# The problem with "traditional" martial arts part 3



## KPM (Jul 18, 2018)

Here is another good article from Paul Rackemann.  Starting a new thread because both of the others drifted off in other directions as threads tend to do.   A big part of the theme here continues to be lack of sparring and/or not sparring with others outside of the school.  But here Paul addresses the "mindset" often seen behind "traditional" martial arts.

Why the psychology of traditional martial artists leads to failure. - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

The whole premises that martial arts is not about winning sort of encompasses the whole issue here.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 18, 2018)

Interesting article 

Some of it I can see the rational in other bits is the author (like anyone else's opinions) making and drawing his conclusions.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2018)

This Rackemann fellow’s main problem is that he wants to paint all traditional martial art schools with the same brush.  He seems to have some notions of what happens in a school teaching a traditional art, perhaps some of that is from his own experience, perhaps some is just his own musings.  Honestly, I don’t know why he doesnt just go train MMA since that seems more his flavor, and all the power to him if he does.

I think the best thing to do is stop reading his nonsense and just focus on your own training.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

not a bad blog post but not great either.  he bring up some good points but his explanations and examples are lacking.  ill give him a pass on this because i know myself that when i try to find examples its not always so easy to communicate what im thinking.  however his examples do lead the reader into exactly what he is rallying against,,, groupthink.

*Illusions of invulnerability – The belief that the group cannot fail –*
_ Most  MMA schools are isolated from the “outside world”. When a group of likeminded people train together long enough, without leaving the safe confines of their dojo, it isn’t too long before a sense of superiority falls upon these students (and the coach). We can see this with the example of the MMA fighter who was knocked out cold in a convenience store by a group of young men, by all accounts,  he seemed to suffer an illusion of grandeur._
....see what i did there...

*Rationalising* –* the tendency to “explain away” contracting information.* _ This is also known in psychology as confirmation bias. The behaviour of group of people to only recognise those examples that support their view point and rationalize away the data that is contradicting their belief system._
_ Himself and his students explained away the disastrous defeat by claiming he wasn’t properly nourished before the match. _
 the problem with this example is that it is not just traditional martial arts. any fighter in any discipline is known to make excuses for thier loss.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 18, 2018)

I think a lot of these articles could be distilled down into "Schools which do not spar regularly, lack sparring skills.  If those schools just do drilling with compliance, their techniques will only work where the opponent complies.  Chi Sau is a tool but it cannot replace sparring." Job done.

I think the rest of the article lists a bunch of stuff which applies to anyone. "its us and them" "they lose, they'll excuse" etc.

I am not sure about his comment: "Spar with them, again using either boxing, kickboxing or mma rules."  If I learn to dance the Cha-Cha why would I want to compete doing the waltz with waltzer, I'll force them to dance the ChaCha with me.


----------



## pdg (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> any fighter in any discipline is known to make excuses for thier loss.



My go to excuse is "I'm old and not very good"


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The whole premises that martial arts is not about winning sort of encompasses the whole issue here.


Define winning.
i have yet to hear anyone in the MMA groupthink define "winning" in a way that has the best possible outcome along iterated instances in a real life scenario that is an acceptable choice for a civilian population.  by civilian i mean those who are under no obligation to confront or intervene in interpersonal violence....  meaning not police or doormen/ bouncers.
what the MMA Groupthink fails to understand is that the "best possible" outcome does not always equal beating the other guy up.  i fully understand the concept of the ability and willingness to engage and dominate.  while it is unacceptable to not engage and dominate due to a lack of ability, that doesnt mean that if you have the ability to do so that it is always the "best outcome"  of the situation.
if we turn the situation away from bar room fighting and look at confrontation within relationship we can see the issue without the bias.
situation:
your arguing with your wife in a very heated way,  is it the best outcome for you to "win" the argument?    you may think to yourself ..."_well i really showed her!!  i demolished her stupid point"    _yes you won the argument but you have to go to sleep you know...  do you want to live with her after that..she is going to be bitter about it forever and your not going to have a happy relationship.  maybe the "best outcome"  is not to win the argument but rather find another resolution that doesnt involve you dominating the conversation and demolishing her opinion.
when you have to pay the consequences for your "WIN" the next day,  sometimes it aint a win.

EDIT: 
this is the concept of the Nash Equilibrium.   what is the best possible outcome for you...but also for you the next day and the next year...that is also the best possible outcome for your family,  AND  the other parties involved.  people have a thing called retribution and restitution that needs to be configured into the outcome.
to only think about winning the fight is very short sighted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The whole premises that martial arts is not about winning sort of encompasses the whole issue here.


Yeah. I can't help thinking that (as Rackemann says) having even one student at a school who competes would be significant, if the instructor (and senior students) embrace that student's goal.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 18, 2018)

It seemed his argument started falling apart the longer it went. Though what he says about isolation and personal skill delusions isn't untrue, this isn't unique to TMA alone. It seems he has a hard time grasping the idea of there are good and bad TMA schools, as well as good and bad MMA schools. What the school teaches isn't that important part, but *who *is teaching it and *how *it's being taught is. 

He thinks that anyone who provides a counter-argument is saying he's "stupid", yet he doesn't mention the articulated points others have made. What he's doing isn't new, focus on a lesser part of a group and take them as a sample that represents the rest of that group.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2018)

KPM said:


> Here is another good article from Paul Rackemann.  Starting a new thread because both of the others drifted off in other directions as threads tend to do.   A big part of the theme here continues to be lack of sparring and/or not sparring with others outside of the school.  But here Paul addresses the "mindset" often seen behind "traditional" martial arts.
> 
> Why the psychology of traditional martial artists leads to failure. - Rackemann Wing Chun


You practice a traditional martial art, don’t you?

Are you on board with Rackemann’s positions?  Do you feel it sucks?  Or do you feel everyone else sucks, but not you because you’ve got it figured out?

Any further comments, care to discuss, or are you gonna make the post and walk away?


----------



## KPM (Jul 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> This Rackemann fellow’s main problem is that he wants to paint all traditional martial art schools with the same brush.  He seems to have some notions of what happens in a school teaching a traditional art, perhaps some of that is from his own experience, perhaps some is just his own musings.  Honestly, I don’t know why he doesnt just go train MMA since that seems more his flavor, and all the power to him if he does.
> 
> I think the best thing to do is stop reading his nonsense and just focus on your own training.



Rackemann spent many years studying Wing Chun in a "traditional" fashion under Sifu Lo Man Kam in Taiwan, and has interacted with many others in TCMA.  He speaks fluent Chinese. So yes, he does know about "traditional" martial arts and this is not just his musings.  And Rackemann practices and teaches his own version of "Wing Chun Boxing".....and doesn't practice or teach "traditionally" any more.  So no need to "just go train MMA."


----------



## KPM (Jul 18, 2018)

Anarax said:


> It seemed his argument started falling apart the longer it went. Though what he says about isolation and personal skill delusions isn't untrue, this isn't unique to TMA alone. It seems he has a hard time grasping the idea of there are good and bad TMA schools, as well as good and bad MMA schools. What the school teaches isn't that important part, but *who *is teaching it and *how *it's being taught is.
> 
> He thinks that anyone who provides a counter-argument is saying he's "stupid", yet he doesn't mention the articulated points others have made. What he's doing isn't new, focus on a lesser part of a group and take them as a sample that represents the rest of that group.



Yes. There may indeed be a lot of truth in this!  Realize that Rackemann has been working on and teaching his own version of "non-traditional" Wing Chun Boxing for awhile now.  He has had a blogsite and youtube page for awhile as well.  So he gets a lot of negative comments and out-right attacks from petty and narrow-minded people within "traditional" Wing Chun.  And there are lots of them!!   So I'm sure that his recent series of "anti-traditionalism" blog posts are a reaction to this.  He told me he is even planning to drop the "Wing Chun" part from the name of what he does because he is pretty fed up with having to deal with idiots like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 18, 2018)

When I read articles like this, it makes me think what one may experience in certain "camps of thought".  Even though he says TMA he often reflects back to Wing Chun.  This article may be more about how he sees many Wing Chun schools than TMA in general.


----------



## KPM (Jul 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> You practice a traditional martial art, don’t you?
> 
> Are you on board with Rackemann’s positions?  Do you feel it sucks?  Or do you feel everyone else sucks, but not you because you’ve got it figured out?
> 
> Any further comments, care to discuss, or are you gonna make the post and walk away?



There really is no need to post in such an adversarial tone.

I agree with Anarax to a large degree.   Like anyone who has a theme and is trying to make a point in a blog post, I think Rackemann is guilty of somewhat "overstating" his case in most of these blogs he writes.  But he does make some excellent points, and ones that do often apply to "traditional" schools.   I do believe that you can't generalize what he says to ALL "traditional" martial arts, and he would probably tell you the same thing.  And a lot of what he says could also apply to the local boxing gym or MMA gym.  But most of his points are well-founded.  Rackemann never said that he is the only one that "doesn't suck" and "has it all figured out."

Again, this article was all about the "mindset" of a lot of traditional martial arts. Obviously you can't generalize it to ALL of them, but I've seen it as well.  If you don't have this "mindset", then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## KPM (Jul 18, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I read articles like this, it makes me think what one may experience in certain "camps of thought".  Even though he says TMA he often reflects back to Wing Chun.  This article may be more about how he sees many Wing Chun schools than TMA in general.



Possibly.  But he has had a lot of exposure to other TCMAs as well.  So I don't think he is exclusively referring to Wing Chun.  He has done some Southern Mantis and other styles as well, and interacted quite a bit with people from other systems.  In my experience some of the Southern Mantis I have been exposed to fits into a lot of what he says.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 18, 2018)

*Most traditional martial art schools are isolated from the “outside world”.*

The Chinese wrestling is traditional too. I still remember my teacher told me that he went to Mongolian to test his skill against Mongolian wrestlers. One time he heard about a Judo master came to Beijing, China, he went to Beijing to test his skill against that Judo master.

To test your skill against other MA systems used to be very common in the CMA society. Today people think "challenge" is bad. Without "challenge". how can you test your MA skill against people from other MA systems?



hoshin1600 said:


> Define winning.



You don't have to beat up your opponent to win. I still like to challenge people that if they can

- punch my head within their 20 punches,
- take me down within 2 minutes,
- ...

 they win. Otherwise I win.

You don't always have to use challenge fight to test your offense skill. You can use it to test your defense skill too. Challenge fight can still be civilized, friendly, and fun.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah. I can't help thinking that (as Rackemann says) having even one student at a school who competes would be significant, if the instructor (and senior students) embrace that student's goal.



Even if the students want to legitimately take each other or their instructor.

Then they would have to develop concepts that facilitate that.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Define winning.
> i have yet to hear anyone in the MMA groupthink define "winning" in a way that has the best possible outcome along iterated instances in a real life scenario that is an acceptable choice for a civilian population.  by civilian i mean those who are under no obligation to confront or intervene in interpersonal violence....  meaning not police or doormen/ bouncers.
> what the MMA Groupthink fails to understand is that the "best possible" outcome does not always equal beating the other guy up.  i fully understand the concept of the ability and willingness to engage and dominate.  while it is unacceptable to not engage and dominate due to a lack of ability, that doesnt mean that if you have the ability to do so that it is always the "best outcome"  of the situation.
> if we turn the situation away from bar room fighting and look at confrontation within relationship we can see the issue without the bias.
> ...



Winning is achieving your objective. 

Your concept within a martial arts school is what I think fosters the issues OP has mentioned.

People encourage and enable failure to maintain the piece.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Define winning.


Winning can be defined between 2 persons as long as both agree.

There was a challenge fight that the winning was defined as:

A will attack B 3 times. If in any of A's attack, B can stand on his feet for more than 3 seconds, B wins. Otherwise A wins.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 18, 2018)

The truth is there's no problem with traditional martial arts the only problem is what certain people have with it. Not sparring might not be a problem for someone. On the other hand sparring might be a problem for some. It's all about the person. Just because /you/ don't like certain aspects doesn't make it a problem it just means that's not for you and there's nothing wrong with that we can't all like everything


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> The truth is there's no problem with traditional martial arts the only problem is what certain people have with it. Not sparring might not be a problem for someone. On the other hand sparring might be a problem for some. It's all about the person. Just because /you/ don't like certain aspects doesn't make it a problem it just means that's not for you and there's nothing wrong with that we can't all like everything



And that is the problem with martial arts. Results don't matter.

If the above was described about medicine for example. People would be horrified.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 18, 2018)

I know nothing about Wing Chung other than what I have read so I can't comment on that.

However Traditional arts are what they are. I am of the opinion that if anyone has a problem with them then stay away from them.

