# The world of mma



## jkd friend

Bruce lee said that it was not the mixing of the arts but the use of them that had something that works. For me I think that to train in alot of different arts will to that but it will take alot more time.


----------



## jkd friend

Is MMA mixed everything or just methods because once through the MA art process a kick becomes a kick agian and so with the punch.


----------



## Andrew Green

Can you rephrase your question?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

Ok, could you please stop and think very carefully before you post? No offence but your statements are very jumbled.


----------



## Shogun

> Can you rephrase your question?


I agree. I don't even know whats going on.

Yes? is that the correct answer? I dont even know


----------



## BlackDragon

jkd friend said:


> Is MMA mixed everything or just methods because once through the MA art process a kick becomes a kick agian and so with the punch.


 
I'm not sure, but I think what he's trying to ask is....
is MMA just a jumble of different martial art styles blending together. 
Or is it just more of a concept, of using what works. Like taking what is useful from say....muay thai, bjj, tkd, and so on...and disreguarding the rest(as in taking what is usful and disreguarding what is not) like in JKD. 

Or, does MMA train indepth in each style in which it's mixed with as to where they could actually learn each style indepth and master them also rather than just using the concepts and various methods and techniques from the various styles. 

Or something along those lines???

All in all, I think he's trying to compare and contrast the differences in and between mma and jkd


----------



## Thunder Foot

Well, I would say thats silly, because everyone has their own approach to MMA.


----------



## BlackDragon

I have to agree with you there Thunder Foot. It all depends on what the practicioner is looking for within the art he is training in, and different schools teach different aspects or have different approaches towards teaching mma.


----------



## zDom

BlackDragon said:


> Or, does MMA train indepth in each style in which it's mixed with as to where they could actually learn each style indepth and master them also rather than just using the concepts and various methods and techniques from the various styles.



You can only go so much in depth: if they spend 10 years on only a _couple_ of arts, they end up too old to compete.

And NHB contests are definately a young man's game, IMO. Us old men take too long to recover from injuries.


----------



## Andrew Green

1st Generation - MMA started as throwing a bunch of people from all sorts of styles in a ring and seeing which ones worked.  Arts that proved themself the most where BJJ / SUbmission grappling, Boxing / Muay Thai and Wrestling.  So everyone competing and doing well already had a strong background in one, if not more of these systems.  

2nd Generation - So they began to get a handle on other the basics of others, so wrestlers learnt basic boxing and submission, submission guys learnt to strike, strikers learnt to wrestle etc.  

3rd generation - Things like Militech systems and other full MMA schools come up.  Guys are training not in a bunch of things, but rather training in MMA, learning it all in one class, putting it together right from the begining.

That is MMA now.  There is a distinct MMA style.  Now within that people will just work boxing, or just wrestling.  Posibly going to different specialists to really get those skills.  But MMA is a style of fighting all of its own.

It is also not a young mans sport anymore then any other sport is.  Anyone can train, anyone can learn it.  However like any other sport you're not going to be competing that hard in your 50's and 60's.  Same goes for all martial arts, and pretty much all sports.


----------



## jkd friend

You all have seem to come to the understanding of what I was saying! But I still don't understand how MMA can become its own without a central method at hand.:asian:


----------



## Andrew Green

There is a central method at hand.  Just ignore the name "Mixed Martial Arts" and it becomes much more visible.


----------



## MattJ

jkd friend said:


> You all have seem to come to the understanding of what I was saying! But I still don't understand how MMA can become its own without a central method at hand.:asian:


 
Andrew is correct. The synergistic model of training for combat in all ranges (MMA) is distinctly different from training multiple, seperate arts like TKD + judo. You can do striking and grappling seperately, and have a hard time mixing them together. Better to use the MMA model from the beginning, IMHO. Better results faster.


----------



## zDom

MattJ said:


> Better results faster.



Hmm: that's an opinion.

I see a lot professional level MMA athletes making fundamental mistakes in their striking (like taking eyes off opponent while swinging, for example, or losing their balance while wildly swinging, for another) because they only have a couple of months in instead of a several years.


----------



## Rook

Andrew Green said:


> There is a central method at hand. Just ignore the name "Mixed Martial Arts" and it becomes much more visible.


 
Like JKD, MMA is both a sort of philosophy and an art - but unlike JKD as we know it today, in MMA it is more the art first and the philosophy second, that is, we have a good idea of what does and doesn't work and to what extent and personal variation is not nearly as great.  Like JKD, MMA has its own philosophy - it isn't just a mix of the goals of various arts and most fighters do go in with a cohesive strategy.


----------



## jkd friend

O.K I'm starting to understand!!!!


----------



## MattJ

zDom said:


> Hmm: that's an opinion.
> 
> I see a lot professional level MMA athletes making fundamental mistakes in their striking (like taking eyes off opponent while swinging, for example, or losing their balance while wildly swinging, for another) because they only have a couple of months in instead of a several years.


 
Hmmm...not sure I understand your point. I did not say they would be experts in a few months. Beginners are beginners in every style, and MMA takes time to get good with, like anything else. I do feel that you can get better results quicker by integrating multiple combat ranges from the beginning, however. Especially compared to taking different styles and trying to make them work together.

*IMPORTANT CAVEAT*

MattJ is not a MMA guy. I do AKK and BJJ. So....uh....do what I say, not what I do! LOL :uhyeah:


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

MattJ said:


> Hmmm...not sure I understand your point. I did not say they would be experts in a few months. Beginners are beginners in every style, and MMA takes time to get good with, like anything else. I do feel that you can get better results quicker by integrating multiple combat ranges from the beginning, however. Especially compared to taking different styles and trying to make them work together.
> 
> *IMPORTANT CAVEAT*
> 
> MattJ is not a MMA guy. I do AKK and BJJ. So....uh....do what I say, not what I do! LOL :uhyeah:


 
AKK? Whats that stand for? So many acronyms, so little time...


----------



## zDom

MattJ said:


> Hmmm...not sure I understand your point. I did not say they would be experts in a few months. Beginners are beginners in every style, and MMA takes time to get good with, like anything else. I do feel that you can get better results quicker by integrating multiple combat ranges from the beginning, however. Especially compared to taking different styles and trying to make them work together.



Er.. let me try an analogy. If you are digging, you can only move the shovel so fast.

Assume you are spending the same amount of time each week digging.

You can start by digging a really deep hole, or you can dig a long narrow trench.

But if your ultimate goal is a really deep, wide trench, which is "better": digging a short, deep trench you eventually lengthen, or digging a shallow long trench that you eventually deepen?


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Er.. let me try an analogy. If you are digging, you can only move the shovel so fast.
> 
> Assume you are spending the same amount of time each week digging.
> 
> You can start by digging a really deep hole, or you can dig a long narrow trench.
> 
> But if your ultimate goal is a really deep, wide trench, which is "better": digging a short, deep trench you eventually lengthen, or digging a shallow long trench that you eventually deepen?


 
Well, when they dug trenches in the first world war, they said to create the full lenght line of the trench first, and then worry about the depth.  I perfer that mindset myself.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Well, when they dug trenches in the first world war, they said to create the full lenght line of the trench first, and then worry about the depth.  I perfer that mindset myself.



And I prefer to start with a nice, safe foxhole. From there I can start on digging a trench


----------



## matt.m

I am not trying to start a fight.....I am merely asking a question.  So if what Andrew said is true about their being a structure to a general cirriculum then how could it be mixed martial arts if wrestling and boxing are involved?

Wrestling and boxing are not martial arts by definition.


----------



## matt.m

futhermore, if a practical approach "best of" or most suitable technique application is to be set as a standard guideline then it would stand to reason that traditional hapkido is the original mma, not jeet kune do as I have heard others state.

here is what i mean:  hapkido has punching, kicking, locks, throws, chokes, cane, modified throwing, judo randori, tae kwon do sparring, and knife defense.


----------



## MattJ

matt.m said:


> futhermore, if a practical approach "best of" or most suitable technique application is to be set as a standard guideline then it would stand to reason that traditional hapkido is the original mma, not jeet kune do as I have heard others state.


 
I'm pretty sure that the "original" MMA is far older than either hapkido or JKD. Pankration for one, predates both of them.

But again, I am not really discussing quantity of techniques. Rather, how they are trained. MMA is all combat ranges _with resistance_. This is a subtle but important difference. It is technically differrent to face an opponent that can strike you from the mount, if you are only used to non-striking grappling.


----------



## Rook

matt.m said:


> futhermore, if a practical approach "best of" or most suitable technique application is to be set as a standard guideline then it would stand to reason that traditional hapkido is the original mma, not jeet kune do as I have heard others state.


 
Oh for crying out loud... we've been through this before.  Almost every art started out mixing most suitable techniques from different styles in the views of the founder.  JKD and MMA are different in the methodology and the application of this.  



> here is what i mean: hapkido has punching, kicking, locks, throws, chokes, cane, modified throwing, judo randori, tae kwon do sparring, and knife defense.


 
Ok.


----------



## Andrew Green

I think one of the big differences between the mindset of MMA & JKD vs other more traditional arts is in WHO is allowed to do the mixing.  MMA and JKD pretty much state that every fighter needs to find there own style, draw from whatever they can make work.

More traditional styles have rules about who is allowed to change what, and it is generally reserved for the head of the system, and even then is very limited as if they make too many changes all the students will follow the next in line guy that is keeping to the "rules" of the style.


----------



## ace

jkd friend said:


> You all have seem to come to the understanding of what I was saying! But I still don't understand how MMA can become its own without a central method at hand.:asian:


 


It's simple, to use what works at that moment & time.
is MMA an extension of Bruce Lees JKD? I say yes.
Some say No but its for us as individuals to decide right.


----------



## Ybot

matt.m said:


> I am not trying to start a fight.....I am merely asking a question. So if what Andrew said is true about their being a structure to a general cirriculum then how could it be mixed martial arts if wrestling and boxing are involved?
> 
> Wrestling and boxing are not martial arts by definition.


I'm sure this has been argued before, but in my definition of Martial Arts, boxing and wrestling fit right in.  Depends how you define it.  To me martial sports are also martial arts...


----------



## Andrew Green

matt.m said:


> I am not trying to start a fight.....I am merely asking a question.  So if what Andrew said is true about their being a structure to a general cirriculum then how could it be mixed martial arts if wrestling and boxing are involved?



Could a Muay Thai curriculum not involve Boxing work and still be a Muay Thai Curriculum?

Isolating specific skill sets to develop them is common in just about every sport.  In MMA you will isolate punching (boxing) Striking (Muay Thai) takedowns (Wrestling) submissions, and countless other things.  Goal is always the finished product though, not the smaller skill sets.


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> I think one of the big differences between the mindset of MMA & JKD vs other more traditional arts is in WHO is allowed to do the mixing.  MMA and JKD pretty much state that every fighter needs to find there own style, draw from whatever they can make work.



That's different than what some of the other MMA proponents say.

You say:



Andrew Green said:


> draw from whatever they can make work.



While THEY said only BJJ, boxing, wrestling, BJJ and Muay Thai can be trained and be "MMA."


Ok, another analogy:

If "what works" = hot, fresh food,

Some people seem to believe think the ONLY way you can get hot, fresh food is if you get it from a buffet

presumably because THEY were served cold, old food from a restaurant.

But who is to say, if you order from a GOOD restaurant, that you can't get something off the menu that has everything you like, hot and fresh?

And who is to say that eventually SOME buffets will begin getting lazy and letting their buffet food get old and cold?

Once again I maintain:

No one system, school or organization has the ONLY source to good techniques and solid training techniques.

The more popular MMA organizations get, the more likely you are to get students who are in it "just for the health benefits" and don't WANT to get hit hard and instructors who are willing to water down the combat applicability until you get -- SURPRISE! -- MMA-trained students who are ineffective in real combat/self-defense situations.

Generalizations are dangerous. Just because your local Chinese restaurant has lousy food doesn't mean the Chinese restaurant in MY neighborhood sucks.

Just because your local Mexican buffet has great burritos that fill you up doesn't mean I am going to get a great, satisfying burrito at MY local Mexican buffet.

Nearly all restaurant chains start out with a great reputation -- which is how they are able to sell franchises. Eventually some branches of a restaurant chain let their standards slip (hard for corporate to keep a close eye on hundreds of franchises) and the reputation of the whole chain begins to suffer.

Those with a vested interest will stand on the mountain tops and scream that it ain't so, but time will prove me right.  

So see past the marketing efforts, use your eyes and your head and pick what is best WHERE YOU ARE.


----------



## Andrew Green

Those just happen to be the things that people can make work in a MMA rule set 

If someone could draw from Drunken monkey kung fu, and make it work in MMA more power to them, they are MMA fighters.  But as of yet, no one has pulled it off.  So everyone trains in the stuff that does work.


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> Those just happen to be the things that people can make work in a MMA rule set
> 
> If someone could draw from Drunken monkey kung fu, and make it work in MMA more power to them, they are MMA fighters.  But as of yet, no one has pulled it off.  So everyone trains in the stuff that does work.



Set aside the argument of "which techniques work" for the moment, if you don't mind, to consider this:

there isn't anything I have seen used effectively in a UFC match, for example, that I haven't seen and trained in my hapkido class.

Someone else might say the same about their Kenpo class, etc.


Same dish, different restaurants.

(Here is the part where Rook will say: "But MY restaurant fixes it BETTER!", neh?)


----------



## zDom

double posted - Inet lag


----------



## zDom

OK, now the "which techniques work" argument:

All the UFC fighters who are in the octagon "proving which techniques work" are

a) muscled up from a vigorous progressive resistance program

b) have the extremely low body fat usually only seen among professional athletes

c) trained, what, 4 to 8 hours per day to prepare for those matches? (I don't know -- most are not training 4 hours per week though, right?)


So this begs the question:

Do these same techniques work for:

a) middle aged woman?

b) 60-year old man?

c) overweight adolescent?

Could it be that all these techniques are heavily dependent on strength and cardiovascular endurance only found in top atheletes?

There are a lot of people out there who don't have the strength to pull off a body slam like Matt Hughes that could seriously benefit from learning a hip throw -- but the hip throw isn't on the list of "effective techniques" that are "proven in the ring" and focused on by MMA stylists, are they?

MMA is whittling down the list of techniques down to a short list that is "proven" by top athletes to be effective. But this short list may not be useable by Joe Average who just wants to learn to defend his weak, pudgy little body.

That is why I believe it is useful for instructors to teach a wide variety of techniques so that posterity can decide for themselves which techniques work for them.


----------



## Ybot

zDom said:


> OK, now the "which techniques work" argument:
> 
> All the UFC fighters who are in the octagon "proving which techniques work" are
> 
> a) muscled up from a vigorous progressive resistance program
> 
> b) have the extremely low body fat usually only seen among professional athletes
> 
> c) trained, what, 4 to 8 hours per day to prepare for those matches? (I don't know -- most are not training 4 hours per week though, right?)
> 
> 
> So this begs the question:
> 
> Do these same techniques work for:
> 
> a) middle aged woman?
> 
> b) 60-year old man?
> 
> c) overweight adolescent?
> 
> Could it be that all these techniques are heavily dependent on strength and cardiovascular endurance only found in top atheletes?


Do MMA athletes train a lot?  Of course, that's what it takes to fight at that high level against pro athletes.  To competitively compete at the highest levels of Olympic Tae Kwon Do how much do they train, though?  To perform their amazing high, and arial kicks does that not rely on quite a bit of athletic training as well?

So this begs the question:

Do these same techniques work for:

a) middle aged woman?

b) 60-year old man?

c) overweight adolescent?

Sorry, had to go there.  


zDom said:


> There are a lot of people out there who don't have the strength to pull off a body slam like Matt Hughes that could seriously benefit from learning a hip throw -- but the hip throw isn't on the list of "effective techniques" that are "proven in the ring" and focused on by MMA stylists, are they?
> 
> MMA is whittling down the list of techniques down to a short list that is "proven" by top athletes to be effective. But this short list may not be useable by Joe Average who just wants to learn to defend his weak, pudgy little body.
> 
> That is why I believe it is useful for instructors to teach a wide variety of techniques so that posterity can decide for themselves which techniques work for them.


You do have somewhat of a point here.  Some techniques require some strength, though this is the case for traditional arts too.  Do the same techniques work for the average Joe?  Well... yes.  You don't see every MMA athlete using body slams, and you do see some using hip throws (etc. Karo Parysian).  MMA take their techniques from specialists in individual ranges of combat.  in the case of your example it's takedowns.  Lets say we take our takedowns from wrestling (folk style, Greco Roman, and freestyle).  There are a wide variety of takedowns available in these disiplines to choose from, so an individual can pick and choose the ones that work best for them.

