hard to find.
> 
> None of this is really tied to other criminal activities in my experience. There are just some racist bastards out there.


I lived in upstate SC, rural hill country, for a number of years.  It's a different world there for sure. Outside of town you saw the occasional stars and bars flying, and there was a KKK curio shop downtown.  There were some racists, but little overt racism.  When we bought our house, the lawyer was surprised I wanted my wife's name on the title as well.  So, a little behind the times.  

Everyone had a truck (except city boy, me) and of course, firearms.  A church on every other block and a Waffle House was always just around the corner. Lots of land, farmed or hunted, often being in the family for a century or two.  There was a connection to it that is hard for city people to appreciate.  Your great granddaddy worked it, and now you.  A vacation seldom took one more than a couple hours drive. 

People would go far out of their way to lend a hand if you needed help or directions, like a stranger driving several miles to lead you to the right road.  Hard to tell who had money and who didn't.  Everyone drove pickups, had little jewelry, wore overalls, and had modest homes. Wealth was not advertised and shown off.  Rich and poor lived in the same neighborhoods. Very low crime rate (did I mention everyone was armed?)  Everyone agreed, "We could use more rain."

Hills, woods, lakes, streams and waterfalls.  Hard to get caught up with BS politics, political correctness, finger pointing, over sensitivity, etc., in that kind of environment.   Aside from my reminiscing, I guess the point is not getting caught up in your own little world, not seeing the forest for the trees.  It seems too many people invent or pursue ways to be offended.  Why can't I call someone a "thug," without some "subset" group claiming that word for their own victimhood.  Soon, if I call someone a "moron" another subset may lay claim to that word, deciding to change the meaning, regardless how valid that description is.

I'll just go and practice some "kata" now, and hopefully will not offend a subset group claiming I'm doing useless, outdated movements that insult real martial arts.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I lived in upstate SC, rural hill country, for a number of years.  It's a different world there for sure. Outside of town you saw the occasional stars and bars flying, and there was a KKK curio shop downtown.  There were some racists, but little overt racism.  When we bought our house, the lawyer was surprised I wanted my wife's name on the title as well.  So, a little behind the times.
> 
> Everyone had a truck (except city boy, me) and of course, firearms.  A church on every other block and a Waffle House was always just around the corner. Lots of land, farmed or hunted, often being in the family for a century or two.  There was a connection to it that is hard for city people to appreciate.  Your great granddaddy worked it, and now you.  A vacation seldom took one more than a couple hours drive.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the note.  Just to re-orient the discussion a little, the point isn't philosophical; it's practical.  Should you think about whether the words you use are insulting to someone else?  Maybe and maybe not.

More to the point, if you do say something to someone that offends them (whether you mean anything or not), you could very well find yourself dealing with some very real world repercussions.  You understand the culture of your people in your area, and everything you say may be true where you are now.  But I never said or meant that everyone should be offended by the term.  I said something like, "Hey, just know that in some areas, that means something else." 

Take for example, @dvcochran.  He's very prickly, and takes offense very quickly.  When you even hint at something that he disagrees with, he pings off the chart.  Clearly, I offend him.  Deeply.  He can't let it go.  At this point, I just mostly ignore it.  For the sake of this topic, though, it's a perfect case in point.   Everyone is part of some subset group, and everyone has things that bother them.  I do.  You do, too, if you think about it.  And Just consider this.  We're still talking about this because he was offended by my post.   To the point he's trying to stir the pot in other threads where I've posted, as well.  And now I have to deal with it.   

So, for my part, the question isn't whether that "should" be the case.  It is the case.  It's human nature.  We are bothered by some things and not by others, and what really, deeply offends you may not be a big deal to me, at all.  And vice versa.

In that spirit, as a public service announcement, some folks are bothered by the term (and the perceived subtext) of "thug."  You may not have any problem with it, but that won't matter at all if you unwittingly offend the wrong person.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Appreciate the note.  Just to re-orient the discussion a little, the point isn't philosophical; it's practical.  Should you think about whether the words you use are insulting to someone else?  Maybe and maybe not.
> 
> More to the point, if you do say something to someone that offends them (whether you mean anything or not), you could very well find yourself dealing with some very real world repercussions.  You understand the culture of your people in your area, and everything you say may be true where you are now.  But I never said or meant that everyone should be offended by the term.  I said something like, "Hey, just know that in some areas, that means something else."
> 
> ...