Any person that sets up a you tube site with content is going to open themselves to flak that the nature of the internet. Also just as a thought if that author is teaching where he is or was taught there could it be he is taking flak for that as Taiwan and mainland China are umm not best of friends. It may be nothing but just a thought


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 18, 2018)

There are 3 different ways to train the traditional MA.

1. Combat - punch out fast, pull back fast.
2. Health - punch out slow, pull back fast.
3. Performance - punch out fast, post and freeze, pull back fast.

Unfortunately, some people use the heath or performance training method to train combat. I can never believe that if you punch slow all your life, one day in fighting you can suddenly punch fast. Also if you are used to freeze your punch at the end, you will never be a good fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Even if the students want to legitimately take each other or their instructor.
> 
> Then they would have to develop concepts that facilitate that.


I didn't follow your words entirely on that, DB, but I think I got what you meant. If not, correct me.

Yeah, they'd have to embrace the student (and others within the school, or I'm not sure it helps much) actually trying to best each other - really testing whether they can control each other, including the instructor. I've yet to have a student who could best me more than momentarily, but I keep hoping. I'm not badass enough to believe I'll never get a student who can't do better than me, especially if they have some significant training before they get to me. Iv'e had a few students and partners who genuinely tried on occasion. When I visit elsewhere, I often get that taste of being outclassed (like being on the ground with Tony). I think it'd be healthy to have a student (or more!) who know they have areas where they are better than me, so long as they are still getting what they need in other areas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Winning is achieving your objective.
> 
> Your concept within a martial arts school is what I think fosters the issues OP has mentioned.
> 
> People encourage and enable failure to maintain the piece.


I think this goes to the idea of defining the term. For some exercises, "winning" is figuring out how to activate a technique. Sometimes, it's helping your partner figure that out. And sometimes it's stopping that bastard from doing what he wants before he does the same to you. Then having a beer. Beer is always winning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And that is the problem with martial arts. Results don't matter.
> 
> If the above was described about medicine for example. People would be horrified.


While I tend to agree on this, DB, for some folks the outcome isn't the point. There are folks (quite a lot of them, I suspect but cannot establish) who really just want to do some cool stuff and have fun with it. For those folks, sparring or not sparring doesn't really change things.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Winning is achieving your objective.


If this is your definition then I have no problem with it.  The problem I have is maybe with the word winning.  It has connotations that I don't apply to self defense. But yes to achieve your objective is the goal.


drop bear said:


> Your concept within a martial arts school is what I think fosters the issues OP has mentioned.


Your free to explain why you think that, but I disagree.
My concept is that beating someone up, stabbing them through the heart or putting a bullet in their skull has consequences and you better think that one through before you do it. It's a fact of life and it ain't no excuse for crap fighting skills.  If that is the only option then so be it, but you better make dam sure it's the only option and don't let your MMA macho BS attitude put you in a situation where you don't look for those other options.   being behind bars, not seeing your family is a hell of a price to pay for being arrogant.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And that is the problem with martial arts. Results don't matter.


Maybe but maybe not... I like martial arts but there is another side me that doesn't give a rats behind about "arts" and the results is ALL that matters.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 18, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And that is the problem with martial arts. Results don't matter.
> 
> If the above was described about medicine for example. People would be horrified.


To some it matters to some it doesn't. No ones right or wrong. Personally I don't care at all about competition. I'm training to stay healthy and have fun. I don't give a damm if I can beat someone or not. I couldn't care if every single person can beat me I'm training because I enjoy it simple as that. My reasons for training are just as valid as yours. That's the point there's no right or wrong answer. Martial arts is a hobby that's it lets be real it's a hobby that's all. The medicine comparison is frankly silly. A doctor doesn't study medicine for a hobby he does it because it's his job. Most martial artists aren't doing it as their job so they can do whatever they want. People need to get over their egos and stop telling everyone how they should spend their time training.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> While I tend to agree on this, DB, for some folks the outcome isn't the point. There are folks (quite a lot of them, I suspect but cannot establish) who really just want to do some cool stuff and have fun with it. For those folks, sparring or not sparring doesn't really change things.


Pretty much how it is for me. I'll spar sure but I don't care if I don't. I'll do whatever we do in class on that day. If I beat someone in class...so what? What do I get for it? Absolutely nothing so who cares


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 18, 2018)

We are going in circle again.

A: If we do ... we can make TMA more effective in fighting.
B: But TMA is not for fighting only. It can be for health, performance, inner peace, self-cultivation, fun, ...
A: ...

May be we should close all online MA discussion if people all believe in:

- If you care about fight, you should get yourself a gun.
- Fighting will get you in jail.
- ...

We should all start to discuss "Taiji double weightiness" instead. The world will be so friendly and peaceful.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

@drop bear
I think I may have just figured out where some of our disagreements come from.
It's the objectives we train for.  I think, and correct me if I'm wrong,  that your frame work of reference is a bar fight. Where the consequences are a knock out, choke out, concussion or a broken arm. That is what you train for. So your objective is to win in that frame work.
Where for myself...and I hesitate to write this but..my objective is to kill, to take someone's life. That is what I train for.  I'm at an age in my life where bar fights are not going to happen anymore. If I have to fight, it's some serious $#!^.   My force continuum starts with two bullets center mass, then decreases from there two my knife. Yes I carry a knife from the time I wake till I undress for bed, then unarmed fighting.  I can reduce the force from there if needed but the common training is for worst case.  If I drop someone with a 9mm. I can hardly call that a win..it's maybe better than dead, but it ain't no win.
So when I say look for other options or a different kind of win, this is why.  my starting point is too high.  But I can see your point. If your starting point is having to make contact in sparring then what you say makes sense. To back off from there to a lower intensity lends itself to some issues.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> not a bad blog post but not great either.  he bring up some good points but his explanations and examples are lacking.  ill give him a pass on this because i know myself that when i try to find examples its not always so easy to communicate what im thinking.  however his examples do lead the reader into exactly what he is rallying against,,, groupthink.
> 
> *Illusions of invulnerability – The belief that the group cannot fail –*
> _ Most  MMA schools are isolated from the “outside world”. When a group of likeminded people train together long enough, without leaving the safe confines of their dojo, it isn’t too long before a sense of superiority falls upon these students (and the coach). We can see this with the example of the MMA fighter who was knocked out cold in a convenience store by a group of young men, by all accounts,  he seemed to suffer an illusion of grandeur._
> ...


Find me an MMA school where what you are taught is not put to the fire daily and you might have a point. Otherwise this is an apples to oranges comparison. 

The same goes for your follow-up post; the entire premise of marriage is not to win fights, where the entire point of learning to fight is just that.  The best solution vis a vis a system of fighting is to effectivly use it to win fights. If you can not you essentially have a car with no engine. Sure you can try to sell it as a comfy place to sit and forward that as it's primary purpose, but that's really just slight of hand.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Find me an MMA school where what you are taught is not put to the fire daily and you might have a point. Otherwise this is an apples to oranges comparison.
> 
> The same goes for your follow-up post; the entire premise of marriage is not to win fights, where the entire point of learning to fight is just that.  The best solution vis a vis a system of fighting is to effectivly use it to win fights. If you can not you essentially have a car with no engine. Sure you can try to sell it as a comfy place to sit and forward that as it's primary purpose, but that's really just slight of hand.


Apparently you missed the part where I was trying to express that I agree with having the ability to win a fight, but that's different from using that ability.  My car has an engine and it runs just fine yall are trying to paint a picture and make an argument that isn't there.  Your basically saying if you don't do MMA then you can't fight. You may skirt the direct quote but that's what your implying.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

Martial D said:


> where the entire point of learning to fight is just that.


Your absolutely right...but some of us are not playing by your rules. I'm not training to "fight" , I'm training to "win" with minimal effort while keeping myself out of prison.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Apparently you missed the part where I was trying to express that I agree with having the ability to win a fight, but that's different from using that ability.  My car has an engine and it runs just fine yall are trying to paint a picture and make an argument that isn't there.  Your basically saying if you don't do MMA then you can't fight. You may skirt the direct quote but that's what your implying.


You are so far off you are in a different postal code, this has nothing to do with whether MMA is superior to anything, only that your comparison didn't really work. 

The arguments leveled at a lack of pressure testing and the resultant groupthink just doesn't work when pressure testing is present. This is true not just in martial arts, but across the board.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Find me an MMA school where what you are taught is not put to the fire daily and you might have a point. Otherwise this is an apples to oranges comparison.


sorry to keep this up but im in a especially dark mood tonight ...so i apologize.

you want apples to apples...

so you and Drop Bear are in a bar you get in a physical fight with someone and how does that end?  how do you see the win?  did you knock him out?  ok let go with that.....then what?  THEN WHAT?  how does that win taste?  do you think your going to go home and enjoy your dinner with your wife and kids and that was the end of it?  yeah sometimes that is the end of it,,except when its not the end of it.
well guess what..the dude had a few friends there and they got your name.  5 minutes of Google -fu and facebook  and the dude knows where you live and do you think he is just gonna let things be?  nope hes gonna return it back 10 fold.  he shows up at your house and the door bell rings...ding dong, guess who mother F"er  and he blows a hole though the back of the head of who ever answers, because he wants you to suffer he doesnt care who it is. 
how does that win taste now?

the problem with the MMA Groupthink  is you think the other guy is going to engage with you like in the cage...well on the street some people, the dangerous people are not going to square off and engage with you.. they will drop their head say sorry, maybe walk away.  but later will come up behind you and stick you in the gut or in the back when your not paying attention.  they are not playing by your rules.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

Martial D said:


> The arguments leveled at a lack of pressure testing and the resultant groupthink just doesn't work when pressure testing is present. This is true not just in martial arts, but across the board.


for the record i am a big proponent of pressure testing.  somehow we got our lines crossed on that one because pressure testing  wasnt something i was talking about at all.
and comparison?  i wasnt comparing anything i was using an analogy.  i used it to point out that wining is not always the best possible out come.  if that was  confusing or it didnt work for you ...well there is always next time.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> sorry to keep this up but im in a especially dark mood tonight ...so i apologize.
> 
> you want apples to apples...
> 
> ...


I think the Crux here is that I don't go to a martial art for making life decisions or keeping my wits about me. Those are completely different things. I go to a martial art to learn and hone fighting skills.

I don't think anyone is advocating for a two fists solve all approach to anything, or that MMA is better than anything, or anything resembling your stabby guy scenario.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 18, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I go to a martial art to learn and hone fighting skills.


Agreed.  My intention was not to make commentary on skills or methods whether that be mma or traditional ma. My whole rant was about what I see as a systemic error in both mma and traditional training about the concept of how a win is defined.
It's my belief that how you define a win changes how you play the game.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Agreed.  My intention was not to make commentary on skills or methods whether that be mma or traditional ma. My whole rant was about what I see as a systemic error in both mma and traditional training about the concept of how a win is defined.
> It's my belief that how you define a win changes how you play the game.


In the context of a fighting system wouldn't a win simply be a win though? I mean, you can introduce all those other elements, but at that point the context is different and we are no longer talking about a fighting system.

Right?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> @drop bear
> I think I may have just figured out where some of our disagreements come from.
> It's the objectives we train for.  I think, and correct me if I'm wrong,  that your frame work of reference is a bar fight. Where the consequences are a knock out, choke out, concussion or a broken arm. That is what you train for. So your objective is to win in that frame work.
> Where for myself...and I hesitate to write this but..my objective is to kill, to take someone's life. That is what I train for.  I'm at an age in my life where bar fights are not going to happen anymore. If I have to fight, it's some serious $#!^.   My force continuum starts with two bullets center mass, then decreases from there two my knife. Yes I carry a knife from the time I wake till I undress for bed, then unarmed fighting.  I can reduce the force from there if needed but the common training is for worst case.  If I drop someone with a 9mm. I can hardly call that a win..it's maybe better than dead, but it ain't no win.
> So when I say look for other options or a different kind of win, this is why.  my starting point is too high.  But I can see your point. If your starting point is having to make contact in sparring then what you say makes sense. To back off from there to a lower intensity lends itself to some issues.



How many people have you killed?

See I have fought, restrained and generally manhandled thousands of people in an environment where I basically sought out and engaged in drama without ever having to resort to killing people as a first resort.

I think you are overcooking a situation you don't really understand. The kill first and don't even ask the questions isn't really very realistic. Honestly that is mostly marketing and tough talk.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> If this is your definition then I have no problem with it.  The problem I have is maybe with the word winning.  It has connotations that I don't apply to self defense. But yes to achieve your objective is the goal.
> 
> Your free to explain why you think that, but I disagree.
> My concept is that beating someone up, stabbing them through the heart or putting a bullet in their skull has consequences and you better think that one through before you do it. It's a fact of life and it ain't no excuse for crap fighting skills.  If that is the only option then so be it, but you better make dam sure it's the only option and don't let your MMA macho BS attitude put you in a situation where you don't look for those other options.   being behind bars, not seeing your family is a hell of a price to pay for being arrogant.