I also want to point out that not all of these athletes have your extreemly low body fat percentages though...  Hell, BJ Penn probably fights much heavier than he should to get the best performance, but that doesn't stop him from being extreemly competitive at the weight he fights.

High levels of conditioning is just one part of an equation that people who train in MMA look at.  Same equations exist in traditional martial arts too, but conditioning is often overlooked (not in all schools, I know) because they are trying to keep students and they don't want to run them off.  Tell me that high levels of strength, and endurance are not benificial to traditional arts too.


----------



## Andrew Green

zDom, here is my question.  If, in your opinion, Hapkido is better then MMA, why do you go out of your way to prove that "it is MMA and has everything MMA has"?


----------



## Odin

Andrew Green said:


> zDom, here is my question. If, in your opinion, Hapkido is better then MMA, why do you go out of your way to prove that "it is MMA and has everything MMA has"?


 
( : 

COULDNT AGREE MORE.


----------



## jkd friend

MMA could not be for the personal liberation of a person as JKD is for the simple fact of it being mechanical in part of being put together. The fact that it is said to an extention of jkd is wrong it is the endless journey to perfection that drives a jkd man. But mma is taking things that work but it seems that the ufc is the product of what works or don't work in the mma. But the simple truth is that it is about what works for the individual and what can make him better.


----------



## Odin

jkd friend said:


> MMA could not be for the personal liberation of a person as JKD is for the simple fact of it being mechanical in part of being put together. The fact that it is said to an extention of jkd is wrong it is the endless journey to perfection that drives a jkd man. But mma is taking things that work but it seems that the ufc is the product of what works or don't work in the mma. But the simple truth is that it is about what works for the individual and what can make him better.


 
huh?....wouldnt the UFC fighters all be individuals doing what works??
I think Matt Hughes would disagree that he is not on an 'endless journey of perfection''...i dont know bro your posts are really random.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Set aside the argument of "which techniques work" for the moment, if you don't mind, to consider this:
> 
> there isn't anything I have seen used effectively in a UFC match, for example, that I haven't seen and trained in my hapkido class.
> 
> Someone else might say the same about their Kenpo class, etc.
> 
> 
> Same dish, different restaurants.
> 
> (Here is the part where Rook will say: "But MY restaurant fixes it BETTER!", neh?)


 
Hmm.  Restaurants tastes are subjective.  We can objectively determine the better fighters by having them fight each other and then see who is left standing.   If you want to see X technique, Y strategy, or Z style works well, someone (ussually several someones) has to suceed in using it on a consistant basis against other competitive fighters in RECORDED MATCHES (not legends or unrecorded stories).


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> zDom, here is my question.  If, in your opinion, Hapkido is better then MMA, why do you go out of your way to prove that "it is MMA and has everything MMA has"?



To clarify my opinion: hapkido is the best and most complete system available HERE, where I live, IMO.

If I were elsewhere, it could well be that the best training might be found in a MMA gym or club. Or in a boxing gym. Or in a Shaulin temple.

But do you really expect me to sit silent while certain MMA proponents go on and on about how ineffective TMAs are and how MMA is the ONLY "effective" and "proven" system for fighting? That's hogwash.

Moreoever, it is *libel* _(n. a written statement in published form that damages character or reputation)_ and is damaging to TMA businesses. It may even be actionable in a civil court.

I'm not out to prove that hapkido IS "MMA". I think you and other MMA proponents have established that MMA is a new martial art of its own.

For one thing, "MMA" seems to lack certain elements that would make it a "-do" (Japense/Korean for "way").

Hapkido IS a mixed martial art in the sense that, as practiced in the dojang where I work out, we work on techniques for all fighting ranges.

It is a mixed martial art in the sense that "yawara" introduced by Choi, Yong Sul, was mixed with Yudo and kicking from Buddhist temples and a whole lot of other martial art stuff to come up with a complete fighting system. Different specific ingredients, but the same sort of recipe.

Only the HKD recipe has been solidified into defined curriculums whereas the MMA recipe is kind of like how some grandmothers cook "well, honey -- I put a little of this in and a little of that -- I've never bothered to write it all down..."

Out to prove hapkido has everything MMA has? Sure. Why shouldn't I? Hapkido DOES have everything MMA has. But on my part, I'm not out to bash MMA...yet. 

There are some things I find very disturbing about the MMA culture which I may bring up for discussion in another thread.


----------



## zDom

Ybot said:


> To competitively compete at the highest levels of Olympic Tae Kwon Do how much do they train, though?  To perform their amazing high, and arial kicks does that not rely on quite a bit of athletic training as well?
> 
> So this begs the question:
> 
> Do these same techniques work for:
> 
> a) middle aged woman?
> 
> b) 60-year old man?
> 
> c) overweight adolescent?
> 
> Sorry, had to go there.



No apology necessary -- it's a good question. 

The answer is: most martial arts don't whittle down the body of techniques in their curriculum based on what is "proven in the ring" (in this case, a WTF ring?).

Granted, there are some WTF schools that have done exactly that -- and I don't approve.

The idea is to keep passing on a body of techniques large enough that the middle-aged woman, the 60-year old man, the overweight adolescent AND the athletic 23-year old man can all choose which techniques work for THEM.

The idea is for students to learn all the techniques to the best of their ability, pass them on down to the next generation of martial artists, but find and use what works best for THEM and strive to excel at those techniques.




Ybot said:


> You do have somewhat of a point here.  Some techniques require some strength, though this is the case for traditional arts too.  Do the same techniques work for the average Joe?  Well... yes.  You don't see every MMA athlete using body slams, and you do see some using hip throws (etc. Karo Parysian).  MMA take their techniques from specialists in individual ranges of combat.  in the case of your example it's takedowns.  Lets say we take our takedowns from wrestling (folk style, Greco Roman, and freestyle).  There are a wide variety of takedowns available in these disiplines to choose from, so an individual can pick and choose the ones that work best for them.



That last line is critical. I'm just wondering if they are really getting a choice or are taught or taking for granted that what works for Matt Hughes is what is best for them as an individual.

That is certainly what the Gracies seem to have done: they got rid of everything in Judo that didn't work FOR THEM. But not everybody is living in Brazil where, apparently, one-vs-one fights seem to be more of a rule than an exception.

I think MMA stylists could definately benefit from a more choices -- as some individuals have benefited, as you've pointed out.




Ybot said:


> I also want to point out that not all of these athletes have your extreemly low body fat percentages though...  Hell, BJ Penn probably fights much heavier than he should to get the best performance, but that doesn't stop him from being extreemly competitive at the weight he fights.


 
High levels of conditioning is just one part of an equation that people who train in MMA look at.  Same equations exist in traditional martial arts too, but conditioning is often overlooked (not in all schools, I know) because they are trying to keep students and they don't want to run them off.  Tell me that high levels of strength, and endurance are not benificial to traditional arts too.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not knocking conditioning at ALL. I believe most TMAs could use more.

But some people keep saying that ONLY techniques proven in the ring are effective. Meanwhile, for the most part (gotta admit: BJ is an exception, not the rule) it is only buffed out athletes "proving" the techniques work.

Heck, they are strong enough at their weight they might not even NEED good technique. There are a several fighters winning right now with success they owe to physical conditioning -- NOT their "superior technique."

In any case: kudos for discussing this out, Ybot.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> To clarify my opinion: hapkido is the best and most complete system available HERE, where I live, IMO.
> 
> If I were elsewhere, it could well be that the best training might be found in a MMA gym or club. Or in a boxing gym. Or in a Shaulin temple.


 
Ok.  Thats fine.  There are lots of people on most forums who either can't or choose not to train in MMA but still believe that the pro MMAists are the superior fighters.  I am one of them.  We may seek spirtuality, personal development, oriental culture, personal fitness, or just socialization and fun.  We can't beat profession MMA fighters and we know it.  We watch their matches, train (in my case anyway) in similar techniques and defend them on the internet.  



> But do you really expect me to sit silent while certain MMA proponents go on and on about how ineffective TMAs are and how MMA is the ONLY "effective" and "proven" system for fighting? That's hogwash.


 
Hmm.  



> Moreoever, it is *libel* _(n. a written statement in published form that damages character or reputation)_ and is damaging to TMA businesses. It may even be actionable in a civil court.


 
1.  Opinions are exempt from libel.  This includes exceedingly insulting opinions and ones with which you strenously disagree (like mine).  

2.  "Fair comment" rule exempts matters of public concern.  The efficacy of various martial arts is a matter of public concern to quite a few of us.  

3.  Truth defense - if a comment is either true or could be held to be true by a "reasonable person," libel doesn't apply.  If you sue me, I promise to call the gracies to testify. 



> I'm not out to prove that hapkido IS "MMA". I think you and other MMA proponents have established that MMA is a new martial art of its own.
> 
> For one thing, "MMA" seems to lack certain elements that would make it a "-do" (Japense/Korean for "way").


 
True.  



> Hapkido IS a mixed martial art in the sense that, as practiced in the dojang where I work out, we work on techniques for all fighting ranges.


 
Huh?  



> It is a mixed martial art in the sense that "yawara" introduced by Choi, Yong Sul, was mixed with Yudo and kicking from Buddhist temples and a whole lot of other martial art stuff to come up with a complete fighting system. Different specific ingredients, but the same sort of recipe.


 
Almost every martial art has been at one point either created from two or more mixed arts, or substantially influnced by another.  That does not make them "mixed" in the sense we have been using.  You would be hard pressed to find any existing system that DOESN'T meet the definition of mixed as including things from 2 or more others systems integrated into one new system. 



> Only the HKD recipe has been solidified into defined curriculums whereas the MMA recipe is kind of like how some grandmothers cook "well, honey -- I put a little of this in and a little of that -- I've never bothered to write it all down..."


 
We call that "adapting to the individual" and consider it different than "cookie cutter" methods.  



> Out to prove hapkido has everything MMA has? Sure. Why shouldn't I? Hapkido DOES have everything MMA has. But on my part, I'm not out to bash MMA...yet.
> 
> There are some things I find very disturbing about the MMA culture which I may bring up for discussion in another thread.


 
I'll look forward to it.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Hmm.  Restaurants tastes are subjective.  We can objectively determine the better fighters by having them fight each other and then see who is left standing.   If you want to see X technique, Y strategy, or Z style works well, someone (ussually several someones) has to suceed in using it on a consistant basis against other competitive fighters in RECORDED MATCHES (not legends or unrecorded stories).



Once again, Rook, you are setting a criteria for "proof" that is unreasonable and not necessarily applicable.

- courts of law find testimony "good enough." They don't insist on any specific videotaped arena.

- thousands and thousands of years of history are accepted without any videotaped proof.

- there is no consensus that the UFC is the only arena in which success is verifiable.


TMAs have been proven time and time again for thousands of years on a consistent basis before the UFC and video tape were around to record results.

If these MMA techniques are so good, why don't these MMA stylists go out and dominate in all the other martial art sports?

Why don't they go win some WTF matches? Win some Judo matches? Win some ITF championships? If their techniques are SO "effective," then surely they can win in other arenas, right? Lets see it. Show me some recorded matches.

If Muay Thai is the best kicking, for example, and MMA guys have picked the best MT kicks to master, then have them PROVE it by going out and dominating in Olympic Sparring.

Show ME "recorded matches."

If they are SO consistent, then they can SURELY reproduce their dominance in OTHER sports, not just their own.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Once again, Rook, you are setting a criteria for "proof" that is unreasonable and not necessarily applicable.
> 
> - courts of law find testimony "good enough." They don't insist on any specific videotaped arena.


 
It doesn't have to be an arena.  I don't care if its around an alley, inside a bar, in a ring, onboard a ship, on a blimp, in your house, under a bridge, standing on a beach or whatever.  



> - thousands and thousands of years of history are accepted without any videotaped proof.


 
You mean the legends and such?  Stuff like Sun Lu Tang outrunning horses (contradicted by his own daughter no less), Yang Lu Chan twisting the shaft of a spear and throwing a man onto the roof of a five story building, Ueshiba teleporting and dodging bullets, and all this in the last 150 years?  (It only gets crazier the futher back you go)

We ussually end up with stories like  "Well, according to my teacher, our grandmaster once kicked a man in Seoul so hard he landed in Beijing" - and this isn't proof of anything but gullibility.  



> - there is no consensus that the UFC is the only arena in which success is verifiable.


 
No one said so.  I consider video-taped challenge matches without rules, with fewer rules than most MMA competitions or with MMA rules to be equally if not more valid.  There are many other arenas besides the UFC, by the way, including PRIDE, RINGS, Pancrase, AFC, IAFC, IFL, and numerous other newer or more local organizations.  



> TMAs have been proven time and time again for thousands of years on a consistent basis before the UFC and video tape were around to record results.


 
Ok.  I jumped 200 feet in the air last week when no one was there to see it.  Matter of fact, my grandfather did it 50 years ago too, but no one saw him either.   



> If these MMA techniques are so good, why don't these MMA stylists go out and dominate in all the other martial art sports?


 
Restrictions prevent the use of their techniques.  Nothing is prohibited in no-rules matches - which is why I tend to favor them as proof.  



> Why don't they go win some WTF matches? Win some Judo matches? Win some ITF championships? If their techniques are SO "effective," then surely they can win in other arenas, right? Lets see it. Show me some recorded matches.
> 
> If Muay Thai is the best kicking, for example, and MMA guys have picked the best MT kicks to master, then have them PROVE it by going out and dominating in Olympic Sparring.
> 
> Show ME "recorded matches."
> 
> If they are SO consistent, then they can SURELY reproduce their dominance in OTHER sports, not just their own.


 
See above.  Dominence can be outside of any sport - in challenge matches with no rules and no prohibited areas.  In a contest to point fight, or display various cultural relics, the point becomes winning within those rules.


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> Ok.  Thats fine.  There are lots of people on most forums who either can't or choose not to train in MMA but still believe that the pro MMAists are the superior fighters.  I am one of them.



Have you changed your stance? Your previous position was that TMAs are ineffective for self defense because, you claim, they have not been "proven in the ring."

Asserting that "pro MMAists are the superior fighters" has nothing to do with your previous claim that TMAs are ineffective.

And superior to who? All other professional fighters? To your average martial art student?

Granted, there may lot of Korean "grandmasters" that got left Korea with 1st or 2nd degree blackbelts who arrived in the U.S. and were suddenly 8th or 9th degrees.  but don't make the mistake of thinking they are all fakes.

I'd like to see ANY of the UFCs top strikers pitted against Pu Gil Gwon when he was 30.

Someone like Pu Gil or the late Grandmaster Lee H. Park, who founded my the school I go to, would have put your UFC heroes in the hospital, without a doubt. You just have NO idea how dangerous these men were.

The early hapkido masters proved their stuff on the street with plenty of witnesses, both in Korea and here in the U.S.

I wish you COULD taunt one of those guys into the ring. I'd LOVE to see it.



Rook said:


> We may seek spirtuality, personal development, oriental culture, personal fitness, or just socialization and fun.  We can't beat profession MMA fighters and we know it.



Me or you? Nah. I'm too old and definately not conditioned for a UFC bout. And you never have answered my questions about your experience level, so I'm guessing you aren't either.

But these are apples and oranges, comparing part-time athletes to professional athletes.

Let's see the Iceman vs Tyson. It sure would be interesting.

It's too bad Gene Labell isn't a young buck anymore. I'd like to see Mr. Labell against Matt Hughes.

And we already know what happened when Helio fought Kimura.



Rook said:


> We watch their matches, train (in my case anyway) in similar techniques and defend them on the internet.


 
I watch their matches, train similar techniques and have actually defended myself ON THE STREET. So I happen to walk the walk in addition to just talking the talk.




Rook said:


> 1.  Opinions are exempt from libel.  This includes exceedingly insulting opinions and ones with which you strenously disagree (like mine).



Stating that a product or service DOES NOT WORK is NOT an opinion.

You aren't saying "Coke is better than Pepsi" or "Chevy is better than Ford."

You have _crossed_ that line on several occasions and said, essentially, 

"Pepsi is ineffective in quenching thirst" or "Ford can not get you from point A to point B."




Rook said:


> 2.  "Fair comment" rule exempts matters of public concern.  The efficacy of various martial arts is a matter of public concern to quite a few of us.



