# Is Wing Chun even viable.



## ZockerSWAT

My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.

I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you can do this, you don't need anything else.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Want to see a YouBoob video about how muay thai is useless?






Using YouBoob as a reference is... questionable... to say the least.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

Dirty Dog said:


> Want to see a YouBoob video about how muay thai is useless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using YouBoob as a reference is... questionable... to say the least.




Sorry, but I dont quite understand. 
Also sorry if this comes out as a Hypocrytical response but I actually dont get what you are trying to say,
I am tired, got punched in the face,.. a lot today (was fun) so I hope you can understand.
Thanks ^^


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Instead of thinking about what MA skill that you can get from a particular MA style, you should first decide what MA skill that you want to develop first. You then find a path (which style) that can help you to get there. In AI, this is called backward search.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Instead of thinking what MA skill that you can get from a particular MA style, you should first decide what MA skill that you want to develop first. You then find a path (which style) that can help you to get there. In AI, this is called backward search.



I think that answer may satisfy my brother, thanks!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ZockerSWAT said:


> I think that answer may satisfy my brother, thanks!


If you want to develop

- roundhouse kick, you take the MT path.
- side kick, you take the TKD path.
- hook punch, you take the boxing path.
- hip throw, you take the Chinese wrestling (or Judo) path.
- single leg, you take the wrestling path.
- ground game, you take the BJJ path.
- center line principle (or chain punches), you take the WC path.
- ...

If you want to develop "flying knee", WC will not be your path.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ZockerSWAT said:


> Sorry, but I dont quite understand.
> Also sorry if this comes out as a Hypocrytical response but I actually dont get what you are trying to say,
> I am tired, got punched in the face,.. a lot today (was fun) so I hope you can understand.
> Thanks ^^



What I am saying is that you can find some silly video that claims to "prove" just about any silly idea you can think of.

Here's one showing people who will do their best to convince you that the earth is flat.





Here's one to prove that the moon landings were faked.





Here's a whole web site about a Secret Planet, knowledge of which is being Suppressed by the Government Conspiracy, that is about to Destroy Earth Any Day Now.
Nibiru | The 12th Planet, The Nephilim & The Creation Of Humans

The point is that instead of watching some stupid video, you should go train. So should your brother. Who wins your sparring match will be determined more by natural ability and ability to apply what you're learning than by which art you're studying.


----------



## Headhunter

Who cares. Training wing chun is better than sitting around playing video games. Whether or not it's "viable" it's still a good thing to do for health and social benefits


----------



## Martial D

ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?


Wing Chun is great, I love it.

With that said, learn to fight first. You won't learn to fight doing just WingChun.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Who cares. Training wing chun is better than sitting around playing video games. Whether or not it's "viable" it's still a good thing to do for health and social benefits



If you don't care about the results then video games is every bit as good as anything else. If wing chun can say self defense and it doesn't matter. Video games can claim fitness. I mean why even expect standards.

Seriously the responses we are getting on this thread.


----------



## drop bear

ZockerSWAT said:


> Sorry, but I dont quite understand.
> Also sorry if this comes out as a Hypocrytical response but I actually dont get what you are trying to say,
> I am tired, got punched in the face,.. a lot today (was fun) so I hope you can understand.
> Thanks ^^



Something along the lines of don't ever trust an external source only obey you instructor. Which is super weird.


Otherwise.
If the chun produces fighters then their system works. And you test that by either sparring those guys, talking to qualified guys who have sparred them or looking at their competition record.

Same with the Muay Thai.

Self defense is a term that quite simply has no meaning in a martial arts context because it is just too vague an idea.

Weasel word? Is the advertising term.
Pop Goes the Weasel Word! Top 6 Vague and Meaningless Words and...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Self defense is a term that quite simply has no meaning in a martial arts context because it is just too vague an idea....


Instead of to obtain self-defense ability, I prefer to obtain the ability to protect my love one. I believe both require different skills. 

Self-defense - run away, hide in your cave, beg your opponent not to hurt you, ...
Protect your love one - make your opponent to regret that his mother ever brought him into this world, ...


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Instead of to obtain self-defense ability, I prefer to obtain the ability to protect my love one. I believe both require different skills.
> 
> Self-defense - run away, hide in your cave, beg your opponent not to hurt you, ...
> Protect your love one - make your opponent to regret that his mother ever brought him into this world, ...



It could just mean be rich and live in a nice area.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> It could just mean be rich and live in a nice area.


To me, self-defense means selfish. It doesn't have the spirit to help the

- weak to fight against the strong.
- good to defeat the evil.

With great power comes great responsibility.

A: Why do you train MA for?
B: I train MA for self-defense.
C: I train MA for world peace.

IMO, C > B


----------



## JowGaWolf

ZockerSWAT said:


> he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one.


He shouldn't get upset about videos like that.  People who usually make videos like have a agenda to make you think the same way that they do about a martial art.

I don't like Wing Chun but not because I think it's fake.  If you get a good Wing Chun practitioner that knows what he's doing, then it's not going to be an easy fight.  Like always this says more about the fighter and less about the system.   Just because you know Wing Chun or any Martial Arts doesn't mean you are going to be good at it.  You have to work it and practice the applications in various scenarios.   You are going to lose or fail a lot before you get good at it.  This is the same with anything from playing the piano to fighting.   It's the natural way of learning.

People say Muay Thai is awesome but in reality the people that usually prove that point are professional Muay Thai fighters. They are not your average Muay Thai students, who like everyone else travel from beginner to advanced level.  You yourself is a perfect example of that type of student.  How far you advance depends on your training and commitment.  This is the same with Wing Chun and every martial art out there.  Is the person training to actually be able to fight using Wing Chun or are they only doing forms and drills?

Everyone sucks at the beginning.  EVERYONE.  Some improve faster, some improve slower, but everyone sucks at the beginning.  How good will wing chun be for a person in a fight.  It just all depends on their training, do they only spar with other Wing Chun people?  If so then you probably won't get much effectiveness out of Wing Chun.  If you use wing chun against different fighters, then you'll be much better with Wing Chun than someone who only trains Style A vs Style A (Wing Chun vs Wing Chun).

The one thing that will make you truly fail at Wing Chun is not trusting the techniques and bailing out of the training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Headhunter said:


> Who cares. Training wing chun is better than sitting around playing video games.


Definitely not true for me.  Invite me to Train Wing Chun or Invite me to play video games.  I'm going to take the video games lol.  Wing Chun just doesn't have the stuff that I like and that pretty much goes with what Wang was saying.  Find out what types of strikes, kicks, and grabs interest you and then go out and choose a martial arts that does that. Training and be good at it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Self-defense - run away, hide in your cave, beg your opponent not to hurt you


This will sometimes get you killed.  Run away is not always the best option.  Sometimes it shows you are afraid and encourages the attack.  

Self-defense consist of a lot things with the main goal of either not being in a fight, conflict, or coming out on the healthier side of a conflict that turns physical.


----------



## VPT

JowGaWolf said:


> People say Muay Thai is awesome but in reality the people that usually prove that point are professional Muay Thai fighters. They are not your average Muay Thai students, who like everyone else travel from beginner to advanced level.  You yourself is a perfect example of that type of student.  How far you advance depends on your training and commitment.  This is the same with Wing Chun and every martial art out there.  Is the person training to actually be able to fight using Wing Chun or are they only doing forms and drills?



Also: people who say Muay Thai is awesome only seem to think about the athletes that are on the top of their game. They don't come to think of the average Joe, who only does it for the fitness and the thrills of a good exercise, but who does not want to get to the ring, or even might be scared of doing that; he might not even be any good at what he does, but he does it anyway since he likes it. 

This goes to show the values that people too often unwittingly commit to when it goes to their preferences in martial arts. I've seen lots of flack against Taido because "it would get you killed in T3H STREETZ" or "it can't win against other styles". This shows a hidden agenda that a real value of any martial arts practice is the superior outcome of a violent encounter, either consensual (a sporting event) or not (civilian protection). Hell, many people like to train martial arts because the practice and the social bonds they form in the activity are meaningful to the individual themselves which, in the context of the society at large, is way more laudable and preferable than a hierarchical pecking order based on a superiority in skills involving physical violence.

Rant over.


----------



## JowGaWolf

VPT said:


> Also: people who say Muay Thai is awesome only seem to think about the athletes that are on the top of their game. They don't come to think of the average Joe, who only does it for the fitness and the thrills of a good exercise, but who does not want to get to the ring, or even might be scared of doing that; he might not even be any good at what he does, but he does it anyway since he likes it.
> 
> This goes to show the values that people too often unwittingly commit to when it goes to their preferences in martial arts. I've seen lots of flack against Taido because "it would get you killed in T3H STREETZ" or "it can't win against other styles". This shows a hidden agenda that a real value of any martial arts practice is the superior outcome of a violent encounter, either consensual (a sporting event) or not (civilian protection). Hell, many people like to train martial arts because the practice and the social bonds they form in the activity are meaningful to the individual themselves which, in the context of the society at large, is way more laudable and preferable than a hierarchical pecking order based on a superiority in skills involving physical violence.
> 
> Rant over.


yep funny how it works.  "If it's not in professional fighting then it's no good."  The reality is, "It's not what someone else can do with martial arts, it's what I can do with it."  Because I'm the one who has to use it, not the professional fighter.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> yep funny how it works.  "If it's not in professional fighting then it's no good."  The reality is, "It's not what someone else can do with martial arts, it's what I can do with it."  Because I'm the one who has to use it, not the professional fighter.



If you have a bunch of professional fighters in the gym then you at least know you are going to get trained to a reasonable standard. 

I mean the expectation you have when you learn something is that the person teaching you has any sort of clue as to what he is doing. 

If you have no talent or more importantly have no commitment to be trained.That is a sepparate issue. 

Now if you have no talent you should be more inclined to seek out good training because you are going to need all the help you can get. If you have no talent you will have to also train longer and harder. Not less. 

I am really lost with this line of logic. Why do we constantly inspire people towards mediocrity?


----------



## drop bear

VPT said:


> Also: people who say Muay Thai is awesome only seem to think about the athletes that are on the top of their game. They don't come to think of the average Joe, who only does it for the fitness and the thrills of a good exercise, but who does not want to get to the ring, or even might be scared of doing that; he might not even be any good at what he does, but he does it anyway since he likes it.
> 
> This goes to show the values that people too often unwittingly commit to when it goes to their preferences in martial arts. I've seen lots of flack against Taido because "it would get you killed in T3H STREETZ" or "it can't win against other styles". This shows a hidden agenda that a real value of any martial arts practice is the superior outcome of a violent encounter, either consensual (a sporting event) or not (civilian protection). Hell, many people like to train martial arts because the practice and the social bonds they form in the activity are meaningful to the individual themselves which, in the context of the society at large, is way more laudable and preferable than a hierarchical pecking order based on a superiority in skills involving physical violence.
> 
> Rant over.



You can do both by the way. Have a system that works and have a positive uplifting atmosphere.

Martial arts for PTSD is a perfect example.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> yep funny how it works.  "If it's not in professional fighting then it's no good."  The reality is, "It's not what someone else can do with martial arts, it's what I can do with it."  Because I'm the one who has to use it, not the professional fighter.


Because in all the years, you are the first to try I guess.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Self-defense consist of a lot things with the main goal of either not being in a fight, conflict, or coming out on the healthier side of a conflict that turns physical.


I have put up this clip before. If you train MA for SD, what will you do if you are in this clip?


----------



## punisher73

The whole "is it viable" argument gets very tiresome.  Wing Chun has made it into the the modern times because it has worked for many people and continues to work for many people.

There are many factors to that statement though.  Ip Man is not going to be in that dark alley that you decided to walk through as a shortcut because you thought you were better than that.  A good system will have you avoid that dark alley and not put yourself at unnecessary risk in the first place.  Awareness is the biggest key to self-defense.  

Next, WC and most other traditional arts were not created for consensual sporting context, Muay Thai and MMA were.  If you put ANY art in an environment it was not designed for, it is probably not going to work as well as something that was.  This also gets into realistic drilling and training for TMA's.  Which is where combat sports really out due an art like WC (or plug in any TMA), they work all the time on resisting people trying to do the same thing back.

So, ultimately, it depends on what your goals are and what you gain from your training.


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> Is it viable, or fake?


Define "viable."  Viable for *WHAT*?  Viable for *WHO*?

You know what?  Don't answer.  I got tired of the whole "martial art X sucks" arguments a few decades ago.  Whether or not WC (or any/every other TMA/non-TMA) is "viable" is such well worn cloth that it's past being threadbare and is falling apart at the seams.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If you have a bunch of professional fighters in the gym then you at least know you are going to get trained to a reasonable standard.
> 
> I mean the expectation you have when you learn something is that the person teaching you has any sort of clue as to what he is doing.
> 
> If you have no talent or more importantly have no commitment to be trained.That is a sepparate issue.
> 
> Now if you have no talent you should be more inclined to seek out good training because you are going to need all the help you can get. If you have no talent you will have to also train longer and harder. Not less.
> 
> I am really lost with this line of logic. Why do we constantly inspire people towards mediocrity?


 That's a good question with no simple answer other than money and an effort to keep students who don't want to be their best.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have put up this clip before. If you train MA for SD, what will you do if you are in this clip?


For me, that wouldn't be a self-defense situation. That would be a moral situation. There are some things I just don't want to be as a person.  In my eyes sometimes people should be bigger than who they.  sometimes you just have to do what's right even when it means you'll lose.  

I'm protective by nature so it wouldn't be unrealistic for me to step up.  Since I understand this about me.  I want to give myself the best chance of a positive outcome for me.  I don't want to step up just to take a beating.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

lklawson said:


> Define "viable."  Viable for *WHAT*?  Viable for *WHO*?
> 
> You know what?  Don't answer.  I got tired of the whole "martial art X sucks" arguments a few decades ago.  Whether or not WC (or any/every other TMA/non-TMA) is "viable" is such well worn cloth that it's past being threadbare and is falling apart at the seams.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



With all do respect, but if you dont want to answer or if you are tired of it then dont click on this post.
Nobody is forcing you to come on this post. And this isnt a "Martial art x sucks" post.
Asking if something is viable in this case a *Self-defence* Martial Art, and asking if its
viable, you can think that its related to self defence.

But to be honest if you dont want to answer, then dont answer.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

punisher73 said:


> The whole "is it viable" argument gets very tiresome.  Wing Chun has made it into the the modern times because it has worked for many people and continues to work for many people.
> 
> There are many factors to that statement though.  Ip Man is not going to be in that dark alley that you decided to walk through as a shortcut because you thought you were better than that.  A good system will have you avoid that dark alley and not put yourself at unnecessary risk in the first place.  Awareness is the biggest key to self-defense.
> 
> Next, WC and most other traditional arts were not created for consensual sporting context, Muay Thai and MMA were.  If you put ANY art in an environment it was not designed for, it is probably not going to work as well as something that was.  This also gets into realistic drilling and training for TMA's.  Which is where combat sports really out due an art like WC (or plug in any TMA), they work all the time on resisting people trying to do the same thing back.
> 
> So, ultimately, it depends on what your goals are and what you gain from your training.




Thanks and I can understand if its tiresome.
But even if its tiresome for you, you gave the best answer you could and I appreciate that!


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> With all do respect, but if you dont want to answer or if you are tired of it then dont click on this post.
> Nobody is forcing you to come on this post. And this isnt a "Martial art x sucks" post.
> Asking if something is viable in this case a *Self-defence* Martial Art, and asking if its
> viable, you can think that its related to self defence.
> 
> But to be honest if you dont want to answer, then dont answer.


The 90's wants its martial arts drama back.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

lklawson said:


> The 90's wants its martial arts drama back.



When somebody makes a solid argument and you try to dodge that argument,
thats not a good sign.
And I gonna say this again as politely as I can,
If you are really bothred, you dont need to come on here,
there is an ingore list you can put me on, or just ignore this post.
I like this post because here are people trying to debate and have a discussion,
I dont see anything wrong with that.


----------



## Danny T

ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?


Glad you are enjoying your muay thai experience.

"Is it (Wing Chun) viable, or fake?"
As an individual who has done years of boxing, wrestling, muay thai, shotokan, and several other martial combat methods as well as wing chun it is my opinion that it is viable when actually trained and practiced with a good instructor in a realistic manner. It is also my opinion that many wc practitioners are poor examples good wc. Just as there are many poor examples of boxers, nak muays, doctors, lawyers, police, politicians, and all other human endeavors.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> For me, that wouldn't be a self-defense situation. That would be a moral situation.


People like to talk about SD. People don't like to take about moral situation any more. I still remember my long fist teacher told all his students that

"If you don't have a good reason to fight and you fight, I'll beat you up when I find out. If you have a good reason to fight and you don't fight, I'll also beat you up when I find out."

The 1st part is easy to understand. The 2nd part is the moral situation. The 侠(Xia) - heroic, brave and chivalrous is a very important part of the CMA training. Unfortunately, people don't talk about it very much today.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I just finished my 2 hours class 20 minutes ago. We use WC Tang Shou to counter hook punch (or hay-maker). When I deal with my opponent's punch, I like to move my arm away from my head (close to my opponent's head). WC Tang Shou is a good tool for that. I don't like the boxing guard that I keep my arms next to my own head.

The WC Tang Shou treats the arm as a water pipe. The water flow from shoulder all the way to the finger tips. Can I find WC Tang Shou in long fist, preying mantis, Baji, Taiji, XingYi, Bagua, ... I can't. IMO, the Tang Shou is quite unique for WC.

I like to share what I think the good stuff in the WC system. IMO, it's the strategy of

- Protect center from inside out.
- If I put my arms in your straight punch path, all your straight punch will have to deal with my arms first. This way I force you to use circular punch on me. When you do that, your head will be exposed.


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> When somebody makes a solid argument and you try to dodge that argument,
> thats not a good sign.
> And I gonna say this again as politely as I can,
> If you are really bothred, you dont need to come on here,
> there is an ingore list you can put me on, or just ignore this post.
> I like this post because here are people trying to debate and have a discussion,
> I dont see anything wrong with that.


OK, I'll be blunt.

This whole line of "is martial art X 'viable' or not" was played out back in the early days of the UFC.  Now the whole thing has become passe and run into the ground.  The only people who bring it up now are the very young who think they've somehow discovered that not every martial art is the same or like the movies (while thinking they've also discovered the "ultimate" martial art) or internet trolls.  Which are you?