No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.

Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.

And you won't even know you are mediocre because there will be no way to judge.

And it is not about being macho. It is about having enough personal courage to try to win while risking loosing.

Which is about learning to be humble. Learning the true you.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> sorry to keep this up but im in a especially dark mood tonight ...so i apologize.
> 
> you want apples to apples...
> 
> ...



OK again because you are talking to someone who dealt with that. It doesn't happen all that often.

These concepts don't really reflect the reality of conflict.

They are dogma.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't follow your words entirely on that, DB, but I think I got what you meant. If not, correct me.
> 
> Yeah, they'd have to embrace the student (and others within the school, or I'm not sure it helps much) actually trying to best each other - really testing whether they can control each other, including the instructor. I've yet to have a student who could best me more than momentarily, but I keep hoping. I'm not badass enough to believe I'll never get a student who can't do better than me, especially if they have some significant training before they get to me. Iv'e had a few students and partners who genuinely tried on occasion. When I visit elsewhere, I often get that taste of being outclassed (like being on the ground with Tony). I think it'd be healthy to have a student (or more!) who know they have areas where they are better than me, so long as they are still getting what they need in other areas.



We intentionally look for people who can flog the entire room.

And want them to come and train with us.

Imagine that Chinese MMA guy vs kung fu or whatever.

If that happened we would be happy if we got toweled up. Hopefully he can come back and teach us some stuff.

Nothing like the butt hurt defensive posture that was actually shown.

That john danaher leg locks video. They had to completely change their methodology to incorporate that new concept.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jul 19, 2018)

Skimming through these threads I couldn't help but shake my head. Perhaps I rattled something important loose doing so, but, isn't everyone missing a key word in the phrase Martial Art, that word being ART. Everyone pursues traditional styles for different reasons, fitness, culture, self awareness, camaraderie, stress reduction etc. Some traditional styles are marketed more towards these attributes than for developing fighting prowess or self defense. Martial ability becomes a secondary or even tertiary holdover of the overall tradition, while the primary focus of the style defines it's purpose. Its undeniable that traditional systems over the years have been infused with philosophical and religious ideology, medical knowledge and have been shaped by cultural and societal views. All lending themselves to the use of the word ART to describe what was once a PRACTICAL SKILL.

The very term MARTIAL ART has become a colloquial catch-all to describe fighting methods, when in actuality, the word ART suggests something much more benign and scholarly.

Let's take Taijiquan as an example, while extremely rare nowadays, Taijiquan used to be a formidable fighting method. But, since the health benefits of performing Taijiquan have been discovered, this has become its MAIN focus. The fighting aspect has only hung around due to tradition.

The decline in the fighting efficacy of traditional systems can largely be attributed to fitness trends, sporting competitions and popular culture, Tae Bo, Dr. Ho's Tai Chi and XMA anyone? Let's face it, most martial arts instructors running full time schools wouldn't be able to afford rent, let alone feed themselves, if the only thing they had to offer the public was fighting ability, so most cash in on promoting physical fitness, camaraderie, discipline, self esteem building etc. The problem isn't in learning a traditional style, the problem is the suppressed remnants of the tradition that are neglected but continue to be viewed by the public at large as the primary function, this being FIGHT DEVELOPMENT. Little Johnny coming home with a black eye and bloody nose is more apt to draw a lawsuit than a new student referral. Another issue are those individuals who, because of the popularity of MMA, promote their traditional system as a fighting art when the extent of their experience is based on forms competition, light contact point sparring and having learned a few applications but have never been in an actual fight, all as a means of keeping their doors open.

Traditional systems are not the issue here, it's how they are learned and developed, what the PRIMARY focus is and usage. It all comes down to teacher and student and if the methodology of the style is emphasized as PRACTICAL SKILL or ART.

Anyways, that just my two cents on this whole discussion.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I basically sought out and engaged in drama without ever having to resort to killing people as a first resort.



Could you elaborate? Does this mean you sought out conflict?


----------



## KPM (Jul 19, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> Traditional systems are not the issue here, it's how they are learned and developed, what the PRIMARY focus is and usage. It all comes down to teacher and student and if the methodology of the style is emphasized as PRACTICAL SKILL or ART.
> 
> Anyways, that just my two cents on this whole discussion.



Welcome back!  Again!  

Well said.  But I think Paul Rackemann's article is focused on what "traditional" systems have BECOME.  Modern day.  What you are talking about is what "traditional" systems once were.  Some still retain a lot of what you described.  But most don't.  And of those that don't, many fall into a lot of what Rackemann talked about.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Could you elaborate? Does this mean you sought out conflict?



Yeah I did security for 20 years


----------



## Nobody Important (Jul 19, 2018)

KPM said:


> Welcome back!  Again!
> 
> Well said.  But I think Paul Rackemann's article is focused on what "traditional" systems have BECOME.  Modern day.  What you are talking about is what "traditional" systems once were.  Some still retain a lot of what you described.  But most don't.  And of those that don't, many fall into a lot of what Rackemann talked about.



Correct, what they once were to what they have now become. The fault doesn't lie in the art, and the methods found within, but in the manner it is currently being used. To draw a parallel, I'll use the following analogy. Old fashioned cast irons were once heated on a stove and used to remove wrinkles from dampened clothing, now days people use them as decorative paperweights and door stops. This isn't due to the fact that the iron can no longer be used as it was intended to be, simply that some PEOPLE choose not to use it for its intended purpose anymore. To say that it is antiquated and useless because SOME do not know how to use it properly is a falsehood. It's a simple thing really, heat then use. Just because it can be used to keep a door ajar or books in place, as some people like to do, doesn't mean it can no longer be used as an iron. To forever render it to the realm of antiquated curiosities because of this logic is dismissive and backwards thinking. Do you understand my point now?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I think you are overcooking a situation you don't really understand. The kill first and don't even ask the questions isn't really very realistic. Honestly that is mostly marketing and tough talk.



Sure you've been in some conflict...as a doorman correct?  So that was your job. It could have happened on your night off but it was still your job and the world you lived in.  I'm not a bouncer.  You can say I'm inflating the situation but for me and in my life the only fighting I am going to be doing is if someone breaks into my home at night, and yes I'm jumping right to the end without any questions, none need to be asked.


drop bear said:


> No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.
> 
> Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.
> 
> And you won't even know you are mediocre because there will be no way to judge.


I've noticed this reoccurring theme in your posts often in replies to me.  And I never understand why.  How do you think I train?  We do the same things..only under a different banner because I added knives and firearms.  There is nothing in your personal or mma training in general that I disagree with.  The major difference is the ratio of time spent on different aspects due to a difference in objectives and scope.
However as an ideology I see mma (as in the OP post) falling into the the same issues they call on everyone else.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> Skimming through these threads I couldn't help but shake my head. Perhaps I rattled something important loose doing so, but, isn't everyone missing a key word in the phrase Martial Art, that word being ART. Everyone pursues traditional styles for different reasons, fitness, culture, self awareness, camaraderie, stress reduction etc. Some traditional styles are marketed more towards these attributes than for developing fighting prowess or self defense. Martial ability becomes a secondary or even tertiary holdover of the overall tradition, while the primary focus of the style defines it's purpose. Its undeniable that traditional systems over the years have been infused with philosophical and religious ideology, medical knowledge and have been shaped by cultural and societal views. All lending themselves to the use of the word ART to describe what was once a PRACTICAL SKILL.
> 
> The very term MARTIAL ART has become a colloquial catch-all to describe fighting methods, when in actuality, the word ART suggests something much more benign and scholarly.
> 
> ...



Can I ask are you referring to all the "Traditional Arts" or just Chinese ones?


----------



## Nobody Important (Jul 19, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Can I ask are you referring to all the "Traditional Arts" or just Chinese ones?


All


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 19, 2018)

KPM said:


> Possibly.  But he has had a lot of exposure to other TCMAs as well.  So I don't think he is exclusively referring to Wing Chun.  He has done some Southern Mantis and other styles as well, and interacted quite a bit with people from other systems.  In my experience some of the Southern Mantis I have been exposed to fits into a lot of what he says.


But the other stuff is so general that it could apply to non TMAs as well.

For example: *Illusions of invulnerability – The belief that the group cannot fail*
This is the same mentality that appears in gangs, cliques, small groups of good friends.  The issue of Invulnerability is not one that I've seen in person or as a 3rd person looking at a martial art system, with the exception of the Chi Blast folks.  He then goes to describe about only training withing the school and not going against people outside of the school.  This is common for TMAs but it really doesn't have anything to do with Illusions of invulnerability.  If a person spars within a TMA school, it becomes very clear that you aren't invulnerable.  Getting bruised us and banged up as a natural part of training lets you know right away that your body can only take so much.  We talk about injuries all the time here.

If I had to guess, I would say that most TMAs don't fight against other styles from other schools because they are afraid of losing students.   If my school went up against a Sanda school and my students were beaten by the Sanda students, then I will have students who would rather train Sanda than their current style.  This is a very realistic risk.
The only "illusion" that I can think of is people thinking that they can fight when they don't train to fight.  A lot of TMAs train forms, drills, and demos.  That's not the same as going multiple rounds against a different style and trying to figure out how to actually use and deploy your current martial arts skills.

So it's stuff like this that makes me think that the article is coming from a Wing Chun perspective and what he sees with the Wing Chun circles he travels in.
It doesn't take into context that most people who take martial arts aren't taking it to learn how to fight with it. Look at any TMA school ad and you'll see things like "Build Confidence"  I've yet to see one that says "Learn how to fight."   If you are teaching a TMA for money then you'll need to teach what the customer wants.


----------



## pdg (Jul 19, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> Correct, what they once were to what they have now become. The fault doesn't lie in the art, and the methods found within, but in the manner it is currently being used. To draw a parallel, I'll use the following analogy. Old fashioned cast irons were once heated on a stove and used to remove wrinkles from dampened clothing, now days people use them as decorative paperweights and door stops. This isn't due to the fact that the iron can no longer be used as it was intended to be, simply that some PEOPLE choose not to use it for its intended purpose anymore. To say that it is antiquated and useless because SOME do not know how to use it properly is a falsehood. It's a simple thing really, heat then use. Just because it can be used to keep a door ajar or books in place, as some people like to do, doesn't mean it can no longer be used as an iron. To forever render it to the realm of antiquated curiosities because of this logic is dismissive and backwards thinking. Do you understand my point now?



I'm not sure whether I agree with this analogy or not - in a way I do, but in another...

So, using the iron.

My nan had a cast iron, and she also had one with an ember chamber (load the iron with hot embers, it doesn't chill as fast).

I remember her using them, and I used them too.

Fast forward to now - I generally do the ironing in our house... In some ways the old irons worked better - the weight certainly helped.

In other ways, they were a complete pita. No temperature control, slow to heat and fairly quick to cool. We don't have an open fire, or a range cooker that runs all the time, so how to heat?

Their function hasn't diminished, but the convenience and ease (and method) of use has been hugely surpassed by the electric steam iron.

Drilling - I was brought up with a bit and brace, the geared hand drill felt like a revelation. I still have both types in the shed.

I want to make a hole, do I grab one of those or my li-ion cordless? Or my electric SDS?

No contest there either... Except for when there is.


It's not that the efficacy has been taken away, it's that a quicker, easier method has been developed. Every item (that is functional) still works now as well as it ever did - but is there an easier option available?

Sometimes, I don't want the easy option. I occasionally enjoy using a hacksaw and files instead of whacking something out on the milling machine. It keeps useful skills alive.


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'm not sure whether I agree with this analogy or not - in a way I do, but in another...
> 
> So, using the iron.
> 
> ...



Well put I was thinking on same lines but just couldn't think of how to explain it.

Anything that is old some people will have differences with and issues about it doesn't mean that it did not work nor in the same situation it still wouldn't work.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> I've noticed this reoccurring theme in your posts often in replies to me. And I never understand why. How do you think I train? We do the same things..only under a different banner because I added knives and firearms. There is nothing in your personal or mma training in general that I disagree with. The major difference is the ratio of time spent on different aspects due to a difference in objectives and scope.
> However as an ideology I see mma (as in the OP post) falling into the the same issues they call on everyone else.



In this case it doesn't matter how you train. It is a direct response to training with the concept of winning. I am not making assumptions about your training here. I am reacting to your comments.

If you don't include winning an loosing in to your training method you are probably going to be crap.