Sooo, you respond to someone else's thread to comment about me comment about you. That makes perfect sense. 
Clearly, you heard nothing isshinryuronin said in his posts, which I thought was spot on. 

Offended is not the correct term. Conscious would be more correct. Prickly could be accurate when someone is as grating as you can be. 
What seems to escape you is how often you make knee jerk and outright incorrect statements you make; clearly to invoke reaction. This is what I am on the Offensive for; not offended by. 
And I am the bad guy? 

Like I said, I do not ever remember this site needing a schoolmarm, especially one as biased as you.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Sooo, you respond to someone else's thread to comment about me comment about you. That makes perfect sense.
> Clearly, you heard nothing isshinryuronin said in his posts, which I thought was spot on.
> 
> Offended is not the correct term. Conscious would be more correct. Prickly could be accurate when someone is as grating as you can be.
> ...


If you would just take a moment, stop posting when you're angry, and think about what I actually said (vs what you think I meant), we agree on this more than we disagree.  You're saying I wrote something that is "outright incorrect."  What did I say in this thread that has gotten you so wound up?  I've tried to highlight how what you're saying is very consistent with what I said.  But you're literally doing what you say we shouldn't do.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> If you would just take a moment, stop posting when you're angry, and think about what I actually said (vs what you think I meant), we agree on this more than we disagree.  You're saying I wrote something that is "outright incorrect."  What did I say in this thread that has gotten you so wound up?  I've tried to highlight how what you're saying is very consistent with what I said.  But you're literally doing what you say we shouldn't do.


Why in the world would you think I am angry? That is just weird. 
Your inferences are what I reacted in your original post. Dropping hints of meaning that can leave an bad impression on people.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Why in the world would you think I am angry? That is just weird.
> Your inferences are what I reacted in your original post. Dropping hints of meaning that can leave an bad impression on people.


I'm glad to hear you aren't angry.  Take care.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Should you think about whether the words you use are insulting to someone else? Maybe and maybe not.


If we stopped to think before considering everyone's twisting/re-imagining of generally accepted definitions, there would be little time left over for real communication.  I understand your sensitivity for others feelings; that's a good thing.  People have a right not to be slandered.  But like all things, it can be overdone.  I was taught no one can make you feel small but yourself.  It's up to you to strengthen yourself and achieve, even against adversity.  (I believe from experience TMA helps teach that.)

It's a two way street.  If 90% of us have to consider how 10% have adopted a new meaning for a word and now expect the rest of us to rewrite the dictionary in the interest of their own sensitivity, why can't the 10% have enough sensitivity to accept the 90% who mean nothing more than the simple definition of the word.  I think this is called "transferrance," _their_ bias causing them to perceive other's innocent words or actions as hostile. If one is looking for affront, one will find it everywhere. People need to pull in their horns and chill.

That's why it's important to get out of the bubble (geographic, social, ideological) one may be trapped in and see the big picture.  Hypersensitivity causes overreaction and the cycle begins.


Steve said:


> But I never said or meant that everyone should be offended by the term. I said something like, "Hey, just know that in some areas, that means something else."


Yeah, but should that be my problem?  Do I need to consult my new PC dictionary every time I turn the corner into a new neighborhood, or carry a suitcase so I can change my clothes so the colors don't resemble some gang's or political group?  In the interest of survival, maybe I should.  But I shouldn't have to.  I notice most subgroups (stupid PC word) don't change their speech or dress when amongst the "outer world."  How is that fair?  Yet, they demand the majority of us do.  IMO, such expectations are divisive.

Multi-cultureism is great and makes society richer.  But it must peacefully co-exist with, and be a part of, the greater Society as a whole - that's what make us united.  "A house divided cannot stand."  Unfortunately, there are forces that have another maxim:  "Divide and conquer."


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> If we stopped to think before considering everyone's twisting/re-imagining of generally accepted definitions, there would be little time left over for real communication.  I understand your sensitivity for others feelings; that's a good thing.  People have a right not to be slandered.  But like all things, it can be overdone.  I was taught no one can make you feel small but yourself.



Once again, I think you have the wrong idea here.  I'm not offended in the least.  You do what you want.  Say what you want to say.