----------



## ZockerSWAT

Kung Fu Wang said:


> People like to talk about SD. People don't like to take about moral situation any more. I still remember my long fist teacher told all his students that
> 
> "If you don't have a good reason to fight and you fight, I'll beat you up when I find out. If you have a good reason to fight and you don't fight, I'll also beat you up when I find out."
> 
> The 1st part is easy to understand. The 2nd part is the moral situation. The 侠(Xia) - heroic, brave and chivalrous is a very important opart of the CMA training. Unfortunately, people don't talk about it very much today.



Yeah, I think that is important as well. 
A lot of people just want to fight me, because I said I am doing muay thai training.
Those people come from a little city, that is basicly full of turkish people, like myself.
They all wanna be cool and got a punching bag and want to show how manly they are.
I am just raised not to do any trouble, unless I have a reason.
But I can imagine, and even more for people in my age, that they would've fought
some  or at least one for "sparring" against people that are just trying to be cool
and have 0 experience.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

lklawson said:


> OK, I'll be blunt.
> 
> This whole line of "is martial art X 'viable' or not" was played out back in the early days of the UFC.  Now the whole thing has become passe and run into the ground.  The only people who bring it up now are the very young who think they've somehow discovered that not every martial art is the same or like the movies (while thinking they've also discovered the "ultimate" martial art) or internet trolls.  Which are you?


His age/profile pic may help answer that for you. He's still exploring.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

lklawson said:


> OK, I'll be blunt.
> 
> This whole line of "is martial art X 'viable' or not" was played out back in the early days of the UFC.  Now the whole thing has become passe and run into the ground.  The only people who bring it up now are the very young who think they've somehow discovered that not every martial art is the same or like the movies (while thinking they've also discovered the "ultimate" martial art) or internet trolls.  Which are you?



I dont think there is an "ultimate martial art". Experience is what matters for most of the time.
And of course every martial art is different, or they wouldnt have different names to begin with.
Being an internet troll isnt my stuff either, and you can tell that by the second. I wouldnt invest so much time into this and chatting with people at 12 am with school comming up the next day to find a gym I can go to.
So I would say none.


Your forgot the third group of people who ask that:

Full Newbies who didnt even touch martial arts, till they found interest in it. Every martial art is different, but that doesnt mean every martial art is viable (Be it for xy or xz....).


I thought, that this community had great people who can answer my question politely.
If you go to the "Beginners Corner" section and try to beat down a complete new member with
"I dont want to talk about this topic, I have seen this many times.".
Then why are you on the beginners corner section to begin with?
Do you excpect me to know what happend with the early days of the UFC?
Of course not that is why I am here asking this question to begin with.
You could just say :
"This Topic has been talked about many times now, here is a link to [...] it will explain it better."

I have said many times that I have basicly 0 experience. I am a full on newbie.
Why go full on assault mode?

Edit: Thinking a 14 year old just trying to find his love in Martial Arts knows what happend at the start of the ufc. I probably wasnt even born then yet, or couldnt even walk.


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> I dont think there is an "ultimate martial art". Experience is what matters for most of the time.
> And of course every martial art is different, or they wouldnt have different names to begin with.
> Being an internet troll isnt my stuff either, and you can tell that by the second. I wouldnt invest so much time into this and chatting with people at 12 am with school comming up the next day to find a gym I can go to.
> So I would say none.
> 
> 
> Your forgot the third group of people who ask that:
> 
> Full Newbies who didnt even touch martial arts, till they found interest in it. Every martial art is different, but that doesnt mean every martial art is viable (Be it for xy or xz....).
> 
> 
> I thought, that this community had great people who can answer my question politely.
> If you go to the "Beginners Corner" section and try to beat down a complete new member with
> "I dont want to talk about this topic, I have seen this many times.".
> Then why are you on the beginners corner section to begin with?
> Do you excpect me to know what happend with the early days of the UFC?
> Of course not that is why I am here asking this question to begin with.
> You could just say :
> "This Topic has been talked about many times now, here is a link to [...] it will explain it better."
> 
> I have said many times that I have basicly 0 experience. I am a full on newbie.
> Why go full on assault mode?
> 
> Edit: Thinking a 14 year old just trying to find his love in Martial Arts knows what happend at the start of the ufc. I probably wasnt even born then yet, or couldnt even walk.


I'll continue to be blunt, since it seems to be a bit more effective.

Asking "is martial art X 'viable' or not" is kinda insulting to people who practice X.  It's apt to start a fight, particularly online.

And that's kinda what it seems like you want to do right now.  Fight.

So you want a link?  Fortunately, there's one right here on this very forum:
The Newbie Guide to Martial Arts Training (ver 2.6) - by Jeff Pipkins


----------



## ZockerSWAT

lklawson said:


> I'll continue to be blunt, since it seems to be a bit more effective.
> 
> Asking "is martial art X 'viable' or not" is kinda insulting to people who practice X.  It's apt to start a fight, particularly online.



Some people might, but some might even not get insulted.
Till now, there wasnt anything like that. To have an discussion you need an open mind. Here on this post were 2 people who practiced it
and gave their opinion on it and both of what they said seemed solid.
Somebody told me who wasnt practicing wing chun (or at least I belive he didnt mention that), said that just believing some videos isnt good.
2 People who practiced wing chun said they liked it and said, that with a good teacher and practical applications it can be viable. (Just like you need to spar in any other martial art to make that viable as well)

We are here to debate and have a discussion, ... or you guys have a discussion and I read and see everyones views and I make a statement out of it or just ask for one if I dont understand something.

Till now, everyone was friendly, and it seemed like everything was going well, till you tried whatever you are trying.
Its nice, that you dont want anybody to get insulted, but if its the topic of the discussion, everyone is supposed
to come in here with an open mind. I try not to get insulted even though you tried to insult me by basicly calling me
a troll or naive.

I also tried to be as friendly as I can, but you dont seem to be that way. Its okay to be blunt, and I prefer  that, but in a civil, peaceful mannor.

Edit: Can we just please stop this. Everything was going so well. If you really wanna talk about it, we can do it on private messages, but lets not fill this post with all this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

lklawson said:


> Asking "is martial art X 'viable' or not" is kinda insulting to people who practice X.


The long fist is my primary system. If people ask, "Is long fist system good for fighting?" I don't think I will feel been insulted. At least people still know that there is a MA system that's called "long fist". I will be happy to discuss 

- what's good in long fist (good for protecting center from outside in), and
- what's bad in long fist (bad for protecting center from inside out).

If I start a thread, "Is Taiji good for fighting?" Will all Taiji guys on this planet be mad at me? IMO, we should just discuss the subject and not the person who starts the threat.


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> Some people might, but some might even not get insulted.
> Till now, there wasnt anything like that. To have an discussion you need an open mind. Here on this post were 2 people who practiced it
> and gave their opinion on it and both of what they said seemed solid.
> Somebody told me who wasnt practicing wing chun (or at least I belive he didnt mention that), said that just believing some videos isnt good.
> 2 People who practiced wing chun said they liked it and said, that with a good teacher and practical applications it can be viable. (Just like you need to spar in any other martial art to make that viable as well)
> 
> We are here to debate and have a discussion, ... or you guys have a discussion and I read and see everyones views and I make a statement out of it or just ask for one if I dont understand something.
> 
> Till now, everyone was friendly, and it seemed like everything was going well, till you tried whatever you are trying.
> Its nice, that you dont want anybody to get insulted, but if its the topic of the discussion, everyone is supposed
> to come in here with an open mind. I try not to get insulted even though you tried to insult me by basicly calling me
> a troll or naive.
> 
> I also tried to be as friendly as I can, but you dont seem to be that way. Its okay to be blunt, and I prefer  that, but in a civil, peaceful mannor.
> 
> Edit: Can we just please stop this. Everything was going so well. If you really wanna talk about it, we can do it on private messages, but lets not fill this post with all this.


It's Friday. I'm done with this for the weekend.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

lklawson said:


> It's Friday. I'm done with this for the weekend.



Good. Still, wish you a nice weekend, and have a good night!
I am tired 'cause today was the most nerve wrecking day at school.
Got our Grades back (for the first half of the year).

Gn!


----------



## DocWard

After having read through the thread, it seems there is some good information here, and some comments that have left me trying to understand their necessity. My own experience with Wing Chun is very minimal, having done some work outs with a WC stylist when I was in law school and only an intermediate belt level in Kenpo. The guy I worked out with had gravitated to Wing Chun after studying an Okinawan style, Goju Ryu, if I recall correctly. For him, Wing Chun was the better "fit," and was one he was glad he had made. I do recall being impressed with his skill, but it was also clear that he had put a LOT of work into it as well.

After watching the posted clip, I am also of the opinion that for any situation one might find oneself, morality is the critical key. At what point is a person willing to fight? To save themselves? To save family or loved ones? The helpless? Ideals? That answer can only be answered by each individual for himself or herself. So long as the usage of the art doesn't shift to being aggressive toward others, to be used to attack and brutalize another who is not being violent, then it can be considered "defense." Putting too much focus on the word "self" at the expense of "defense," misses the point that the former can be looked at in many ways, by different people. When I was in the U.S. Army, I would have died in defense of my nation in the abstract, but on behalf of the soldiers serving by my side at a much more personal level, because they were closer to me than some blood relations. Some can not see defending any other than their family, their loved ones. Some can only see fighting if their own life depends on it. While it is easy to judge, there is no right or wrong answer, only answers that must be answered by each person, based upon their courage, their morals, and their understanding of God, or Karma, or reality as they know it.


----------



## drop bear

ZockerSWAT said:


> Some people might, but some might even not get insulted.
> Till now, there wasnt anything like that. To have an discussion you need an open mind. Here on this post were 2 people who practiced it
> and gave their opinion on it and both of what they said seemed solid.
> Somebody told me who wasnt practicing wing chun (or at least I belive he didnt mention that), said that just believing some videos isnt good.
> 2 People who practiced wing chun said they liked it and said, that with a good teacher and practical applications it can be viable. (Just like you need to spar in any other martial art to make that viable as well)
> 
> We are here to debate and have a discussion, ... or you guys have a discussion and I read and see everyones views and I make a statement out of it or just ask for one if I dont understand something.
> 
> Till now, everyone was friendly, and it seemed like everything was going well, till you tried whatever you are trying.
> Its nice, that you dont want anybody to get insulted, but if its the topic of the discussion, everyone is supposed
> to come in here with an open mind. I try not to get insulted even though you tried to insult me by basicly calling me
> a troll or naive.
> 
> I also tried to be as friendly as I can, but you dont seem to be that way. Its okay to be blunt, and I prefer  that, but in a civil, peaceful mannor.
> 
> Edit: Can we just please stop this. Everything was going so well. If you really wanna talk about it, we can do it on private messages, but lets not fill this post with all this.



Ok. Here is how I perceive the mindset.

 If your kid is in primary school and they have a race. Now somewhere in that school is a fat kid who will come last. Now coming last might hurt the ego of that kid. So instead of awarding a trophy to the winner which is insulting to everyone who didn't win. We award a trophy to everyone who participates.

The argument for this is that there are fast kids and fat kids and no amount of lifestyle changes will effect the dynamics of this situation. So there is no point comparing fat kid and fast kid. Because that is being mean.

Which by the way is a real thing.
Winning banned at more than half of school sports days | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> I'll continue to be blunt, since it seems to be a bit more effective.
> 
> Asking "is martial art X 'viable' or not" is kinda insulting to people who practice X.  It's apt to start a fight, particularly online.
> 
> And that's kinda what it seems like you want to do right now.  Fight.
> 
> So you want a link?  Fortunately, there's one right here on this very forum:
> The Newbie Guide to Martial Arts Training (ver 2.6) - by Jeff Pipkins



I've been at the Wing Chun thing for creeping up on 30 years now (Im getting old over here it seems), and I don't find this post, or any honest inquiry insulting. The only people that get insulted by this sort of thing are the ones that are either insecure in their own training, thin skinned, or both. In any case, it's nobodies duty to coddle their feelings.

Let the kid ask his questions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> The only people that get insulted by this sort of thing are ...


It depends on whether you belong to group A, or group B.

A: All MA system has PRO and CON.
B: My MA system has PRO but no CON.
A: My MA system X has PRO such as ..., and CON such as ...
B: You can criticize your MA system X any way you may like. But you should not criticize my MA system Y because my MA system Y is perfect.

Believe or not, sometime people may argue whether Judo has punch or not for more that 40 posts.

WC has much better reputation than long fist has. We have seen clips such as WC vs. boxing, WC vs. wrestling, ... When was last time that we have seen any clip such as long fist vs. boxing, long fist vs. wrestling, ...? There are none. Because people think long fist cannot be used for fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> I've been at the Wing Chun thing for creeping up on 30 years now (Im getting old over here it seems), and I don't find this post, or any honest inquiry insulting. The only people that get insulted by this sort of thing are the ones that are either insecure in their own training, thin skinned, or both. In any case, it's nobodies duty to coddle their feelings.
> 
> Let the kid ask his questions.



The funniest part is it could be that the chun he is discussing is some sort of super nuggety fight gym. And as yet nobody knows one way or another.


----------



## DocWard

drop bear said:


> Ok. Here is how I perceive the mindset.
> 
> If your kid is in primary school and they have a race. Now somewhere in that school is a fat kid who will come last. Now coming last might hurt the ego of that kid. So instead of awarding a trophy to the winner which is insulting to everyone who didn't win. We award a trophy to everyone who participates.
> 
> The argument for this is that there are fast kids and fat kids and no amount of lifestyle changes will effect the dynamics of this situation. So there is no point comparing fat kid and fast kid. Because that is being mean.
> 
> Which by the way is a real thing.
> Winning banned at more than half of school sports days | Daily Mail Online



Interestingly, when my daughter joined the cross country team in the Seventh Grade, she was slow. I don't mean just not as fast as some. In her first few races she finished last. Girls that finished ahead of her were able to do run-walk intervals and still finish ahead of her. Had she wanted to quit, I would have understood, and despite my admonition to not give up, let her quit. She didn't. By the end of her first year she was at the back of the pack, still. Second year was more of the same, although we could see improvement. It wasn't really until Tenth Grade that she started making huge improvements, and her Junior and Senior years saw her not winning races personally, but finishing well up, close enough to the front to be a valuable contributor to her team. Her mindset from the beginning was that those girls who didn't run the entire way were cheating themselves and their team. She didn't feel insulted by them, personally. Her pride in herself wouldn't let her quit, and her determination to get better saw her improve dramatically. In that sense, she has since been a personal hero of mine.

We don't progress, as individuals, athletes, martial artists, or as a society, if we choose to be insulted, or let our egos be hurt by someone who is better, or simply has a different opinion.


----------



## drop bear

DocWard said:


> Interestingly, when my daughter joined the cross country team in the Seventh Grade, she was slow. I don't mean just not as fast as some. In her first few races she finished last. Girls that finished ahead of her were able to do run-walk intervals and still finish ahead of her. Had she wanted to quit, I would have understood, and despite my admonition to not give up, let her quit. She didn't. By the end of her first year she was at the back of the pack, still. Second year was more of the same, although we could see improvement. It wasn't really until Tenth Grade that she started making huge improvements, and her Junior and Senior years saw her not winning races personally, but finishing well up, close enough to the front to be a valuable contributor to her team. Her mindset from the beginning was that those girls who didn't run the entire way were cheating themselves and their team. She didn't feel insulted by them, personally. Her pride in herself wouldn't let her quit, and her determination to get better saw her improve dramatically. In that sense, she has since been a personal hero of mine.
> 
> We don't progress, as individuals, athletes, martial artists, or as a society, if we choose to be insulted, or let our egos be hurt by someone who is better, or simply has a different opinion.



I have the same story with martial arts. I struggled against the able kids for ages until I saw how hard work and  quality training does make people exceptional. 

Which is why this rhetoric of settling for second best of yourself because you lost in some genetic lottery irritates me so much.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC has much better reputation than long fist has. We have seen clips such as WC vs. boxing, WC vs. wrestling, ... When was last time that we have seen any clip such as long fist vs. boxing, long fist vs. wrestling, ...?


 ha ha ha.. you don't see clips of long fist fighting because people don't want to mess with long fist.  Long fist has them scared


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> If you have a bunch of professional fighters in the gym then you at least know you are going to get trained to a reasonable standard.
> 
> I mean the expectation you have when you learn something is that the person teaching you has any sort of clue as to what he is doing.
> 
> If you have no talent or more importantly have no commitment to be trained.That is a sepparate issue.
> 
> Now if you have no talent you should be more inclined to seek out good training because you are going to need all the help you can get. If you have no talent you will have to also train longer and harder. Not less.
> 
> I am really lost with this line of logic. Why do we constantly inspire people towards mediocrity?


Not really no...their are professional with records of 1-20 does that make them a good standard. Look at a guy like Jason Thacker from tuf 1 he was a pro fighter you think he's a high standard?


----------



## Headhunter

ZockerSWAT said:


> Edit: Thinking a 14 year old just trying to find his love in Martial Arts knows what happend at the start of the ufc. I probably wasnt even born then yet, or couldnt even walk.


lol makes me laugh when people say things like that. You weren't born then? So what there's this wonderful thing called the internet where you can research things. I wasn't around in the Wild West times but I still got an A* In my exams because I actually researched it.


----------



## ZockerSWAT

Headhunter said:


> lol makes me laugh when people say things like that. You weren't born then? So what there's this wonderful thing called the internet where you can research things. I wasn't around in the Wild West times but I still got an A* In my exams because I actually researched it.



What happend in the early days of UFC isnt general knowledge everyone learns.
Something like School classes teach you thheese mendatory things. So exams are a mendatory thing and something like the internet and the early days of the UFC arent. 
By that logic, it doesnt matter when for example maths was created because you are forced to learn it and you get the materials for it, but something like the UFC isnt. I didnt even know what it was till 2 weeks ago. 

Yeah, there is the Interneg to researh things, but why should I randomly research the UFC. That makes no sense. Because it isnt mendatory, so new people of course dont know it. Just a light hearted comment saying I should research the early days of the UFC would've been enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am really lost with this line of logic. Why do we constantly inspire people towards mediocrity?