Hmm.



Rook said:


> 3.  Truth defense - if a comment is either true or could be held to be true by a "reasonable person," libel doesn't apply.  If you sue me, I promise to call the gracies to testify.


 
Only problem, Kev, is that the courts do not hold an unreasonable criteria for proof like you do. You have stated, in print, that TMA techniques are ineffective while TMAists are able to produce hundreds and hundreds of witnesses who will testify under oath that they have personally used TMA techniques or seen them used in self defense situations.

A Gracie tape of them beating up a martial artist in a challenge match does NOT prove them ineffective in self defense.




Rook said:


> Almost every martial art has been at one point either created from two or more mixed arts, or substantially influnced by another.  That does not make them "mixed" in the sense we have been using.  You would be hard pressed to find any existing system that DOESN'T meet the definition of mixed as including things from 2 or more others systems integrated into one new system.


 
You obviously missed how I seperated MMA (proper noun) from "mixed martial art" as a generic phrase.



Rook said:


> We call that "adapting to the individual" and consider it different than "cookie cutter" methods.


 
To me, it looks like YOU are the one cookie cutting. If they don't use YOUR list of "optimum techniques" then you declare them ineffective.

TMAs as I have experienced them give you a wide range of techniques for the individual to choose from and make their own.



Rook said:


> I'll look forward to it.



I'm still undecided as not ALL MMA proponents hold your radical views. I don't want to make sweeping generalizations that I will regret later.

In the meantime, Kevin, let me repeat some questions you've dodged in the past along with a couple new ones:

a) How long have you been training, in what arts, and to what level have you successfully tested?

b) Are you training MMA under any particular camp or system?

c) How many times have you defended yourself against assaults?

d) How many NHB matches have you fought?

e) How many other combat sports have you participated in?

Looking forward to your learning more about your background!


----------



## zDom

Rook said:


> It doesn't have to be an arena.  I don't care if its around an alley, inside a bar, in a ring, onboard a ship, on a blimp, in your house, under a bridge, standing on a beach or whatever.



You insist on videotape though, right? Take out the point about "arena" and my point is still made.

I'm not sorry that I don't go out looking for challenge matches with a camera man like your heroes, the Gracies.

It comes with the "Do" part of Hapkido. 

That's why, I guess, it ended up being "Gracie Jiujitsu" instead of "Gracie Judo" (even though the true source was Judo).

All technique without the other "stuff" that goes with Do.




Rook said:


> You mean the legends and such?  Stuff like Sun Lu Tang outrunning horses (contradicted by his own daughter no less), Yang Lu Chan twisting the shaft of a spear and throwing a man onto the roof of a five story building, Ueshiba teleporting and dodging bullets, and all this in the last 150 years?  (It only gets crazier the futher back you go)



Nope, that's NOT what I mean. I mean stories like:

One day Grandmaster Park was having pizza and beers with several of his blackbelt students when a group of rednecks entered and started making racial slurs about Park.

The students got angry and stood up. Park told them to sit down. He tried to smooth things over, but the rednecks pushed it further and asked him if he would like to take it outside. 

Park politely asked them to watch their step as he exited the establishment with them.

He re-entered five minutes later, unscathed, and politely asked the establisment's manager to call an ambulance.

Not 150 years ago, only about 25 years ago.

Or do you want me to re-tell the story of how, only four or five years ago, I defended myself against two rednecks while I had an injured hamstring? I could probably get you the phone number of the bar owner if I tried hard enough. I don't think Al or his patrons will EVER forget the day I sent those bullies home with their tails between their legs and missing several teeth.




Rook said:


> We ussually end up with stories like  "Well, according to my teacher, our grandmaster once kicked a man in Seoul so hard he landed in Beijing" - and this isn't proof of anything but gullibility.


 
We don't need to make up wild stories. There are plenty of stories with plenty of witnesses to verify that Moo Sul Kwan TKD and HKD *do* work.

Park taught at the local college. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would swear on a Bible to dozens of stories about the amazing things Park was capable of.



Rook said:


> No one said so.  I consider video-taped challenge matches without rules, with fewer rules than most MMA competitions or with MMA rules to be equally if not more valid.  There are many other arenas besides the UFC, by the way, including PRIDE, RINGS, Pancrase, AFC, IAFC, IFL, and numerous other newer or more local organizations.


 
Yep -- those Pride Bushido fighters surely are a tough bunch. I like Pride fighting whole lot better. Less smack talking, more action.

But with you its always about the tape, eh?

Sorry, but I'm not about to go put someone in the hospital so you can be convinced.

I wonder if I can get the mugshot and police report from our local police department from the last assault I defended against. Six 20-year old attackers vs me. My mugshot shows that I was completly uninjured. 

The one that got too close had two red-purple bumps the size of robin eggs right next to his temple from a backfist strike.

Not sure if our DPS would release those pics and police report to post here, but would it convince you if I was able to come up with them? 




Rook said:


> Ok.  I jumped 200 feet in the air last week when no one was there to see it.  Matter of fact, my grandfather did it 50 years ago too, but no one saw him either.



Any credible witnessess? I think not. This claim is absurd. My claim that traditional martial arts work is NOT absurd.




Rook said:


> Restrictions prevent the use of their techniques.  Nothing is prohibited in no-rules matches - which is why I tend to favor them as proof.


 
Do you want me to post the list of, what, 40 rules that govern UFC matches? Or google Pride Fight rules?



Rook said:


> See above.  Dominence can be outside of any sport - in challenge matches with no rules and no prohibited areas.  In a contest to point fight, or display various cultural relics, the point becomes winning within those rules.



You keep changing your criteria for proof.

One minute a UFC match or Pride Fight is valid. The next post you change so now you only accept No Holds Barred as proof.

Make up your mind, Kevin. I think we are boring people with this whack-a-mole argument game you insist on playing.


----------



## matt.m

In all fairness of seeing both sides and trying to stay neutral......

MMA is a sport and not an art built around a true street self defense cirriculum.  It evolved from the Gracies BJJ subset and blossomed from there.  It is becoming an art considering as has been pointed out to be a great skillset for Octogon fighting.  I have no doubt that they beat the snot out of each other.  I was front row in Charolette, NC for UFC II.

Now, to say that TMA are ineffective then you are devalidating the Gracies BJJ that the MMA crowd holds onto for dear life for validation purposes.

Ok, a case in point.  I have numerous gold medals in international Greco Roman and Judo competitions.  I also have 20 medals and ribbons while going into combat while in the Marine Corps.

I will say this.....there is absolutely no way that I ever compared hand to hand to sport.  The two are totally different.

Now consider this, I have been in a ton of combat fights where I knew the aggressor had every intention of killing me.  Did I attempt a throw or takedown?  The answer in no.  However I found joint locks, cane techniques, and high impact kicking quite effective.

I am sorry, I have a proven record in combat and in mat competition so I dare say that I am knowledgeable of the subject of combat.

I say this....there is no such thing as a best art.  There is a best art for what the practitioner wants to learn and accomplish.

However, I will bring to everyones attention......MMA as an art is a sport.  It is designed for effective Octogon matches.  These matches have rules.

If there are rules then it is a contest not a fight.  I don't care how big the arena or gym, a contest is a contest.

A fight has no rules.  Plus, even an accomplished grappler such as I - I do have 51 gold medals in Judo and Greco combined - the last thing I would ever do is go to the ground with someone if I could keep from it.

Here is a big difference as well.  Yep on any street corner in any town you can find Tae kwon Do competitions going on all the time.  Yep you bet there a ton of rules making it a contest as well.  Yep there are schools that operate solely on the premise of Olympic sparring.  This all parallels with MMA as I have noted previously.

However, Tae Kwon Do and Judo are two different things when comparing self-defense Tae Kwon Do and Judo with their Olympic style counter parts.

A big part of the cirriculums of the sport aspect of both arts would never logically or reasonably be used in a street situation.


----------



## MJS

zDom said:


> You insist on videotape though, right? Take out the point about "arena" and my point is still made.
> 
> I'm not sorry that I don't go out looking for challenge matches with a camera man like your heroes, the Gracies.
> 
> It comes with the "Do" part of Hapkido.
> 
> That's why, I guess, it ended up being "Gracie Jiujitsu" instead of "Gracie Judo" (even though the true source was Judo).
> 
> All technique without the other "stuff" that goes with Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that's NOT what I mean. I mean stories like:
> 
> One day Grandmaster Park was having pizza and beers with several of his blackbelt students when a group of rednecks entered and started making racial slurs about Park.
> 
> The students got angry and stood up. Park told them to sit down. He tried to smooth things over, but the rednecks pushed it further and asked him if he would like to take it outside.
> 
> Park politely asked them to watch their step as he exited the establishment with them.
> 
> He re-entered five minutes later, unscathed, and politely asked the establisment's manager to call an ambulance.
> 
> Not 150 years ago, only about 25 years ago.
> 
> Or do you want me to re-tell the story of how, only four or five years ago, I defended myself against two rednecks while I had an injured hamstring? I could probably get you the phone number of the bar owner if I tried hard enough. I don't think Al or his patrons will EVER forget the day I sent those bullies home with their tails between their legs and missing several teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need to make up wild stories. There are plenty of stories with plenty of witnesses to verify that Moo Sul Kwan TKD and HKD *do* work.
> 
> Park taught at the local college. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would swear on a Bible to dozens of stories about the amazing things Park was capable of.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep -- those Pride Bushido fighters surely are a tough bunch. I like Pride fighting whole lot better. Less smack talking, more action.
> 
> But with you its always about the tape, eh?
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not about to go put someone in the hospital so you can be convinced.
> 
> I wonder if I can get the mugshot and police report from our local police department from the last assault I defended against. Six 20-year old attackers vs me. My mugshot shows that I was completly uninjured.
> 
> The one that got too close had two red-purple bumps the size of robin eggs right next to his temple from a backfist strike.
> 
> Not sure if our DPS would release those pics and police report to post here, but would it convince you if I was able to come up with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any credible witnessess? I think not. This claim is absurd. My claim that traditional martial arts work is NOT absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to post the list of, what, 40 rules that govern UFC matches? Or google Pride Fight rules?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep changing your criteria for proof.
> 
> One minute a UFC match or Pride Fight is valid. The next post you change so now you only accept No Holds Barred as proof.
> 
> Make up your mind, Kevin. I think we are boring people with this whack-a-mole argument game you insist on playing.


 
Yes, and this is something that I've said myself, many times, in past arguments.  There are people that have successfully defended themselves, such as the ones you've mentioned, and there is no tape.  IMO, I just can't but the notion that the cage is the only way to determine what works and what does not.

In any case, I'm sure these last post will generate some rather interesting replies, so I'll just kick back and see what happens. 

opcorn: :drinkbeer


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Have you changed your stance? Your previous position was that TMAs are ineffective for self defense because, you claim, they have not been "proven in the ring."


 
I did specifically allow for video or publically recorded fights outside the ring.  I don't believe I have ever held fights outside the ring to not count as proof.  



> Asserting that "pro MMAists are the superior fighters" has nothing to do with your previous claim that TMAs are ineffective.


 
Yes, indeed it does.  I believe that against a solid ranked pro-MMA fighter, any unarmed TMA would be ineffective.  



> And superior to who? All other professional fighters? To your average martial art student?


 
See above. 



> Granted, there may lot of Korean "grandmasters" that got left Korea with 1st or 2nd degree blackbelts who arrived in the U.S. and were suddenly 8th or 9th degrees.  but don't make the mistake of thinking they are all fakes.


 
I understand that not all ranks in KMA are self-awarded or handed out by the local madeup organizations.  I don't think, however, that holding a nose-bleed rank from a "valid" organization reflects fighting ability much more than any other form or lineage, although it establishes traditionalist creditials.  



> I'd like to see ANY of the UFCs top strikers pitted against Pu Gil Gwon when he was 30.


 
I'd like to see it too.  



> Someone like Pu Gil or the late Grandmaster Lee H. Park, who founded my the school I go to, would have put your UFC heroes in the hospital, without a doubt. You just have NO idea how dangerous these men were.


 
I have a good idea of the mythos around tradition martial arts heroes of all styles.  The fact that they are no longer able to fight makes them convinient foils - their capabilities cannot be tested.  



> The early hapkido masters proved their stuff on the street with plenty of witnesses, both in Korea and here in the U.S.
> 
> I wish you COULD taunt one of those guys into the ring. I'd LOVE to see it.


 
I would very much like to see it.  



> Me or you? Nah. I'm too old and definately not conditioned for a UFC bout. And you never have answered my questions about your experience level, so I'm guessing you aren't either.
> 
> But these are apples and oranges, comparing part-time athletes to professional athletes.
> 
> Let's see the Iceman vs Tyson. It sure would be interesting.


 
They have been trying to get Tyson in an MMA ring for a long time, and everyone from the Gracies to Bob Sapp has challenged him.  Tyson has trained BJJ with the Gracies and submission wrestling with Mark Kerr.  I don't know the depth of his ground skill yet, but I would like to see him fight under MMA or fewer as well.  



> It's too bad Gene Labell isn't a young buck anymore. I'd like to see Mr. Labell against Matt Hughes.


 
Mr. LeBell has grappled at full speed with several currently competitive fighters and I don't doubt he would have been a very dangerous man in any time - he trains a couple of the current crop in submission grappling.  



> And we already know what happened when Helio fought Kimura.


 
Yep.  You should read about Kimura.  Interesting man, the most competitively sucessful judoist in history, a solid karate striker who crosstrained extensively with Mas Oyama (Oyama called Kimura the only man he ever feared), and a physical fitness maniac who did 1000 consecutive pushups every morning 7 days a week.  He was very much a forerunner of the modern age of martial arts, who trained in two full resistance sports styles, kyokushin karate and Judo, in order to strike and grapple.  



> I watch their matches, train similar techniques and have actually defended myself ON THE STREET. So I happen to walk the walk in addition to just talking the talk.


 
Ok.  



> Stating that a product or service DOES NOT WORK is NOT an opinion.
> 
> You aren't saying "Coke is better than Pepsi" or "Chevy is better than Ford."
> 
> You have _crossed_ that line on several occasions and said, essentially,
> 
> "Pepsi is ineffective in quenching thirst" or "Ford can not get you from point A to point B."


 
Still in the realm of opinion.  




> Only problem, Kev, is that the courts do not hold an unreasonable criteria for proof like you do. You have stated, in print, that TMA techniques are ineffective while TMAists are able to produce hundreds and hundreds of witnesses who will testify under oath that they have personally used TMA techniques or seen them used in self defense situations.
> 
> A Gracie tape of them beating up a martial artist in a challenge match does NOT prove them ineffective in self defense.


 
You misread what I typed.  The truth defense means either A. That what I said is true or B.  That a reasonable person could come to believe that what I said is true.  I think there is no shortage or evidence that would suggest that a "reasonable person" could come to the same conclusion that I have reached.  




> You obviously missed how I seperated MMA (proper noun) from "mixed martial art" as a generic phrase.


 
Sorry.  



> To me, it looks like YOU are the one cookie cutting. If they don't use YOUR list of "optimum techniques" then you declare them ineffective.


 
Optimum techniques for the individual can potentially be anything.  We have a good idea of what "best practices" ussually are, but if someone else can make something work consistantly in recorded competition, then that can easily get added.  Unique individuals can have unusual strengths... if Karelin were to compete in MMA the suplex would probably be a basic and optimal technique for him given the sucess he has had with it... for most people it is not.  



> TMAs as I have experienced them give you a wide range of techniques for the individual to choose from and make their own.
> 
> I'm still undecided as not ALL MMA proponents hold your radical views. I don't want to make sweeping generalizations that I will regret later.


 
I don't think you can draw a representative sample of MMA from the internet and I don't represent the only view on this matter by any means.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> You insist on videotape though, right? Take out the point about "arena" and my point is still made.
> 
> I'm not sorry that I don't go out looking for challenge matches with a camera man like your heroes, the Gracies.


 
Ok.  You realize that there really isn't any way to prove something without evidence... you have stories, I've heard them, they might be true, but there isn't anything to give credence to them.  

Even if its true, we know nothing about the opponents.  Are they people who are trained fighters?  How big are they?  How much punishment can they take?  How is their conditioning?  Without any sort of record of their own, and no video to estimate off of, there isn't really a way to know. 



> It comes with the "Do" part of Hapkido.
> 
> That's why, I guess, it ended up being "Gracie Jiujitsu" instead of "Gracie Judo" (even though the true source was Judo).
> 
> All technique without the other "stuff" that goes with Do.