I'm sharing some practical advice.  And the fact is, if you call the wrong person "boy" or refer to them or others as a "thug", don't be surprised if they take it personally.  That's it.  That's the entirety of the point.   Don't be shocked when you are held accountable for those words, even if you think the other person is taking them wrong.




isshinryuronin said:


> It's a two way street.  If 90% of us have to consider how 10% have adopted a new meaning for a word and now expect the rest of us to rewrite the dictionary in the interest of their own sensitivity, why can't the 10% have enough sensitivity to accept the 90% who mean nothing more than the simple definition of the word.  I think this is called "transferrance," _their_ bias causing them to perceive other's innocent words or actions as hostile. If one is looking for affront, one will find it everywhere. People need to pull in their horns and chill.



Totally agree.  There's an old Covey quote, something along the lines of, 'We judge ourselves by our intent and others by their actions."  I think that, combined with some folks' tendency to presume the worst in others, leads to some unfortunate misunderstandings.

But, and this is the main point, if you dig yourself a hole with someone (intentional or not), your ability to climb out of that situation will depend on your relationship with them.  Someone who knows you may give you the benefit of the doubt.  No big deal.  But if you screw around with the wrong person, and they don't know you or don't like you, it will be much harder to climb out.

Once again, look at the situation here with @dvcochran.  I've pointed out to him several times that I agree with him, for the most part.  And yet every time I say that, he twists it around and focuses on the one thing that gets under his skin.  At this point, there is literally nothing I could say to him that wouldn't just make it worse.  So, nothing to do but say, "Okay" and wish him well.



isshinryuronin said:


> That's why it's important to get out of the bubble (geographic, social, ideological) one may be trapped in and see the big picture.  Hypersensitivity causes overreaction and the cycle begins.
> 
> Yeah, but should that be my problem?  Do I need to consult my new PC dictionary every time I turn the corner into a new neighborhood, or carry a suitcase so I can change my clothes so the colors don't resemble some gang's?  In the interest of survival, maybe I should.  But I shouldn't have to.  I notice most subgroups (stupid word) don't change their speech or dress when amongst the "outer world."  How is that fair?  Yet, they demand the majority of us do.  IMO, such expectations are devisive.


Of course not!  No need to consult your PC dictionary or walk on eggshells.  But, ignorance doesn't absolve you of all responsibility for your words, either.  We're all accountable.  If you upset someone, you can handle it in many different ways.  You could, I suppose, say to that person something like, "You shouldn't be upset.  It's not my fault you're upset. You're too sensitive."  Or you could say, 'I'm sorry.  I didn't know that would upset you."  I would generally go the latter route, and I think most other people would, too.

Edit:  Just thinking about your last line...  that strikes me as odd.  I mean, if I tell you my name is Steve, would you call me Chris?  I presume you wouldn't... and would call me Steve.  So, why is that?  I'm guessing it's as simple as, I asked you to call me Steve.  What about if I said, 'Please don't call me Stephen."  Would you go out of your way to call me Stephen?  Once again, I'm presuming you would just call me Steve, probably for no reason other than that I asked you to not call me Stephen.

The rest of this is as simple as that.  If someone says, "Hey, please call me X."  Why wouldn't I?  What do I care what that person wants to be called?  If they want me to call them Chocolate Cake... what's the big deal?  It's a little funny to me, but so what?  I don't have to get it.  I don't even have to agree with it.  Chocolate Cake you want?  Chocolate Cake you shall be.   

And if they say, "Hey, don't call me Y."  Why would I go out of my way to call them Y?  Why not just say, "No problem."


----------



## john_newman (Sep 15, 2021)

Danny T said:


> In most Chinese martial arts it is called Chin na.


Thanks for the information Bro.. Heard for the first time...


----------



## Koryuhoka (Sep 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I did a search to try and find out who said your opening quote but came back with zero. Who did you quote? And may I ask why?


It's not a quote. It is in brackets. And I am the one who said it.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

skribs said:


> There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology.  Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.
> 
> What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?  Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points.  But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?
> 
> ...



It's what I would call a martial art. Muay Thai is not a martial art since its sole goal to is to train for the Thai Boxing sport against other Muay Thai fighters (usually). And MT has little to no joint locks, at least not systematic ones.

And yes even modern TKD has all of this in the patterns, it just isn't explored by those schools since they do the patterns but never do any applied training with the moves. 

If you apply most of the moves found in Karate and TKD, you will do some form of Hapkido/jujutsu.


----------