You sometimes assume an intent of inspiring toward mediocrity where it doesn't exist. In the past, you've confounded accepting students' priorities with this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> People like to talk about SD. People don't like to take about moral situation any more. I still remember my long fist teacher told all his students that
> 
> "If you don't have a good reason to fight and you fight, I'll beat you up when I find out. If you have a good reason to fight and you don't fight, I'll also beat you up when I find out."
> 
> The 1st part is easy to understand. The 2nd part is the moral situation. The 侠(Xia) - heroic, brave and chivalrous is a very important part of the CMA training. Unfortunately, people don't talk about it very much today.


The legal landscape is part of the issue with this.

But I agree with JGW that this isn't a self-defense situation, though it's something I do talk about at times.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> lol makes me laugh when people say things like that. You weren't born then? So what there's this wonderful thing called the internet where you can research things. I wasn't around in the Wild West times but I still got an A* In my exams because I actually researched it.


He has a valid point, HH. The discussion about early UFC wasn't about what happened in the fights, but about the debates around them (and some only tangentially related to them). He'd be hard-pressed to get much of that without spending hours a day digging through archives on various sites.


----------



## JowGaWolf

ZockerSWAT said:


> What happend in the early days of UFC isnt general knowledge everyone learns.
> Something like School classes teach you thheese mendatory things. So exams are a mendatory thing and something like the internet and the early days of the UFC arent.
> By that logic, it doesnt matter when for example maths was created because you are forced to learn it and you get the materials for it, but something like the UFC isnt. I didnt even know what it was till 2 weeks ago.
> 
> Yeah, there is the Interneg to researh things, but why should I randomly research the UFC. That makes no sense. Because it isnt mendatory, so new people of course dont know it. Just a light hearted comment saying I should research the early days of the UFC would've been enough.


This is what has worked for me.  Make friends with older people and they will be glad to fill you in on the things that happened when you weren't born.  This applies to anything.  Old people talk about old stuff.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Old people talk about old stuff.


Old stuff such as Audie Murphy,






and Alain Delon.






and Emy Jackson.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Not really no...their are professional with records of 1-20 does that make them a good standard. Look at a guy like Jason Thacker from tuf 1 he was a pro fighter you think he's a high standard?



You are still making a judgment off their record. Or from evidence. Which you can just jump on google and check.

Jason "Strange Brew" Thacker MMA Stats, Pictures, News, Videos, Biography - Sherdog.com
So Jason thacker would want to have some impressive students. 

Also 1-20 also would suggest not a sensible lifestyle choice.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You sometimes assume an intent of inspiring toward mediocrity where it doesn't exist. In the past, you've confounded accepting students' priorities with this.



I don't think you understand the difference between a students priorities and their comfort zones. I think most students actually want to see results. 






I like these little videos because it gives a snapshot in to the lives of people who train martial arts.

These are the same people everyone else is training. They are not getting hard combat monsters and everyone else is getting the wimps. The training is what makes the change.

If like the fat kid in the running race you manufacture results. You are in theory meeting the priorities of that child. But you are not really helping the child become any better. 

Which is aspiring towards mediocrity.


----------



## drop bear

When someone walks in to a martial arts gym for the first time they are looking for a lifestyle change. And they can't do that if you don't change their lifestyle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> When someone walks in to a martial arts gym for the first time they are looking for a lifestyle change. And they can't do that if you don't change their lifestyle.


Agree! When you teach a night club bouncer, if you can't teach him something that can help him to do his daily job, he won't stay with you. If you teach him a form or ask him to stand horse stance, he won't come back.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think you understand the difference between a students priorities and their comfort zones. I think most students actually want to see results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like these little videos because it gives a snapshot in to the lives of people who train martial arts.
> 
> These are the same people everyone else is training. They are not getting hard combat monsters and everyone else is getting the wimps. The training is what makes the change.
> 
> If like the fat kid in the running race you manufacture results. You are in theory meeting the priorities of that child. But you are not really helping the child become any better.
> 
> Which is aspiring towards mediocrity.


I think you confound them as much as you claim I do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! When you teach a night club bouncer, if you can't teach him something that can help him to do his daily job, he won't stay with you. If you teach him a form or ask him to stand horse stance, he won't come back.


That depends. I've known bouncers who were quite fond of forms.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to develop
> 
> - roundhouse kick, you take the MT path.
> - side kick, you take the TKD path.
> - hook punch, you take the boxing path.
> - hip throw, you take the Chinese wrestling (or Judo) path.
> - single leg, you take the wrestling path.
> - ground game, you take the BJJ path.
> - center line principle (or chain punches), you take the WC path.
> - ...
> 
> If you want to develop "flying knee", WC will not be your path.



Isshinryu is all that is needed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> That depends. I've known bouncers who were quite fond of forms.



One of our 6th Dan senseis was a bouncer. He's been doing kata for 30 years.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think you confound them as much as you claim I do.



Then you noticed on this thread for example where the OP was told to have different priorities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Then you noticed on this thread for example where the OP was told to have different priorities.


I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't recall seeing that.



Lol. Of course. 

Anyway my point is there are some gyms who can manage to inspire excellence and be open to hobbiests and the less talented. 

But those gyms were probably just lucky and just happened to get students that were motivated to do better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Lol. Of course.
> 
> Anyway my point is there are some gyms who can manage to inspire excellence and be open to hobbiests and the less talented.
> 
> But those gyms were probably just lucky and just happened to get students that were motivated to do better.


I've never said you can't do both. I can't do both (I don't offer enough class time to satisfy those who want to really work hard), so I don't attract folks who are looking to work their butts off. One of the things I love about MMA gyms, as a whole, is they tend (the places I've been) to have more opportunities for training - open equipment, classes all the damned time, etc.

But even that won't change priorities. If someone has prioritized their MA training as a "nice to have", and something they are willing to put a few hours into a week, inspiration won't raise that priority level. Now, if they fall in love with their training, they may change that priority - until they do, they won't put more time in. So, yeah, inspiration can cause people to bring more to the table. But that's not entirely in the instructor's control. People are attracted to a school for what it offers. Many of us (and I'm among that number) did the 2/week thing for a while and ended up doing much more for periods of time.

So, maybe what you've missed in our past discussions is this: I can't really serve (as a primary training source) for someone who wants to train long and hard. So I make no attempt to attract them. At the new school, that might change, since they'd have the option of training two arts (and many more classes), if the Karate classes are vigorous enough (I've only had a chance to watch kids' classes and BB classes).

But nowhere in that is mediocrity my aim, which is something you seem to imply regularly.


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> I've been at the Wing Chun thing for creeping up on 30 years now (Im getting old over here it seems), and I don't find this post, or any honest inquiry insulting. The only people that get insulted by this sort of thing are the ones that are either insecure in their own training, thin skinned, or both. In any case, it's nobodies duty to coddle their feelings.
> 
> Let the kid ask his questions.


Feh.

I've been on martial arts internet forums that long, going all the way back to nntp.  My experience is that these questions tend to lead to arguments, at best.  If I had a nickle for every time I saw it.  But whatever.

Does not coddling feelings include not coddling the kid's feelings too?


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> Which is why this rhetoric of settling for second best of yourself because you lost in some genetic lottery irritates me so much.


99.999% of people lost "the genetic lottery."  The vast majority of humans will be near the middle of the Bell with only a tiny fraction in the "exceptional" far right arm.


----------



## lklawson

ZockerSWAT said:


> What happend in the early days of UFC isnt general knowledge everyone learns.



Here.
Ultimate Fighting Championship - Wikipedia


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> He has a valid point, HH. The discussion about early UFC wasn't about what happened in the fights, but about the debates around them (and some only tangentially related to them). He'd be hard-pressed to get much of that without spending hours a day digging through archives on various sites.


I still remember watching endless idiotic threads about whether or not Wing Chun (or Karate, or Japanese Jujutsu, or Krav Maga, or Kung Fu, or [fill in the blank *any* TMA]) was or was not "viable" because it did/did not "perform well" in UFC.

And they still crop up today.  Our friend DropBear here is practically famous for his position of exactly this.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> When someone walks in to a martial arts gym for the first time they are looking for a lifestyle change.


Some of them are, but some of them aren't.  You can't assume.


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> Feh.
> 
> I've been on martial arts internet forums that long, going all the way back to nntp.  My experience is that these questions tend to lead to arguments, at best.  If I had a nickle for every time I saw it.  But whatever.
> 
> Does not coddling feelings include not coddling the kid's feelings too?



I've been doing the forum thing since the mid 90s or so too, I get the Mego effect reading the same loops get replayed over and over too.

But kid is 14… new to all of this and seems to be sincere. Sure, I know that a lot of these types of posts are laid out as bait or as passive agressive slights against certain styles, methods, or approaches, but I don't really think this is that.

And honestly, even if it is 'that', or when it is 'that', it's still better to either address the points being made with cogent counterpoints, or just not address it at all.

Just my 2c.


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> 99.999% of people lost "the genetic lottery."  The vast majority of humans will be near the middle of the Bell with only a tiny fraction in the "exceptional" far right arm.



So you have already lost let's strive to be mediocre?


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> So you have already lost let's strive to be mediocre?


I have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm saying that the vast majority of humans don't have the genetics to be an olympic athlete.  We just have to deal with that and maximize what we have.

I have no idea how that fits in with whatever you're going on about for "let's strive to be mediocre."  <shrug>


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> Some of them are, but some of them aren't.  You can't assume.



You assumed OPs prioritys were wrong off the bat. And when you couldn't correct them to your own you got butthurt.

Happens a bit with new posters.


----------



## Steve

VPT said:


> Also: people who say Muay Thai is awesome only seem to think about the athletes that are on the top of their game. They don't come to think of the average Joe, who only does it for the fitness and the thrills of a good exercise, but who does not want to get to the ring, or even might be scared of doing that; he might not even be any good at what he does, but he does it anyway since he likes it.
> 
> This goes to show the values that people too often unwittingly commit to when it goes to their preferences in martial arts. I've seen lots of flack against Taido because "it would get you killed in T3H STREETZ" or "it can't win against other styles". This shows a hidden agenda that a real value of any martial arts practice is the superior outcome of a violent encounter, either consensual (a sporting event) or not (civilian protection). Hell, many people like to train martial arts because the practice and the social bonds they form in the activity are meaningful to the individual themselves which, in the context of the society at large, is way more laudable and preferable than a hierarchical pecking order based on a superiority in skills involving physical violence.
> 
> Rant over.


I think that the reality is the exact opposite of what you post above.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> yep funny how it works.  "If it's not in professional fighting then it's no good."  The reality is, "It's not what someone else can do with martial arts, it's what I can do with it."  Because I'm the one who has to use it, not the professional fighter.


There is plenty of evidence that sports are very effective at developing skills for anyone, at any level.   The ceiling might be higher for an elite athlete, but anyone who trains in a sport will develop those skills very efficiently.   An elite BJJ athlete will be more skilled than an average Joe black belt.   But the average Joe will still be pretty dang good.   In fact, the average person training at an average school three times per week for 2 years will follow a very predictable developmental arc.


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm saying that the vast majority of humans don't have the genetics to be an olympic athlete.  We just have to deal with that and maximize what we have.
> 
> I have no idea how that fits in with whatever you're going on about for "let's strive to be mediocre."  <shrug>



Nobody either with good genetics or not just becomes an Olympic athlete.

There is so much more involved.

So you may not know if a person has the ability to take their sport to the highest level until you try to do it.

You make it. You don't make it. But you progress either as far as you can or as far as you are willing to sacrifice and see what happens.

The vast majority of humans will not compete in a full contact fight. But you can pretty much take anyone and make them mentally and physically ready.


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> You assumed OPs prioritys were wrong off the bat. And when you couldn't correct them to your own you got butthurt.
> 
> Happens a bit with new posters.


Did you have a point or are you just looking for a fight again?


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> Nobody either with good genetics or not just becomes an Olympic athlete.
> 
> There is so much more involved.
> 
> So you may not know if a person has the ability to take their sport to the highest level until you try to do it.
> 
> You make it. You don't make it. But you progress either as far as you can or as far as you are willing to sacrifice and see what happens.
> 
> The vast majority of humans will not compete in a full contact fight. But you can pretty much take anyone and make them mentally and physically ready.


 look! There goes the point!


----------



## drop bear

lklawson said:


> Did you have a point or are you just looking for a fight again?



Mostly that you did what you said you can't do and then got butthurt.

But it looks like unsurprisingly you are getting butthurt about that as well.

So my point may as well be. Do you think being so sensitive and also so abrasive is really getting you anywhere?

I mean pick one an make that yours. And feel free to add any content at all to your posts. It will make you seem adult.

Anyway. A person who joins martial arts is generally learning a new skill.

A new skill is creating a whole new part of a person. That is a lifestyle change.

So I can assume that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Anyway. A person who joins martial arts is generally learning a new skill.
> 
> A new skill is creating a whole new part of a person. That is a lifestyle change.
> 
> So I can assume that.


You make a good point, but I think you might be overstating what they are looking for (as opposed to what they're likely to receive). Most folks are looking for something that fits into their existing lifestyle, rather than to change their lifestyle.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You make a good point, but I think you might be overstating what they are looking for (as opposed to what they're likely to receive). Most folks are looking for something that fits into their existing lifestyle, rather than to change their lifestyle.


I get the feeling you guys are defining "lifestyle" differently.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please remember to keep all conversation polite and respectful.

Thank you,

*William H*
Kempodisciple
MartialTalk Moderator


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I get the feeling you guys are defining "lifestyle" differently.



Yeah that is possible.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You make a good point, but I think you might be overstating what they are looking for (as opposed to what they're likely to receive). Most folks are looking for something that fits into their existing lifestyle, rather than to change their lifestyle.



Why do people learn martial arts?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I get the feeling you guys are defining "lifestyle" differently.


That's possible. Good point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Why do people learn martial arts?


There are a lot of different reasons. A few I've run into (some of them have been my own):

To learn how to fight (or defend themselves)
It sounds like fun
To get in better shape
It seems cool
To expand what they already know (this mostly applies to folks with past training)
To share the experience with their SO
To compete (which may or may not pair with some of the others)
To build self-esteem (usually not a stated goal up front, but some folks report it later)
Some of those would be lifestyle changes. Others are just a thing to do. And some are both (depending how we define "lifestyle").


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> Mostly that you did what you said you can't do and then got butthurt.
> 
> But it looks like unsurprisingly you are getting butthurt about that as well.
> 
> So my point may as well be. Do you think being so sensitive and also so abrasive is really getting you anywhere?
> 
> I mean pick one an make that yours. And feel free to add any content at all to your posts. It will make you seem adult.
> 
> Anyway. A person who joins martial arts is generally learning a new skill.
> 
> A new skill is creating a whole new part of a person. That is a lifestyle change.
> 
> So I can assume that.


Whatever.  Go start a fight somewhere else.  I don't have the time or inclination.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> Why do people learn martial arts?


I’ve tracked this since 2002. Ask everyone who has come in, what is your goal or reason you are looking to train for?
With adults (young to old) overwhelmingly it is to get into better shape. They want a fun workout that gets them into better shape. Secondary is to also learn some self defense along the way.

With kids overwhelmingly the parent/s are wanting something that gets the child off of the couch & doing something physical while building confidence and self esteem, or that helps burn off energy and helps them focus.


----------



## Martial D

Danny T said:


> I’ve tracked this since 2002. Ask everyone who has come in, what is your goal or reason you are looking to train for?
> With adults (young to old) overwhelmingly it is to get into better shape. They want a fun workout that gets them into better shape. Secondary is to also learn some self defense along the way.
> 
> With kids overwhelmingly the parent/s are wanting something that gets the child off of the couch & doing something physical while building confidence and self esteem, or that helps burn off energy and helps them focus.


Do not all those reasons at least fall under the veneer of learning to fight though? Otherwise why punches and kicks? Why blocks? Why footwork?

You must admit these things are purposeful activities that don't make a lot of sense with that veneer stripped away.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Do not all those reasons at least fall under the veneer of learning to fight though? Otherwise why punches and kicks? Why blocks? Why footwork?
> 
> You must admit these things are purposeful activities that don't make a lot of sense with that veneer stripped away.


For some folks, it just looks more interesting than tennis.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> For some folks, it just looks more interesting than tennis.



And of those that do find tennis interesting, how many practice it with no intentions of becoming good at playing tennis I wonder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> And of those that do find tennis interesting, how many practice it with no intentions of becoming good at playing tennis I wonder.


You're back to assuming folks enter martial arts for fighting. Some just want to compete in super-light point sparring and forms, or just want to play with some fun body movement. There's really not an analogy in tennis that I can think of.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> You're back to assuming folks enter martial arts for fighting. Some just want to compete in super-light point sparring and forms, or just want to play with some fun body movement. There's really not an analogy in tennis that I can think of.


Well, the anology is that the game of tennis came first, and the training methods and advanced techniques etc came later, as people endeavoured to become better at it.

So it is with fighting and martial arts.


----------



## DocWard

Martial D said:


> And of those that do find tennis interesting, how many practice it with no intentions of becoming good at playing tennis I wonder.



I, for one, would be completely nonplussed if a person told me they were taking up _any_ activity, yet had no intention of improving at it. This would be true for not only physical activities like the martial arts, running or tennis, but for everything from video gaming to needlepoint and knitting.

The questions then, relate not only to personal motivation for doing an activity, but to how much one wishes to improve. This will depend upon their physical and mental abilities and deficits, along with their ability to dedicate time and resources, along with handling the other priorities in their life. Priorities can change dramatically over time, as well. A martial arts journey, like any other, doesn't take place in a vacuum where it can travel a straight and orderly path.

For instance, in my own case, I initially took up a martial art in 1991, when my Reserve Unit was activated and I was at Ft. Sam Houston during Desert Storm. I was working out and running, and was as fit as I've been in life, but much of that was done during regular PT. I was going stir crazy during my off duty hours and a civilian I worked with suggested I take some lessons at his dojo. I did, and enjoyed myself, and got rid of a lot of stress for the three months or so I took lessons. The sensei suggested if I wanted to continue in martial arts, to look for a Kenpo dojo when I got back home.

Once I finished college and located where I live now, I looked up a Kenpo dojo (conveniently, one of the only dojos in town at the time) and began training again. It was great stress relief while in law school and as a young assistant prosecutor. I also enjoyed the discipline, learning new skills and knowledge, and more. I progressed fairly rapidly until two daughters, career responsibilities, and the National Guard started intervening. On the cusp of training for my black belt, my frustration level, and that of my instructor, were such that I decided a break was in order. As I have mentioned, I am only now getting back to it after many years. How good was I when I was training regularly? I can only say once I was a brown belt, I could spar effectively against others who competed regularly at tournaments, as well as two who fought and did well in NASKA and internationally.