 
True enough.  Cultural trappings aren't really necessary for fighting.



> Nope, that's NOT what I mean. I mean stories like:
> 
> One day Grandmaster Park was having pizza and beers with several of his blackbelt students when a group of rednecks entered and started making racial slurs about Park.
> 
> The students got angry and stood up. Park told them to sit down. He tried to smooth things over, but the rednecks pushed it further and asked him if he would like to take it outside.
> 
> Park politely asked them to watch their step as he exited the establishment with them.
> 
> He re-entered five minutes later, unscathed, and politely asked the establisment's manager to call an ambulance.
> 
> Not 150 years ago, only about 25 years ago.


 
Ok.  See above questions about video, opponents capabilities etc.  



> Or do you want me to re-tell the story of how, only four or five years ago, I defended myself against two rednecks while I had an injured hamstring? I could probably get you the phone number of the bar owner if I tried hard enough. I don't think Al or his patrons will EVER forget the day I sent those bullies home with their tails between their legs and missing several teeth.


 
Same questions.  
1.  How do we know that this actually happened?
2.  How capable were the opponents?  

I don't know.  That's the problem.  



> We don't need to make up wild stories. There are plenty of stories with plenty of witnesses to verify that Moo Sul Kwan TKD and HKD *do* work.
> 
> Park taught at the local college. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would swear on a Bible to dozens of stories about the amazing things Park was capable of.


 
Same questions...



> Yep -- those Pride Bushido fighters surely are a tough bunch. I like Pride fighting whole lot better. Less smack talking, more action.


 
True.  



> But with you its always about the tape, eh?


 
Always.  Without evidence, any story goes, and then we're just back into legend and myth, and wondering whether Zhang Shen hitting a man into the air so hard he never came down is more impressive than Li Shun Long blasting someone with a lighting bolt.  



> Sorry, but I'm not about to go put someone in the hospital so you can be convinced.


 
I don't think that will happen.  Most ring matches and even no rules challenge matches end without any injury requiring hospitalization.  



> I wonder if I can get the mugshot and police report from our local police department from the last assault I defended against. Six 20-year old attackers vs me. My mugshot shows that I was completly uninjured.
> 
> The one that got too close had two red-purple bumps the size of robin eggs right next to his temple from a backfist strike.
> 
> Not sure if our DPS would release those pics and police report to post here, but would it convince you if I was able to come up with them?


 
That would certainly help, but I don't think it would adjust the final conclusions. 



> Any credible witnessess? I think not. This claim is absurd. My claim that traditional martial arts work is NOT absurd.


 
See above.  



> Do you want me to post the list of, what, 40 rules that govern UFC matches? Or google Pride Fight rules?
> 
> You keep changing your criteria for proof.
> 
> One minute a UFC match or Pride Fight is valid. The next post you change so now you only accept No Holds Barred as proof.
> 
> Make up your mind, Kevin. I think we are boring people with this whack-a-mole argument game you insist on playing.


 
I think that MMA rules are the maximum amount of rules that can cover a fighting competition.  Those rules, or fewer rules than those (ie MMA less a few or all), are the situations in which it is relavent to compare skills.


----------



## matt.m

You guys,

I think it is entirely funny, actually laughable that you want to do your best to refute zDom at every turn.  Yet I am from the same school, I know more of the Moo Sul Kwan history (Debateable) and have seen my pop, his teacher trash people who came to challenge him in the 80's.  There would never be just one, always at least five.  Pop wouldn't even break a sweat.

Is it because with my last post that I possibly struck a nerve, being a former international competitor in greco and judo.  I am saying too many things that are true.

It seems that a few MMAer's don't want to believe that there art is designed more for sport than self defense.

Sorry,  Just my opinion.  I think that if people want to train MMA then that is great, just don't trash what other people do.

Also, and this is a big one here.....I know zDom has street experience, I have nothing to prove.  However, if you don't have any scenerio to back up theories then don't say that this or that will work.  To do so is ridiculous.


----------



## Ybot

It is not just BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling etc.  Those have been proven effective, but they are not the end all be all.  And MMA guys don't except their teachings on faith either.  They put the concepts to the test in training.  There are quite a few fighters out there very critical of BJJ these days, and well they should be.  BJJ is too reliant on guard fighting, and fighters these days know how to deal effectively with the guard.  Each of these arts when practiced alone include things that are unbenifical to an MMA match.  Thats where MMA is seperate from these arts.  I practice BJJ, and don't concider myself an MMA fighter.  I don't train in the other ranges of combat and don't spend time sparing in all ranges so I can decide what parts of these arts work, and what parts don't, for MMA.

IMO MMA is a mixture of styles.  But it is training each style with a goal of making it work for MMA.  It is a belief in specialty.  Each of the styles BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and Wrestling have stong emphasis on one range of combat.  Instructors in these arts have a strong understanding of their choosen range.  It's kind of a college mentality, I go to the guy with the PhD in a specific subject to learn that subject.

Now I am very critical of where MMA is leading.  I started another thread where I questioned wether a fighter should have a strong base in one range of combat before moving on to MMA training.  I believe they should.  I worry that the future generation of MMA fighters will lack the nessisary debth of knowlage to teach any one range effectively.  Jack of all trades, master of none...


----------



## Rook

Look, the Gracies destroyed hundreds of these "street warriors" in the gracies in action tapes... The early UFCs were mostly people who both had legitimate "street cred" in policework, bouncing and security as well as TMA experiance.  The challenge is still open from the Gracies out of the ring and others, like the Chute-Boxe Team and various others, Bullshido is offering to fly C-level professional fighters to face off with anyone who wants to fight - combined they beat many, many streetfighters and hundreds of TMAists cum streetwarriors.   They did it with, to date, near 100% consistancy.


----------



## Ybot

Oh, and I will never argue that anyone elses MA style is ineffective.  Instead I will try it, and if I feel the art has strong points that can help me I'll steal those techniques.  I think that is more the mind set of a good MMA fighter...


----------



## Andrew Green

matt.m said:


> You guys,
> 
> I think it is entirely funny, actually laughable that you want to do your best to refute zDom at every turn.  Yet I am from the same school, I know more of the Moo Sul Kwan history (Debateable) and have seen my pop, his teacher trash people who came to challenge him in the 80's.  There would never be just one, always at least five.  Pop wouldn't even break a sweat.



I think what they are getting at is that Anecdotal evidence is not particullarly reliable.  As it is isolated instances and as much as one person says one thing, 10 others say the opposite.

So what is leaned towards is results which can be replicated, with different fighters on both sides, in a public event with documented results, and documentation on the fighters.



> It seems that a few MMAer's don't want to believe that there art is designed more for sport than self defense.



Most of us accept that, and accept that MMA is designed for a one on one fight, with limited to no rules.  But where no weapons and no outside inteference is a given.


----------



## tatsu dynamo

the original basis of mma competition was directly to put style against style and see who comes out on top. any one who tries to put a direct style on mma is out of thier mind. and in basis there is no style of mma. the closest "style" of any mma is the original principles of jkd. but now that has even been catagorized as a style which is totaly wrong. true mma or jkd art was ment for adaptation to all fighting methods what style came through was one made by your own mind and body or better put as your own original way of fighting which everyone has. the key point is everyone is diffrent and has a diffrent way of doing anything. immitation is the lowest form of self worth. if you are to busy mimicing someone like bruce lee or ken shamrock for example you are not finding your self in martial arts. and thats the most important goal


----------



## Ybot

Andrew Green said:


> Most of us accept that, and accept that MMA is designed for a one on one fight, with limited to no rules. But where no weapons and no outside inteference is a given.


Absolutely.  But being that MMA includes crazy conditioning, and they do learn how to punch, kick, and grapple I would say an MMA athlete has a better than average chance in a street encounter, even if that isn't what they train for.

Now it's time for my anecdotal evidence.  

I know a pro fighter from my area, probably one of the top fighters in his weight in the world.  Anyway, not too long ago he went to Thailand.  He was out at a club by him self (he admits it was stupid) and got into a confrontation with some locals.  He was attacked and chased by a gang of guys who durring the whole thing broke bottles on his head and punched him with brass knuckles, and hit him with bats.

He survived, and says it was his conditioning that saved him.  He was able, basicly to run for his life, and continue running until his pursuers ran out of energy.  He did fight back, but only enough to defend himself and break away.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Ybot said:


> Oh, and I will never argue that anyone elses MA style is ineffective. Instead I will try it, and if I feel the art has strong points that can help me I'll steal those techniques. I think that is more the mind set of a good MMA fighter...


 
Thank you. If all competitive grapplers had the same attitude, I don't think discussions such as these would be so contentious.

You're right about a core art, but there is room for a style that will teach a student the fundamentals of all ranges in 6-8 months. I certainly would have loved to attend one when I was in my college years. As it was, I had to take boxing from one coach, Judo from another and TKD from a third.


----------



## MJS

Ybot said:


> Absolutely. But being that MMA includes crazy conditioning, and they do learn how to punch, kick, and grapple I would say an MMA athlete has a better than average chance in a street encounter, even if that isn't what they train for.


 
Question:  Do you feel its possible to defend something with no knowledge of it?  For example:  the MMAist, AFAIK, does not train weapons.  That being said, how do you train something you're unfamiliar with?  If a TMAist, who has no knowledge of the ground ends up there...well, we've seen what happened to those one dimensional fighters in the early UFCs.



> Now it's time for my anecdotal evidence.
> 
> I know a pro fighter from my area, probably one of the top fighters in his weight in the world. Anyway, not too long ago he went to Thailand. He was out at a club by him self (he admits it was stupid) and got into a confrontation with some locals. He was attacked and chased by a gang of guys who durring the whole thing broke bottles on his head and punched him with brass knuckles, and hit him with bats.
> 
> He survived, and says it was his conditioning that saved him. He was able, basicly to run for his life, and continue running until his pursuers ran out of energy. He did fight back, but only enough to defend himself and break away.


 
Is there a tape of that?

LOL, just kidding!


----------



## Andrew Green

MJS said:


> Question:  Do you feel its possible to defend something with no knowledge of it?  For example:  the MMAist, AFAIK, does not train weapons.  That being said, how do you train something you're unfamiliar with?  If a TMAist, who has no knowledge of the ground ends up there...well, we've seen what happened to those one dimensional fighters in the early UFCs.



Too a limited extent.  And it goes both ways.  Fighting against weapons is hard enough with training, without it will be even harder.  But, most stick fighters aren't familliar with MMA fighting.  And in the case of a stick, I think it would be a matter of whether or not the MMA fighter could clinch or even go to the ground.  A knife would be a whole other issue.

The thing that happened in those early fights, and is often "overlooked" is that while the Gracies and others where not great strikers, they did train it, and more specifically they trained to use there game against someone trying to hit them.  Where the people they fought had less knowledge of grappling then they did of standup striking, and did not train to counter it.

Take, for example, the Hackney vs Yarbourough fight I posted.  I imagine part of Hackney's training did not involve "How to fight a 600lbs Sumo wrestler", but he managed.  And Yarbourough on the other hand probably didn't devote much time to "How to fight someone that is punching you in the nose"...

So if a MMA fighter faced a stick fighter that trained to keep range, counter and break out of the clinch, avoid takedowns... well, the betting odds just got a much bigger gap.


----------



## Ybot

MJS said:


> Question: Do you feel its possible to defend something with no knowledge of it? For example: the MMAist, AFAIK, does not train weapons. That being said, how do you train something you're unfamiliar with? If a TMAist, who has no knowledge of the ground ends up there...well, we've seen what happened to those one dimensional fighters in the early UFCs.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a tape of that?
> 
> LOL, just kidding!


 No, no tape, but I bet he has pictures of the stetches in his head.

Okay, as far as your question...  Well, yes and no.  Most believe running your *** off is the best self defense against weapons, multiple attackers, etc.  MMA competitors learn to fight hand to hand.  This is fighting, not defence.  I think most will acknowlage this.  What I find is that most don't believe that there is any evidence to support that self defence training agaist weapons will increase your odds of survival any more then running your *** off.

Me personally?  I don't know if it will or not.  I don't train for self defence, and believe that learning not to put yourself into situations where you have to deal with that is the best defence.  Odds are it probably wont happen to me, but should it happen my mind set is that I will do what ever it takes to get out of the situation.  If that includes running, you bet I will.


----------



## FearlessFreep

Yes , the self defense art of Nike-Do is not one to be overlooked...


----------



## MJS

Ybot said:


> No, no tape, but I bet he has pictures of the stetches in his head.


 
Hey, at least he's ok. 



> Okay, as far as your question... Well, yes and no. Most believe running your *** off is the best self defense against weapons, multiple attackers, etc. MMA competitors learn to fight hand to hand. This is fighting, not defence. I think most will acknowlage this. What I find is that most don't believe that there is any evidence to support that self defence training agaist weapons will increase your odds of survival any more then running your *** off.


 
I agree.  Getting the hell out of the situation is certainly going to be my first option.  However, what if that is not an option?  What if the person being attacked does not have the stamina to keep going?  If the odds are stacked against me, I'm certainly going to look for something to use.  Don't you think its good to be well rounded?



> Me personally? I don't know if it will or not. I don't train for self defence, and believe that learning not to put yourself into situations where you have to deal with that is the best defence. Odds are it probably wont happen to me, but should it happen my mind set is that I will do what ever it takes to get out of the situation. If that includes running, you bet I will.


 
Agreed again.  I do my best to stay out of potential problem places, such as bars and clubs.  I always do my best to be aware of my surroundings.  So...in the unlikely event that something did happen to you, how do you feel that you'd best defend yourself if faced with a blade, or a weapon that you normally don't train against?

BTW, thanks for a great discussion!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Ybot

MJS said:


> So...in the unlikely event that something did happen to you, how do you feel that you'd best defend yourself if faced with a blade, or a weapon that you normally don't train against?
> 
> BTW, thanks for a great discussion!:ultracool
> 
> Mike


What would I do?  Honestly I don't really know how I'd react, it's only a guess.  If I was being attacked by someone with a bladed weapon and was cornered, or otherwise couldn't run I'd guess I'd do the following (again just a guess, don't know how I'd react):

First, I'd look for anything that could help even the odds.  Fighting bare handed against an armed opponent is just plain stupid...  but then again in this situation I may have no choice.

Second, I realize that in a situation when dealing with a bladed weapon the chances of getting away completely unharmed are very low.  Knowing that I most likely will be cut I'll look for a way to minimize the damage.  I would probably sacrafice my left forearm for blocking.  If time permits maybe wrap it with my jacket, sweatshirt, etc.

Third, being a grappler, I'd look to clinch with the objective of controling the weapon.

From there I will either try to disarm, or force the opponent out of the way to open up my escape rout.  Depends on the situation.

Anyway, just speculating.  Hard to say what would really happen, but I do tend to believe that my chances of surviving this situation are probably higher than if I didn't train like I do.  Mostly because I have a strong feeling for leverage, reasonable conditioning, and strong Kenistetic awareness.

Oh, and a side note.  I did take karate for many many years as a kid, and did train self defence situations with the rubber knives.  In these cases I knew what attack was comming, and what to do not to get touched, and yet the number of times in practice I would have be cut had it been a real knife is scarey to think about.  I shutter to think what would have happened had the attacker free range to attack as they pleased, and to continue attacking until I had control.

I enjoy the discussion too, BTW.  I think sometimes I value opposing (or maybe I should say different) oppinions more, because they force me to evaluate my own beliefs.


----------



## zDom

Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:

a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)

b) that all evidence presented is unreliable because "those guys weren't skilled fighters" (and apparently YOU are the World Authority on who is a skilled fighter or not?).

Once again you pick and choose among my comments to trot out these same old arguments.

::

Having spent plenty of time in the Real World (in addition to watching UFC and Pride matches on TV), I can tell you with absolute certainty:

Those who you consider not to be "skilled fighters" are quite capable of putting someone without martial art training in the hospital or even beating them to death. It happens all the time.

There are a lot of thugs, rednecks and otherwise unpleasant people who CAN and WILL do harm to your average citizen.

TMAs are quite effective at dealing with these types of people. Even groups of them.

On the other hand, your "skilled fighters" aren't very likely to initiate assaults on people outside of the ring, and if they do, they will soon find themselves in prison.

Therefore your point is moot.

"Ineffective vs skilled fighters" does not equal "ineffective."