Do you have any examples of your training by the way. Mabye dispell my concerns.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Sure you've been in some conflict...as a doorman correct? So that was your job. It could have happened on your night off but it was still your job and the world you lived in. I'm not a bouncer. You can say I'm inflating the situation but for me and in my life the only fighting I am going to be doing is if someone breaks into my home at night, and yes I'm jumping right to the end without any questions, none need to be asked.



Do you sell drugs or owe money?

Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 19, 2018)

KPM said:


> Rackemann spent many years studying Wing Chun in a "traditional" fashion under Sifu Lo Man Kam in Taiwan, and has interacted with many others in TCMA.  He speaks fluent Chinese. So yes, he does know about "traditional" martial arts and this is not just his musings.  And Rackemann practices and teaches his own version of "Wing Chun Boxing".....and doesn't practice or teach "traditionally" any more.  So no need to "just go train MMA."


He doesn’t know about “traditional” martial arts in a broad and general sense.  He knows what he has experienced, from his perspective.  Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 19, 2018)

KPM said:


> There really is no need to post in such an adversarial tone.
> 
> I agree with Anarax to a large degree.   Like anyone who has a theme and is trying to make a point in a blog post, I think Rackemann is guilty of somewhat "overstating" his case in most of these blogs he writes.  But he does make some excellent points, and ones that do often apply to "traditional" schools.   I do believe that you can't generalize what he says to ALL "traditional" martial arts, and he would probably tell you the same thing.  And a lot of what he says could also apply to the local boxing gym or MMA gym.  But most of his points are well-founded.  Rackemann never said that he is the only one that "doesn't suck" and "has it all figured out."
> 
> Again, this article was all about the "mindset" of a lot of traditional martial arts. Obviously you can't generalize it to ALL of them, but I've seen it as well.  If you don't have this "mindset", then you have nothing to worry about.


Then maybe rackemann would do a better job if he qualified his comments more.  Honestly, when I start to read things like his blog, my first thought is “yet another wack-job who thinks he knows it all” and I rarely finish reading it.  If he has a message he wants to get out, he does a pretty poor job except when preaching to the choir.


----------



## pdg (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Do you sell drugs or owe money?
> 
> Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.



I know a few people who have been burgled, a couple of them while they were in.

None of them sold drugs or owed money (unless you count owing to the bank, but banks don't generally send the heavies in...)


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> All



Then I can't agree with all your points.

I would site the schools of Kenjutsu, iaijutsu, battojutsu I don't think any of them make claims for self defense in the modern age, nor would I think any of the heads of the ryu would make those claims either. The schools may have at one time claimed to be the best et al but that was a long long time ago.

Also the use of "ART" I feel is a western that does not have the same context in the east so confusion does arise.

The fault you said was not in the "art" but in how it is being taught. Without getting into major historical discussions lol, The current heads of the Koryu teach what has been passed to them and it is their decision as it was the masters before on what to teach (and what not to) and how, eg some of the schools had many different teachings contained within them, that over a period have not been taught, when they decided not to teach certain parts is up to the master that decided that (now that could have been out of there was no necessity or it could have been forced on them) and that could have been a long time ago. It doesn't mean that the teachings are not there (or the scrolls etc) it means that the current or for that matter many previous masters were not taught that part or parts and therefore they may hold the scrolls but not hold the relevant licenses to teach that (nor want to for that matter) and due to that they will not teach it nor I would suggest resurrect any teachings, that hey leave to others.  
So you cannot really blame a current master of a school for not teaching until it is ascertained if it is his decision not to teach that and not that he can't.  

just my opinion


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> In this case it doesn't matter how you train. It is a direct response to training with the concept of winning. I am not making assumptions about your training here. I am reacting to your comments.
> 
> If you don't include winning an loosing in to your training method you are probably going to be crap.
> .


when you state it in this way i understand and agree.  as i said earlier i just have a hard time using those terms in my own training because of the competitive connotations involved.  that doesnt mean the principals are not there.  i might just term it different.  for me i use the term survive or a successful outcome.. on the other side i often use the term .."dude your dead"  as i said my primary core revolves more around weapons use so in that circle we dont use win or lose, it's survive or die.  semantics for sure,  marketing if you want to see it that way but in no way does that mean the pressure testing isnt there and everyone goes home feeling happy because they got a trophy or medal.  and i fully agree that mentality fosters issues or as you say "_you are probably going to be crap"._


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

I would like to add another element which is that of rules...

pre 1743 and the Jack Broughton rules, boxing, or bare knuckle prize fighting, consisted of grappling techniques, throws, arm locks, chokes and kicks and included rules like continuing until one man could no longer carry on (there were also quarterstaff and short sword rounds as well interestingly enough, together with their eerily similar man sau stance).... anyway Jack Broughton due to killing a man, brought in safety rules and gloves and then the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came in, in 1867 making boxing even safer and more sport-man like.

Boxing now has huge developments in scientific advances in training and understanding, but would a champion bare knuckle prize fighter win against a champion contemporary boxer in a street fight, in my view I think they probably would, but I think the bare knuckle boxer would probably lose in a boxing match with gloves on if forced to abide to the contemporary rules. (please no-one mention the Mcgregor-Mayweather match, as I am still disappointed I paid to watch that).

So there is an element of framing going on.... I am not peddaling out the old "wing chun is too deadly to ever work in a competitive environment" but I am saying that advances are sometimes only good for turning a fighting system into a sport and increasing that sports entertainment value and safety. I may be wrong but I think something similar may have resulted in the emergence of Judo from Jujutsu.

Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:


Head-butting

Biting or spitting at an opponent

Hair pulling

Eye gouging of any kind

Groin attacks

Downward pointing of elbow strikes

Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh

Kicking the head of a grounded opponent etc.etc.
From the MMA schools I have seen, they don't train for this in their sparring, maybe cause its against the rules, again I don't know.  But what I do know is that these rules are not making MMA better more efficient and more effective, they are turning it more into a sport.  If more rules come in, MMA will become more of a sport, safer and more entertaining. Which is fine, but when I read stuff about MMA leading to being the ultimate fighter or ultimate fighting technique...

I think you would need to strip all the rules out to get there.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Do you sell drugs or owe money?
> 
> Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.



so the story i posted was mean to be the extreme.  its an exagerated example of retribution.  in the real world most guys dont have the balls to walk up and ring a door bell, that i will admit.  but drive by shootings in certain parts of the States happen every day.

retribution happens.  i know ..
  i know because back in my 20's i was the guy who got into a confrontation and was sitting in his car outside the bar, crowbar in my hand waiting for the dude who was 2 times my size. waiting for him to walk out so i can club him over the head from behind.

it was my friend who was shot and killed because a few people i knew got into a confrontation with a couple others out in a public space and those two backed off only to return 20 minutes later, jumped out of the car and started shooting into the group.  my friend Sean wasnt even there when the earlier fight happened but he is the one who took the bullet.

if its never hapend to you or you have never taken part ...bless you...  but it happens.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:
> 
> 
> Head-butting
> ...



Ahh this one again. I actually just watched a video from one Ramsey Dewey where he does a really good job of debunking this very common argument.

Here, have a look. Well worth the watch.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Anyways...So in the UK fights are common on most Saturday nights, maybe its because no-one has guns, I don't know... anyway things you regularly see in a standard drunken fight are things which are directly listed as fouls in MMA rules:
> 
> 
> Head-butting
> ...



I'm not an MMA competitor, but I am a BJJ instructor at an MMA gym. I can (and occasionally do) teach how to use and defend against all* of these tactics. For those who train with a street focus, it's worth touching on them occasionally. However, both effective use of and defense against these techniques are based on the same fundamental physical skills and movements that are used in sport competition.

*(With the exception of spitting. I can't spit for distance or accuracy worth a darn. Fortunately, I can come up with plenty of other distractions which work just as well.)


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> I would like to add another element which is that of rules...
> 
> pre 1743 and the Jack Broughton rules, boxing, or bare knuckle prize fighting, consisted of grappling techniques, throws, arm locks, chokes and kicks and included rules like continuing until one man could no longer carry on (there were also quarterstaff and short sword rounds as well interestingly enough, together with their eerily similar man sau stance).... anyway Jack Broughton due to killing a man, brought in safety rules and gloves and then the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came in, in 1867 making boxing even safer and more sport-man like.
> 
> ...



I liked your post however I would caution you that there is no ultimate fighting system and never will be as no matter what you are taught it is the human being that has to apply it and there in lies the flaws 

I do get what you are saying about street fights I've seen many of them and to teach those things you mention you have to be careful. When I did (and I haven't in a long time taught) mention things that you "could" do I was careful as to who I said it to maybe overly so but I didn't want a few getting the wrong idea and saying oh sensei told us to do that lol. 

That said I do think that once you have reached the point of applying techniques then it should become pretty obvious where you can apply things lol


----------



## now disabled (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark 

I will probably get jumped on for saying this but 

MMA is not the ultimate fighting system it is like back in the day when Karate and Judo (I ain't knocking those in anyway btw) were the "in" thing MMA is that way now and it has a lot more coverage and media attention than any of the Arts of systems did in the past. I am not saying it does not have it's place and I do think it is more adapted to the times we live in but in 20 years will there be another system taking over with another name, who knows lol. The test will be time and if it is still around in 50 years time 

Now I'm off to get my tin lid on and duck lol


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Ahh this one again. I actually just watched a video from one Ramsey Dewey where he does a really good job of debunking this very common argument.
> 
> Here, have a look. Well worth the watch.




Thank you.

I am going to give a lengthy response... but the crux of it is, in my view is that he is describing a sport, saying that anything outside the sporting rules will not help you in the sport and giving vague unfounded suggestions as to why they would not work generally.

I am sorry to say I cannot follow him on his head butt "rationale" ... "if you don't know how to grapple head butts will not help you"... well ok, but if you don't know how to grapple shrimping will not help you, side mounts will not help you, the turtle will not help you... hell lets list a bunch of elements in grappling which if you don't know how to grapple... will not help you.... and then he says if you use these techniques the opponent will too... well yes... that is the point... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Biting... well here is Bruce Lee's view alternative musings on the subject... unless we are going to all sing:  Aids, Aids, Aids, Aids everybody's got Aids!






On hair pulling, I'd say this guy does not see a lot of street fights, he works out, probably does not drink too much, seems pretty even tempered, probably goes to bed before he gets too messy, good on him... there is one reason drunk guys don't pull a man's hair.  Most have short hair.  You see a guy with long hair in a fight, it always gets pulled at some point because it creates an opening, which is what fighting is generally about... so why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Hmmm.. my understanding of the fishhook is to rip the cheek and disfigure quickly... not hold on to the inside of the cheek allowing the opponent to bite you. neck holds can take a while before the guy loses consciousness, it is not a sudden sharp pain which will sicken and shock the opponent as they spit blood, allowing for you to follow up, so again why fight to rules that inhibit your complete repertoire?

Again.. the eye gouge, from my understanding would be used to blind the opponent whilst you have them trapped and/or are grappling as opposed to give them a gentle push in the eye with your thumb whilst standing next to them, so why you would you try and cut them across the top of the eyebrow which is much more difficult to do... I cannot agree with him at all on this point.

His groin comment is pure BS.  Loads of fights start and end with someone kicking or kneeing the opponent in the nuts... especially when big men stand with the feet way apart looking all big and intimidating as they push someone around... he makes it sound like its difficult to do... Jesus, a man's legs create a funnel shape leading to the nuts, your accuracy does not even have to be that good.... and with regard his comment on cups, no-one plans on getting in a street fight... hmmm.. he goes off a bit on this...on how street fights happen...He comes across as a guy who has seen two people squaring off on youtube and says, oh that's how it happens... those are gentlemanly nice fights... some people are just angry drunks and they will look for fights... not for squaring off, they just attack someone.... some guys do it in groups... and if you are minding your own business and this happens to you or a group of people your with the best you can do is try and defend yourself...

His comments on gloves is 100% distilled BS and flies in the face of every stoic standing fact established in history, but hey, he has a youtube channel. and looks like he works out.... gloves were brought in by Jack Broughton... the prize fighters before 1740 would fight bare knuckle with one recorded match lasting over 6 hours.. there were very few recorded injuries of broken hands and knuckles... gloves were brought in to protect the opponent after Jack Broughton killed a man.

the video 12:38 to 13:10 is gold.  I agree with everything he says there.

I stopped watching at that point.  Because nothing he has said has changed my view of anything...

sorry.