The above isn't intended to speak of or brag about myself, but to point out a few things, using the best example I know. People enter the arts for a variety of reasons, often having nothing to do with lifestyle change. Taking the step does mean they likely don't wish to be stagnant in their involvement, but wish to make some progress. Once they do, their priorities can indeed change over time, for a number of usually legitimate reasons.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well, the anology is that the game of tennis came first, and the training methods and advanced techniques etc came later, as people endeavoured to become better at it.
> 
> So it is with fighting and martial arts.


I just don't agree that everyone who enters martial arts is specifically interested in being better at fighting (at least not in a meaningful way). Most are - at least as a tangential thing - but not all.

There are some who don't even enter martial arts out of any specific interest in martial arts. It's something they join to hang out with a friend or SO who's starting. They might just as easily have taken up tennis with no real interest in getting good at tennis.

But I don't think we're getting anywhere with this, MD. It's not an important point to me.


----------



## Steve

DocWard said:


> I, for one, would be completely nonplussed if a person told me they were taking up _any_ activity, yet had no intention of improving at it. This would be true for not only physical activities like the martial arts, running or tennis, but for everything from video gaming to needlepoint and knitting.
> 
> The questions then, relate not only to personal motivation for doing an activity, but to how much one wishes to improve. This will depend upon their physical and mental abilities and deficits, along with their ability to dedicate time and resources, along with handling the other priorities in their life. Priorities can change dramatically over time, as well. A martial arts journey, like any other, doesn't take place in a vacuum where it can travel a straight and orderly path.
> 
> For instance, in my own case, I initially took up a martial art in 1991, when my Reserve Unit was activated and I was at Ft. Sam Houston during Desert Storm. I was working out and running, and was as fit as I've been in life, but much of that was done during regular PT. I was going stir crazy during my off duty hours and a civilian I worked with suggested I take some lessons at his dojo. I did, and enjoyed myself, and got rid of a lot of stress for the three months or so I took lessons. The sensei suggested if I wanted to continue in martial arts, to look for a Kenpo dojo when I got back home.
> 
> Once I finished college and located where I live now, I looked up a Kenpo dojo (conveniently, one of the only dojos in town at the time) and began training again. It was great stress relief while in law school and as a young assistant prosecutor. I also enjoyed the discipline, learning new skills and knowledge, and more. I progressed fairly rapidly until two daughters, career responsibilities, and the National Guard started intervening. On the cusp of training for my black belt, my frustration level, and that of my instructor, were such that I decided a break was in order. As I have mentioned, I am only now getting back to it after many years. How good was I when I was training regularly? I can only say once I was a brown belt, I could spar effectively against others who competed regularly at tournaments, as well as two who fought and did well in NASKA and internationally.
> 
> The above isn't intended to speak of or brag about myself, but to point out a few things, using the best example I know. People enter the arts for a variety of reasons, often having nothing to do with lifestyle change. Taking the step does mean they likely don't wish to be stagnant in their involvement, but wish to make some progress. Once they do, their priorities can indeed change over time, for a number of usually legitimate reasons.


Good post.  The idea that improved fighting skill is not a goal of martial arts training suggests that some folks will knowingly choose a school or style that is unlikely to teach fighting skills if it helps them get fit.   This puts those styles squarely in the same category as Tai chi and tae bo.  Would the practitioners of wing Chun agree with this, because that's where this line of reasoning leads us, and it reflects poorly on wing Chun as a viable fighting art.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I just don't agree that everyone who enters martial arts is specifically interested in being better at fighting (at least not in a meaningful way). Most are - at least as a tangential thing - but not all.
> 
> There are some who don't even enter martial arts out of any specific interest in martial arts. It's something they join to hang out with a friend or SO who's starting. They might just as easily have taken up tennis with no real interest in getting good at tennis.
> 
> But I don't think we're getting anywhere with this, MD. It's not an important point to me.


From an integrity perspective, it would be nice if schools or styles would be more clear in their sales pitch:. Good for fitness, but don't expect to learn skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Good post.  The idea that improved fighting skill is not a goal of martial arts training suggests that some folks will knowingly choose a school or style that is unlikely to teach fighting skills if it helps them get fit.   This puts those styles squarely in the same category as Tai chi and tae bo.  Would the practitioners of wing Chun agree with this, because that's where this line of reasoning leads us, and it reflects poorly on wing Chun as a viable fighting art.


I think some people do just that - or, rather, they choose a style without regard to whether it will develop useful fighting skills or not. I don't have a problem with them doing that, nor with folks teaching without regard to that, as long as they're honest with themselves and their students that that's their focus. There are branches of Ueshiba's Aikido that seem to have gone that way, quite purposefully.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> From an integrity perspective, it would be nice if schools or styles would be more clear in their sales pitch:. Good for fitness, but don't expect to learn skills.


Well, they do learn skills - just not skills useful for the purpose of fighting. I suspect Shin-shin Toitsu Aikido (Tohei's branch) is an example of such. While I'm sure there are some folks in that style that think what they're learning is also for fighting, the stated purpose of the pursuit is ki development, as I understand it.

I'm not bothered (though maybe I should be) if someone doesn't explicitly say "we don't teach fighting skills". I'm more bothered when someone says "we teach fighting skills" but doesn't actually attempt to do so (or doesn't try to validate anything they do with some sort of resistance).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think some people do just that - or, rather, they choose a style without regard to whether it will develop useful fighting skills or not. I don't have a problem with them doing that, nor with folks teaching without regard to that, as long as they're honest with themselves and their students that that's their focus. There are branches of Ueshiba's Aikido that seem to have gone that way, quite purposefully.


I've never seen any aikido school acknowledge any thing like this.   I'd love to see on the website anything along the lines of, "we don't teach fighting skills, and instead focus on health andnfitness.  For fighting skills, we recommend you avoid aikido."

What we end up hearing more often is, "we train with cops, and our instructor knows a guy who is really deadly.  So, our focus is fitness, but rest assured, when the time comes, this is going to work.". Of course, when it doesn't, that's not the school's fault.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I just don't agree that everyone who enters martial arts is specifically interested in being better at fighting (at least not in a meaningful way). Most are - at least as a tangential thing - but not all.
> 
> There are some who don't even enter martial arts out of any specific interest in martial arts. It's something they join to hang out with a friend or SO who's starting. They might just as easily have taken up tennis with no real interest in getting good at tennis.
> 
> But I don't think we're getting anywhere with this, MD. It's not an important point to me.



Well sure..there are plenty of people that join an ma club to stay in shape, fun, etc etc or whatever selling point caught their eye...

But when they get there, they are still throwing punches and kicks, blocking, doing throws, and to some extent simulating fighting situations through drills etc.

It seems an excersise in futility to try to separate the two, unless you can admit you are just acting.

But nobody will admit that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I've never seen any aikido school acknowledge any thing like this.   I'd love to see on the website anything along the lines of, "we don't teach fighting skills, and instead focus on health andnfitness.  For fighting skills, we recommend you avoid aikido."
> 
> What we end up hearing more often is, "we train with cops, and our instructor knows a guy who is really deadly.  So, our focus is fitness, but rest assured, when the time comes, this is going to work.". Of course, when it doesn't, that's not the school's fault.


I think many in Aikido don't realize the gaps in their training. Those training it after or with another art are learning useful skill, but I think much of it is only useful when a foundation is built with something else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well sure..there are plenty of people that join an ma club to stay in shape, fun, etc etc or whatever selling point caught their eye...
> 
> But when they get there, they are still throwing punches and kicks, blocking, doing throws, and to some extent simulating fighting situations through drills etc.
> 
> It seems an excersise in futility to try to separate the two, unless you can admit you are just acting.
> 
> But nobody will admit that.


I don't think it's futile to separate them - Billy Blanks did a good job of that with Tae Bo.


----------



## Danny T

Martial D said:


> Do not all those reasons at least fall under the veneer of learning to fight though? Otherwise why punches and kicks? Why blocks? Why footwork?
> 
> You must admit these things are purposeful activities that don't make a lot of sense with that veneer stripped away.


Well, must be they are lying to me about not being interested in fighting and aren't interested in sparring but only wanting a good physical workout. 
Sure we utilizing fighting techniques and actions for the workout but for them it isn't about fighting but a hard workout. We have a few who aren't real crazy about the punching and kicking but say they prefer working out with us because of the positive environment, the emphasis on proper techniques, and the encouragement they get with us compared to other 'fitness kickboxing, crossfit, or weight training gyms'. 
Do we have those who want to learn to fight...certainly and we have several fighters - amateur and pros however the greater percentage of those training with us train for reasons other than being able to fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Do not all those reasons at least fall under the veneer of learning to fight though? Otherwise why punches and kicks? Why blocks? Why footwork?
> 
> You must admit these things are purposeful activities that don't make a lot of sense with that veneer stripped away.


Most people don't want to learn how to fight. Even when they say that they do.  most people in love with the idea of fighting..  They imagine themselves as fighte.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's futile to separate them - Billy Blanks did a good job of that with Tae Bo.


Billy Blanks..

You mean that guy that cut his chops as...a professional fighter? That guy?


----------



## Martial D

Danny T said:


> Well, must be they are lying to me about not being interested in fighting and aren't interested in sparring but only wanting a good physical workout.
> Sure we utilizing fighting techniques and actions for the workout but for them it isn't about fighting but a hard workout. We have a few who aren't real crazy about the punching and kicking but say they prefer working out with us because of the positive environment, the emphasis on proper techniques, and the encouragement they get with us compared to other 'fitness kickboxing, crossfit, or weight training gyms'.
> Do we have those who want to learn to fight...certainly and we have several fighters - amateur and pros however the greater percentage of those training with us train for reasons other than being able to fight.



I didn't argue against any of that.

What I am arguing is that martial arts..their primary purpose..is fighting. Even the fitness moms are still throwing punches and kicks.(sort of)


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think many in Aikido don't realize the gaps in their training. Those training it after or with another art are learning useful skill, but I think much of it is only useful when a foundation is built with something else.


Just to clarify, I am using aikido as a placeholder, and not trying to call out aikido alone.   I agree that many martial arts dont realize their gaps.  I would say further that the more invested in a style one becomes through tenure and rank, the more intentional this gap becomes.  Said the other way, as folks gain rank and longevity in an art, they become more entrenched in the propaganda of that art, and less receptive to contrary information.


----------



## drop bear

DocWard said:


> I, for one, would be completely nonplussed if a person told me they were taking up _any_ activity, yet had no intention of improving at it. This would be true for not only physical activities like the martial arts, running or tennis, but for everything from video gaming to needlepoint and knitting.
> 
> The questions then, relate not only to personal motivation for doing an activity, but to how much one wishes to improve. This will depend upon their physical and mental abilities and deficits, along with their ability to dedicate time and resources, along with handling the other priorities in their life. Priorities can change dramatically over time, as well. A martial arts journey, like any other, doesn't take place in a vacuum where it can travel a straight and orderly path.
> 
> For instance, in my own case, I initially took up a martial art in 1991, when my Reserve Unit was activated and I was at Ft. Sam Houston during Desert Storm. I was working out and running, and was as fit as I've been in life, but much of that was done during regular PT. I was going stir crazy during my off duty hours and a civilian I worked with suggested I take some lessons at his dojo. I did, and enjoyed myself, and got rid of a lot of stress for the three months or so I took lessons. The sensei suggested if I wanted to continue in martial arts, to look for a Kenpo dojo when I got back home.
> 
> Once I finished college and located where I live now, I looked up a Kenpo dojo (conveniently, one of the only dojos in town at the time) and began training again. It was great stress relief while in law school and as a young assistant prosecutor. I also enjoyed the discipline, learning new skills and knowledge, and more. I progressed fairly rapidly until two daughters, career responsibilities, and the National Guard started intervening. On the cusp of training for my black belt, my frustration level, and that of my instructor, were such that I decided a break was in order. As I have mentioned, I am only now getting back to it after many years. How good was I when I was training regularly? I can only say once I was a brown belt, I could spar effectively against others who competed regularly at tournaments, as well as two who fought and did well in NASKA and internationally.
> 
> The above isn't intended to speak of or brag about myself, but to point out a few things, using the best example I know. People enter the arts for a variety of reasons, often having nothing to do with lifestyle change. Taking the step does mean they likely don't wish to be stagnant in their involvement, but wish to make some progress. Once they do, their priorities can indeed change over time, for a number of usually legitimate reasons.



The OP of course in this case was told his motivation was wrong.

Which happens a bit.

People have come on this forum and asked the question what martial art for self defense. And been told their reasons for doing martial arts is wrong. 

I don't think anyone has come in and asked for the most fun martial arts and been corrected.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Most people don't want to learn how to fight. Even when they say that they do.  most people in love with the idea of fighting..  They imagine themselves as fighte.


I think there's a lot of truth in that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Billy Blanks..
> 
> You mean that guy that cut his chops as...a professional fighter? That guy?


Yes. That's my point, though you apparently thought my point was something  different. His Tae Bo was for people who weren't interested in learning to fight, but wanted some of the same fitness benefits of his fight-oriented training. So he took the punches and kicks and took the fight out of them.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Most people don't want to learn how to fight. Even when they say that they do.  most people in love with the idea of fighting..  They imagine themselves as fighte.



Mabye the people who say they do. Really do.

We get a lot of those guys. Who even just want to do one to see if they can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I didn't argue against any of that.
> 
> What I am arguing is that martial arts..their primary purpose..is fighting. Even the fitness moms are still throwing punches and kicks.(sort of)


Okay, that's different from what I thought you were saying, MD. I'd agree that the primary purpose of (generic reference) martial arts is fighting. But that's not the only (nor even the primary) purpose of any given instance of martial arts - unless, of course, we use a definition that makes it so.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think there's a lot of truth in that.



That changing a person's priorities that you have never noticed?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yes. That's my point, though you apparently thought my point was something  different. His Tae Bo was for people who weren't interested in learning to fight, but wanted some of the same fitness benefits of his fight-oriented training. So he took the punches and kicks and took the fight out of them.


If only a ninjutsu school were as up front.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just to clarify, I am using aikido as a placeholder, and not trying to call out aikido alone.   I agree that many martial arts dont realize their gaps.  I would say further that the more invested in a style one becomes through tenure and rank, the more intentional this gap becomes.  Said the other way, as folks gain rank and longevity in an art, they become more entrenched in the propaganda of that art, and less receptive to contrary information.


I think it's a reasonable statement about much of current Aikido. There are exceptions within both the art and the family of Aikido, but it's a reasonable generalization. And there are certainly examples outside Aikido, as well.

And I think you're on point that the longer we invest our time, effort, and sweat into something, the more we tend to defend that investment with rationalization when it is challenged (by information or an individual).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The OP of course in this case was told his motivation was wrong.
> 
> Which happens a bit.
> 
> People have come on this forum and asked the question what martial art for self defense. And been told their reasons for doing martial arts is wrong.
> 
> I don't think anyone has come in and asked for the most fun martial arts and been corrected.


I don't recall anyone coming in and asking about self-defense and being told their motivation was wrong. They might have been corrected on the idea that there's one "best", or on their reasoning for seeking a specific art, but I can't recall an instance of folks saying SD was a wrong reason for looking into MA.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't recall anyone coming in and asking about self-defense and being told their motivation was wrong. They might have been corrected on the idea that there's one "best", or on their reasoning for seeking a specific art, but I can't recall an instance of folks saying SD was a wrong reason for looking into MA.



Really?

"Most people don't want to learn how to fight. Even when they say that they do. most people in love with the idea of fighting.. They imagine themselves as fighter."

"I think there's a lot of truth in that."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> The OP of course in this case was told his motivation was wrong.
> 
> Which happens a bit.
> 
> People have come on this forum and asked the question what martial art for self defense. And been told their reasons for doing martial arts is wrong.
> 
> I don't think anyone has come in and asked for the most fun martial arts and been corrected.


That has happened actually, a couple times. Mainly when someone talks about xma or wushu, and gets told it's not realistic, and doesnt count as MA. 
Personally, I find wushu incredibly impressive looking


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> That has happened actually, a couple times. Mainly when someone talks about xma or wushu, and gets told it's not realistic, and doesnt count as MA.
> Personally, I find wushu incredibly impressive looking



Pretty sure it wasn't team kill monster though.

That is generally the hilarious backflip done by the let's get along crowd.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> "Most people don't want to learn how to fight. Even when they say that they do. most people in love with the idea of fighting.. They imagine themselves as fighter."
> 
> "I think there's a lot of truth in that."


Where in that does it say wanting to learn to fight is wrong?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That changing a person's priorities that you have never noticed?


I don't follow that sentence, DB.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure it wasn't team kill monster though.
> 
> That is generally the hilarious backflip done by the let's get along crowd.


Yup, it's generally the people that say "all MA is good MA" who make that complain. I know what you mean by the let's get along crowd, I have no idea what you mean by team kill monster though. Without naming names, what qualifies someone for that team?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Yup, it's generally the people that say "all MA is good MA" who make that complain. I know what you mean by the let's get along crowd, I have no idea what you mean by team kill monster though. Without naming names, what qualifies someone for that team?



Team kill monster is those guys who argue martial arts is for fighting.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Where in that does it say wanting to learn to fight is wrong?



You are saying they don't want to learn to fight after they just told you they did?

Happens heaps here.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't follow that sentence, DB.



You are flat earthing me again. 

You don't notice because you refuse to notice.


----------



## DocWard

drop bear said:


> The OP of course in this case was told his motivation was wrong.
> 
> Which happens a bit.
> 
> People have come on this forum and asked the question what martial art for self defense. And been told their reasons for doing martial arts is wrong.
> 
> I don't think anyone has come in and asked for the most fun martial arts and been corrected.



I will take your word when you assert that people are told often here that "self defense" as a motivation for studying the martial arts is wrong. In reviewing this thread, I'm not clear where that is being said, and if it is, how it is applicable. Perhaps it is because some posting use English as a second language, or they are posting in sentence fragments that I am failing to understand. It seems to me that if a person asks "is X martial art that my brother studies viable?," then answering "your motivation is wrong" is a non sequitur.  Without a doubt, the thread has taken tangents regarding the purpose(s) of the martial arts, as well as some choosing to be critical of posting regarding the "viability" of arts in general due to historical arguments on the subject. Perhaps I am missing something though.