Without conceding that I agree that TMA are ineffective against those you deem are "skilled fighters," even if TMAs DON'T work against these presumed "skilled fighters" it just doesn't matter: it isn't a scenario worth training for. There aren't that many out there, and those that ARE out there aren't likely to attack a TMAist.

My goal is to stay in shape and avoid bodily harm from attackers.

The TMAs I have selected here perfectly fit this bill.


As for you, you are STILL avoiding the following questions completely:




zDom said:


> In the meantime, Kevin, let me repeat some questions you've dodged in the past along with a couple new ones:
> 
> a) How long have you been training, in what arts, and to what level have you successfully tested?
> 
> b) Are you training MMA under any particular camp or system?
> 
> c) How many times have you defended yourself against assaults?
> 
> d) How many NHB matches have you fought?
> 
> e) How many other combat sports have you participated in?
> 
> Looking forward to learning more about your background!




Any particular reason you are avoiding these questions?


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:
> 
> a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)


 
Without evidence, we only have the word of people on the internet - and all that will follow is a sucession of the most fantastic stories in an attempt to impress - without proof, its just an exercise in creative writing.  



> b) that all evidence presented is unreliable because "those guys weren't skilled fighters" (and apparently YOU are the World Authority on who is a skilled fighter or not?).


 
Thats the beauty of proven records and videotape - we get a black-and-white who won and who lost and by what means all right there.  When the video tape is public, we can get the comments of people who analyze the sport for a living as journalists, coaches and professional fighters.  We can compare impressions based on our training and discuss implications of each movement in the fight.  When we only have a description, we can't tell how good the people were - or even if the fight happened at all.  



> Once again you pick and choose among my comments to trot out these same old arguments.


 
I have responded to just about everything you said - I have not taken small comments out of context while ignoring the rest of the post.  



> ::
> 
> Having spent plenty of time in the Real World (in addition to watching UFC and Pride matches on TV), I can tell you with absolute certainty:
> 
> Those who you consider not to be "skilled fighters" are quite capable of putting someone without martial art training in the hospital or even beating them to death. It happens all the time.


 
Duh.  



> There are a lot of thugs, rednecks and otherwise unpleasant people who CAN and WILL do harm to your average citizen.
> 
> TMAs are quite effective at dealing with these types of people. Even groups of them.


 
Would another method be more effective?  



> On the other hand, your "skilled fighters" aren't very likely to initiate assaults on people outside of the ring, and if they do, they will soon find themselves in prison.
> 
> Therefore your point is moot.


 
No.  People who can beat unskilled fighters exist in droves - any major city has thousands of streetfighter types who haven't lost nearly as many fights as they have won.  The likelyhood of getting seriously assaulted by a skilled fighter, street, sport or traditional is rather low.  Many people go through life without ever being in a serious fight, and most streetfighter types rarely clash with the capable fighters... you can get by without much in the way of fighting skill.  



> "Ineffective vs skilled fighters" does not equal "ineffective."
> 
> Without conceding that I agree that TMA are ineffective against those you deem are "skilled fighters," even if TMAs DON'T work against these presumed "skilled fighters" it just doesn't matter: it isn't a scenario worth training for. There aren't that many out there, and those that ARE out there aren't likely to attack a TMAist.


 
It should matter.  Your whole arguement is that you can fight as well as they can.  I don't see how you someone could concede that they would lose to a skilled fighter and still go on to say that they are just as good a fighter.  



> My goal is to stay in shape and avoid bodily harm from attackers.


 
Pretty common to everyone.  



> The TMAs I have selected here perfectly fit this bill.


 
Ok...


----------



## MJS

Ybot said:


> What would I do? Honestly I don't really know how I'd react, it's only a guess. If I was being attacked by someone with a bladed weapon and was cornered, or otherwise couldn't run I'd guess I'd do the following (again just a guess, don't know how I'd react):
> 
> First, I'd look for anything that could help even the odds. Fighting bare handed against an armed opponent is just plain stupid... but then again in this situation I may have no choice.


 
Agreed.  Even if it was something to simply throw as a distraction, its worth a shot IMO.



> Second, I realize that in a situation when dealing with a bladed weapon the chances of getting away completely unharmed are very low. Knowing that I most likely will be cut I'll look for a way to minimize the damage. I would probably sacrafice my left forearm for blocking. If time permits maybe wrap it with my jacket, sweatshirt, etc.


 
Yes, chances are we will get cut.  



> Third, being a grappler, I'd look to clinch with the objective of controling the weapon.


 
I'm assuming that you'd also work on controlling the arm here?



> From there I will either try to disarm, or force the opponent out of the way to open up my escape rout. Depends on the situation.


 




> Anyway, just speculating. Hard to say what would really happen, but I do tend to believe that my chances of surviving this situation are probably higher than if I didn't train like I do. Mostly because I have a strong feeling for leverage, reasonable conditioning, and strong Kenistetic awareness.


 




> Oh, and a side note. I did take karate for many many years as a kid, and did train self defence situations with the rubber knives. In these cases I knew what attack was comming, and what to do not to get touched, and yet the number of times in practice I would have be cut had it been a real knife is scarey to think about. I shutter to think what would have happened had the attacker free range to attack as they pleased, and to continue attacking until I had control.


 
Adding in random attacks, etc., is one way that I train.  Keeps ya on your toes!   I also have the 'attacker' use his free hand as well.  Many times, people tend to forget that the attacker could be punching us as well as using the knife.  If we get too focused on just the blade, we're opening ourselves for something else.



> I enjoy the discussion too, BTW. I think sometimes I value opposing (or maybe I should say different) oppinions more, because they force me to evaluate my own beliefs.


 
Likewise.  I think that we all have our beliefs, training principles, etc., but while I try to stand firm with mine, I also stay open to other things, ideas, etc. 

Mike


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

zDom said:


> Once again, Kevin, you continue to maintain that:
> 
> a) only video evidence is acceptable (even though history and the courts have relied on testimony for all recorded time)


 
Actually, considered from a psychological point of view, eye witness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable forms of evidence there is, due to how damn subjective human minds are. All too often people will see either what they want to see, or are afraid to see, instead of whats really there. Likewise after an event has occured, the human mind will then filter it to fit their preconceptions, consequently altering the memory.
When you look at how memory functions, you can see how easy that is to happen.
Genes make new proteins in order to store information, and they make new proteins again to bring that information back as a memory. The process is called "reconsolidation" because as Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist, put it 
"the brain that does the remembering is not the brain that formed the initial memory. In order for the old memory to make sense to the current brain, the memory has to be updated"

Now Im not saying we should simply discard personal testimony altogether. But when its being presented as any form of evidence, it has to be factored in with what we know of the person. 
If we do not know the individual, or any verifiable details about the person, we do not know how much weight to attach to their comments.
Over the internet therefore, while we may be able to accept someones comments as "good enough" for us, we can't present them as evidence.
The only things that can be presented as proof are:
Things that we can prove logically
Verifiable information.

For example, while I might respect your opinions and be willing to accept your word, Im not able to decide that anyone else has to accept it.

Sorry for my nerd rant, but I like stuff like this.


----------



## zDom

Kevin, I'm not willing to discuss anything with you or dignify any of your arguments with responses until you directly answer the following:



			
				zDom said:
			
		

> As for you, you are STILL avoiding the following questions completely:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zDom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, Kevin, let me repeat some questions you've dodged in the past along with a couple new ones:
> 
> a) How long have you been training, in what arts, and to what level have you successfully tested?
> 
> b) Are you training MMA under any particular camp or system?
> 
> c) How many times have you defended yourself against assaults?
> 
> d) How many NHB matches have you fought?
> 
> e) How many other combat sports have you participated in?
> 
> Looking forward to learning more about your background!
> 
> 
> Any particular reason you are avoiding these questions?
Click to expand...


Until you do so, I would prefer you let other MMA-enthusiasts who are more forthcoming with their backgrounds discuss these issues with me.


----------



## Andrew Green

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, about that topic...


----------



## zDom

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Actually, considered from a psychological point of view, eye witness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable forms of evidence there is, due to how damn subjective human minds are...Now Im not saying we should simply discard personal testimony altogether. But when its being presented as any form of evidence, it has to be factored in with what we know of the person.



Good points, SB, but this presents quite a problem when it comes to this particular argument.

If a martial artist's purpose is to avoid physical confrontations, it is highly unlikely that self-defense situations will be captured on tape. It is, and SHOULD BE, a very rare occurance.

Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.

FWIW, I always factor in what I know of people when I hear anecdotal evidence.

As a reputable newspaper reporter with nearly 10 years of experience, I have a critical ear for facts as well as embellishments and outright fabrications.

When it comes to traditional martial arts, anecodotes are going to have to suffice as evidence of efficiency.

If my instructor went around encouraging people to attack him while a camera man documented the fights, I would seriously question his character.

And yes, I do question the character of BJJ and UFC participants who engage in this activity.

Beating people up for money and entertainment is not my idea of contributing to society.

What's worse, society as a whole is starting to judge martial artists based on what they see on the UFC.

Do you really want your kids to grow up idolizing people like Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock? Reminds me of junior high kids with something to prove.

But then that is what this is all about isn't it? People with something to prove at the cost of causing injury to others. At least in this case, they are all willing participants.


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> Description of Ad Hominem
> 
> Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
> 
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
> 
> Now, about that topic...



Not an ad hominem attack, Andrew. 

I just want some context for his opinions.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar

Rook said:


> Restrictions prevent the use of their techniques. Nothing is prohibited in no-rules matches - which is why I tend to favor them as proof.
> quote]
> 
> Verification, as you stated, should be a guiding light for our training.
> 
> You are not allowed to quote my statement Rook.  You have reached your quote quota!  Just kidding.
> 
> Not that I disagree with anything you have said, but let's throw in some simple clubs, knives, or multiple attackers into the mix and verify that.  It would be great!


----------



## matt.m

I find it amazing that everyone wants video proofs.  My question is invariably this.....When Choi adapted TKD to the Korean military was everyone running around asking for proof that such things worked.

Now before anyone goes nuts and says "Challenge matches were a big thing back then"  well yeah they were.  However arts like Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, and Hapkido have a proven background of success.

Fights should not be staged, if a camera is being brought then it is more or less staged.

Let me pose this question:  If people train for Olympic style Tae Kwon Do or Judo do they not train to be successful in that event?  I would say that MMA/ UFC fights are in the same category.  The reasoning behind this is simple.

The move sets that everyone uses is basically the same.  The triangle, mount, punch, round kick to the knee or thigh.  No matter who is fighting it is all the same stuff.


----------



## Andrew Green

Video proof, nah.  Proof in anything that has the word "self-defence"  in it is automatically nonsense.  But, if the claim is that it can work in a no rules / limited rules fight, despite all the evidence that is commonly available saying otherwise, and there is a lot of it, and when the people that do that sort of training say it won't work, and there are a lot of them, yes, something to back up the claim is required for it to be taken seriously.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

zDom said:


> Good points, SB, but this presents quite a problem when it comes to this particular argument.
> 
> If a martial artist's purpose is to avoid physical confrontations, it is highly unlikely that self-defense situations will be captured on tape. It is, and SHOULD BE, a very rare occurance.
> 
> Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.
> 
> FWIW, I always factor in what I know of people when I hear anecdotal evidence.
> 
> As a reputable newspaper reporter with nearly 10 years of experience, I have a critical ear for facts as well as embellishments and outright fabrications.
> 
> When it comes to traditional martial arts, anecodotes are going to have to suffice as evidence of efficiency.
> 
> If my instructor went around encouraging people to attack him while a camera man documented the fights, I would seriously question his character.
> 
> And yes, I do question the character of BJJ and UFC participants who engage in this activity.
> 
> Beating people up for money and entertainment is not my idea of contributing to society.
> 
> What's worse, society as a whole is starting to judge martial artists based on what they see on the UFC.
> 
> Do you really want your kids to grow up idolizing people like Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock? Reminds me of junior high kids with something to prove.
> 
> But then that is what this is all about isn't it? People with something to prove at the cost of causing injury to others. At least in this case, they are all willing participants.


 
Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless.
You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose. 
For example, I am doing MMA.
Does this therefore make me an unprincipled thug as you have implied?
I train for the fun of it, for the discipline, for having a useful skill, and because the actual science of martial arts fascinates me.
So how exactly is this a negative thing?


----------



## FearlessFreep

_
Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless.
You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose._

He's not generalizing, the import clause is "who engage in this activity."  He's talking specifically about the practice of going arond and picking fights for the sake of getting a victory recorded on video.  I didn't get the impression he was applying that as an accusation to all MMA pactiioners.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

FearlessFreep said:


> _Hmmm, I think you're attitude towards MMA is slightly biased there. You're kind of tarring all MMA practioners with the same brush, and thats exactly the same as SOME MMA practioners habit of dismissing all traditional martial arts as useless._
> _You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I can't imagine you generalising like that on purpose._
> 
> He's not generalizing, the import clause is "who engage in this activity." He's talking specifically about the practice of going arond and picking fights for the sake of getting a victory recorded on video. I didn't get the impression he was applying that as an accusation to all MMA pactiioners.


 
Really?


> Conversely, BJJ, UFC and other "challenge matches" are staged specifically for the purpose of "bragging rights" so there is a LOT of this type of footage.


 
That's a pretty heavy slight against everyone involved in UFC, as it compares it to the idiots who go round picking fights.
And it also is a sweeping generalisation against BJJ, insulting a style and all its practioners, by claiming that it exists for nothing more than "bragging rights"


----------



## Warrior-Scholar

While there are stories on the fantastical side in many traditional systems, how do we think they even came up with their strategies?  I am sure a good portion (not all) of such systems developed from actual encounters/battles.  If this were not so, then why use them?  The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness.  Let's be honest with ourselves: without TMA, there would be no MMA.  Show me an MMA concept that doesn't have roots in some traditional concept!  I think the argument here is really pointless.  Many so-called TMAs have evolved over long periods of time, so are they traditional because they are old or because they aren't a particular style favored by sport fighters of the modern age?


----------



## Andrew Green

The Oral history of Traditional martial arts is full of challenge matches, guess they where ok then, but not now.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

Warrior-Scholar said:


> While there are stories on the fantastical side in many traditional systems, how do we think they even came up with their strategies? I am sure a good portion (not all) of such systems developed from actual encounters/battles. If this were not so, then why use them? The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness. Let's be honest with ourselves: without TMA, there would be no MMA. Show me an MMA concept that doesn't have roots in some traditional concept! I think the argument here is really pointless. Many so-called TMAs have evolved over long periods of time, so are they traditional because they are old or because they aren't a particular style favored by sport fighters of the modern age?


 
Statting that a style had its roots in some form of ancient warfare is also pointless. 
1. Any style based on warfare(eg high offence) would not be in any way suitable for modern day self-defence.
2. These styles may have had roots in warfare, but it has been a LONG, LONG time since they were used in that context. So its been a damn long time since they've been tested.
3. What damn battle involved martial artists charging at each other unarmed en masse to use their respective styles against each other?

I don't care about a styles history. I don't care about whether its rooted in warfare or an ephinany you have on the toilet seat.
The ONLY thing I care about with regards a style is their training methods.
That goes for MMA, TMA, SD and any other acronym that dare raise its ugly head.
The results are what matter here, not all the damn ego thrown around by members of every single camp.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar

You need to calm down man!
Read my post carefully before ranting.
"The real issue here is whether the fighting of today forces us to give up some of these old paradigms or just modify them for better effectiveness."

I fail to see any ego raising its head in my statements.  I have never supported any particular style or tradition in my comments.  I just want to have the best modern combative system at my disposal.


----------



## Warrior-Scholar

3. What damn battle involved martial artists charging at each other unarmed en masse to use their respective styles against each other?

I don't care about a styles history. I don't care about whether its rooted in warfare or an ephinany you have on the toilet seat.
The ONLY thing I care about with regards a style is their training methods.
That goes for MMA, TMA, SD and any other acronym that dare raise its ugly head.
The results are what matter here, not all the damn ego thrown around by members of every single camp.

Take a chill pill.  Why is everyone around here so hostile?  Aren't we all after the same goal here...better fighting?  
I don't want to even address your comments due to their hostility, but I do have to mention point 3.  Who said anything about unarmed battles?  I ain't just talking about empty hand combat here.  Look at the big picture.  When I think of MMA (sorry if you don't like acronyms Mixed Martial Arts).  I am speaking about mixing armed, unarmed and everything in between.  There are principles of motion inherent within all these styles etc. that I want to extract and synthesize for an effective fighting style.  If you don't care...fine.  Do your thing and I will do mine!
I am leaving this darn forum...