***EDIT: sorry for what might appear as an aggressive or angry tone, I read it through again and just wanted to say that was not what I was aiming for.... sorry again.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

So after my rather gruesome post and describing techniques that some competitive MMA does not appear to train defending against (which creates a bit of a double standard when criticising traditional martial arts in my view)....  anyway, I am going to refer back to Hoshin1600's post on winning, which I reckon depends on your objective:

1) I want to fight whilst abiding by a set of rules which are there to assist in ensuring that I do not get seriously/permanently injured or seriously/permanently injure the other guy but prove my skill against a similarly weighted/skilled/minded opponent = winning by training for an MMA or boxing match
2) I am an angry drunk/ want revenge against a person or the world and want to hurt someone = winning by seriously hurting someone generally by attacking from behind (until jail)
3) I want to learn to defend myself = winning by learning any MA which teaches how to stop an antagonist without getting seriously hurt and ensuring no-one else gets hurt by controlling the situation
4) I want to learn something for health  = winning by studying a non-antagonistic martial art
5) I want to learn techniques for fighting, some of which have the potential to permanently disable, disfigure and even kill but don't want to fight competitively = winning by studying certain martial arts from certain schools
6) as at (5) but I also want to fight competitively  = winning by studying certain other martial arts from certain other schools

I don't think this broad paintbrush called MMA should be the gold standard for anything but winning in objective (1).  I also don't think MMA guys should go round saying that TMA are useless, anymore than I should go round saying MMA is useless cause they limit their repertoire in training....which I did.... so I guess I am a hypocrite.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I am going to give a lengthy response... but the crux of it is, in my view is that he is describing a sport, saying that anything outside the sporting rules will not help you in the sport and giving vague unfounded suggestions as to why they would not work generally.
> 
> ...


Hey there.

I do believe you may have missed a few points of context.

On headbutts: the point is that if you don't have grappling skills, it isn't a very high percentage move without them. So to say you would win if only you could headbutt is a bit of a red herring if you can't already grapple.

On biting: firstly, Bruce Lee was an actor, not a fighter. AFAIK there is no evidence he ever fought anyone. Sure it can cause pain, but it won't stop anyone. To say not being able to bite inhibits ones fighting ability raises questions about ones skill set.

The same can be said for hair pulling. If you don't already know how to grapple, or against someone that does, it won't add or subtract much.

On groin kicking: again, this is in the context of an opponent that knows how to fight. If you can't reliably land inside leg kicks, you also won't land groin kicks. They are pretty much the same kick, only the latter presents a much smaller target.

The ultimate point here is that these are suplimental techniques. If you don't already have good grappling, striking, and distance control, these things won't help much /against a trained fighter/.

Yes all of these things can and will work on drunken bar schlubs. So will anything though.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I did security for 20 years



That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I understand you did security. However, that doesn't equate you seeking out conflict, security is mostly about deterrence and prevention. I was asking did you go out and look for fights?


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

Hey,

I am going to disagree about me not getting the context but it's the internet and disagreement is what is all about.

Headbutts work standing up as a surprise attack

Bites can make someone release their grip as a last resort.

Hair pulling can open the neck up for attack.

Fishhooking is nasty and fighting with gloves is for sports.

Kneeing anyone in the nuts even if their trained is easy if your close They will not even see it. But it is not entertaining for sports.

The ultimate point for me, is MMA is limited by the rules and is effective as a sport, but it does not utilise or train for a variety of techniques.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jul 19, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Then I can't agree with all your points.
> 
> I would site the schools of Kenjutsu, iaijutsu, battojutsu I don't think any of them make claims for self defense in the modern age, nor would I think any of the heads of the ryu would make those claims either. The schools may have at one time claimed to be the best et al but that was a long long time ago.
> 
> ...


Your comment actually reinforced my point. An art cannot teach itself - a person is needed. Fault in transmission is solely on the understanding of the person instructing it and what their emphasis is on. So to disparage an art as useless or antiquated based solely on opinion and by comparing it a similar method taught differently, is disingenuous. Example, one instructor teaching Shotokan solely for Kata competition, another teaching Wado Ryu for kumite competition. In this context is ALL Shotokan useless for kumite competirion and ALL Wado Ryu useless for kata competition? The art is not at fault, the teacher is. You can blame culture, but ultimately the blame lies in the hands of those responsible for the WHAT and HOW is taught.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Hey,
> 
> I am going to disagree about me not getting the context but it's the internet and disagreement is what is all about.
> 
> ...


Question, how much MMA experience do you have? I feel like you are carrying around some misconceptions.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Question, how much MMA experience do you have? I feel like you are carrying around some misconceptions.



Oodles.  Together with a few fights on the weekend, even have a scar on my arm from a broken bottle slash. I see my view does not fit with yours, so I must be wrong. I thought TMA practitioners were supposed to be the blinkered ones.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The whole premises that martial arts is not about winning sort of encompasses the whole issue here.



Well, it just has to work.

When you convert a martial art into a combative sport a lot of crippling and killing techniques get dropped from the class syllabus.

yes, pressure testing is still required. no you don't have to maim or kill your partner.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> No it is more on this concept of creating systems where there are no winners and everyone gets a medal.
> 
> Which I think is a fast track to mediocrity.
> 
> ...




I can get behind all of this post.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> I would like to add another element which is that of rules...
> 
> pre 1743 and the Jack Broughton rules, boxing, or bare knuckle prize fighting, consisted of grappling techniques, throws, arm locks, chokes and kicks and included rules like continuing until one man could no longer carry on (there were also quarterstaff and short sword rounds as well interestingly enough, together with their eerily similar man sau stance).... anyway Jack Broughton due to killing a man, brought in safety rules and gloves and then the Marquess of Queensbury Rules came in, in 1867 making boxing even safer and more sport-man like.
> 
> ...


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Oodles.  Together with a few fights on the weekend, even have a scar on my arm from a broken bottle slash. I see my view does not fit with yours, so I must be wrong. I thought TMA practitioners were supposed to be the blinkered ones.



Blinkered? Lol not hardly. 

I'm just not convinced that being aware of fouls while in a cage would be a game changer for when you are not. I have given my reasoning for that, and objections that relate to surprise attacks or what can work against untrained opponents aren't really relevant.

The initial argument was that the inclusion of MMA fouls in an MMA fight against a trained fighter wouldn't make much difference as per the outcome. I'm still not convinced otherwise.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 19, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Blinkered? Lol not hardly.
> 
> I'm just not convinced that being aware of fouls while in a cage would be a game changer for when you are not. I have given my reasoning for that, and objections that relate to surprise attacks or what can work against untrained opponents aren't really relevant.
> 
> The initial argument was that the inclusion of MMA fouls in an MMA fight against a trained fighter wouldn't make much difference as per the outcome. I'm still not convinced otherwise.



Fair points. I just wanted to move the thread on to "the problem with MMA" as I fancied a change from defence.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Where for myself...and I hesitate to write this but..my objective is to kill, to take someone's life.


The main objective for most people is to defend themselves by neutralizing the threat and surviving the encounter. There needs to be some correlation between the use of force and the given threat. Meaning if someone grabs my wrist and they have no visible weapons, but I pull my firearm and shoot them, that's going to be a problem through the eyes of the courts.


hoshin1600 said:


> 'm at an age in my life where bar fights are not going to happen anymore.


The bar isn't the only place you could encounter a physical confrontation though. Driving to the store, going to work, walking your dog taking or even walking to your mailbox are all situations where you might encounter physical confrontations. Unless you completely remove yourself from the world, physical confrontations are still a  moderate probability.



hoshin1600 said:


> My force continuum starts with two bullets center mass, then decreases from there two my knife. Yes I carry a knife from the time I wake till I undress for bed, then unarmed fighting. I can reduce the force from there if needed but the common training is for worst case.


I disagree with that training methodology. Focusing mostly on worst case scenarios can have inherit problems. Defending against punches, takedowns, grabs, etc, is just as important. The probability of the scenario should play a factor in how you prioritize them. Being assault/battered is much more likely than being shot, just look at the criminal statistics. That's not to say don't train for worst case, but there should be more of a balance.  



hoshin1600 said:


> So when I say look for other options or a different kind of win, this is why. my starting point is too high.


Your starting point will change depending on the situation though. Lethal force won't always be justified.  



hoshin1600 said:


> To back off from there to a lower intensity lends itself to some issues.


Could you elaborate?



hoshin1600 said:


> so you and Drop Bear are in a bar you get in a physical fight with someone and how does that end? how do you see the win? did you knock him out? ok let go with that.....then what? THEN WHAT? how does that win taste? do you think your going to go home and enjoy your dinner with your wife and kids and that was the end of it? yeah sometimes that is the end of it,,except when its not the end of it.well guess what..the dude had a few friends there and they got your name. 5 minutes of Google -fu and facebook and the dude knows where you live and do you think he is just gonna let things be? nope hes gonna return it back 10 fold. he shows up at your house and the door bell rings...ding dong, guess who mother F"er and he blows a hole though the back of the head of who ever answers, because he wants you to suffer he doesnt care who it is.
> how does that win taste now?



Possibility and probability are important when dealing with MA/SD training. *Could* that happen? Yes. *Will* that happen? Very unlikely. The only thing we can do is deal with the threats the world throws at us one at a time while maintaining a reasonable awareness of our actions. If we start over analyzing all the *possible *outcomes in the future then we would never act. You could legally and lawfully defend yourself, but still might be charged and tried for assault/battery. However, the probable outcome of being charged(much more probable than your scenario) shouldn't hinder me from deciding to defend myself.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 19, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Hey there.
> 
> I do believe you may have missed a few points of context.
> 
> ...



There is evidence for two fights as an 18 year old Bruce Lee, and again within 2 years after.

Yoichi Nakachi (1932-1998) vs Bruce Lee,  location Downtown Seattle YMCA handball/racquetball court.
Year 1959 or 1960.

This fight was witnessed by numerous people
But Jesse Glover, and Ed Hart have put this fight on the record repeatedly.

*I had only known Bruce for a few months, and he had repeatedly amazed me with the stuff he’d shown me, but had never seen him in a fight before, and I think everyone there was stunned by it. This guy was lying there flat on his back, and I just stood there staring at him. I was absolutely dumbfounded! Finally, the guys got together and dragged the karate guy over to a wall and sort of leaned him up against it. They didn’t think it was a good idea to try to stand him up.

After a while, his eyelids fluttered and he opened his eyes, looked up at me, and said ‘How long did it take him to defeat me? I knew how long it was — it was 11 seconds — but I looked at this poor guy, and I just didn’t have the heart to tell him. So I doubled the time, and I said to him ‘Uh, 22 seconds.’ And the guy groaned ‘Aaaah’ and fell back unconscious again! I’ll never forget that.*

— Ed Hart
“Was Bruce Lee a Good Fighter, or Simply a Good Talker?”
Black Belt magazine (Nov 1993)

Here is video recorded testimony of Jesse Glover, And Ed Hart.







Prior to that  When Bruce was 18 years old, at the 1958 Hong Kong Inter-School Amateur Boxing Championships he defeated three time champion Gary Elms by knock out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Focusing mostly on worst case scenarios can have inherit problems.


As long as you can show your opponent that you are not that easy to be beaten up, most people will give up.

For example,

1. Conservative approach - None of his punches can land on your body (show your defense skill).
2. Aggressive approach - You strong clinch prevent him from moving (show your strength).

Both methods have been proved to work in bar environment and end up "both persons live happily ever after".


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Well, it just has to work.
> 
> When you convert a martial art into a combative sport a lot of crippling and killing techniques get dropped from the class syllabus.
> 
> yes, pressure testing is still required. no you don't have to maim or kill your partner.



Crippling and killing techniques are developed by learning to perform martial arts in real time with real feedback.

Being able to combat sport will almost always improve your ability to cripple/ kill.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 19, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> There is evidence for two fights as an 18 year old Bruce Lee, and again within 2 years after.
> 
> Yoichi Nakachi (1932-1998) vs Bruce Lee,  location Downtown Seattle YMCA handball/racquetball court.
> Year 1959 or 1960.
> ...



Ok. I'll grant you 'anecdotal evidence' There is a lot of Bruce Lee hype just as there are those that benefit financially to this day from having known him, so I tend to take such anecdotes with a grain of salt.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you can show your opponent that you are not that easy to be beaten up, most people will give up.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...



My preference is solving a confrontation with the least amount of force as possible. Unfortunately the use of force required to neutralize the threat is mostly dependent on the attacker. The more committed the attacker the more force will be required to neutralize the threat.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Anarax said:


> That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I understand you did security. However, that doesn't equate you seeking out conflict, security is mostly about deterrence and prevention. I was asking did you go out and look for fights?



Security is looking for fights. You see a scumbag and instead of avoiding him or going home. You go out of your way to approach him and then kick him out.