----------



## DocWard

drop bear said:


> That changing a person's priorities that you have never noticed?





gpseymour said:


> I don't follow that sentence, DB.





drop bear said:


> You are flat earthing me again.
> 
> You don't notice because you refuse to notice.



Not to be rude DB, but I couldn't follow that sentence from a grammar standpoint, even trying to use context clues.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Team kill monster is those guys who argue martial arts is for fighting.


I like this. Gonna steal it in my head


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are saying they don't want to learn to fight after they just told you they did?
> 
> Happens heaps here.


No, I’m saying some people don’t want to - based largely on what they actually say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are flat earthing me again.
> 
> You don't notice because you refuse to notice.


Ok.


----------



## drop bear

DocWard said:


> Not to be rude DB, but I couldn't follow that sentence from a grammar standpoint, even trying to use context clues.



I was trying to type quickly. 

Ok. Recap.

Basically gpseymor did exactly what I said he does. Takes the priorities of someone and shifts them to his own. So someone says they want one thing. But that isn't really what they want.

As I said this happens a lot. Just in general. The biggest example is self defense. Generally a poster will come on and say they got beat up or something and want to learn to defend themselves. Which generally comes out they want to know how to fight.

And then they get informed that self defense isn't fighting and what they really want is something else. They really want fun or avoidance or people skills or something. That all martial arts are equal in this endeavor. 

Now if anyone remembers back to fat kid and the running race. It becomes the same deal. If fat kid wants to win a race he can go about it in two ways. He can either get faster through effort or enter a race where everyone wins. 

Obviously you can convince fat kid that winning a race does not necessarily mean being the fastest. And it is probably genetics anyway. So his priorities really are something else.

And that is how this striving for mediocrity as a concept comes about. 

The flat earth bit is after explaining all of this, providing quotes and everything he still just doesn't see it. Therefore the flat earth reference. 

So basically I keep bringing these concepts up because they keep occurring. And I constantly receive the reply of "nope never happens"

And by the way. Not wanting to get sore from exercise is striving for mediocrity.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I like this. Gonna steal it in my head



By the way what is your opinion of xma.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> By the way what is your opinion of xma.


I'm a fan, unfortunately the place is closed down according to google. But they don't try to sell themselves as a self defense or a fighting style, they're upfront about what they are. And honestly, with the level of fitness you'd get doing something like that, I don't think it would take very long to get someone to be fight-ready if they decided to cross train for (for example) a kickboxing match. I'd still recommend that people cross train in a 'martial' martial art, but I could totally see myself picking that up for fun.


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Basically gpseymor did exactly what I said he does. Takes the priorities of someone and shifts them to his own. So someone says they want one thing. But that isn't really what they want.


I think maybe you misunderstood JGW's post, DB. I think he was implying some people really don't want to do what it takes to become a good fighter, though they'd like to be a good fighter. That's how I read it, anyway, so one or the other of us misread it (or I'm misreading what you mean here).

EDIT: I also think I misread what you were saying earlier. I read your posts about "their intention is wrong" as meaning people were saying, "No, you shouldn't pursue MA for that reason." That's what I was saying I'd not seen.

See, you're looking for me to be ignoring stuff, rather than considering there might just be miscommunication. You do that more than a little.


----------



## DocWard

drop bear said:


> I was trying to type quickly.
> 
> Ok. Recap.
> 
> Basically gpseymor did exactly what I said he does. Takes the priorities of someone and shifts them to his own. So someone says they want one thing. But that isn't really what they want.
> 
> As I said this happens a lot. Just in general. The biggest example is self defense. Generally a poster will come on and say they got beat up or something and want to learn to defend themselves. Which generally comes out they want to know how to fight.
> 
> And then they get informed that self defense isn't fighting and what they really want is something else. They really want fun or avoidance or people skills or something. That all martial arts are equal in this endeavor.
> 
> Now if anyone remembers back to fat kid and the running race. It becomes the same deal. If fat kid wants to win a race he can go about it in two ways. He can either get faster through effort or enter a race where everyone wins.
> 
> Obviously you can convince fat kid that winning a race does not necessarily mean being the fastest. And it is probably genetics anyway. So his priorities really are something else.
> 
> And that is how this striving for mediocrity as a concept comes about.
> 
> The flat earth bit is after explaining all of this, providing quotes and everything he still just doesn't see it. Therefore the flat earth reference.
> 
> So basically I keep bringing these concepts up because they keep occurring. And I constantly receive the reply of "nope never happens"
> 
> And by the way. Not wanting to get sore from exercise is striving for mediocrity.



Unfortunately, it appears you are going to need to place me in your "flat earth" category as well, because in reviewing the entire thread, focusing on posts gpseymour made and responded to, as well as your own, I have not really seen him shifting someone else's priorities to his own. I have seen him explaining his own experience and how his classes are structured, which is arguably a different thing. Perhaps it has happened on other threads, I can't and won't speak to that. I also won't speak to general trends on other threads, because I don't have the time nor inclination to review a large number of threads seeking such.

On this thread, however, it appears to me that you sometimes make assumptions and logical leaps that aren't necessarily supported by the statements you reference. Maybe the connections are made in your head and don't make it to print. I will admit, I read your posts carefully, often attempting to understand exactly what you are trying to say and your basis for saying so. Maybe it is your writing style that I struggle with in that regard, I don't know. I have not seen anyone on this thread suggest others "strive for mediocrity," despite your assertions otherwise. I have seen people, myself included, suggest or imply the necessity of understanding where martial arts study fits into the hierarchy of priorities in one's life, and that most people will naturally do so, regardless of their stated desire.

On a final note, I understand what you are trying to say about not wanting to get sore from exercise. Yet, there again, not wanting to get sore and limiting yourself so that you do not get sore are two different things. Heck, I don't _want_ to get sore from exercise, but I accept that it is a natural result of a hard workout and why. Some revel in the soreness that a good workout brings. I'm not one of those people, but I don't let the specter of being sore stop me from working out either. I think there is a decided difference, don't you?


----------



## Steve

DocWard said:


> Unfortunately, it appears you are going to need to place me in your "flat earth" category as well, because in reviewing the entire thread, focusing on posts gpseymour made and responded to, as well as your own, I have not really seen him shifting someone else's priorities to his own. I have seen him explaining his own experience and how his classes are structured, which is arguably a different thing. Perhaps it has happened on other threads, I can't and won't speak to that. I also won't speak to general trends on other threads, because I don't have the time nor inclination to review a large number of threads seeking such.
> 
> On this thread, however, it appears to me that you sometimes make assumptions and logical leaps that aren't necessarily supported by the statements you reference. Maybe the connections are made in your head and don't make it to print. I will admit, I read your posts carefully, often attempting to understand exactly what you are trying to say and your basis for saying so. Maybe it is your writing style that I struggle with in that regard, I don't know. I have not seen anyone on this thread suggest others "strive for mediocrity," despite your assertions otherwise. I have seen people, myself included, suggest or imply the necessity of understanding where martial arts study fits into the hierarchy of priorities in one's life, and that most people will naturally do so, regardless of their stated desire.
> 
> On a final note, I understand what you are trying to say about not wanting to get sore from exercise. Yet, there again, not wanting to get sore and limiting yourself so that you do not get sore are two different things. Heck, I don't _want_ to get sore from exercise, but I accept that it is a natural result of a hard workout and why. Some revel in the soreness that a good workout brings. I'm not one of those people, but I don't let the specter of being sore stop me from working out either. I think there is a decided difference, don't you?


we are guilty of writing in shorthand sometimes around here.  Discussions range from thread to thread.  Very helpful to see it from your perspective .


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Mabye the people who say they do. Really do.
> 
> We get a lot of those guys. Who even just want to do one to see if they can.


From what I can tell.  The ones who really do put in the work to be able to use what they train.  They have a different intensity and focus than those who don't want to learn how to fight.  The best way I can describe it is that they are almost always in the mindset of "trying to figure it out."   Do who aren't fighters tend to be more focus and satisfied with "how to do."  It's like How to do vs How do I do.  Here's the difference.

*How to do* - is more asking questions like how do you do this technique.  This group focuses on learning patterns and forms
*How do I / Figuring out* - is more like how do things work.  How do I set this technique up, How is this technique supposed to work,.  This group is usually in thought about how to make stuff work


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> From what I can tell.  The ones who really do put in the work to be able to use what they train.  They have a different intensity and focus than those who don't want to learn how to fight.  The best way I can describe it is that they are almost always in the mindset of "trying to figure it out."   Do who aren't fighters tend to be more focus and satisfied with "how to do."  It's like How to do vs How do I do.  Here's the difference.
> 
> *How to do* - is more asking questions like how do you do this technique.  This group focuses on learning patterns and forms
> *How do I / Figuring out* - is more like how do things work.  How do I set this technique up, How is this technique supposed to work,.  This group is usually in thought about how to make stuff work



Strange. Because we take random guys and train them to become fighters.

We run a course for it.

And interestingly I came across this which might be what you are describing.






And it almost doesn't happen with the guys we train.


----------



## drop bear

DocWard said:


> Unfortunately, it appears you are going to need to place me in your "flat earth" category as well, because in reviewing the entire thread, focusing on posts gpseymour made and responded to, as well as your own, I have not really seen him shifting someone else's priorities to his own. I have seen him explaining his own experience and how his classes are structured, which is arguably a different thing. Perhaps it has happened on other threads, I can't and won't speak to that. I also won't speak to general trends on other threads, because I don't have the time nor inclination to review a large number of threads seeking such.
> 
> On this thread, however, it appears to me that you sometimes make assumptions and logical leaps that aren't necessarily supported by the statements you reference. Maybe the connections are made in your head and don't make it to print. I will admit, I read your posts carefully, often attempting to understand exactly what you are trying to say and your basis for saying so. Maybe it is your writing style that I struggle with in that regard, I don't know. I have not seen anyone on this thread suggest others "strive for mediocrity," despite your assertions otherwise. I have seen people, myself included, suggest or imply the necessity of understanding where martial arts study fits into the hierarchy of priorities in one's life, and that most people will naturally do so, regardless of their stated desire.
> 
> On a final note, I understand what you are trying to say about not wanting to get sore from exercise. Yet, there again, not wanting to get sore and limiting yourself so that you do not get sore are two different things. Heck, I don't _want_ to get sore from exercise, but I accept that it is a natural result of a hard workout and why. Some revel in the soreness that a good workout brings. I'm not one of those people, but I don't let the specter of being sore stop me from working out either. I think there is a decided difference, don't you?



It's a meta thing. Which is kind of why I use the short hand. 

It just brings attention to these concepts as I see them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> ou are saying they don't want to learn to fight after they just told you they did?


This is what I'm saying.  People will come into a school.  You ask them what do they want to get out of the school and their training.  Somewhere in that discussion, they will say.  "*Learn how to protect myself*."   People say this without understanding what it really takes to learn how to use Martial arts techniques.  

They don't understand:

You are going to get punched and kicked and some of those things aren't going to feel good.
You are going to make many mistakes before you get good at it, in terms of fighting mistakes usually mean #1 above
You are going to have to work your but off and learn how to not be afraid of #1
You'll have bruises, maybe a black eye, jammed fingers, or some other injury as a result. 

You'll be afraid / have butterflies, and deal with your fears and it really never goes away.  You get to one level of sparring and those fears vanish,  increase intensity and those same fears spark up again.
You'll have to learn how to trust a technique even if it seems you are going to get your face punched in.  You have to do the technique as trained without "*trying to make a technique work.*"
All of this and more are involved in fighting and not many people are willing to go through this.  Here's a real student example,   A lady does a trail and said she wants to learn how to protect herself against someone bigger (she's small and very skinny).  This is what she said to me.  Then keeping to what she wanted.  One day I stated. "*If you really want to be able to use those punches, you'll have to cut your fingernails.  Otherwise you are going to injure your hand because you can't make a proper fist with fingernails that long*."    This was a deal killer and she never came back.   So she liked the idea of fighting, but wasn't willing to commit to it.

She likes the idea of being small lady being able to defeat someone much bigger, but isn't willing to commit to making that a reality.  She told me she want to take Wing Chun because it was made for women who are smaller to beat bigger people.   I told her that Jow Ga is better (in my mind it is, but it's just bias as far as I know).  I also told her a Wing Chun  teaher will tell her the same thing.  Long fingernails don't make good fists.

TMA vs MMA is full of  guys who like the "idea of fighting" but actually don't put the necessary work in to be able to use the techniques for that purpose.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Strange. Because we take random guys and train them to become fighters.
> 
> We run a course for it.
> 
> And interestingly I came across this which might be what you are describing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it almost doesn't happen with the guys we train.


If the school is focus on training people how to fight, then you aren't going to see many people like what I described.  Like the gyms that train fighters have a lot of people who like to fight and really want to learn how.  It's more than just exercise for them.  They put in the work.   But with many TMA schools, it's just for health, discipline, or some will even say "It's only good for exercise because you really can't use it for fighting." (I was actually told this by a student I trained, who is originally from China.)   

There's nothing wrong with it.  A school has to pay their bills.   When I used to teach at my old school,  The marketing that I did was focused on the fighting because the it was decided long ago that's the type of people the oldest students wanted in the school.  People who actually want to learn how to use kung fu.   Then I get in trouble for "focusing too much on fighting." lol.

Your school or gym may be different and is most likely up front about what people are getting themselves into.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Strange. Because we take random guys and train them to become fighters.
> 
> We run a course for it.
> 
> And interestingly I came across this which might be what you are describing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it almost doesn't happen with the guys we train.


Yes.  That's an example of people who like the idea of being a fighter and then are clueless as to what that really involves.  At least the ones that I've met like this were smart enough to know their limits when reality of learning how to fight hits the ground.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> If the school is focus on training people how to fight, then you aren't going to see many people like what I described.  Like the gyms that train fighters have a lot of people who like to fight and really want to learn how.  It's more than just exercise for them.  They put in the work.   But with many TMA schools, it's just for health, discipline, or some will even say "It's only good for exercise because you really can't use it for fighting." (I was actually told this by a student I trained, who is originally from China.)
> 
> There's nothing wrong with it.  A school has to pay their bills.   When I used to teach at my old school,  The marketing that I did was focused on the fighting because the it was decided long ago that's the type of people the oldest students wanted in the school.  People who actually want to learn how to use kung fu.   Then I get in trouble for "focusing too much on fighting." lol.
> 
> Your school or gym may be different and is most likely up front about what people are getting themselves into.



So you think there are a different bunch of guys going to these gyms. These fighters, non fighters going to one and the fighters really fighters going to another.

Even though there is no real restriction as to who goes to what gym.

And definitely not the system that is not providing the right tools to make students succeed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> That's an example of people who like the idea of being a fighter and then are clueless as to what that really involves.


One of my guys wants to compete in Sanda tournament. I ask him to run 3 miles daily before he even consider it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So you think there are a different bunch of guys going to these gyms. These fighters, non fighters going to one and the fighters really fighters going to another.
> 
> Even though there is no real restriction as to who goes to what gym.


Yes and from what I can tell. I've been to both establishments and the environment doesn't even feel the same.  For example, we would be hard press to go to a muay thai gym and have someone say "I'm just doing this for exercise because no one uses this stuff to fight with anymore."  Now go to a TMA school and you'll easily find people who have that same belief.  

There are restrictions and the restriction are based on how the school or gym markets itself.  I could show examples for it but it would be against the rules here.  I'll try to highlight with these videos but  it doesn't show the marketing just the perspective in how they see their system.

Subject 1:  Nah we don't spar






Subject 2: There might be some sparring






Subject 3: So when do we start sparring






Out of the 3 videos which person is most likely to get the bulk of those who want to know how to fight?  



drop bear said:


> And definitely not the system that is not providing the right tools to make students succeed.


I don't think it's the system, well in some cases it is, but in most it's not. Those Yellow Bamboo guys stuff isn't going work regardless of how hard a person trains.

But for the rest of the fighting systems.  I definitely think it's the approach to training that makes all the difference.  Fighters and people who actually train for actual use of techniques have similar training approaches even though they are training in different systems


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of my guys wants to compete in Sanda tournament. I ask him to run 3 miles daily before he even consider it.


It looks easy when we watch the competitions but the truth is so far from easy.   Competition level fighting skills or just competition anything is not the same as showing up 3 days a week for 1 hour just for exercise.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes and from what I can tell. I've been to both establishments and the environment doesn't even feel the same.  For example, we would be hard press to go to a muay thai gym and have someone say "I'm just doing this for exercise because no one uses this stuff to fight with anymore."  Now go to a TMA school and you'll easily find people who have that same belief.
> 
> There are restrictions and the restriction are based on how the school or gym markets itself.  I could show examples for it but it would be against the rules here.  I'll try to highlight with these videos but  it doesn't show the marketing just the perspective in how they see their system.
> 
> Subject 1:  Nah we don't spar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 2: There might be some sparring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject 3: So when do we start sparring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of the 3 videos which person is most likely to get the bulk of those who want to know how to fight?
> 
> 
> I don't think it's the system, well in some cases it is, but in most it's not. Those Yellow Bamboo guys stuff isn't going work regardless of how hard a person trains.
> 
> But for the rest of the fighting systems.  I definitely think it's the approach to training that makes all the difference.  Fighters and people who actually train for actual use of techniques have similar training approaches even though they are training in different systems


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


>


That place confuses me. The video gave me a bit of a mixed feel in terms of what they go for, but mostly "this is a place to get in shape, not to fight", but some of the stuff they said seemed like you could learn to actually fight there too. And the record of Nick (26 fights, 16 wins) and Albert (9 fights 9 wins) seemed to go with that. But then I looked at reviews, and they were mostly "family atmosphere", "friendly place", "good for beginners", "good for kids", "fun sparring". Then I looked at some of the videos and they seem legit. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing, and if this gym is normal for australia it explains a lot of the confusion/arguments I've seen on here.