----------



## zDom

Fearless Freep is correct re: my comments.

I know there are a lot of good people out there who are training MMA, and I respect them for their dedication and pursuit of excellence.

From what I've seen of Matt Hughes, he seems like a classy guy, but I do wonder why he is in the business of "beating people down."

The Gracies are a bunch of guys with a helluva lot of heart  but why the challenge matches? Isn't it enough for them to know in their hearts their system is best? If so, why the need to constantly prove it?

(I'm not agreeing they DO have the best system, but I have no doubt they think it is  and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. For their culture, their location, it very well may be the best option.)

And fwiw, Andrew, I don't approve of challenge matches in the past any more than I do today. It would be nice to be able to say we have grown past that point where we need to do that anymore but then it seems some people still seem to think it necessary.

Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.

One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:

breaking to demonstrate power,
judo/wrestling for grappling,
WTF for kicking ability,
boxing for hand striking ability,
forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
point style to demonstrate speed,

etc.

Just an idea.

But I have to admit: I do enjoy watching UFC / Pride Fights.

What I don't enjoy is the attitude a great many of the fighters have. But then, that isn't limited to UFC/Pride/NHB. I see bad attitudes in a lot of professional athletes nowadays.


----------



## Ybot

zDom said:


> ...From what I've seen of Matt Hughes, he seems like a classy guy, but I do wonder why he is in the business of "beating people down."...
> 
> Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.


Okay, I can see that you don't like the dangerous situations that are part of MMA compitition.  That's fine, but I would argue that despite the violence that MMA is safer than older and more widely excepted sports such as Boxing, football, rugby, and hockey.  Now certainly you can argue that these sports (except for boxing) don't incourage participants to intetionally injure each other.  Okay, but I believe despite that, they are as dangerous, or more dangerous than MMA.


zDom said:


> One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:
> 
> breaking to demonstrate power,
> judo/wrestling for grappling,
> WTF for kicking ability,
> boxing for hand striking ability,
> forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
> point style to demonstrate speed,
> 
> etc.
> 
> Just an idea.


Interesting idea, and it could be fun, but I seriously question weather it would be any less harmful to the participants than MMA.

Certainly there is just as much a chance of taking a bad fall in wreslting or judo as in MMA, in fact possibly more so.  In MMA you can fall properly and not be penalized (other than ending up on the bottom).  In Judo, you land flat on your back you lose, so you do everything posible not to land like that, including doin stupid things like posting on your arms or head to stop the fall.

Boxing is more dangerous of a striking contest than MMA also.  In MMA a man can tap out at any time.  What would happen to a boxer who took too much punishment and gave up mid round?  In MMA the second you are knocked into a state of consiousness you can not defend from the ref should stop it.  In boxing you can be knocked out, but as long as you make it up by 10 you can continue fighting.  In MMA power from blows can be neutralized through effective clinching.  Clinching in boxing is seperated so that the boxing match can continue.

Anyway, not to take away from your idea, like I said it could be intresting, but to be completely honest I wouldn't have any intrest in competing in such an even, where as I would consider MMA.  Just my personal prefference though.


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> The Gracies are a bunch of guys with a helluva lot of heart  but why the challenge matches? Isn't it enough for them to know in their hearts their system is best? If so, why the need to constantly prove it?


 
I figure its the same reason scientists do experiments and then publish their research.  You can't just have a theory with no proof, no experiment, no reproducibility and no publication - thats just a personal opinion.  



> (I'm not agreeing they DO have the best system, but I have no doubt they think it is  and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. For their culture, their location, it very well may be the best option.)


 
I see. 



> And fwiw, Andrew, I don't approve of challenge matches in the past any more than I do today. It would be nice to be able to say we have grown past that point where we need to do that anymore but then it seems some people still seem to think it necessary.


 
It is necessary as long as we still have multiple competiting theories of fighting.  In the end, there can be only one best way - there may be different variations for different people and their different strengths and weaknesses, but only one style.  

On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojos - once people no longer actually have to fight to be considered a fighter then there is nothing to stop all sorts of nonsense.  Dillman, Montigue, Ashida Kim, Frank Dux - how long would any of them have lasted just 100 years ago?  



> Personally, I think there are sports in which you can demonstrate and pressure test your abilities without doing serious harm to your fellow competitors.
> 
> One of the ideas I've come up with is something like a martial art decathalon:
> 
> breaking to demonstrate power,
> judo/wrestling for grappling,
> WTF for kicking ability,
> boxing for hand striking ability,
> forms/kata/poomsea to demonstrate precision technique/body control,
> point style to demonstrate speed,
> 
> etc.
> 
> Just an idea.


 
The thing is that a person could do all of these things and then not be able to actually put them together.  Also, it overlooks important matters like actually being able to take a hit and recover or land hard strikes on moving targets.  



> But I have to admit: I do enjoy watching UFC / Pride Fights.
> 
> What I don't enjoy is the attitude a great many of the fighters have. But then, that isn't limited to UFC/Pride/NHB. I see bad attitudes in a lot of professional athletes nowadays.


 
I think some of them are rather immature as well.  Nothing that even remotely compares to many of the "masters" who demand elaborate kow-towing and titles in their presence.


----------



## FearlessFreep

_
On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojo_

Which is possibly related to the rise in litigation as a means of conflict resolution.  Hard to have a challenge match of  the loser turns around files charges against the winnner.


----------



## Rook

FearlessFreep said:


> _On another note, I think the decline of the challenge match system is responsible for the implosion of the traditional fighting arts in favor of modern commercial mcdojo_
> 
> Which is possibly related to the rise in litigation as a means of conflict resolution. Hard to have a challenge match of the loser turns around files charges against the winnner.


 
Thats true.  Its a big part of the problem of the modern martial arts.


----------



## Tez3

I've just read through all the pages on here  (just joined forum... hi !). I don't want to enter into the argument but would like to make a couple of points. Early on someone asked if MMA would benefit a middle aged woman, the answer is yes! that would be me among others, I train MMA and TMA, I fight and teach, among those I have trained with that you would maybe know are Ian Freeman and Leigh Remedious. I also work on Pride & Glory Ultimate Fighting which has put on over 20 fight nights so far.

The point of fighting? To prove you can, to challenge yourself. To go into combat if you like. Don't forget that it's two consenting adults that get into the ring/cage AND they come out as winners both whatever the actual outcome. The one thing I like about MMA is that the opponents can be fighting their hardest during the bout then afterwards they are in the changing area or wherever exchanging techniques, arranging to train with each and that sort of thing.

I've heard endless arguments on which is best for self defence over the years. It just goes round and round, people have a fixed stance on this which is a shame as it invariably seems to end up with insults!


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> The point of fighting? To prove you can, to challenge yourself. ... AND they come out as winners both whatever the actual outcome.



While this is true in many cases, there ARE other ways of challenging yourself which are also valid.

There is very real and significant risk that, whatever the outcome of these NHB/MMA fights, both participants can come out as "losers" in the sense that, win or lose, they can end up with serious injuries that could affect their training for weeks, months or even years.

I do respect those who are willing to put it on the line, to risk their ability to train to test their abilities and to entertain the rest of us, but prefer, for myself, to test myself in ways that have less risk of serious injury involved.


----------



## Tez3

In the UK serious injuries caused by fighting in the ring/cage are very rare, I've seen one guy break his leg (it's posted on the internet and has become quite famous, he didn't realise it was broken and stood up). The only other injuries I've seen have been minor cuts and bruises, no more than you would expect to pick up on a training night. The promotions over here and the standard of refereeing are such that the welfare of the fighters is the paramount concern.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

See but here's the thing:


On both sides ( with varying degrees of radicalism in individual opinions expressed but the points otherwise remain the same) we have the question of how what we do relates to SD.

On the one side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, not having, or at least not publicly appearing to have, a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress, what to them, from the outside,  appear outdated training methods, and lack of athletic conditioning.)

On the other side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, a mindset percieved to be all about "winning" and not "surviving", concern over the fact of what the resultant attitude could be in the legal aftermath or public opinion of such activites , a claim that because there are rules the match is differebnt from a "real" fight,  concern over the fact that the style's operators totally ignore or are not permitted the use of weapons or their equivalent simulators).

But here's the crucial thing Everybody needs to get, but apparently nobody WANTS to get: 

It is this:

*Both points of view are wrong....because both camps are RIGHT!          *

* Physical conditioning is beneficial to any person regardless of chosen path, since, apart from specialized conditioning to execute a given path's techniques, if a person is unhealthy or injured they cannot even train in any path.

*a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress is beneficial to anyone's SD abilities/confidence, but some people need more time than others and may not be able to handle the same amount, so paths with different levels of emphasis on this will attract the people able to handle that level, since if a person is dissatisfied with too low a level or overwhelmed by too high a level they'll quit and not get ANY benefit because if you don't like your path you won't stay on it.

*As to what is or is not an "obsolete" training method( the usual bone of contention is forms, but there are others)---"obsolete" for what purpose, "obsolete" for whose needs? If we were to discuss the hot button of forms, the greater part of whether they are useful tools or not largely stems from people on the outside( and, sadly, exponentially too many on the inside too), plain and simply not understanding what the tool is FOR. I have been uncommonly fortunate to find a teacher who can break down each part of any formlike movement we do and say"here is the form movement" and then "now here is *one way* the streamlined application version of the movement can be used". "This is a drill", then" here are the attributes that drill burns in your muscle memory so that you are able to do *this* aspect of the system".  Most schools( which could perhaps be classified under the "McDojo" umbrella) are unable to do this because the ones teaching were never taught it either, and so can demonstrate the movement only at "face value" and this , I'm certain, is the most significant contributing  factor in the position that this method is "obsolete". But in all of those movements, cvollected over all those millenia, ebgineered for all those different putposes and times, has GOT to be something for everyone whatever their needs. 

I'll briefly use my specific case to illustrate: 



After trying all the other arts in my profile before, I came to choose the ones in my profile's "Primary Art" space because they All have a reputation for adaptability and/or simplicity, and i like the fact they seem to have a natural flowing response rather than rigid prearranged actions,and are brain dead simple to learn, the work comes in getting them down I'm not looking for excessive flash or sport competitions, , though I kind of like *just* that right hint of cool artsy flavor and movement  with my defensive applications, and both of these things they do quite well.I'm also interested in effective SD that encompasses armed, as well as unarmed, and so I like the fact that they seem to transition from armed to unarmed and back with very little hitch stylistically(In plain English,your nervous system won't hesitate while your mind tries to tell your body "It's a weapon. Change fighting styles" and gets you killed)since the principles, and with only slight modification, the movements,  are the same armed or not. I also believe that no modern SD approach is complete without as much knowledge of modern firearms as the laws of your country allow, and this I remedied by becoming a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, and am now also certified to go armed in my home state.( which also had the additional, but welcome, benefit of a greater understanding of the legal ins and outs of true SD than I ever possessed before that time). In direct relation to this,  I wear glasses and can't afford contacts/ corrective surgery right now. I'm severely nearsighted. If during a crisis those glasses come off my pistol just became worthless unless there's a laser sight on it and sufficient darkness to see it(my eyes without glasses can no longer use the sights but CAN still track the dot).I can however see enough for H2H/contact weapons just barely enough and such training is best there, and I chose what I do based exactly on that criteria and what was available near me, which also gave me the additional, and welcome, benefit of teachers and students who ended up being like family to me.

The point in all that is that I can't grasp why all this arguing over  what's "obsolete" when people are so different and the MAs are diverse enough that there's something for everyone to take and use.

You ain't gonna look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that prior to 1993 everyone else for the last however far back human combat goes just......didn't know what they were doing.

I been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life, and they still dig holes with shovels.


*Mindset is important concerning how you approach SD--the qualities you must possess to be successful in professional athletic competition differ from, and in many cases could be at direct cross purposes with, what must be your mindset in pure SD situations, and vice versa. Exposure to both activities can help you figure out for yourself where you must find your balance, on your path.

* like it or not, in our present society, a basic knowledge of national, state( where applicable) and local legal precedent regarding SD is a stone dead MUST. May not be the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is* right now.

*Knowledge of weapons is beneficial to anyone interested in SD from either side since A) if you know their use it is far easier to determine their defenses, B) if you have a path which treats every incoming punch as though it is a knife, what is necessary for the weapon translates over ( another reason I chose my path) and it is more difficult to gain surprise which most criminal knifemen try for ( in many reports people report not knowing they were stabbed till they looked. There's a very real lesson there). C) weapons have always been humankind's first choice to fight with, so knowing how to be alert for them is beneficial to anyone of any camp,  and for those of you who are US residents an additional D) according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports cite that an average of _8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons._ 



So why is it such an issue that you're supposed to pick what you like that works for you, and if you see a weakness in your training that something else offers, simply seek out some of it to help?

Each offers something the others may not, but here we are, stuck again in some nutty way, over labels and wanting to have "the only answer".

My point is I see a lot of unnecessary "Us vs. Them" when at the end of the day it's really just "Us".


----------



## zDom

Lotta good points, Andy, and well stated.

Especially the bit about mindset: I believe that is one of the critical elements, regardless of which "path" you choose in training.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> In the UK serious injuries caused by fighting in the ring/cage are very rare, I've seen one guy break his leg (it's posted on the internet and has become quite famous, he didn't realise it was broken and stood up). The only other injuries I've seen have been minor cuts and bruises, no more than you would expect to pick up on a training night. The promotions over here and the standard of refereeing are such that the welfare of the fighters is the paramount concern.



Not sure if they are rare enough for me. For example, BJ's separated rib in his fight vs Matt Hughes -- I hate to have to let my cardio drop and then retrain it back up. Much easier to stay in cardio-shape then get into cardio shape.

Also, fwiw, the UFC-type games aren't the only ones I feel are "too risky" (for me).

I also think judo, muay thai, and pro football, for example, are sports in which you seriously risk body parts (specifically: KNEES which kickers value highly!)

Part of my opinion is related to my age: at 25, the rehab time for injuries wasn't nearly as long as I find them to be at nearly 40.


----------



## Rook

You have alot of good points and have laid out your view well Mr. Moynihan.  



Andy Moynihan said:


> See but here's the thing:
> 
> 
> On both sides ( with varying degrees of radicalism in individual opinions expressed but the points otherwise remain the same) we have the question of how what we do relates to SD.


 
Yes.  



> *a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress is beneficial to anyone's SD abilities/confidence, but some people need more time than others and may not be able to handle the same amount, so paths with different levels of emphasis on this will attract the people able to handle that level, since if a person is dissatisfied with too low a level or overwhelmed by too high a level they'll quit and not get ANY benefit because if you don't like your path you won't stay on it.


 
I'm glad to see that we're on the same page here.  Actually, I believe that Mattm and zDom aren't entirely against this either, although there are some people on this site and elsewhere that remain throughly unconvinced which is why it keeps being brought up.  



> *As to what is or is not an "obsolete" training method( the usual bone of contention is forms, but there are others)---"obsolete" for what purpose, "obsolete" for whose needs?


 
This is a good question, but I think that it misses part of the point.  



> If we were to discuss the hot button of forms, the greater part of whether they are useful tools or not largely stems from people on the outside( and, sadly, exponentially too many on the inside too), plain and simply not understanding what the tool is FOR. I have been uncommonly fortunate to find a teacher who can break down each part of any formlike movement we do and say"here is the form movement" and then "now here is *one way* the streamlined application version of the movement can be used". "This is a drill", then" here are the attributes that drill burns in your muscle memory so that you are able to do *this* aspect of the system".


 
I have a similar teacher for karate.  I don't disagree that there is some use of forms, but I very much doubt that it is the most efficient way to teach something.  

I see the process as having to first memorize the form, then be able to do it, and only then be able to break apart the component motions and run through various bunkai.  These bunkai might not necessarily be grouped together except that they use a similar motion.  I think that I waste alot of time trying to memorize the order of movements in the air that would be better spent on just drilling the techniques and then sparring etc.  Also, there is a sort of perfection of kata for the sake of perfection of kata impulse in the practice of many TMA training halls.  Lastly, I think that the ability to judge a person's fighting skill by how they perform their kata is almost entirely off base.  



> Most schools( which could perhaps be classified under the "McDojo" umbrella) are unable to do this because the ones teaching were never taught it either, and so can demonstrate the movement only at "face value" and this , I'm certain, is the most significant contributing factor in the position that this method is "obsolete".