The next time you have a problem with a guy. Kick him out of wherever he is. See if that is starting a fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Snark said:


> Hey,
> 
> I am going to disagree about me not getting the context but it's the internet and disagreement is what is all about.
> 
> ...



The issues addressed in OPs post are not street vs sport though.

It is more about unrealistic training leading to an unrealistic assessment.

Training illegal techniques in a vacuum as some sort of get out of jail free card is where the mindset breaks down.

There is a whole bunch of risk reward issues you haven't considered here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Do you sell drugs or owe money?
> 
> Because they are about the only people I know who have ever been home invaded.


Unfortunately I’ve known a few ordinary (very few, but a few) folks who had home invasions. Likely (never caught, so not proven) by folks in that first category.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

Anarax said:


> My preference is solving a confrontation with the least amount of force as possible.


Agree!

- Your opponent punches you with his right hand. You use left hand to grab on his right arm.
- He uses left hand to punch you. You use right hand to grab on his left arm.
- You pin his left arm on his own right arm and against his chest.
- You then ask him, "Can we be friend now?"
- If he says yes, you let him go.
- If he says no, you then ...

Problem can be solved without fist meets face.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

@Anarax   thoughtful post, thanks for that. 


Anarax said:


> The main objective for most people is to defend themselves by neutralizing the threat and surviving the encounter.


seems logical but if i look at what and how people train that idea is not obvious to me.  what people say is often wishful thinking while what they actually do gives a more accurate picture of their intentions.



Anarax said:


> There needs to be some correlation between the use of force and the given threat.


 oh of course,  i have an entire lecture on use of force and the law but that wasnt in the scope of the thread.



Anarax said:


> The bar isn't the only place you could encounter a physical confrontation though.


agreed, but it has happened in the past that if i start to try and define things too much and parse out specifics the conversation gets bogged down in menusha. 



Anarax said:


> Focusing mostly on worst case scenarios can have inherit problems


i would like to hear your thoughts on this.



Anarax said:


> The probability of the scenario should play a factor in how you prioritize them.


fair enough, but if you follow that logic out it gets flawed at the fringes,  the most common scenario is a heated argument.  under this premise we would spend the entire class practicing de-escalation.  in fact the probability of ever needing your martial art training is so close to zero that we would be better off in a knitting class.
there is utility in focusing training time on high probability attacks,  i think it was Patrick McCarthy who is a proponent of the HAPV theory.  there is a difference between training for scenario and training for skills.  i think your seeing this as an either / or situation and it doesnt have to be.  training for a good position is training for a good position.  bar fight or deadly interaction is a matter of intensity not of applying different skill sets.



Anarax said:


> Your starting point will change depending on the situation though. Lethal force won't always be justified.


agreed.  but my usage was more conceptual and about training not application.



Anarax said:


> If we start over analyzing all the *possible *outcomes in the future then we would never act.   the probable outcome of being charged(much more probable than your scenario) shouldn't hinder me from deciding to defend myself.
> .


again, this was a specific response to a specific comment and was meant as allegory not literal.  it seems this went right over peoples heads.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

Anarax said:


> _To back off from there to a lower intensity lends itself to some issues._
> Could you elaborate?



i follow three principals for a combative event.

surprise
speed
violence of action
this means i attack fast, hard and with as much ferocity as i can without sacrificing integrity, when you least expect it.  the level of violence has to be equal or greater than what the other person can muster.  most people are not emotionally prepared for sudden intense violence.  this has to be trained for and your mental system works better if your inoculated to receive and deal with that level of violence.  its my belief that you can train at that intensity and lower the intensity when needed.  you can moderate to a lower level easier then the other way around.    the common martial art school never rises to that level.  most dojos have an atmosphere as if its a social hour.  i have seen so many dojos where the sparring is so relaxed and non violent. then a new student will come in and they will "tone it down" for the new guy.  they are so far down on the spectrum they would just panic and freeze in a real situation.  to Drop Bears credit he is constantly hopping all over people because he knows full well his normal level of intensity for sparring would overwhelm most martial arts practitioners.  its like night and day and those who are in low level intensity training dont see it.


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Most people are not emotionally prepared for sudden intense violence. This has to be trained for and your mental system works better if your inoculated to receive and deal with that level of violence. It's my belief that you can train at that intensity and lower the intensity when needed. You can moderate to a lower level easier then the other way around. The common martial art school never rises to that level. Most dojos have an atmosphere as if its a social hour. .



That pretty much sums up everything I believe about the world of Karate, not just today, but throughout my lifetime.


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2018)

Question....

You're a Martial Arts instructor. Teaching whatever.  In your travels somebody shows you something that's the greatest thing you've seen in the Arts. Maybe it's a technique, a partner drill, an escape, a reversal, a punch, kick whatever. But it's really awesome.

But it is not part of your traditional art.

Do you teach it to your students? And if you do, does that mean you are no longer teaching a traditional Art?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

Buka said:


> Question....
> 
> You're a Martial Arts instructor. Teaching whatever.  In your travels somebody shows you something that's the greatest thing you've seen in the Arts. Maybe it's a technique, a partner drill, an escape, a reversal, a punch, kick whatever. But it's really awesome.
> 
> ...


MA can be as simple as

- how to enter, and
- how to finish.

If you have a goal, to find a path to reach it should be easy. As long as a certain path can help you to reach to your goal, you should not care whether that path come from your MA system or not.

There are many preying mantis combos that can be perfectly integrated into the throwing art.

For example, The preying mantis Gou Lou Cai Shou can be used as:

- Right hand block and grab on your opponent's forearm.
- Left hand push on his elbow joint.
- Right hand move to his neck.


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA can be as simple as
> 
> - how to enter, and
> - how to finish.
> ...



I agree. But that didn't answer my question.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 19, 2018)

Buka said:


> Question....
> 
> You're a Martial Arts instructor. Teaching whatever.  In your travels somebody shows you something that's the greatest thing you've seen in the Arts. Maybe it's a technique, a partner drill, an escape, a reversal, a punch, kick whatever. But it's really awesome.
> 
> ...


Well the story I got was that Uechi-ryu didn't have a round kick until someone saw Bruce Lee doing it in the movies. And we thought...gee that looks pretty cool..and the rest is history
Not sure if it's true but it speaks to your question.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

Buka said:


> I agree. But that didn't answer my question.


Your question is "Will you teach technique/strategy from other MA system?" My answer is "Yes, as long as it can help me to achieve my goal".


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Unfortunately I’ve known a few ordinary (very few, but a few) folks who had home invasions. Likely (never caught, so not proven) by folks in that first category.



And so you spend you days armed and ready waiting for it to happen to you?

Bear in mind what we are using this to justify.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i follow three principals for a combative event.
> 
> surprise
> speed
> ...



And then a spazzy noob comes in and face crushes them. And suddenly they have to reevaluate themselves.

A fighter vs a martial artist. And yes people have this thing where they belive intensity or athleticism is either cheating or magic. Because for my system if i get beaten by a thug of a man with no skill. I am still beaten. It has to be factored in.

If I can neutralise someone using limited methods.

 (So I wrestled today. And I threw people to the ground and held them there without hurting them even though they did everything in their power to stop me)

I should be able to do better if I really wanted to kill them and had no restrictions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Well the story I got was that Uechi-ryu didn't have a round kick until someone saw Bruce Lee doing it in the movies. And we thought...gee that looks pretty cool..and the rest is history
> Not sure if it's true but it speaks to your question.


Back then, if you can't kick like Bruce Lee did in his movies, you won't be able to get any students.



Buka said:


> I agree. But that didn't answer my question.


Some of the kicks in the following clips didn't come from my primary long fist system.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Here is a question. When was the last time you have you seen your instructor loose a fight, a spar or a roll?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Here is a question. When was the last time you have you seen your instructor loose a fight, a spar or a roll?


You can only judge your teacher by his official tournament record. As far as personal fight, there won't be enough record for that.

In CMA, if you retire from tournament, you no longer need to accept challenge fight. People do try to protect their reputation carefully.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can only judge your teacher by his official tournament record. As far as personal fight, there won't be any record for that.



Even just seeing him get manhandled in sparring would do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Even just seeing him get manhandled in sparring would do.


I have only seen my teacher who accepted 2 challenged fights in my life time. In one Chicago challenge fight, he broke his opponent's elbow. In one Taipei challenge fight he knocked his opponent 45 degree upward into the air. I didn't know that was possible. I have seen people got knocked down. I have never seen people got "knocked up".

But in CMA, my teacher was a very special case. He was a Chinese spy during WWII. He killed communist spies for National Chinese government.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 19, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> seems logical but if i look at what and how people train that idea is not obvious to me. what people say is often wishful thinking while what they actually do gives a more accurate picture of their intentions.





hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to hear your thoughts on this.


Focusing too much on the extreme sides of the spectrum can be problematic in the fact there's a lot of situations where a martial artists won't have the skills to deal with. Meaning, if I focus too much on controlling a poorly motivated untrained opponent then I'm going to be in for a rude awakening in a more serious situation. On the other hand, focusing too much on responding with 100% force will ingrain an over reliance on snapping into that mode. Training at that level and understanding when to use it is where it counts. Ingrained psychological conditioning to an extreme degree can have undesirable legal consequences.           



hoshin1600 said:


> fair enough, but if you follow that logic out it gets flawed at the fringes, the most common scenario is a heated argument. under this premise we would spend the entire class practicing de-escalation. in fact the probability of ever needing your martial art training is so close to zero that we would be better off in a knitting class.


Not necessarily. De-escalation techniques are great to know, but there's a whole spectrum from de-escalation to lethal force that a martial artist should know how to deal with. You mentioned knives earlier. When I choose what kind of knife to carry I factor in practicality, draw time, blade geometry, blade retention and blade dynamics. I don't carry a bowie knife or a machete simply because it's the most lethal. Are there some situations where I might want a machete? Maybe. However, those situations are few and far between.      



hoshin1600 said:


> there is a difference between training for scenario and training for skills. i think your seeing this as an either / or situation and it doesnt have to be. training for a good position is training for a good position. bar fight or deadly interaction is a matter of intensity not of applying different skill sets.


I don't see it as either or, I understand the different between threat awareness and combative skills. However, it's the skills that you're going to be using once the fight starts. The intensity is relative, a man throwing wild haymakers can be KOd by a skilled striker with a few well placed and focused shots. Or can be taken down with a sweep with little effort. Essentially, how one uses their intensity/energy plays a larger factor than intensity itself.   



hoshin1600 said:


> again, this was a specific response to a specific comment and was meant as allegory not literal. it seems this went right over peoples heads.


I understand, I felt I needed to comment because it was such an extreme example that has such a low probability of happening. 



hoshin1600 said:


> this means i attack fast, hard and with as much ferocity as i can without sacrificing integrity, when you least expect it. the level of violence has to be equal or greater than what the other person can muster.


There are definitely situations where that is the best thing to do, but there are other situations where that level of force isn't necessary.  



hoshin1600 said:


> its my belief that you can train at that intensity and lower the intensity when needed. you can moderate to a lower level easier then the other way around. the common martial art school never rises to that level. most dojos have an atmosphere as if its a social hour. i have seen so many dojos where the sparring is so relaxed and non violent.


Agreed. That is a problem in many schools, but if the student is aware of that then I personally don't see a problem. Meaning, if they're training for non-combative reasons like fitness and are aware of it. The problem only arises when the student believes their abilities to be greater than they actually are. 



hoshin1600 said:


> then a new student will come in and they will "tone it down" for the new guy. they are so far down on the spectrum they would just panic and freeze in a real situation.


Interesting. I spoke of this in another thread. I've realized that when I'm paired with a new student I have to "tone it down", but that's necessary for a time. If my instructor or I go all out on a new student in drills or sparring they probably won't come back. There's definitely a point where the new student needs to develop past that stage though.


----------



## Buka (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Here is a question. When was the last time you have you seen your instructor loose a fight, a spar or a roll?



1986


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Buka said:


> 1986



See every time my coach camps for a fight he brings in guys who can handle him. And will spend 12 weeks getting mauled.

I think after a while of constantly being the best your judgment suffers.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have only seen my teacher who accepted 2 challenged fights in my life time. In one Chicago challenge fight, he broke his opponent's elbow. In one Taipei challenge fight he knocked his opponent 45 degree upward into the air. I didn't know that was possible. I have seen people got knocked down. I have never seen people got "knocked up".
> 
> But in CMA, my teacher was a very special case. He was a Chinese spy during WWII. He killed communist spies for National Chinese government.



I think that will become kind if a theme.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Here is a question. When was the last time you have you seen your instructor loose a fight, a spar or a roll?