Considering the different class types, my assumption is that the 'fight camp' classes have a very different atmosphere than the mixed classes. That atmosphere can be felt on the first time you visit a place, and I think it's what Jowga was talking about with people navigating towards a specific type of gym, in the way (I'm assuming) people would navigate to a 'fighting' class vs a 'mixed' class. Around here at least, you would almost never expect to see both in the same dojo/gym


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> That place confuses me. The video gave me a bit of a mixed feel in terms of what they go for, but mostly "this is a place to get in shape, not to fight", but some of the stuff they said seemed like you could learn to actually fight there too. And the record of Nick (26 fights, 16 wins) and Albert (9 fights 9 wins) seemed to go with that. But then I looked at reviews, and they were mostly "family atmosphere", "friendly place", "good for beginners", "good for kids", "fun sparring". Then I looked at some of the videos and they seem legit. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing, and if this gym is normal for australia it explains a lot of the confusion/arguments I've seen on here.
> 
> Considering the different class types, my assumption is that the 'fight camp' classes have a very different atmosphere than the mixed classes. That atmosphere can be felt on the first time you visit a place, and I think it's what Jowga was talking about with people navigating towards a specific type of gym, in the way (I'm assuming) people would navigate to a 'fighting' class vs a 'mixed' class. Around here at least, you would almost never expect to see both in the same dojo/gym



If you want to get in shape you get in shape. If you want to fight you fight. If you want a social group it's a social group.

Fighters and hobbyists are the same people. 

If you think you can't have all of that in one gym you are striving to be mediocre.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> That place confuses me. The video gave me a bit of a mixed feel in terms of what they go for, but mostly "this is a place to get in shape, not to fight", but some of the stuff they said seemed like you could learn to actually fight there too. And the record of Nick (26 fights, 16 wins) and Albert (9 fights 9 wins) seemed to go with that. But then I looked at reviews, and they were mostly "family atmosphere", "friendly place", "good for beginners", "good for kids", "fun sparring". Then I looked at some of the videos and they seem legit. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing, and if this gym is normal for australia it explains a lot of the confusion/arguments I've seen on here.
> 
> Considering the different class types, my assumption is that the 'fight camp' classes have a very different atmosphere than the mixed classes. That atmosphere can be felt on the first time you visit a place, and I think it's what Jowga was talking about with people navigating towards a specific type of gym, in the way (I'm assuming) people would navigate to a 'fighting' class vs a 'mixed' class. Around here at least, you would almost never expect to see both in the same dojo/gym



I watched the video and counted how many times they said the term fighting /fight /fighters and I heard 6 or 7.  I can go and use that comparison with some TMA schools and I feel pretty sure that one can pick a random school there wouldn't be the same embrace of the term fighting.  Right off the back fighting doesn't sound bad in this video.  From a TMA perspective, it almost always goes back to the spill about how to avoid fights, fighting, is no good.  But if you have to fight you will be ready.

They sound similar to the approach that I took.  From my experience it seems that's the only way it will work.  A business can't force people who don't want to fight, how to fight.  That just makes coming to class miserable.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If you want to get in shape you get in shape. If you want to fight you fight. If you want a social group it's a social group.
> 
> Fighters and hobbyists are the same people.
> 
> If you think you can't have all of that in one gym you are striving to be mediocre.


I know it can be done under one gym.  But a lot of TMA school don't embrace fighting as a healthy thing. For me I embrace fighting and violence in general.  Fighting and violence shouldn't be treated as a disease that humans have.  Like everything else, there's just a positive way to do it that allows growth and a destructive way to do it that causes misery.  Most TMAs go down that "less violence" path where I tend to embrace it and provide an outlet for people to better manage it to the point where they don't feel like they need it but know that it's there in the event that they do.

We all know how to punch someone in the face really hard.  But it's not something we feel like we need to do,  But it's there if we need to use it.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I know it can be done under one gym.  But a lot of TMA school don't embrace fighting as a healthy thing. For me I embrace fighting and violence in general.  Fighting and violence shouldn't be treated as a disease that humans have.  Like everything else, there's just a positive way to do it that allows growth and a destructive way to do it that causes misery.  Most TMAs go down that "less violence" path where I tend to embrace it and provide an outlet for people to better manage it to the point where they don't feel like they need it but know that it's there in the event that they do.
> 
> We all know how to punch someone in the face really hard.  But it's not something we feel like we need to do,  But it's there if we need to use it.



And so. (And we took a long time getting here) The onus is on the club to provide the sort of quality training that produces the results it claims. Rather than claiming the students have some sort of inherent weakness. At least as a general rule.

And we don't have to compromise going to  viable schools for the sake of enjoyment or because our priorities are not fighting as we can get both.

And different schools will tend to produce different results and even have different cultures.

And so we can compare schools and systems to see which ones give the most benefits.

Which will then make the schools or systems that are actually producing a product that is viable stand out from the ones that are not.

Rather than lumping all schools and systems together because at the end of the day who cares what sort of results you get.


----------



## dvcochran

Dirty Dog said:


> Want to see a YouBoob video about how muay thai is useless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using YouBoob as a reference is... questionable... to say the least.


Hilarious.


----------



## Bruce7

ZockerSWAT said:


> Sorry, but I dont quite understand.
> Also sorry if this comes out as a Hypocrytical response but I actually dont get what you are trying to say,
> I am tired, got punched in the face,.. a lot today (was fun) so I hope you can understand.
> Thanks ^^


It is a satire mint to be funny, yet small pieces of true are put in like Mayweather carrying the MMA fighter.
I though it was well done. He is not really saying Mauy Thai is not useful in the street.


----------



## Bruce7

drop bear said:


> You can do both by the way. Have a system that works and have a positive uplifting atmosphere.
> 
> Martial arts for PTSD is a perfect example.


*Excellent *video, thanks


----------



## DocWard

JowGaWolf said:


> I know it can be done under one gym.  But a lot of TMA school don't embrace fighting as a healthy thing. For me I embrace fighting and violence in general.  Fighting and violence shouldn't be treated as a disease that humans have.  Like everything else, there's just a positive way to do it that allows growth and a destructive way to do it that causes misery.  Most TMAs go down that "less violence" path where I tend to embrace it and provide an outlet for people to better manage it to the point where they don't feel like they need it but know that it's there in the event that they do.
> 
> We all know how to punch someone in the face really hard.  But it's not something we feel like we need to do,  But it's there if we need to use it.



I believe I understand what you are saying, and if so, I agree with you. I've spent my adult life training for violence, as an Army Reservist and in the National Guard. I've also been a competitive shooter, which, while possibly more abstract than the martial arts even, has worked to keep skills honed. Obviously, there are the martial arts as well. During all that time, I've been of the belief that violence should be avoided, that we should attempt to make smart decisions in where we go, in how we go about our day, so as to limit our exposure to danger and potential violence. Clearly, in the military, that is not necessarily always an option. I was trained to move to the sound of bullets, but even there, lessons learned can be utilized in daily life. Once the necessity of violence arises, "embrace" it, as you said. Be decisive, and use the training you've been given and the weapons at your disposal, be they firearms or fists, to end the violence as quickly as possible to your advantage. There are exceptions, such as the staggering, drunken friend or the child with mental health issues, where we need to be judicious in our use of our skills. But, if forced into an altercation, quick and decisive violence visited upon the other is the best hope for survival without injury.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And so. (And we took a long time getting here) The onus is on the club to provide the sort of quality training that produces the results it claims. Rather than claiming the students have some sort of inherent weakness. At least as a general rule.
> 
> And we don't have to compromise going to  viable schools for the sake of enjoyment or because our priorities are not fighting as we can get both.
> 
> And different schools will tend to produce different results and even have different cultures.
> 
> And so we can compare schools and systems to see which ones give the most benefits.
> 
> Which will then make the schools or systems that are actually producing a product that is viable stand out from the ones that are not.
> 
> Rather than lumping all schools and systems together because at the end of the day who cares what sort of results you get.


Yes all of that is correct.  You can still lump schools together especially if they train under the same association or company.  Those schools would be restricted to  operate according to the organization standard.  But in terms of fighting much of the responsibility is going to be on the student.  I can teach you Jow Ga but it up to you to try to use it.  There's no way I can force some to use Jow Ga techniques.  I can encourage you but you would need to put forthe effort and attepts to using Jow Ga techniques.  

Out of curiosity are you trying to prove something to me or someone else?  If it's to me then I don't know what you are trying to highlight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DocWard said:


> I believe I understand what you are saying, and if so, I agree with you. I've spent my adult life training for violence, as an Army Reservist and in the National Guard. I've also been a competitive shooter, which, while possibly more abstract than the martial arts even, has worked to keep skills honed. Obviously, there are the martial arts as well. During all that time, I've been of the belief that violence should be avoided, that we should attempt to make smart decisions in where we go, in how we go about our day, so as to limit our exposure to danger and potential violence. Clearly, in the military, that is not necessarily always an option. I was trained to move to the sound of bullets, but even there, lessons learned can be utilized in daily life. Once the necessity of violence arises, "embrace" it, as you said. Be decisive, and use the training you've been given and the weapons at your disposal, be they firearms or fists, to end the violence as quickly as possible to your advantage. There are exceptions, such as the staggering, drunken friend or the child with mental health issues, where we need to be judicious in our use of our skills. But, if forced into an altercation, quick and decisive violence visited upon the other is the best hope for survival without injury.


Correct.   It's just really difficult to be good at something if the person doesn't embrace it.   Being good at violent acts doesn't mean the person is out of control.  For me, I control my violence it's a part of me.  It's not an addictive thing that controls me. I don't go out trying to satisfy some kind of blood thirst.  I rather not fight in the streets, but if I have to then I'm not going to try to Fight the act of being violent while being violent, while fighting against someone who is trying to hurt me.   That's 2 vs one.  Me fighting myself and my attacker fighting me.

Another way to look at it is like a drug addict looks at recovery.  Drug addicts usually don't recover until they embrace that they have a problem.  They can't avoid it, they have face it full on in all of it's ugliness. 

Here is my mental process of Martial Arts.
1. Martial Arts teaches techniques that were designed to hurt other people and in some cases kill other people
2. I want to be really good with the Martial Arts that I train.
3. The reality of me being good with the Martial Arts that I train is that I become really good with the ability to hurt and in some cases kill other people.
4. In order for me to good at hurting other people using Martial Arts techniques that were created to hurt other people,  Then I have to embrace the violence of it and embrace my own violence.

When I practice my staff I'm not thinking " Man I look good doing this form, I'm a badass"
When I practice my staff I'm thinking " Break bone, disarm.  Poke face, smash skull, Damage knee, hit joints and hands."  I can't be good at fighting if I'm more focused on looking good than hitting my targets and understanding what my strikes have the potential to do.

I can't embrace what needs to be done if part of me is telling me how wrong it is to be violent.  It's enough for me to fight against an attacker without fighting against myself.  I can't have the "Angel and Devil" fighting each on my shoulders.  I need both of them to be on the same page so  don't get my face kicked in or worse kill.  They can argue after the deed is done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you think there are a different bunch of guys going to these gyms. These fighters, non fighters going to one and the fighters really fighters going to another.
> 
> Even though there is no real restriction as to who goes to what gym.
> 
> And definitely not the system that is not providing the right tools to make students succeed.


It's not about restriction, but about attraction. People go to a place that they think fits what they're looking for. A reputedly good fight gym is going to attract folks looking for what they think that entails. Most TMA (and SD) schools specifically market "we can teach anyone" language. They can (in most cases, anyway) improve anyone's skill, but that wording probably doesn't attract folks who want to get right to fighting ability. Preconceived notions about MMA (fostered by some TV shows and videos of grueling training) also feed into that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you want to get in shape you get in shape. If you want to fight you fight. If you want a social group it's a social group.
> 
> Fighters and hobbyists are the same people.
> 
> If you think you can't have all of that in one gym you are striving to be mediocre.


You can have all of that...with a big enough group. Back when I was training my hardest in NGA, there were plenty of young bucks and experienced healthy people to train hard with. I can't train my hardest at that school now (even though I can't train as hard now as I could then). The population there has aged, and is smaller. So they manage pretty much 2 out of 3 at best (sometimes I doubt many are going hard enough to get in shape).

The bigger the population, the easier it is to find willing folks go hard, folks who want to make friends, and people who want to "explore the art". There will even be a few who fall into all three groups, but most won't.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It's not about restriction, but about attraction. People go to a place that they think fits what they're looking for. A reputedly good fight gym is going to attract folks looking for what they think that entails. Most TMA (and SD) schools specifically market "we can teach anyone" language. They can (in most cases, anyway) improve anyone's skill, but that wording probably doesn't attract folks who want to get right to fighting ability. Preconceived notions about MMA (fostered by some TV shows and videos of grueling training) also feed into that.


The part of this that I question is the part where you say, "They can (in most cases, anyway) improve anyone's skill."   I believe the opposite is generally true.  If you go to a fighting school, fitness is a necessary component.  Your fitness level will improve because that's part of learning to fight.   The converse, however, is not true.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The part of this that I question is the part where you say, "They can (in most cases, anyway) improve anyone's skill."   I believe the opposite is generally true.  If you go to a fighting school, fitness is a necessary component.  Your fitness level will improve because that's part of learning to fight.   The converse, however, is not true.


I'm not sure I follow the link between those folks being able to teach a skill, and being able to deliver fitness. You lost me.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes all of that is correct.  You can still lump schools together especially if they train under the same association or company.  Those schools would be restricted to  operate according to the organization standard.  But in terms of fighting much of the responsibility is going to be on the student.  I can teach you Jow Ga but it up to you to try to use it.  There's no way I can force some to use Jow Ga techniques.  I can encourage you but you would need to put forthe effort and attepts to using Jow Ga techniques.
> 
> Out of curiosity are you trying to prove something to me or someone else?  If it's to me then I don't know what you are trying to highlight.



I was bringing all my ramblings back together.

The original concern being should we even judge a system on viability?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not about restriction, but about attraction. People go to a place that they think fits what they're looking for. A reputedly good fight gym is going to attract folks looking for what they think that entails. Most TMA (and SD) schools specifically market "we can teach anyone" language. They can (in most cases, anyway) improve anyone's skill, but that wording probably doesn't attract folks who want to get right to fighting ability. Preconceived notions about MMA (fostered by some TV shows and videos of grueling training) also feed into that.



You have noticed I have been presenting the "we can teach anyone" vibe from gyms that also teach skills effectively. 

So I am not sure what you are suggesting that is the attraction difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have noticed I have been presenting the "we can teach anyone" vibe from gyms that also teach skills effectively.
> 
> So I am not sure what you are suggesting that is the attraction difference.


I haven't had a chance to watch the videos you posted, so I can't speak to that. All I can do is point out that we all choose where to train. And we choose based upon things we do and don't want. I've had folks decide not to train with me because I spend "too much time on exercise" (about 10 minutes on warm-up and exercise at the beginning of a 90-minute class). And people train at the level they wish. When I was attending 10 classes a week, nearly everyone else at that same school - with the same options I had - was training once or twice a week. How do you explain their decision? They chose their priorities, and acted accordingly.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I haven't had a chance to watch the videos you posted, so I can't speak to that. All I can do is point out that we all choose where to train. And we choose based upon things we do and don't want. I've had folks decide not to train with me because I spend "too much time on exercise" (about 10 minutes on warm-up and exercise at the beginning of a 90-minute class). And people train at the level they wish. When I was attending 10 classes a week, nearly everyone else at that same school - with the same options I had - was training once or twice a week. How do you explain their decision? They chose their priorities, and acted accordingly.



Interesting. Because looking at the marketing of self defense schools. They seem to think that a person's priorities in joining would maby look something like this.











There seems to be this theme of people just cleaning house.


----------



## drop bear

And one more for the giggles.





Who am I trying to attract with this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I was bringing all my ramblings back together.
> 
> The original concern being should we even judge a system on viability?


Oh ok.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.  I didn't know where you were heading on it.  That's a good point.  Usually a system would have to be extremely bad and questionable before I even start asking myself is a system is viable.  For me I'm usually questioning the instructor.  I don't mind if the instructor doesn't know something, but I do mind when the instructor tries to make stuff up to fill in the holes.   I would rather have an instructor that can admit that they don't know and then have the energy to find out the answer.


When things get to 3 levels above this (with 10th level being sure that a system is good) then I question the system.  This is a level 0 for me.  At this point I'm no longer questioning the system but the sanity of the people taking part in it. 





My belief is that most martial arts are pretty solid.  The biggest concern is just finding a Good teacher that knows their stuff, specifically knows what you actually want to learn be it real fighting, extreme karate, or tricking.  Me trying to teach TKD tricking would basically make me a McDojo. That is so far out of my box.

I guess it all comes back.  To the mental perception some of the teachers have.  35 years of Kung Fu  and demos but never used it in sparring may give a person the assumption that they can actually use it.  For me personally I've seen this happen with only 5 years of Kung Fu.  And it's probably really easy to overestimate one's ability if for the majority of the time a student is saying ouch every time you block a punch.  I can see how that could skew reality.

But to wrap it up.  I know I question the system last.  Question the student first, then the teacher, then the system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And one more for the giggles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who am I trying to attract with this?


I'm not sure who they are trying to attack but it looked good to me. lol.   Here's what I got from it.
1. Younger crowd
2. Older guys who refuse to be old
3. Someone who doesn't like their martial arts extremely traditional but enjoy a little tradition
4. Something modern and not old (punching pads, heavy bag, music).
5. Fun bunch  who was at the end.
6. People who train hard.  I know one of the big selling points for some of the people who signed up under my old school is that we did traditional body conditioning.  Aka punch and kick each other.
7.  The self-defense part didn't stick out to me.  I saw it, but it really didn't register as self-defense.

If I had to make an assumption then I would say that these guys probably train hard.   If I went to their school saw that they didn't, then I would be really disappointed.


EDIT:  This was what I was picking up from it, but they could be trying to put out an entirely different message that is lost on me. I'm pretty sure my life in martial arts is skewing some of what I think I'm seeing.  I could be self-reflecting and being reminded of the stuff I used to do at the old school.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I follow the link between those folks being able to teach a skill, and being able to deliver fitness. You lost me.