 
I agree that this is the major factor.  I should point out, though, that many of the people who are now in MMA quit TMA schools that DID know how to break down bunkai and DID practice them hard.  I also should point out that some TMA people do understand at least some of how MMA works as well.  I don't believe that this contreversy is fundamentally one of ignorance.  



> But in all of those movements, cvollected over all those millenia, ebgineered for all those different putposes and times, has GOT to be something for everyone whatever their needs.


 
I think is alot of stuff in katas.  



> I'll briefly use my specific case to illustrate:
> 
> 
> 
> After trying all the other arts in my profile before, I came to choose the ones in my profile's "Primary Art" space because they All have a reputation for adaptability and/or simplicity, and i like the fact they seem to have a natural flowing response rather than rigid prearranged actions,and are brain dead simple to learn, the work comes in getting them down I'm not looking for excessive flash or sport competitions, , though I kind of like *just* that right hint of cool artsy flavor and movement with my defensive applications, and both of these things they do quite well.I'm also interested in effective SD that encompasses armed, as well as unarmed, and so I like the fact that they seem to transition from armed to unarmed and back with very little hitch stylistically(In plain English,your nervous system won't hesitate while your mind tries to tell your body "It's a weapon. Change fighting styles" and gets you killed)since the principles, and with only slight modification, the movements, are the same armed or not. I also believe that no modern SD approach is complete without as much knowledge of modern firearms as the laws of your country allow, and this I remedied by becoming a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, and am now also certified to go armed in my home state.( which also had the additional, but welcome, benefit of a greater understanding of the legal ins and outs of true SD than I ever possessed before that time). In direct relation to this, I wear glasses and can't afford contacts/ corrective surgery right now. I'm severely nearsighted. If during a crisis those glasses come off my pistol just became worthless unless there's a laser sight on it and sufficient darkness to see it(my eyes without glasses can no longer use the sights but CAN still track the dot).I can however see enough for H2H/contact weapons just barely enough and such training is best there, and I chose what I do based exactly on that criteria and what was available near me, which also gave me the additional, and welcome, benefit of teachers and students who ended up being like family to me.


 
I'm glad that you found what you wanted.  



> The point in all that is that I can't grasp why all this arguing over what's "obsolete" when people are so different and the MAs are diverse enough that there's something for everyone to take and use.
> 
> You ain't gonna look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that prior to 1993 everyone else for the last however far back human combat goes just......didn't know what they were doing.
> 
> I been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life, and they still dig holes with shovels.


 
Let me see if I can put out my thoughts on this; I don't know if it will make much sense or not.  

By way of analogy, people have been running since there were people.  The earliest organized sporting events in the world were footraces.  We know by the times recorded by knotburing during races of ancient times approximately how fast some of their top long distance runners were.  We know times since the invention of the mechanical clock for races for centuries.  We know pretty exact times from the invention of the stopwatch.  What do these measurements consistantly show us?  People getting faster and faster.  

The Roman top runnners were faster than the Greeks, the middle ages had faster runners still, they got faster and faster all the way up until today and every couple years our top runners still break records.  The Olympians of the early 1900s would lose high school nationals today.  

Now, this is running.  As simple and basic and fundamentally unchanging, "same human body" as any human activity I can think of.  It is simple to practice and simple to execute.  It is older than any martial art.  There isn't any secret technique to it.  Yet, somehow, same human body and all, no new limbs, no new techniques, we keep getting faster.  This is the result of incrementally improving training methods.  We find better postures that shave just tiny seconds off your marathon, we find better theories of nutrition and muscle recovery and gaitstepping and so forth.  None of these things ever really had some big revolution, they just keep getting better a little bit at a time.  

Fighting is a similar way.  There are those who look to the past because of legends and stories and the myths of the ages and say the ancient Chinese monks or the samurai of the Edo period or the post-WWII koreans already figured it out; they've got it all down, no more need to get in the ring, or on the platform or step out in the alley and see if maybe someone can do it a bit better (or alot better when you add up all the improvements).  It often just comes out as "we have confidence in our tradition, thank you very much, and if you don't share our faith then you can burn."  



> *Mindset is important concerning how you approach SD--the qualities you must possess to be successful in professional athletic competition differ from, and in many cases could be at direct cross purposes with, what must be your mindset in pure SD situations, and vice versa. Exposure to both activities can help you figure out for yourself where you must find your balance, on your path.
> 
> * like it or not, in our present society, a basic knowledge of national, state( where applicable) and local legal precedent regarding SD is a stone dead MUST. May not be the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is* right now.


 
Agreed.  



> *Knowledge of weapons is beneficial to anyone interested in SD from either side since A) if you know their use it is far easier to determine their defenses,


 
Agreed.  



> B) if you have a path which treats every incoming punch as though it is a knife, what is necessary for the weapon translates over ( another reason I chose my path) and it is more difficult to gain surprise which most criminal knifemen try for ( in many reports people report not knowing they were stabbed till they looked. There's a very real lesson there).


 
I don't train this way.  I look at it this way: A knifefighter uses body mechanics conducive to getting his knife used to the best effect.  Defending against that knife is fundamentally different than defending against punches or kicks.  Against a knife, risky tactics sometimes have to come out because if you can't control the knife you've lost anyway... I wouldn't risk some of them against an unarmed fighter.  



> C) weapons have always been humankind's first choice to fight with, so knowing how to be alert for them is beneficial to anyone of any camp, and for those of you who are US residents an additional D) according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports cite that an average of _8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons._


 
Good points.  



> So why is it such an issue that you're supposed to pick what you like that works for you, and if you see a weakness in your training that something else offers, simply seek out some of it to help?
> 
> Each offers something the others may not, but here we are, stuck again in some nutty way, over labels and wanting to have "the only answer".
> 
> My point is I see a lot of unnecessary "Us vs. Them" when at the end of the day it's really just "Us".


----------



## Tez3

zDom said:


> Not sure if they are rare enough for me. For example, BJ's separated rib in his fight vs Matt Hughes -- I hate to have to let my cardio drop and then retrain it back up. Much easier to stay in cardio-shape then get into cardio shape.
> 
> Also, fwiw, the UFC-type games aren't the only ones I feel are "too risky" (for me).
> 
> I also think judo, muay thai, and pro football, for example, are sports in which you seriously risk body parts (specifically: KNEES which kickers value highly!)
> 
> Part of my opinion is related to my age: at 25, the rehab time for injuries wasn't nearly as long as I find them to be at nearly 40.


 
You guys really complicate things! To say you over intellectualise martial arts would be an understatement To every one I know who trains and fights we do it because its fun! We enjoy it, so you get a bit hurt every so often... and? I'm considerably older than 40 and I still train and fight. An American friend of ours Skip Hall is over 60 and he still fights.We had him over to fight on one of our shows a couple of years ago, he was brilliant. Why train in martial arts and not fight? Would you learn to swim on dry land or learn to ride a bicycle by using a gym one? 

Whats best for SD? A suit of armour and a big gun? sometimes the best thing is your tongue... talk your way out, sometimes a kick in the groin, sometimes running away. You can't prepare for every single eventuality, just be prepared. I ve trained with some very hard men, mostly ones who've done the doors in rough areas as well as Paras and Royal Marines. I don't have any false confidence about what I can do but for sure whatever I do I will mean it.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

> much doubt that it is the most efficient way to teach something.


 


When i first saw this I had been going to pose the question of what "something" it wasn't good to teach but I think in this next segment we have the answer I was after: 





> I see the process as having to first memorize the form, then be able to do it, and only then be able to break apart the component motions and run through various bunkai. These bunkai might not necessarily be grouped together except that they use a similar motion. I think that I waste alot of time trying to memorize the order of movements in the air that would be better spent on just drilling the techniques and then sparring etc. Also, there is a sort of perfection of kata for the sake of perfection of kata impulse in the practice of many TMA training halls. Lastly, I think that the ability to judge a person's fighting skill by how they perform their kata is almost entirely off base.


 


THERE it is. 



I think we just nailed the root cause for misunderstanding. 



You aren't the only one to make the assertion that forms are not the best way to develop physical fighting skill. 



This could be because your source of forms is ostensibly Japanese/Okinawan and mine is Indonesian and there could be cultural as well as personal differences on the point and purpose thereof, but I submit that forms are not intended as the tool to sharpen the *physical* side of fighting at all, but rather the muscle memory/nervous system/concentration aspect that must accompany the physical side. The physical can be addressed by such things as sparring or scenario training and the like, but i find that in the midst of a drill or form like movement, that my level of concentration deepens to an extent it never does in any other activity, and just only yesterday in class i could see the form like drills i had been doing were paying off in my nervous system ( a drill that had an artsy component to it but had sound principles as its underpinning jumed right out of me while i was trying to attempt a newer technique i was learning but hadn't gotten down yet. The movement didn't look as clean or artistic as the drill, rather more sloppy, and yet the principles--checking the attack, moving in outside his arc and arresting his entire rotational axis--all snapped together and worked. He didn't know what was coming either because rather humorously, we had been doing Kali drills and this was a Silat technique that jumped out of me  ). This is what I mean about burning principles into the muscle memory--as we all know, when sparring or otherwise going at full speed there is not time to be worrying about perfect technique. If you have both components, you can be more "loose" and upright and fluid in your actions and when an opportunity presents itself you can make an opening with a more basic move and then "it" will find its way in by itself, make more sense now? 





> I agree that this is the major factor. I should point out, though, that many of the people who are now in MMA quit TMA schools that DID know how to break down bunkai and DID practice them hard. I also should point out that some TMA people do understand at least some of how MMA works as well. I don't believe that this contreversy is fundamentally one of ignorance.


 
Well that would correspond with my earlier point about doing an art, deciding something else offered something they felt they needed and seeking it out. Which is what you're supposed to do. In the same way I finally decided as i described before, to more intelligently tailor my training to make my own limitations less "limiting. Which is what you're supposed to do. 









> I think is alot of stuff in katas.


 


Indeed. So many things that a lot of them don't often get seen by....pretty much *anyone* outside a given style's students or someone who "discovered" an application( more accurately we must perhaps say "REdiscovered") and that alone could be an advantage for a defender on sheer surprise value. 









> I'm glad that you found what you wanted.


 


Thanks. Me too, though as you can see I also haven't shut my eyes upon finding it.  









> Let me see if I can put out my thoughts on this; I don't know if it will make much sense or not.
> 
> 
> 
> By way of analogy, people have been running since there were people. The earliest organized sporting events in the world were footraces. We know by the times recorded by knotburing during races of ancient times approximately how fast some of their top long distance runners were. We know times since the invention of the mechanical clock for races for centuries. We know pretty exact times from the invention of the stopwatch. What do these measurements consistantly show us? People getting faster and faster.
> 
> 
> 
> The Roman top runnners were faster than the Greeks, the middle ages had faster runners still, they got faster and faster all the way up until today and every couple years our top runners still break records. The Olympians of the early 1900s would lose high school nationals today.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, this is running. As simple and basic and fundamentally unchanging, "same human body" as any human activity I can think of. It is simple to practice and simple to execute. It is older than any martial art. There isn't any secret technique to it. Yet, somehow, same human body and all, no new limbs, no new techniques, we keep getting faster. This is the result of incrementally improving training methods. We find better postures that shave just tiny seconds off your marathon, we find better theories of nutrition and muscle recovery and gaitstepping and so forth. None of these things ever really had some big revolution, they just keep getting better a little bit at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting is a similar way. There are those who look to the past because of legends and stories and the myths of the ages and say the ancient Chinese monks or the samurai of the Edo period or the post-WWII koreans already figured it out; they've got it all down, no more need to get in the ring, or on the platform or step out in the alley and see if maybe someone can do it a bit better (or alot better when you add up all the improvements). It often just comes out as "we have confidence in our tradition, thank you very much, and if you don't share our faith then you can burn."


 


It does make sense, although I might suggest an additional viewpoint. 



The view you seem to take seems to me to have the same potential for problems in it as the view which the classical fencing community had of itself in the late 19th/much of the 20th century (problems in viewpoints are not unique to ANY community, but please bear with me a moment):



At this time, it was believed that the study of swordplay had evolved purely on an artistic, technical basis in a single, linear path of evolution to their prsent day( conveniently overlooking the fact that the sword by this time had not been a serious weapon of battle, or even civilian duel anymore for quite some while). Of course, a necessary part of this line of thinking was that if their art, as they believed had reached the pinnacle of it's "evolution", then they must necessarily place themselves at that "pinnacle" as well. 



I would tend to look at this evolution not as a linear progression, but rather cyclical: 



For example, if I were to continue on with the fencing analogy, the generally accepted theory was that the "thrust" was "discovered" in the early 16th century( I suppose spears back to the stone age didn't count, or Vegetius Flavius Renatus' teachings in the Late Roman Empire that the thrust should be the preferred mode of engagement for the legions of the time, but nevermind), and the "crude, briutish" cutting blows fell out of favor becaiuse their skills were "inferior". 



This outlook does not take into account the actual realities surrounding the cultural and combative circumstances of the actual weapons and styles at that time: 

*With the large scale military application of gunpowder in the 14th century, armor began to decline and so changes in the sword began to occurin ways that reflected the times; with armor in decline and the shield almost completely abandoned except for the buckler, swords began to develop more complex hilts and guards to protect the hands in direct answer to the new combat condition of unarmored/less armored hands.

*As the Medieval period gave way to the Renaissance, social conditions affected swordplay as well--now anyone who could afford to own a sword could carry it, and codes of personal "honor" more often led to private duels.

*Following directly from this development, sword shapes and styles changed to suit the rules/customs of those duels.

*Following directly from *this* came the rapier, which came to be intensely optimized for thrusting and eventually had a sharp point only, because with armor gone save a buckler or gauntlet depending on what the participants in the duel decided upon, a straight line thrust became a quicker and much more effective way to end the fight in civilian situations than in pitched battle, where a cutting edge and edge blows would serve more use--able to engage in more directions than straight ahead and no worries that if you found yourself flanked you could only effectively attack in one direction at a time. (In fact when i was last in England I visited all of the major arms and armor museums and was amused to see swords with rapierlike compound hilts mislabeled "rapiers" solely on the basis odf hilt design despite having what were clearly cut-and-thrust blades==a true rapier has very little cutting capacity compared to a sword at all, and its "edges" would only be sharpened to discourage it from being grabbed, since if you can control its point, you effectively neuter its entire offensive capability--the main reason it was nearly alays used with a dagger, cloak, or other companion weapon). 

*Paradoxically, with the decline of armor, older cutting blades found new life on the battlefield again (during the heyday of plate armor, axes, maces hammers, the poleaxe and the longbow were the anti-plate weapons of best efficacy, though there was a specialized sword called a "tuck", "Estoc" or "Panzerstecker" depending if you were English, French or German, designed to fight plate by beating on it and thrusting into its gaps.With plate gone, older heirloom blades were rehilted andbrouht back( I saw one Scottish example of a basket hilted broadsword, where the hilt was 17th century but the blade was 12th).

Old techniques finding new life again.

*later, by the 18th century, with the duel by now in sharp decline, the disappearance of the sword in civilian dress, the rapier and its lighter, faster, more specialized descendant the smallsword, disappeared as martial arts and began the trend toward the classical sport we now know as fencing, while the hanger and the sabre (both optimized as *cutting swords*) actually outlasted the fencing blades in actual combat use, with the last sabre produced for the US Cavalry for actual use other than an item of dress, issued in 1914.

It happens that where I live, only a summer ago, there was a spate of youth violence involving machete use as well, and while I've no illusions about going unarmed against such a thing, I'm very grateful many of the drills i learn in kali were based around swods of a very machete like blade profile.

Old techniques finding new life again.


I'm very sorry this turned out to be so longwinded, but is it easier now for you to be able to see why I view martial evolution not as linear but cyclical?







> I don't train this way. I look at it this way: A knifefighter uses body mechanics conducive to getting his knife used to the best effect. Defending against that knife is fundamentally different than defending against punches or kicks. Against a knife, risky tactics sometimes have to come out because if you can't control the knife you've lost anyway... I wouldn't risk some of them against an unarmed fighter.


 
This is one of those things we would have a much easier time discussing where we could each share techniques in person so as to illustrate why we each approach it the way we do.


At this point I don't expect total agreement, but it's been a productive talk just the same.