Been a few years... but then I'm in my 60s and they are older than I.
Now I still spar and have several students and fighters who maul me. They are faster, stronger, more resilient, greater cardio and are well trained. They train with me not because of my skills as a fighter today but for my knowledge and ability to help them be good fighters.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> think after a while of constantly being the best your judgment suffers.


I think this is true but I think the bigger issue pertaining to the thread topic is that many traditional teachers don't actually get on the floor. They hide behind rank, titles, dojo social norms that insulate the sensei from being embarrassed and loosing face. I think many sensei use dojo culture to inflate their image as being super man.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have only seen my teacher who accepted 2 challenged fights in my life time. In one Chicago challenge fight, he broke his opponent's elbow. In one Taipei challenge fight he knocked his opponent 45 degree upward into the air. I didn't know that was possible. I have seen people got knocked down. I have never seen people got "knocked up".
> 
> But in CMA, my teacher was a very special case. He was a Chinese spy during WWII. He killed communist spies for National Chinese government.



I have seen women get "knocked up" all the time.

Did it once to a girl who made the mistake of marrying me, about five and a half years ago!

Got a fine son out of the deal too!

Not sure how many falls and what angles.... could have been a 45° involved. Can't say for sure.

No broken elbows, thankfully.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 20, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Focusing too much on the extreme sides of the spectrum can be problematic in the fact there's a lot of situations where a martial artists won't have the skills to deal with. Meaning, if I focus too much on controlling a poorly motivated untrained opponent then I'm going to be in for a rude awakening in a more serious situation. On the other hand, focusing too much on responding with 100% force will ingrain an over reliance on snapping into that mode. Training at that level and understanding when to use it is where it counts. Ingrained psychological conditioning to an extreme degree can have undesirable legal consequences.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. De-escalation techniques are great to know, but there's a whole spectrum from de-escalation to lethal force that a martial artist should know how to deal with. You mentioned knives earlier. When I choose what kind of knife to carry I factor in practicality, draw time, blade geometry, blade retention and blade dynamics. I don't carry a bowie knife or a machete simply because it's the most lethal. Are there some situations where I might want a machete? Maybe. However, those situations are few and far between.
> ...



This is the carry knife I often revert to.
Aitor "Cuchilio De Monte"  The mountain knife. Created for the Spanish Special Forces.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And so you spend you days armed and ready waiting for it to happen to you?
> 
> Bear in mind what we are using this to justify.


I was just commenting that it does happen. It’s rare, but still real.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Here is a question. When was the last time you have you seen your instructor loose a fight, a spar or a roll?


That’s a tough one to judge by. Until an instructor has a student capable of beating them (prior training, advanced enough, and/or more athletic), they should probably win every time. That’s not good for their (the instructor’s) development, so they need to seek out equals and betters to train with.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> I think this is true but I think the bigger issue pertaining to the thread topic is that many traditional teachers don't actually get on the floor. They hide behind rank, titles, dojo social norms that insulate the sensei from being embarrassed and loosing face. I think many sensei use dojo culture to inflate their image as being super man.




Which brings us back to.

Training to win. 

See where I was going with that?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That’s a tough one to judge by. Until an instructor has a student capable of beating them (prior training, advanced enough, and/or more athletic), they should probably win every time. That’s not good for their (the instructor’s) development, so they need to seek out equals and betters to train with.



Did you just get tied in knots by tony?

Did you let him?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> See every time my coach camps for a fight he brings in guys who can handle him. And will spend 12 weeks getting mauled.
> 
> I think after a while of constantly being the best your judgment suffers.


I think a coach who has retired from actively training in an art himself can still improve as a coach (if not as a practitioner) by using the success of the people he coaches as feedback. Think Angelo Dundee or Cus D'Amato.

The difference between boxing and some TMAs is that no one promoted the fantasy that Dundee or D'Amato were invincible fighters themselves. (D'Amato never fought professionally and Dundee never fought at all.)

Other than that, I agree. An instructor who never puts himself in a position to lose is hurting his own development. In the long term that will also hurt the development of his students.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Did you just get tied in knots by tony?
> 
> Did you let him?


We really didn't get to do much free rolling. But during some of the stuff we were working on, I put in some honest resistance and "let him" show me how quickly a BJJ BB shifts gears and shuts things down, even when moving like a sloth. Much fun. Next time I'm up, I'm going to make a point of getting in some real free rolling with at least Tony, maybe some of the students. Even a blue belt ought to be able to cause me real problems from mount, and I want to find out where I suck and where I do well. It has been too long since I had a chance to roll with someone more skilled than me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The difference between boxing and some TMAs is that no one promoted the fantasy that Dundee or D'Amato were invincible fighters themselves. (D'Amato never fought professionally and Dundee never fought at all.)


And I'm not sure how that ever came to be. I don't know if that's something that came from Japan (since I'm mostly JMA trained) or a result of new BB coming back to the US (because that's where I am) and using movie rhetoric to promote their teaching.

I find the longer I teach the less I'm concerned with whether a student can "beat" me. At 30-ish (when I got my BB), it mattered some. Now, I only expect to be able to do better at the skills they don't have. And I'd gladly learn (and, in fact, have) from my own students when they have better skills than me in some area.


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your question is "Will you teach technique/strategy from other MA system?" My answer is "Yes, as long as it can help me to achieve my goal".



I meant the other part of the question....if a person teaches a Traditional Martial Art, but then learns something that he/she thinks their students needs to know - and teaches it to them, is that person no longer teaching a "traditional" Martial Art?


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> See every time my coach camps for a fight he brings in guys who can handle him. And will spend 12 weeks getting mauled.
> 
> I think after a while of constantly being the best your judgment suffers.



Yeah, maybe it does, and maybe my teachers got their butts handed to them and I didn't see it. But I don't think so. Seriously doubt it.

And the last time, the time I mentioned in 86, I actually set that up, brought the person in to spar with my instructor in boxing - in an attempt to try and keep my instructor from going into the boxing game.

And I hope nobody reads anything negative into that. It was done out of love and respect.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 20, 2018)

Buka said:


> I meant the other part of the question....if a person teaches a Traditional Martial Art, but then learns something that he/she thinks their students needs to know - and teaches it to them, is that person no longer teaching a "traditional" Martial Art?


That won't be an issue for me. I teach my students how to fight. I can't care less whether that's tradition or modern.

A wrestlers likes to put hands in front of his knee to prevent his opponent's hands from reaching to his leg/legs. It's a good defense for leg shooting. But since you use your hands to protect your knees, your head is not protected. As long as you can explain to your students the PRO and CON, all MA skill (traditional or modern) will have it's place.


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That won't be an issue for me. I teach my students how to fight. I can't care less whether that's tradition or modern.
> 
> A wrestlers likes to put hands in front of his knee to prevent his opponent's hands from reaching to his leg/legs. It's a good defense for leg shooting. But since you use your hands to protect your knees, your head is not protected. As long as you can explain to your students the PRO and CON, all MA can have it's place.



I agree. And I wonder if there's really much '"traditional" out there these days.

Does anyone here teach a Traditional Martial Art?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The difference between boxing and some TMAs is that no one promoted the fantasy that Dundee or D'Amato were invincible fighters themselves.


The wrestling art is different from the boxing art. No matter how many rounds that a Judo white belt may try to wrestle a 4th degree Judo belt belt, That white belt can never take down his opponent.

To have a perfect winning record in the boxing ring may be impossible. But to have an undefeated record on the wrestling mat is possible.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 20, 2018)

Buka said:


> I agree. And I wonder if there's really much '"traditional" out there these days.
> 
> Does anyone here teach a Traditional Martial Art?


The Chinese wrestling doesn't have kick. If you integrate kick (from other MA systems) into it, will you still call it traditional?

One thing for sure is, after 1000 years, the new Chinese wrestling (with kick) will be considered as "traditional".


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2018)

I've been fortunate to have had the teachers I did. Rickson, Joe Lewis, Billy Blanks, Wallace, my boxing coach Joe Vassalo, my all around fighting coach JKD man Joe Maffei (student of Rickson)

I don't know who they would go to to get their butts kicked, maybe each other, I don't know. But I watched all off them fight a lot. A whole lot.

I once watched Rickson roll with over one hundred people in a row. You read that right, over one hundred people. It took several hours. They were wrestlers, Black Belts, football players, brawlers, Judo guys, street fighters, Karate guys. And with every single one of them he let them do the same thing - overpower him and get him in any position they wanted. Then he'd calmly work out of it and submit them. Every single one of them. And if you're thinking it would be different if they were allowed to punch, yeah, maybe, but I doubt that. The first dozen times I worked with Rickson he didn't teach me BJJ, not technically, he taught me how to work on the ground to utilize my punching and elbow skills in a grappling format, from bottom, top, side and during stand up grappling. BJJ came later.

Joe Lewis was fricken' scary. And he fought with anyone. I saw a guy get testy with him once. Joe was probably fifty at the time, I first trained with him when he was in his late twenties. Joe slapped him.....in the chest. *WHAM*, and it was so fricken' fast. I can still hear the sound it made, I really can, like it was yesterday. I remember the look on the guy's face. How he slowly turned and sunk to his knees. Gasping. We looked at his chest afterwards, he didn't want to show us, but we pulled his shirt up anyway. Like he had a choice, the chump idiot. And I say that because what the hell are you thinking when you do something like that? Especially to who he did it to. "Hello, earth to guy - smarten the F up"

The hand print almost looked like a tattoo, like it came from the funny pages. It was totally awesome.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2018)

Buka said:


> I agree. And I wonder if there's really much '"traditional" out there these days.
> 
> Does anyone here teach a Traditional Martial Art?


If you'd asked me before this thread, I'd have said, "Yes". But that's just my view - probably nobody else in NGA would consider what I teach traditional, and many folks outside NGA wouldn't consider NGA traditional.

I think I just like the idea of tradition better than I actually like tradition.


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If you'd asked me before this thread, I'd have said, "Yes". But that's just my view - probably nobody else in NGA would consider what I teach traditional, and many folks outside NGA wouldn't consider NGA traditional.
> 
> I think I just like the idea of tradition better than I actually like tradition.



I know, right?  This thread has me doing all sorts of wondering now. And your thought of liking the idea of tradition.....man, I'll be pondering that for a bit.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2018)

challenge spars at maywhethers gym.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 20, 2018)

Buka said:


> I agree. And I wonder if there's really much '"traditional" out there these days.
> 
> Does anyone here teach a Traditional Martial Art?


I practice a system that claims a lineage back to the 1400s.  True or not I dunno, but for now I’ll take it at face value.

But what I am very confident of is that how it was done in the 1400s was very different from how I do it now.  Perhaps even unrecognizable.

That’s probably true to some extent compared to 100 years ago and even 50 years ago.  Nothing is exactly how it was a long time ago.  Things change with every generation.

How do we define “traditional”?  I’m getting to the point where I don’t much care.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 20, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I practice a system that claims a lineage back to the 1400s.  True or not I dunno, but for now I’ll take it at face value.
> 
> But what I am very confident of is that how it was done in the 1400s was very different from how I do it now.  Perhaps even unrecognizable.
> 
> ...


I agree. My 'home' style is WC right? I look around, today, right now, and see this spectrum of mutually exclusive concepts and executions of said concepts that often look very little like each other, yet they all fall under this one traditional heading.

Now multiply that with many isolated lineages going down through time like some really committed versions of 'the telephone game' and I can imagine what lays at the beginning probably looks very little like the many variations we have now.

And that is just one 'traditional' style out of hundreds, and not even a very old one.

At this point I think it's less about what is being taught and more about conduct. Gis, addressing teacher as Sifu, sensei, etc, and even the aesthetic.(maybe some kanji on the wall or a dragon, definitely swords mounted somewhere)

If that stuff works for you, bonne appetite.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 20, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> how it was done in the 1400s was very different from how I do it now.


During my teacher's teacher time period, there was a famous Chinese wrestler. When he wrestled (it was always outdoor on dirt ground), he only had one shoe on. His other foot had white sock on only. He would stand on one leg. When he got hold of his opponent, he would give his leading leg to his opponent. No matter how his opponent might grab on his leading leg, he could always throw his opponent over his leading leg. After the wrestling match, his white sock was still clean and hadn't touched the ground yet.

I wonder what could happen if he deal with BJJ guys today.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 20, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> This is the carry knife I often revert to.
> Aitor "Cuchilio De Monte"  The mountain knife. Created for the Spanish Special Forces.
> 
> View attachment 21606


That's your everyday carry?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> We really didn't get to do much free rolling. But during some of the stuff we were working on, I put in some honest resistance and "let him" show me how quickly a BJJ BB shifts gears and shuts things down, even when moving like a sloth. Much fun. Next time I'm up, I'm going to make a point of getting in some real free rolling with at least Tony, maybe some of the students. Even a blue belt ought to be able to cause me real problems from mount, and I want to find out where I suck and where I do well. It has been too long since I had a chance to roll with someone more skilled than me.