If in the pursuit of skill development you get fit, fitness is intrinsic to the activity.  In other words, you will not help but become more fit.  However, if fitness is the primary goal, developing any skill is not given.  And we see a lot of evidence that skill development falls by the wayside.  Essentially, the school becomes a formalized tae bo school.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure who they are trying to attack but it looked good to me. lol.   Here's what I got from it.
> 1. Younger crowd
> 2. Older guys who refuse to be old
> 3. Someone who doesn't like their martial arts extremely traditional but enjoy a little tradition
> 4. Something modern and not old (punching pads, heavy bag, music).
> 5. Fun bunch  who was at the end.
> 6. People who train hard.  I know one of the big selling points for some of the people who signed up under my old school is that we did traditional body conditioning.  Aka punch and kick each other.
> 7.  The self-defense part didn't stick out to me.  I saw it, but it really didn't register as self-defense.
> 
> If I had to make an assumption then I would say that these guys probably train hard.   If I went to their school saw that they didn't, then I would be really disappointed.
> 
> 
> EDIT:  This was what I was picking up from it, but they could be trying to put out an entirely different message that is lost on me. I'm pretty sure my life in martial arts is skewing some of what I think I'm seeing.  I could be self-reflecting and being reminded of the stuff I used to do at the old school.



The general theme is they can beat another guy in a fight. 

And so attracting guys who have that as a priority.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Interesting. Because looking at the marketing of self defense schools. They seem to think that a person's priorities in joining would maby look something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be this theme of people just cleaning house.


That is part of the marketing, yes. If we look at some of what people pick up (possibly not consciously), the defenders are rarely shown having to work too hard. A quick flurry, not out of breath, and it's over. When the instructor demonstrates, he often does the cool stuff that he makes look easy (because it's fun to do that - I do some of it, too). Now, look at how many MMA gyms show the sweat. Maybe just the difference in terms encapsulates what I'm getting at: "school" or "academy", versus "gym". Which would you expect to make you sweat (from physical exertion - some of us sweat just thinking about school)?

And it's definitely not a black-and-white thing. There's some of each on each side, but it's a matter of the preponderance of things.

Now, I might be wrong about some (or even all) of this. But it's a considered point based on thinking about this a few years to try to figure why people go where they do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And one more for the giggles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who am I trying to attract with this?


The hard-training zen disco crowd? A very strong niche, so I hear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If in the pursuit of skill development you get fit, fitness is intrinsic to the activity.  In other words, you will not help but become more fit.  However, if fitness is the primary goal, developing any skill is not given.  And we see a lot of evidence that skill development falls by the wayside.  Essentially, the school becomes a formalized tae bo school.


It could be part of what happens. But it really doesn't have to be. If you train soft and slow, you'll still develop some skills (I'd argue they're not reliable for fighting, but note I didn't say "fighting skills"), but you won't gain much in fitness.

I do agree that fitness doesn't guarantee a specific skill. But that wasn't the point I made. I said the schools could teach skills to pretty much anyone - again, not necessarily fight-applicable skills (I could teach classical NGA techniques without any real attempt to make them fight-applicable, for instance). And yes, it could become something like Tae Bo, or something like modern Wushu, which has a lot of skill, but much of it isn't really fight-applicable (and that latter is close to what I was trying to say - I probably should have used that example the first time).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The general theme is they can beat another guy in a fight.
> 
> And so attracting guys who have that as a priority.


I do think that particular school is doing exactly what you said. And looking at their training, they train very differently from most Aikido schools, if we assume the video is a reasonable representation of what they do. They have a foundation for their Aikido principles to work on. Again, assuming that video is a fair representation, and not just a really good demo reel.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> And looking at their training, they train very differently from most Aikido schools,


This is what I was picking up as well but wasn't sure sense I've never seen an Aikido class in session.  People usually put the most important thing about their school first.  So in that video it would have been Tradition.  Then after that a more modern feel game in.  It had that "old with the new" new vibe in it. 

Here's a comparison video from 9 years ago.  Big difference.  I asked myself which Aikido school would I go to.  I'm definitely picking the one that had punching and the heavy bag.  The first school just looks like they are working harder.  This school just looks like the energy is missing.   Again most people put the most important thing in the video first.






EDIT:  If I had to guess there are many TMA schools that are now going through big changes in how "Old ways are presented"


----------



## DocWard

gpseymour said:


> The hard-training zen disco crowd? A very strong niche, so I hear.



I'm still looking for the hard-training zen metal niche.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what I was picking up as well but wasn't sure sense I've never seen an Aikido class in session.  People usually put the most important thing about their school first.  So in that video it would have been Tradition.  Then after that a more modern feel game in.  It had that "old with the new" new vibe in it.
> 
> Here's a comparison video from 9 years ago.  Big difference.  I asked myself which Aikido school would I go to.  I'm definitely picking the one that had punching and the heavy bag.  The first school just looks like they are working harder.  This school just looks like the energy is missing.   Again most people put the most important thing in the video first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  If I had to guess there are many TMA schools that are now going through big changes in how "Old ways are presented"


I didn’t even make it through the whole video. It seems even they knew energy was missing: they sped it up in post-production. 

As for where a video starts, I think it’s often what they think is most interesting (which may or may not be what’s most important to them). It’s telling to me that the video you posted is more than 1/2 warmup.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DocWard said:


> I'm still looking for the hard-training zen metal niche.


Let me know if you find it. I’d like to visit. Heavy bag work to Enter the Sandman works for me.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It could be part of what happens. But it really doesn't have to be. If you train soft and slow, you'll still develop some skills (I'd argue they're not reliable for fighting, but note I didn't say "fighting skills"), but you won't gain much in fitness.
> 
> I do agree that fitness doesn't guarantee a specific skill. But that wasn't the point I made. I said the schools could teach skills to pretty much anyone - again, not necessarily fight-applicable skills (I could teach classical NGA techniques without any real attempt to make them fight-applicable, for instance). And yes, it could become something like Tae Bo, or something like modern Wushu, which has a lot of skill, but much of it isn't really fight-applicable (and that latter is close to what I was trying to say - I probably should have used that example the first time).


i think you’re getting close to understanding.  It is not true that you will develop some skill if you train soft and slow.  You may.  But we see a lot of evidence that you actually do not.

As en exercise, try to think of any other activity where a person signs up to learn how to do something, and gets taught something else.   “Thank you for signing up for baking classes.  Please line up and we will begin our breathing exercises.  After which we will plug in the toasters,”


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> i think you’re getting close to understanding.  It is not true that you will develop some skill if you train soft and slow.  You may.  But we see a lot of evidence that you actually do not.


I think you may be confusing "some skill" with "a particular skill". I can absolutely teach someone a skill slow. They may not be able to apply it faster (reducing the usability of it), but it's still a skill. That's what I was getting at: when a school says "we can teach anyone", that's probably true (excepting some outlandish outliers). They can deliver a skill to anyone, even if it's not a fighting skill.



> As en exercise, try to think of any other activity where a person signs up to learn how to do something, and gets taught something else.   “Thank you for signing up for baking classes.  Please line up and we will begin our breathing exercises.  After which we will plug in the toasters,”


We're back to the problem of defining what MA is, I think. I'd include modern Wushu in that definition, though it's arguable whether what they teach has any real applicability to fighting. Heck, if I was younger, I might even be interested in getting training in modern Wushu, because it looks like fun. But it'd be like taking gymnastics classes - not necessarily related to fighting skill.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> s for where a video starts, I think it’s often what they think is most interesting


Stretching sucks. not much interesting about it, but it is important.  Do Aikido guys have a tendency of not being flexible?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Stretching sucks. not much interesting about it, but it is important.  Do Aikido guys have a tendency of not being flexible?


Probably. I've not seen a lot of stretching in most Aikido schools. Even in NGA, where it's probably more of an issue, they don't stretch anything like that much. I'm guessing that particular school saw their lengthy warm-up as a "pro" and a differentiator. I'm not sure from what, though.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think you may be confusing "some skill" with "a particular skill". I can absolutely teach someone a skill slow. They may not be able to apply it faster (reducing the usability of it), but it's still a skill. That's what I was getting at: when a school says "we can teach anyone", that's probably true (excepting some outlandish outliers). They can deliver a skill to anyone, even if it's not a fighting skill.
> 
> 
> We're back to the problem of defining what MA is, I think. I'd include modern Wushu in that definition, though it's arguable whether what they teach has any real applicability to fighting. Heck, if I was younger, I might even be interested in getting training in modern Wushu, because it looks like fun. But it'd be like taking gymnastics classes - not necessarily related to fighting skill.


I'm not confusing anything . I'm just making a different point than you think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm not confusing anything . I'm just making a different point than you think.


You seemed to be addressing my point, so I was addressing what seemed to be your contradiction to what I was saying. If you weren't, then I'll need to go back and re-read with that in mind.


----------



## Trapboxer

Wing Chun is definitely a viable martial art and can be very effective but the problem is how most sifus train the art
They don't do enough sparring some don't do any sparring.they do tons of chi Sao which is great but chi Sao is a whole lot different when someone is trying to punch you in the face. Chi Sao does have benefits it help develop sensitivity which gives you a whole lot of info when tie up where your weight is, structure, energy, etc 
But you need to be able to this while being pressure tested

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Oily Dragon

There are generally two schools of thought.  

One is that this video is some of the best Wing Chun sparring on the internet.  The other is that this is patty cake garbage.

Choose wisely.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Oily Dragon said:


> There are generally two schools of thought.
> 
> One is that this video is some of the best Wing Chun sparring on the internet.  The other is that this is patty cake garbage.
> 
> Choose wisely.


They both have established some good clinch. But none of them had taken advantage on their clinch.


----------



## Trapboxer

Sifu Mark Philips does a great job of controlling and countering


Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmejr

ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?





ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Trapboxer said:


> Sifu Mark Philips does a great job of controlling and countering.


His mind is 100% in the striking. A good clinch can give him the opportunity to take his opponent down.

Wing Chun Kung-Fu Club on Facebook Watch
Wing Chun Shuai Jiao Demonstration


----------



## Holmejr

Confusing self defense with sport. We tend to compare martial arts with whether it will work in the ring. I hear many say: "oh, you would never see that in the ring" or "that would never work in the ring". I personally don't care about the ring. On the street,  your self defense is training, technique and surprise. Your moves should be "faster than action". When I say technique, I mean almost ANY legitimate and well trained technique. All the classic martial arts give you the tools to defend yourself on the street. IMO, being well trained in Wing chun makes it viable on the street. Go for Wing chun, Muay Thai, Kenpo, FMA, Karate or whatever.  Just go for it well.

Black belt in Eskrido de Alcuizar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Holmejr said:


> Confusing self defense with sport. We tend to compare martial arts with whether it will work in the ring. I hear many say: "oh, you would never see that in the ring" or "that would never work in the ring". I personally don't care about the ring. On the street,  your self defense is training, technique and surprise. Your moves should be "faster than action". When I say technique, I mean almost ANY legitimate and well trained technique. All the classic martial arts give you the tools to defend yourself on the street. IMO, being well trained in Wing chun makes it viable on the street. Go for Wing chun, Muay Thai, Kenpo, FMA, Karate or whatever.  Just go for it well.
> 
> Black belt in Eskrido de Alcuizar.


I think dismissing "the ring" is a mistake. While I agree that context makes a difference, and the opponent matters (many things work on less-trained folks, but won't work against that trained opponent in the ring), sport is an excellent place to get information. We can't get to anything like useful statistics about technique in self-defense situations, but we can with sport. Ignoring that information isn't using all your tools.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> I think dismissing "the ring" is a mistake. While I agree that context makes a difference, and the opponent matters (many things work on less-trained folks, but won't work against that trained opponent in the ring), sport is an excellent place to get information. We can't get to anything like useful statistics about technique in self-defense situations, but we can with sport. Ignoring that information isn't using all your tools.


I've heard this "rings have rules, get you killed in the street" argument for, literally, decades now.  I've heard it applied to pretty much every martial art, MMA, and even firearms competitions.

Here's what I know:
You don't have to engage in sporting competitions to learn how to fight and survive.  But doing so *does not harm your ability to fight* and sometimes can help.

The more realistic the competition, the better.  At the bottom end is "tag" style point sparring and bullseye shooting.  But even they offer benefits that are directly applicable.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> I've heard this "rings have rules, get you killed in the street" argument for, literally, decades now.  I've heard it applied to pretty much every martial art, MMA, and even firearms competitions.
> 
> Here's what I know:
> You don't have to engage in sporting competitions to learn how to fight and survive.  But doing so *does not harm your ability to fight* and sometimes can help.
> 
> The more realistic the competition, the better.  At the bottom end is "tag" style point sparring and bullseye shooting.  But even they offer benefits that are directly applicable.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I was once pretty close to the "rules get you killed" camp. My view is now much as you put here.


----------



## Holmejr

Yes, should have rephrased that to "as much about the ring". Of course, coming from a JKD background originally, I believe in absorb what is useful. With that said, a kick to the groin, head butt, breaking a bone or a gouge to the eyes typically ends an attack faster than breaking your hand on somebodies face.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

lklawson said:


> You don't have to engage in sporting competitions to learn how to fight and survive.  But doing so *does not harm your ability to fight* and sometimes can help.


Agree that

- sport is the path,
- combat is the goal.

I can't believe that we are still debating on simply logic like this today. Those illegal techniques uses in the ring (or on the mat) are the most effective techniques used in the street.

To kick someone when he is on the ground may be illegal in sport. It's deadly in the street. A student of mine, his son was killed by this.

A: Dear teacher! my son was kicked on the ground. There were blood in his skull. The doctor said there is nothing that he can do. Do you have any secret Chinese medicine that can save my son's life?
B: I'm sorry that I don't know any secret Chinese medicine that can save your son's life. I'm truly sorry.

I hate to let people down but I won't say what I don't know. That evening, my student lost his son. I lost my student's faith.


----------



## drop bear

Holmejr said:


> Yes, should have rephrased that to "as much about the ring". Of course, coming from a JKD background originally, I believe in absorb what is useful. With that said, a kick to the groin, head butt, breaking a bone or a gouge to the eyes typically ends an attack faster than breaking your hand on somebodies face.



I am going to say kind of statistically/anecdotally  (if that is a thing)

It doesn't.

In that face punchy punchy ends more fights by far than any other move in a no rules fight as far as I can tell.


----------



## Acronym

No


----------



## Karate student96

Acronym said:


> No


Jesus Christ I don’t even use this site much but I keep seeing your dumbass comments everywhere talking trash about everything and anything....my experience the one with the biggest mouth is the one with the smallest amount of abilities


----------



## Acronym

Karate student96 said:


> Jesus Christ I don’t even use this site much but I keep seeing your dumbass comments everywhere talking trash about everything and anything....my experience the one with the biggest mouth is the one with the smallest amount of abilities



I wonder who this is


----------



## Acronym

Oh and if I have to say yes (in other words a dictactorship). Then no point in the thread.

My answer is no.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> Oh and if I have to say yes (in other words a dictactorship). Then no point in the thread.
> 
> My answer is no.


Because.....


----------



## Cynik75

I have seen dozens times more eye pokes and groin kicks in MMA matches than in youtube streetfights.


----------



## lklawson

Holmejr said:


> Of course, coming from a JKD background originally, I believe in absorb what is useful.


And that's yet another can of worms.  "Useful" varies enormously from person to person, place to place, and time period to time period.  And example which I like to use from "knife fighting" is to compare the knives and techniques of 15th Century Germany, during the "Little Ice Age," to the knives and techniques of the tropical Philippines.  Both had sophisticated knife fighting systems but both the weapons and the techniques were very different and one reason was because of the clothing relative to the physical environments of each.  And much of the standard technique of each would not have been "useful" to be "absorbed" to the other.

At the same time, many of the underlying principals are similar.  This is because humans are still built the same way, move the same, bend in the same places, break in the same ways, and die from the same injuries, regardless of the time or place.  On a certain level, "fighting is fighting."

Ah well.  I have more of that rant, but I think you can see where it goes.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Ivan

ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?


The art itself is viable. It has been used in MMA by legends such as Jon Jones and I think GSP as well as Anderson Silva (could be wrong about the last two). The problem is the overly traditionalist way of training in China, and most schools that teach it, as they don't include sparring classes against more modern styles. It's quite hard to use a martial art against a boxer, if you have only ever sparred against people that use the same martial art as you - this especially applies to Wing Chun due to the uniqueness of the style, and its lack of resemblance to virtually any other style I have ever seen.





I personally think this demonstrates the way that wing chun can pressure opponents in a very good manner. Wing Chun definitely doesn't have the strongest punches, but they are definitely the fastest due to the centre line theory, of always taking the more direct route. The punches you see by the man using Wing Chun, the guy in the black trousers, are a staple technique of this famous wushu/kung-fu style, and can be compared to a battering ram breaking down a gate - the battering ram isn't initially powerful enough to break the door down, but the damage it causes over several amounts of strikes builds up and results in the gate crumbling to pieces.




Here is Wing Chun in MMA. Even Joe Rogan acknowledges it works in this video:




However, do keep in mind that in contrast to other more modern martial arts, it takes a considerably longer time to be able to apply it, due to the science and technique behind the art that is heavily focused on. Tell your brother to not e discouraged, he took up a great style. But also tell him when he feels confident enough, to test his skills against people of other styles in a a controlled sparring environment with appropriate supervision and equipment.


----------



## Cynik75

Ivan said:


> The art itself is viable. It has been used in MMA by legends such as Jon Jones ...


Does Jon Jones know that?


----------



## Oily Dragon

Someone once asked me if Wing Chun was good for self defense "in a street fight".  I told them no, go train in Sanshou first.  

Came back to me later on, said they trained Sanshou but also Wing Chun and that I had been wrong.

Told them no a second time, and was right both times.


----------



## Acronym

gpseymour said:


> Because.....



Insufficient long range methodology consisting of an underwhelming side kick, and possibly some stomps. No that I think the close range part is sufficient either....


----------



## Flying Crane

Acronym said:


> Insufficient long range methodology consisting of an underwhelming side kick, and possibly some stomps. No that I think the close range part is sufficient either....


You’ve  trained in wing chun?


----------



## Graywalker

I would say yes. At least parts of it, do seem to be viable. 

I am not an expert or even a practitioner, but I believe most systems have some units that work, if needed.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Acronym said:


> Insufficient long range methodology consisting of an underwhelming side kick, and possibly some stomps. No that I think the close range part is sufficient either....



The Chinese saying for this is the bridge inside one inch, the cheun kiu.  It's fairly lethal.


----------



## Hanzou

Wing Chun's effectiveness depends on the practitioner and the instruction.

It wouldn't be on my personal list of recommended styles, but different people have different interests.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Hanzou said:


> Wing Chun's effectiveness depends on the practitioner and the instruction.
> 
> It wouldn't be on my personal list of recommended styles, but different people have different interests.