----------



## Rook

Andy Moynihan said:


> When i first saw this I had been going to pose the question of what "something" it wasn't good to teach but I think in this next segment we have the answer I was after:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THERE it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we just nailed the root cause for misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't the only one to make the assertion that forms are not the best way to develop physical fighting skill.
> 
> 
> 
> This could be because your source of forms is ostensibly Japanese/Okinawan and mine is Indonesian and there could be cultural as well as personal differences on the point and purpose thereof, but I submit that forms are not intended as the tool to sharpen the *physical* side of fighting at all, but rather the muscle memory/nervous system/concentration aspect that must accompany the physical side. The physical can be addressed by such things as sparring or scenario training and the like, but i find that in the midst of a drill or form like movement, that my level of concentration deepens to an extent it never does in any other activity, and just only yesterday in class i could see the form like drills i had been doing were paying off in my nervous system ( a drill that had an artsy component to it but had sound principles as its underpinning jumed right out of me while i was trying to attempt a newer technique i was learning but hadn't gotten down yet. The movement didn't look as clean or artistic as the drill, rather more sloppy, and yet the principles--checking the attack, moving in outside his arc and arresting his entire rotational axis--all snapped together and worked. He didn't know what was coming either because rather humorously, we had been doing Kali drills and this was a Silat technique that jumped out of me  ). This is what I mean about burning principles into the muscle memory--as we all know, when sparring or otherwise going at full speed there is not time to be worrying about perfect technique. If you have both components, you can be more "loose" and upright and fluid in your actions and when an opportunity presents itself you can make an opening with a more basic move and then "it" will find its way in by itself, make more sense now?


 
I think I see better where you are coming from, and I agree that this is more true of arts from areas other than Okinawa.  

I ussually think of developing techniques as first in the air, to get the feel for it and be able to use techniques without needing to borrow balance from the target, if striking I then moving to the heavy bag to slowly do the technique correctly, then to focus pads to try to up the accuracy.  Eventually, I try to use it in full speed sparring, making a point to use the correct technique even if less polished movements seem more natural.  When it doesn't work as planned, I take what went wrong and go back to the heavy bag and focus pads, paying particular attention to that aspect.  If the technique is coming out seriously flawed, I go back to the air and start over.  

If throwing, I often don't practice on the air very much at all except within the kata (certain motions double as throws), and most of my work is within semi-resistant drills.  That is, I try to execute the throw while a person tries to safely resist being thrown with a level of resistance appropriate for our respective skill levels.  

When doing groundwork we mix drills to develop new techniques with full resistance (ie competitive) freestyle work.  There is no air work there.  

I think that a person could develop fighting skills with predominently air (including kata as well as shadowboxing and individual techniques and combos), heavy bag, focus pads, prearranged drills (including "one step sparring" and the like) or heavy sparring, but I try for a balance.  Of course, the professionals who have more time and more developed skills tend to have a different mix of times.  I think that there is a great disagreement on what that balance should be and, for some martial artists, there is a disagreement on whether many of the later things on my list are of value or not.   

I enjoyed comparing perspectives on this.  



> Well that would correspond with my earlier point about doing an art, deciding something else offered something they felt they needed and seeking it out. Which is what you're supposed to do. In the same way I finally decided as i described before, to more intelligently tailor my training to make my own limitations less "limiting. Which is what you're supposed to do.


 
Agreed.  



> Indeed. So many things that a lot of them don't often get seen by....pretty much *anyone* outside a given style's students or someone who "discovered" an application( more accurately we must perhaps say "REdiscovered") and that alone could be an advantage for a defender on sheer surprise value.


 
True.  



> Thanks. Me too, though as you can see I also haven't shut my eyes upon finding it.


 
Oh, I haven't stopped reading about other arts and looking at their viewpoints.  I just find it hard to argue with the results of the MMAists.  When I first started to look seriously at martial arts, I was of the general impression that all styles were more or less equal... then they were optimized for different people and body types... then some of them were an improvement on others but there were lots of valid ones... and finally I ended up more or less fully in the MMA intellectual camp.  



> It does make sense, although I might suggest an additional viewpoint.
> 
> The view you seem to take seems to me to have the same potential for problems in it as the view which the classical fencing community had of itself in the late 19th/much of the 20th century (problems in viewpoints are not unique to ANY community, but please bear with me a moment):
> 
> At this time, it was believed that the study of swordplay had evolved purely on an artistic, technical basis in a single, linear path of evolution to their prsent day( conveniently overlooking the fact that the sword by this time had not been a serious weapon of battle, or even civilian duel anymore for quite some while). Of course, a necessary part of this line of thinking was that if their art, as they believed had reached the pinnacle of it's "evolution", then they must necessarily place themselves at that "pinnacle" as well.
> 
> I would tend to look at this evolution not as a linear progression, but rather cyclical:
> 
> For example, if I were to continue on with the fencing analogy, the generally accepted theory was that the "thrust" was "discovered" in the early 16th century( I suppose spears back to the stone age didn't count, or Vegetius Flavius Renatus' teachings in the Late Roman Empire that the thrust should be the preferred mode of engagement for the legions of the time, but nevermind), and the "crude, briutish" cutting blows fell out of favor becaiuse their skills were "inferior".
> 
> This outlook does not take into account the actual realities surrounding the cultural and combative circumstances of the actual weapons and styles at that time:
> 
> *With the large scale military application of gunpowder in the 14th century, armor began to decline and so changes in the sword began to occurin ways that reflected the times; with armor in decline and the shield almost completely abandoned except for the buckler, swords began to develop more complex hilts and guards to protect the hands in direct answer to the new combat condition of unarmored/less armored hands.
> 
> *As the Medieval period gave way to the Renaissance, social conditions affected swordplay as well--now anyone who could afford to own a sword could carry it, and codes of personal "honor" more often led to private duels.
> 
> *Following directly from this development, sword shapes and styles changed to suit the rules/customs of those duels.
> 
> *Following directly from *this* came the rapier, which came to be intensely optimized for thrusting and eventually had a sharp point only, because with armor gone save a buckler or gauntlet depending on what the participants in the duel decided upon, a straight line thrust became a quicker and much more effective way to end the fight in civilian situations than in pitched battle, where a cutting edge and edge blows would serve more use--able to engage in more directions than straight ahead and no worries that if you found yourself flanked you could only effectively attack in one direction at a time. (In fact when i was last in England I visited all of the major arms and armor museums and was amused to see swords with rapierlike compound hilts mislabeled "rapiers" solely on the basis odf hilt design despite having what were clearly cut-and-thrust blades==a true rapier has very little cutting capacity compared to a sword at all, and its "edges" would only be sharpened to discourage it from being grabbed, since if you can control its point, you effectively neuter its entire offensive capability--the main reason it was nearly alays used with a dagger, cloak, or other companion weapon).
> 
> *Paradoxically, with the decline of armor, older cutting blades found new life on the battlefield again (during the heyday of plate armor, axes, maces hammers, the poleaxe and the longbow were the anti-plate weapons of best efficacy, though there was a specialized sword called a "tuck", "Estoc" or "Panzerstecker" depending if you were English, French or German, designed to fight plate by beating on it and thrusting into its gaps.With plate gone, older heirloom blades were rehilted andbrouht back( I saw one Scottish example of a basket hilted broadsword, where the hilt was 17th century but the blade was 12th).
> 
> Old techniques finding new life again.
> 
> *later, by the 18th century, with the duel by now in sharp decline, the disappearance of the sword in civilian dress, the rapier and its lighter, faster, more specialized descendant the smallsword, disappeared as martial arts and began the trend toward the classical sport we now know as fencing, while the hanger and the sabre (both optimized as *cutting swords*) actually outlasted the fencing blades in actual combat use, with the last sabre produced for the US Cavalry for actual use other than an item of dress, issued in 1914.
> 
> It happens that where I live, only a summer ago, there was a spate of youth violence involving machete use as well, and while I've no illusions about going unarmed against such a thing, I'm very grateful many of the drills i learn in kali were based around swods of a very machete like blade profile.
> 
> Old techniques finding new life again.
> 
> 
> I'm very sorry this turned out to be so longwinded, but is it easier now for you to be able to see why I view martial evolution not as linear but cyclical?


 
I see your point.   Its an interesting arguement.  



> This is one of those things we would have a much easier time discussing where we could each share techniques in person so as to illustrate why we each approach it the way we do.
> 
> At this point I don't expect total agreement, but it's been a productive talk just the same.


 
Agreed.  I'm glad that the thread has taken this turn.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> Why train in martial arts and not fight? Would you learn to swim on dry land or learn to ride a bicycle by using a gym one?



Well, let me answer this with your swimming analogy:

IMO, there are ways and places to practice "survival swimming" other than in the North Atlantic with 20-foot swells.

Nothing wrong with spending most of your time in a pool, lake or pond with an occassional visit to the ocean to swim out past the breakers in some three or four foot swells, is there? 

I'm still swimming, and if need be, I'm pretty sure I could survive for a short while in the North Atlantic in case I fall off a cruise ship and have to wait for a boat to get me back on board, eh?



Moving on the next analogy,

While there are some things you can only learn from being on a REAL bike, you can certainly train your legs and cardio up on a stationary bike. And if you already KNOW how to ride a bike and don't want to ride outside in the rain, why not get a workout on a stationary bike?

Ok, enough analogies for now 

I like fighting, to a certain extent. I LOVE ITF-style continuous sparring -- it is my favorite game in the whole world. I even like to play it rough. And believe me, while I don't want to play the UFC game, I very much doubt there are very many UFC fighters who would like to play ITF full contact game with me for very long   I'm very, very good at it. And I hit very, very hard (when I want to) with both feet and hands.

On the other hand, I don't like rehabilitating injuries. I despise it.

Different strokes for different folks.

I DO like watching just about any fight game where kicking is part of the action -- including UFC, Pride Fighting, and I just saw a new one the other day -- IFC or something like that.

Now a question: these 60-year old guys are playing full-contact MMA games? Or just training MMA?

If they are fighting full contact at that age, kudos! Some tough old birds -- they definately have my respect and I wish them the best of luck.


----------



## Tez3

Skip Hall is a fulltime professional fighter. Look him up on Sherdog. It will surprise you I promise. He fought Dan Severn a couple of months ago. he also judges on UFC. Also on Sherdog look up Pride & Glory Ultimate fighting, that's our promotion and you will see he fought on "Glory Days".


----------



## ktanaka

Rook said:


> Ok. You realize that there really isn't any way to prove something without evidence... you have stories, I've heard them, they might be true, but there isn't anything to give credence to them.
> Even if its true, we know nothing about the opponents. Are they people who are trained fighters? How big are they? How much punishment can they take? How is their conditioning? Without any sort of record of their own, and no video to estimate off of, there isn't really a way to know.
> True enough. Cultural trappings aren't really necessary for fighting.
> Ok. See above questions about video, opponents capabilities etc.
> 
> Same questions.
> 1. How do we know that this actually happened?
> 2. How capable were the opponents?
> 
> I don't know. That's the problem.
> Same questions...
> True.
> Always. Without evidence, any story goes, and then we're just back into legend and myth, and wondering whether Zhang Shen hitting a man into the air so hard he never came down is more impressive than Li Shun Long blasting someone with a lighting bolt.
> I don't think that will happen. Most ring matches and even no rules challenge matches end without any injury requiring hospitalization.
> That would certainly help, but I don't think it would adjust the final conclusions.
> See above.
> I think that MMA rules are the maximum amount of rules that can cover a fighting competition. Those rules, or fewer rules than those (ie MMA less a few or all), are the situations in which it is relavent to compare skills.


 
It bemuses me to read some of the above postings. It is something that americans who have never lived in asia and trained in asia ever understand. Whether it be on the octagon or in a martial art tournament in the U.S., to an asian watching these folks, they still fight like it was a SPORT!!!

Over the years the true essence of martial arts have been tainted by half baked sel professing martial artist who think just because they have trained five years and have gotten their black belts are already true karatekas. The belt means nothing. The essence of it is in ones heart and soul. The belt is just an outward expression.

Martial Arts training in asia is a matter of life or death. I remember my sempai who was in training for two years in training for two years at the Honbu (JKA) dojo in Japan came home in the middle of his training distressed. One student at the dojo died during the training (that was just a mere training)....distressing it was. In asia you train with a single objective, to down your opponent with one blow. To do that you have to train each technique with the right purpose, precision, and power in mind. A hundred throws or punches a day dont make the cut. Martial Arts trainining as it is supposed to be is a matter of life and death. Only through facing that fact, that you will be able to face death threatenning situations with a clearer mind. Funny, if you think about it, you do not punch somone in the face... you finger strike them in the eyes, ridge/spear hand them in the neck. You punch them in the solar plexus!

I have every respect for Grandmaster Pu Gil Gwon, Gandmaster Park, Shihan Asai, Shihan Egami, etc...... These martial artists trained during world war times (World War 2, Korean War) They have a different mentality as far as martial arts training goes. And too bad they are a dying breed. Heaven knows how deadly these people are if they ever chose to. Never have I seen anybody break boards like pu gil gwon (spear hand!) I would never want to feel the tip of that finger strike any part of my neck!


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

ktanaka said:


> It bemuses me to read some of the above postings. It is something that americans who have never lived in asia and trained in asia ever understand. Whether it be on the octagon or in a martial art tournament in the U.S., to an asian watching these folks, they still fight like it was a SPORT!!!
> 
> Over the years the true essence of martial arts have been tainted by half baked sel professing martial artist who think just because they have trained five years and have gotten their black belts are already true karatekas. The belt means nothing. The essence of it is in ones heart and soul. The belt is just an outward expression.
> 
> Martial Arts training in asia is a matter of life or death. I remember my sempai who was in training for two years in training for two years at the Honbu (JKA) dojo in Japan came home in the middle of his training distressed. One student at the dojo died during the training (that was just a mere training)....distressing it was. In asia you train with a single objective, to down your opponent with one blow. To do that you have to train each technique with the right purpose, precision, and power in mind. A hundred throws or punches a day dont make the cut. Martial Arts trainining as it is supposed to be is a matter of life and death. Only through facing that fact, that you will be able to face death threatenning situations with a clearer mind. Funny, if you think about it, you do not punch somone in the face... you finger strike them in the eyes, ridge/spear hand them in the neck. You punch them in the solar plexus!
> 
> I have every respect for Grandmaster Pu Gil Gwon, Gandmaster Park, Shihan Asai, Shihan Egami, etc...... These martial artists trained during world war times (World War 2, Korean War) They have a different mentality as far as martial arts training goes. And too bad they are a dying breed. Heaven knows how deadly these people are if they ever chose to. Never have I seen anybody break boards like pu gil gwon (spear hand!) I would never want to feel the tip of that finger strike any part of my neck!


 
Actually to many Asians martial arts is treated as a hobby or just something you do, similar to way alot of people play football in other countries. At the end of the day, there's nothing special about doing martial arts. With regards its combative applications,the odds are against you ever needing to use them, and a more productive form of defence is studying the "soft" skills of verbal de-escalation and situational awareness.
Any type of personal or mental improvement is not unique to martial arts, and could be achieved in any activity that you dedicate yourself to, since the improvement is the result of an indiviudals discipline and dedication.
The health benefits while good, are in no way profound, and fitness programs such as Crossfit general outstrip them easily.
So the big three of martial arts marketing, are in fact qualities one could easily find elsewhere.
So when it comes down to it, there really is only one true proper reason to study martial arts. Because you enjoy it.
It doesn't matter if you're fighting in a ring, or if like doing forms, or studying weapons, or for some strange reason like punching pieces of wood.
All that matter is you enjoy it, because thats the only one that will really ever come up.


----------



## Tez3

I agree with Shotgun Buddha, Asians treat martial arts the same as we do, the days of fighting to the death are very long gone. I don't understand why people hit pieces of wood either!


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

Tez3 said:


> I agree with Shotgun Buddha, Asians treat martial arts the same as we do, the days of fighting to the death are very long gone. I don't understand why people hit pieces of wood either!


 
I swear Officer, that oak tree started it, it was checking out my wife!


----------



## Tez3

And as for that Pine tree it's so aggressive!


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> I don't understand why people hit pieces of wood either!



Because boards don't hit back, of course! 

Seriously though, it is a nice test of focus. I like breaking wood. I find it very satisfying.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

zDom said:


> Because boards don't hit back, of course!
> 
> Seriously though, it is a nice test of focus. I like breaking wood. I find it very satisfying.


 
Then thats best reason for doing it. Only really valid reason for most of the training we do is because we like it.


----------