You can learn a lot of Wing Chun by learning other styles, particularly southern family styles.

You could do a lot with Wing Chun if you knew what you were doing first.  

If you don't, you'd probably think kim yeurng ma is a fighting stance.


----------



## Deleted member 48484

ZockerSWAT said:


> My older brother got wing chung classes and he like it.
> He didnt go to some classes and dropped it, because his teacher changed, but he still had in his mind, that
> wing chun is viable,.... because his trainer said he needed self defense and started giving him classes.
> 
> I am doing muay thai right now, and I have to say its fricking amazing! Just all the kind of kicks is so much fun.
> I had a sparring match as well (but sadly a boxing sparring match, because I only had 2 days of training, but still fun!). I got a lot of adrenaline and it felt so good being in a sparring match.
> After I told my older brother about it, he got a bit depressed, because he watched a video of 5 fake martial arts, and wing chun was at number one. Because I am not quite the martial artist, I need your guys' opinion on this martial art. Is it viable, or fake?




Hi.

I can only speak from my own experiences and the experience from fellow martial artists I was sparring with.
I did WT for a while and overall I find it to be completely useless the way it is trained in MOST schools. It's effective against others who also use WT against you but once you hop in to a sparring match with someone who practices let's say MT or Kickboxing or hell..even MMA, you are going to eat blood.

I have only seen/heard of some WT schools that involve full contact sparring in full speed and all, which I think do prepare you for real self defense as it allows you to get an insight in to what really works in practice and not only in theory and ultra controlled training.

The only thing I personally have taken from WT in to other martial arts is the reflexes and a few blocks but that's about it.

However as with all systems I personally think that if you train it a hell a lot, do some more work at home (your homework), conditioning and such as well as semi to full contact sparring and maybe compete with martial artists from other systems from time to time, you can indeed use WT effectively and call it viable.

But in my opinion there are other systems that get you the same fun, require less work but get you " combat ready " a lot more effectively and quicker.

Again, this is just my personal opinion and I know there are tons of people who swear on WT but also in my experience, non of them has ever won a match against me as especially when I was younger I did challenge Kung-Fu and WT guys in my area, they might landed a few hard punches in my head but were annexed and overwhelmed by kicks and punches quickly as their techniques would require ubermensch kind of reflexes and speed to actually work on my aggressive strikes.


----------



## Cynik75

Meanwhile in the Internet:


----------



## Shatteredzen

Cynik75 said:


> Meanwhile in the Internet:



Qi La La seems to put much of the argument regarding its use to bed, considering he is an almost exclusively trained Kung Fu/WC guy and he's using it in the ring with Muay Thai and kickboxers.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Qi La La seems to put much of the argument regarding its use to bed, considering he is an almost exclusively trained Kung Fu/WC guy and he's using it in the ring with Muay Thai and kickboxers.



But it doesn't justify your process if it is different to his.

You have to see how he is training and replicate that.

So for example. I do sparring and Tiger Muay thai does sparring so I am training like tiger muay thai. 

And they produce top tier fighters so therefore my system works. 

But I don't spar anything like this. 





So I am not going to achieve anything near the same results.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> But it doesn't justify your process if it is different to his.
> 
> You have to see how he is training and replicate that.
> 
> So for example. I do sparring and Tiger Muay thai does sparring so I am training like tiger muay thai.
> 
> And they produce top tier fighters so therefore my system works.
> 
> But I don't spar anything like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am not going to achieve anything near the same results.



Yeah, I'll stick to Bjj. I have a white collar job and I can't show up to the office with black eyes and a busted lip.

Kudos to those guys though, looks like some fun times!


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I'll stick to Bjj. I have a white collar job and I can't show up to the office with black eyes and a busted lip.
> 
> Kudos to those guys though, looks like some fun times!



That is the pro fighter class. 

They do have a vegi patch. They do have a very patch for the rest of us.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> But it doesn't justify your process if it is different to his.
> 
> You have to see how he is training and replicate that.
> 
> So for example. I do sparring and Tiger Muay thai does sparring so I am training like tiger muay thai.
> 
> And they produce top tier fighters so therefore my system works.
> 
> But I don't spar anything like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am not going to achieve anything near the same results.



The exact same thing can be said for any martial art, any MMA school or camp. You get out based on what you put in. Just because someone trains in BJJ or MMA over Wing Chun does not make them competent as a fighter or able to apply any of it in the real world. You need realistic training or it doesn't matter what system you study. The fight is going to come down to the physicality and conditioning of the fighters first, with technique/training being the deciding factor if both are close to equal. For example, a sufficiently motivated Westerner with enough size and reach can do very well in Muay Thai against the often much smaller Thai fighters who just don't have the strength, reach or ability to hurt the larger Westerner, that doesn't make the Westerner better at Muay Thai, its just a huge physical advantage. We have weight classes in most fighting sports to prevent this and to promote technique over sheer physicality. Put a 5 foot seven BJJ guy in with a six foot four WC boxer and watch the BJJ not work all day long. Taken out of context, you would then mistake WC for a great system and BJJ as worthless because you had seen a slanted competition. Qi La La proves that an equal level of physicality and training in WC can produce similar results to his competitors in Muay Thai and Kickboxing. This vindicates the original argument that WC is ineffective.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> The exact same thing can be said for any martial art, any MMA school or camp. You get out based on what you put in. Just because someone trains in BJJ or MMA over Wing Chun does not make them competent as a fighter or able to apply any of it in the real world. You need realistic training or it doesn't matter what system you study. The fight is going to come down to the physicality and conditioning of the fighters first, with technique/training being the deciding factor if both are close to equal. For example, a sufficiently motivated Westerner with enough size and reach can do very well in Muay Thai against the often much smaller Thai fighters who just don't have the strength, reach or ability to hurt the larger Westerner, that doesn't make the Westerner better at Muay Thai, its just a huge physical advantage. We have weight classes in most fighting sports to prevent this and to promote technique over sheer physicality. Put a 5 foot seven BJJ guy in with a six foot four WC boxer and watch the BJJ not work all day long. Taken out of context, you would then mistake WC for a great system and BJJ as worthless because you had seen a slanted competition. Qi La La proves that an equal level of physicality and training in WC can produce similar results to his competitors in Muay Thai and Kickboxing. This vindicates the original argument that WC is ineffective.


I think the big difference between bjj (or any style with a similar training model) and any style with a more traditional training model is that in the former, what you describe above is common sense... A given.  In more traditional styles, it is often considered heresy.  

I'm a big fan of teaching to the test.  If you aren't testing at all, that's a real concern.   But there is nothing wrong with a slanted test, if the test is consistent with your goals.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> I think the big difference between bjj (or any style with a similar training model) and any style with a more traditional training model is that in the former, what you describe above is common sense... A given.  In more traditional styles, it is often considered heresy.
> 
> I'm a big fan of teaching to the test.  If you aren't testing at all, that's a real concern.   But there is nothing wrong with a slanted test, if the test is consistent with your goals.



  If you are ever in a class and the instructor refuses to answer the question "why?" walk out, its a cult. There are schools who are interested in teaching just the forms and none of the application, even during the Eido period in Japan there were intense arguments about schools not teaching anything practical. There is quite a bit of language in the various Koryu scrolls that say the different Ryu were getting polluted as soon as twenty years after the Warring states period came to an end. I think its only right to update and modernize the styles as we go, if you truly love the art, teach the kabuki theatre version AND do the work to bring it up to date and make it functional or teach only the traditional form and then make no claims to practical application or effectiveness. 

BJJ, because it has gotten so popular has had a lot of momentum and the last twenty years or so has probably seen more people working to perfect and correct the system than possibly the rest of the traditional martial arts combined. BJJ is in a place now where all the other martial arts are struggling to get to and lots of this is due to the failings of the western schools and all the crap that got circulated from the seventies onward. We all owe a debt to the Gracie family for taking the world martial arts community to task, but that doesn't mean that BJJ is a one and done school, none of them are, to be well rounded you are going to need to study BJJ in addition to some kind of stand up grappling/wrestling and then add a striking art on top of it. As of right now, there is no "do it all" system, the budo especially were never meant to be learned individually, a Samurai would have learned wrestling/Judo and Ju-Jitsu or some other hand to hand ryu and their archery/sword forms.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> If you are ever in a class and the instructor refuses to answer the question "why?" walk out, its a cult. There are schools who are interested in teaching just the forms and none of the application, even during the Eido period in Japan there were intense arguments about schools not teaching anything practical. There is quite a bit of language in the various Koryu scrolls that say the different Ryu were getting polluted as soon as twenty years after the Warring states period came to an end. I think its only right to update and modernize the styles as we go, if you truly love the art, teach the kabuki theatre version AND do the work to bring it up to date and make it functional or teach only the traditional form and then make no claims to practical application or effectiveness.
> 
> BJJ, because it has gotten so popular has had a lot of momentum and the last twenty years or so has probably seen more people working to perfect and correct the system than possibly the rest of the traditional martial arts combined. BJJ is in a place now where all the other martial arts are struggling to get to and lots of this is due to the failings of the western schools and all the crap that got circulated from the seventies onward. We all owe a debt to the Gracie family for taking the world martial arts community to task, but that doesn't mean that BJJ is a one and done school, none of them are, to be well rounded you are going to need to study BJJ in addition to some kind of stand up grappling/wrestling and then add a striking art on top of it. As of right now, there is no "do it all" system, the budo especially were never meant to be learned individually, a Samurai would have learned wrestling/Judo and Ju-Jitsu or some other hand to hand ryu and their archery/sword forms.


I will have to take your word on the japanese history stuff, but I thought judo was only 20 or so years older than bjj.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> I will have to take your word on the japanese history stuff, but I thought judo was only 20 or so years older than bjj.



The first school of Judo was founded in 1882, Mitsuya Maeda also referred to as "Count" Maeda was a travelling Judo practitioner who taught the Gracie's around 1917-1920, the Gracie family developed BJJ and started teaching in Brazil around 1920. Judo was a martial art that came from the Koryu schools of feudal Japan, BJJ started as Judo and slowly became its own style.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> The first school of Judo was founded in 1882, Mitsuya Maeda also referred to as "Count" Maeda was a travelling Judo practitioner who taught the Gracie's around 1917-1920, the Gracie family developed BJJ and started teaching in Brazil around 1920. Judo was a martial art that came from the Koryu schools of feudal Japan, BJJ started as Judo and slowly became its own style.


So 35 years.  Samurai learned judo?   Just doesnt sound right.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> So 35 years.  Samurai learned judo?   Just doesnt sound right.


Origins of KODOKAN JUDO | Judo Info

A word may be added about the legend that jujitsu was originally introduced to japan by a chinese named Chen Yuan-ping, approximately in 1644-48, or in 1627 according to the ‘Kokushoji’ document.


Ming Dynasty (1277 ~ 1643)

The Ming Dynasty was the re-establishment of Chinese Sovereignty, following the Mongol conquest. During this time, some of China's martial arts began to flourish abroad, and Shuai-Chiao also made its presence felt overseas.

​



Chen Yuan-Ping is credited for bringing Shuai-Chiao to Japan. His intimate knowledge of Shuai-Chiao's joint locks, controls, takedowns, and throws formed the basis of what became Jiu-Jitsu, which later evolved into Judo and Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> The exact same thing can be said for any martial art, any MMA school or camp. You get out based on what you put in. Just because someone trains in BJJ or MMA over Wing Chun does not make them competent as a fighter or able to apply any of it in the real world. You need realistic training or it doesn't matter what system you study. The fight is going to come down to the physicality and conditioning of the fighters first, with technique/training being the deciding factor if both are close to equal. For example, a sufficiently motivated Westerner with enough size and reach can do very well in Muay Thai against the often much smaller Thai fighters who just don't have the strength, reach or ability to hurt the larger Westerner, that doesn't make the Westerner better at Muay Thai, its just a huge physical advantage. We have weight classes in most fighting sports to prevent this and to promote technique over sheer physicality. Put a 5 foot seven BJJ guy in with a six foot four WC boxer and watch the BJJ not work all day long. Taken out of context, you would then mistake WC for a great system and BJJ as worthless because you had seen a slanted competition. Qi La La proves that an equal level of physicality and training in WC can produce similar results to his competitors in Muay Thai and Kickboxing. This vindicates the original argument that WC is ineffective.



We don't really know how Qi la la trains. His performance justifies his system not all of wing chun.

And so technically no.  We don't automatically get out what we put in we still need a working system. 

If I spend hours training diligently but the actual training is straight up garbage. (Say I trained singing for 12 hours a day ) then I will not really get any better at fighting. 

We don't compare massive people from one system to tiny people in another. Unless the tiny person is kicking ***. And weight classes factor that out.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> So 35 years.  Samurai learned judo?   Just doesnt sound right.



Judo and the other "budo" (Japanese martial arts with the "do" part) are mostly Meiji era derivatives of the older systems. Judo for example came from Ju-Jutsu, which was itself not one unified system but a term used to encompass many of the Samurai hand to hand techniques. The individual systems or styles were classified as Ryu.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> If you are ever in a class and the instructor refuses to answer the question "why?" walk out, its a cult. There are schools who are interested in teaching just the forms and none of the application, even during the Eido period in Japan there were intense arguments about schools not teaching anything practical. There is quite a bit of language in the various Koryu scrolls that say the different Ryu were getting polluted as soon as twenty years after the Warring states period came to an end. I think its only right to update and modernize the styles as we go, if you truly love the art, teach the kabuki theatre version AND do the work to bring it up to date and make it functional or teach only the traditional form and then make no claims to practical application or effectiveness.
> 
> BJJ, because it has gotten so popular has had a lot of momentum and the last twenty years or so has probably seen more people working to perfect and correct the system than possibly the rest of the traditional martial arts combined. BJJ is in a place now where all the other martial arts are struggling to get to and lots of this is due to the failings of the western schools and all the crap that got circulated from the seventies onward. We all owe a debt to the Gracie family for taking the world martial arts community to task, but that doesn't mean that BJJ is a one and done school, none of them are, to be well rounded you are going to need to study BJJ in addition to some kind of stand up grappling/wrestling and then add a striking art on top of it. As of right now, there is no "do it all" system, the budo especially were never meant to be learned individually, a Samurai would have learned wrestling/Judo and Ju-Jitsu or some other hand to hand ryu and their archery/sword forms.



The open mat and BJJ tourism is responsible for BJJs success. 

A vehicle for people to walk in off the street and challenge the room is necessary for development.

And the concept that super coach might just get flogged. And that isn't the worst outcome.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> The open mat and BJJ tourism is responsible for BJJs success.
> 
> A vehicle for people to walk in off the street and challenge the room is necessary for development.
> 
> And the concept that super coach might just get flogged. And that isn't the worst outcome.



That and Bjj's complete embrace of grappling nerds who roll around all day thinking up new ways to strangle people.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> The exact same thing can be said for any martial art, any MMA school or camp. You get out based on what you put in. Just because someone trains in BJJ or MMA over Wing Chun does not make them competent as a fighter or able to apply any of it in the real world. You need realistic training or it doesn't matter what system you study. The fight is going to come down to the physicality and conditioning of the fighters first, with technique/training being the deciding factor if both are close to equal. For example, a sufficiently motivated Westerner with enough size and reach can do very well in Muay Thai against the often much smaller Thai fighters who just don't have the strength, reach or ability to hurt the larger Westerner, that doesn't make the Westerner better at Muay Thai, its just a huge physical advantage. We have weight classes in most fighting sports to prevent this and to promote technique over sheer physicality. Put a 5 foot seven BJJ guy in with a six foot four WC boxer and watch the BJJ not work all day long. Taken out of context, you would then mistake WC for a great system and BJJ as worthless because you had seen a slanted competition. Qi La La proves that an equal level of physicality and training in WC can produce similar results to his competitors in Muay Thai and Kickboxing. This vindicates the original argument that WC is ineffective.



I'd just like to point out that Bjj got its name for participating and winning competitions where weight classes and size differences weren't part of the rules. The first UFCs were a descendent of those types of competitions. I think Dan Severn for example had about 50lbs on Royce Gracie, and the latter still won the match.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> That and Bjj's complete embrace of grappling nerds who roll around all day thinking up new ways to strangle people.


This ^^^^.  That high level people are encouraged to experiment and tweak things to make them work better ...as well as accepting that a great coach can be beat just like anybody else. And still be a great coach. That's how arts improve. 


...And it explains why _traditional _arts often decline. It's not just whether or not folks engage in hard sparring. If you are in a TMA cult, even the hard sparring is rigged. You typically only spar only within your system, often segregated by rank and working within the confines of the style's expectations.  Forget experimentation. Authoritarianism, rigid thinking and _sifu-ism _ (the belief that only _sifu_ has all the answers) will cause any system to degenerate. 

Anyway, this is what I hate about the TMA I've trained, and why I support those within the art who don't train that way.


----------



## BrendanF

Steve said:


> So 35 years.  Samurai learned judo?   Just doesnt sound right.



Jikishin ryu Judo existed over 250 years before Kano's Kodokan Judo.  Yes, 'samurai' learned Judo.  The whole do/jutsu thing has been heavily misunderstood thanks to Donn Draeger's important early works.  Suffice to say, there were plenty of 'do' arts in existence before the Meiji period.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Origins of KODOKAN JUDO | Judo Info
> 
> A word may be added about the legend that jujitsu was originally introduced to japan by a chinese named Chen Yuan-ping, approximately in 1644-48, or in 1627 according to the ‘Kokushoji’ document.
> 
> 
> Ming Dynasty (1277 ~ 1643)
> 
> The Ming Dynasty was the re-establishment of Chinese Sovereignty, following the Mongol conquest. During this time, some of China's martial arts began to flourish abroad, and Shuai-Chiao also made its presence felt overseas.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Chen Yuan-Ping is credited for bringing Shuai-Chiao to Japan. His intimate knowledge of Shuai-Chiao's joint locks, controls, takedowns, and throws formed the basis of what became Jiu-Jitsu, which later evolved into Judo and Aikido.



You've mentioned this before Wang Laoshi - and I've pointed out that it is a discredited theory.

For one thing, jujutsu arts such as Takenouchi ryu and Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu (and dozens of others) had existed for at least two centuries before Chin Gempin's time.  There is absolutely no credence to that notion, other than that Chin had an influence on Yoshin ryu.


----------