And look if we break down the individual points of OPs post. Most of the issues can be resolved by honestly assessing where you suck.

But you can't do that if neither of you is trying to win or where image is so important that you can only engage in a death match.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> where image is so important that you can only engage in a death match.


No matter how many tournaments that you may have won, if you keep competing, soon or later you will lose. Do you want to maintain your reputation as much as you can? Of course you want to.

If you have just won a national champion title, next day a guy who knocks on your door and challenges you. Since he is nobody, he has nothing to lose. Do you want to give him a chance to defeat you so he can declare that he is better than the current national champion? There are many people who don't have courage to compete in tournament. But they want to take the short cut - defeat the champion. It happened in the past. It happens today, it will still happen in the future.

Instead of "death match", it's fare to ask the challenger to come up $5000.

- If he defeats you, you will pay him $5000.
- If you defeat him, he will pay you $5000.

Fighting will be much more fun this way.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 20, 2018)

Anarax said:


> That's your everyday carry?



Most of the time yep.
I live in a rural agricultural area.

It's not an uncommon experience to see someone with a knife on their hip.

I feel safer with this then with a firearm holstered. Folks tend to stare when your strapped like that.

It is a fairly useful knife, and it doesn't draw a lot of attention around here. When I have lived in big towns I carried a spyderco clipped to my belt, or a neck sheathed single edged pushknife.

warn like this






but looks like this.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back then, if you can't kick like Bruce Lee did in his movies, you won't be able to get any students.
> 
> 
> Some of the kicks in the following clips didn't come from my primary long fist system.




Looks like TSD Kicker Extrordinarire Hwang Jang Lee in those clips there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 21, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Looks like TSD Kicker Extrordinarire Hwang Jang Lee in those clips there.


The guy in both clips is much better looking than Hwang Jang Lee.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No matter how many tournaments that you may have won, if you keep competing, soon or later you will lose. Do you want to maintain your reputation as much as you can? Of course you want to.
> 
> If you have just won a national champion title, next day a guy who knocks on your door and challenges you. Since he is nobody, he has nothing to lose. Do you want to give him a chance to defeat you so he can declare that he is better than the current national champion? There are many people who don't have courage to compete in tournament. But they want to take the short cut - defeat the champion. It happened in the past. It happens today, it will still happen in the future.
> 
> ...


Or, just have a friendly fight to find out what you can learn from it. Then nobody has to come up with $5,000.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 21, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Most of the time yep.
> I live in a rural agricultural area.
> 
> It's not an uncommon experience to see someone with a knife on their hip.
> ...


Oh, that makes more sense now, I have a pair of pushknives with a nice holster myself. Have you ever noticed only the bad guys use pushknives in movies and TV shows?


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 21, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Oh, that makes more sense now, I have a pair of pushknives with a nice holster myself. Have you ever noticed only the bad guys use pushknives in movies and TV shows?


yep... Hollywood does the brainwashing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 21, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Oh, that makes more sense now, I have a pair of pushknives with a nice holster myself. Have you ever noticed only the bad guys use pushknives in movies and TV shows?


How do I know you aren’t a bad guy?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Or, just have a friendly fight to find out what you can learn from it. Then nobody has to come up with $5,000.



Or have a friendly fight with anybody. It is not likely your first fight has to be the UFC.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> How do I know you aren’t a bad guy?



Find out if he has a goatee


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 21, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> How do I know you aren’t a bad guy?



I don't. 
But a wise man once said "by their fruits you will know them". 
Fruits of a Hollywood Bad guy. 
Murder, bank robbery, terrorizing little kids, getting their butts swooped by the good guy, etc.

Definitely not my MO.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 21, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> I don't.
> But a wise man once said "by their fruits you will know them".
> Fruits of a Hollywood Bad guy.
> Murder, bank robbery, terrorizing little kids, getting their butts swooped by the good guy, etc.
> ...


But a real Bad Guy would surely deny his badness!  He would never admit to it, or his cover is blown!


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 21, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> But a real Bad Guy would surely deny his badness!  He would never admit to it, or his cover is blown!


Damnit, now I gotta eliminate witnesses, this is the part of the job I hate the most.

That...  or kill everyone else in the criminal organization.

Or retire... and get disturbed outta retirement like John Wick.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Damnit, now I gotta eliminate witnesses, this is the part of the job I hate the most.
> 
> That...  or kill everyone else in the criminal organization.
> 
> Or retire... and get disturbed outta retirement like John Wick.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jul 21, 2018)

drop bear said:


>


right!


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 15, 2018)

This looks like a fun discussion.

In my opinion the problem isn’t within the Art itself but within the practitioners, students and teachers alike. Fighting is natural for all living beings in fact in every human population be it ancient or current there are always two common forms of entertaining, wrestling and a game involving a ball, Martial Arts were design to make fighting efficient quoting Jigoro Kano “Maximum efficiency with minimum effort”. As an example a horse stance straight punch is more efficient in transferring power than a “wild punch” (just swinging your fist towards a target), for the sake of this example let’s say that both punches are equally powerful. The wild punch in order to generate that amount of power uses more force and velocity, as opposed to the horse stance straight punch the amount of force and velocity are diminished, this punch is more efficient since less resources were utilized. This goes for Martial Arts techniques in general the correct stance, body movement, weight shifting, torque, alignment, etc. help to generate power while utilizing less resources.



As they stand the arts and techniques are sound, they work properly. My master always tells me to “listen” to my opponent and look for techniques, meaning that during practice, sparring, combat, etc. I must observe my opponent and seek or create an opportunity to execute the technique that is appropriate, basically not trying to force a foot sweep when the situations demands a shoulder throw. I’ve found said advice to be very useful, when the required technique is properly applied at the right timing it feels as if your opponent offers little to no resistance. Albeit it is hard to do, I’m currently not skilled enough to always do that, but the times I’ve pulled it off I just get this great feeling it is very special.



You often see practitioners engaging in a very sloppy form of kick boxing, wrestling or poking each other with an object (weapon), whatever that is I’m sure it is not Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Hung Gar, Kendo, H.E.M.A. or any martial art, at the very least it doesn’t look like it. This goes for anything really, doing the same thing over and over and doing it wrong will not help you do it right.



I believe that the problem is that when teaching and learning, masters and students don’t focus enough in properly executing and applying the available technique. Forms can be very useful to learn executing the techniques properly, however the same aesthetic has to pursuit during sparring and every single aspect of training, competing, fighting, etc. By no means should one take forever to execute a technique, to perform correctly one should do it fast, hard, and beautiful.



Like so:



















There are many good teachers and students that seek for techniques and do their martial art. I believe that all of us have to really commit to our practice, we need to make an extra effort to do our martial art properly even when it is hard to do. Sparring is great everybody should spar, when you spar doing a perfect roundhouse is harder than doing so against a punching bag or during a form, but we must persevere and try to do it correctly instead of settling for a sloppy kick, with time doing the technique under stress will be easier but it will take time and a lot of work.



When we don’t do so we may look like the guy in black:












We also need to accept that times have changed in many ways for the better, there have been many breakthroughs in fiscal fitness, diverse sciences, technology, etc. that can help with practicing martial arts we should embrace new positive practices and add to our martial art, we must keep the old practices like kata, iron bone training, 72 shaolin arts, etc. In the same way we must try “new” things like weightlifting, gymnastics, roadwork, medicine for quick recovery, muscle memory exercises, coordination exercises, spacial awareness therapy, polypropylene weapons, new and improved protective gear, sparring if you don’t spar, cross sparring, cross training, hyper-gravity training, etc. Martial arts worked in the past not because they stuck to their first practice but because they where constantly growing and adapting throughout history we can see the evolution of weapons and armor and the martial arts that wield them. A greek soldier from Alexander’s army may have a hard time fighting a knight in full plate armor or a green beret. Martial arts should move forward without abandoning the old practices for they are the essence.



I don’t remember the year or venue but during the Olympics Japan used to be undefeated in Judo until a Dutch Judoka took the gold, the difference was that the Dutch and the Japanese both practiced great Judo but the Dutch guy also did serious fiscal training, he became stronger. With martial arts a physical weaker person can beat a physical stronger one however if the stronger guy also knows good martial arts he may have the upper hand, I believe after the Japan Netherlands match someone said “Now the strong have learned Judo”.



In the same way we are now in 2018 we don’t live during the Bakumatsu in Japan, thus we can’t carry swords on our waist and spears on our hands, we also don’t need to. However we can live like warriors, martial arts really build character, wits, grit, and a quick mind. Today’s confrontation don’t involve swords they mostly involve words however it’s still a confrontation and the efficiency principle holds, our martial arts are part of us and thus should be involved in our daily lives outside the dojo.



In my opinion when training a martial art we should do that martial art correctly even if it’s hard, we should embrace the old practices and include new ones for our benefit, and adapt our martial skills to our everyday lives. The problem doesn’t dwell within the martial arts themselves, the problem dwells within aloof practitioners.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2018)

*In my opinion the problem isn’t within the Art itself but within the practitioners, students and teachers alike.*

I agree with this statement and much of what you wrote.  However, I would also point out that no art exists in a vacuum.  A martial art is only what the practitioners of the day express.  Its not something you can put on a shelf and say "look at this artifact!"  Therefore most of the criticism of traditional martial arts is actually a criticism of how traditional martial artists are practicing and expressing their art.  How can it be any other way?


----------



## pdg (Aug 16, 2018)

Obsidian Fury said:


> there have been many breakthroughs in fiscal fitness





Obsidian Fury said:


> the Dutch guy also did serious fiscal training,



How does government financial policy (or maybe an African songbird) affect MA performance?


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 16, 2018)

pdg said:


> How does government financial policy (or maybe an African songbird) affect MA performance?



Hahaha sorry I misspelled physical, big time.


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 16, 2018)

KPM said:


> *In my opinion the problem isn’t within the Art itself but within the practitioners, students and teachers alike.*
> 
> I agree with this statement and much of what you wrote.  However, I would also point out that no art exists in a vacuum.  A martial art is only what the practitioners of the day express.  Its not something you can put on a shelf and say "look at this artifact!"  Therefore most of the criticism of traditional martial arts is actually a criticism of how traditional martial artists are practicing and expressing their art.  How can it be any other way?




I agree with you, a martial art is not an artifact it is an art, I would even call it science, and both arts and science have to grow and progress. Jigoro Kano said that anything that resembles Judo is Judo, in the Kodokan book there are a number of techniques that were added to the curriculum after the dead of Kano one example the kani masabi. 

Martial artist need to inovate and grow their martial art by devising new applications, techniques, copying techniques from other systems (Ueshiba and Kano did stole from each other), adapting their practice to the current era as if the martial art was an ever growing organism. 

Throughout history martial arts adapted to the era they evolved to face a new situation the difference between Egyptian warfare and medieval warfare is huge and it kept progressing there is no need to stop progressing now we can always improve.

Keeping the art vaccum sealed in a world where all sorts of information is available to everyone will blast one to oblivion. Some Martial artists are so concerned with keeping their art intact that it will eventually become extint.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 16, 2018)

Obsidian Fury said:


> Jigoro Kano said that anything that resembles Judo is Judo, in the Kodokan book there are a number of techniques that were added to the curriculum after the dead of Kano one example the kani masabi.



Did you mean kani basami?
"crab leg takedown". It was adopted by Judo from karate.... and after it crippled a few Judoka in competition... be became banned in competition.

While I am not a huge fan of sacrifice throws, kicks or other things that leave me on the ground with my opponent (I would rather, just put him on the ground, and keep on my feet), I will say when applied in the correct moment... it is hard to defend against.

Dr. Kano embraced a lot of the same thoughts that Bruce Lee would preach. Philosophically... Judo as Kano envisioned would be metaphorically a type of JKD's prototype. I am not talking about the punching and kicking... but the maximum results from minimal efforts... and other aspects of the paradigm.

It's not stealing.... it's flattery. I like what you did there so much that I will help preserve that. There was some exchanges of knowledge that Gitchen Funakoshi imparted to Dr. Kano. GF after watching many judo throws, took a turn and demonstrated one that Dr. Kano had never seen before.
Dr. Kano was a bit surprised. GF replied "Oh, well there are throws in karate." It wasn't kani basami btw.

G. Funakoshi taught openly about 12 throws, but as the Shotokan style developed later on the throws were not taught anymore. (for the most part) as Shotokan continued to re engineer the kata, and the basics in them, a lot of techniques were scrapped.

This is a sad thing.
Shotokan Karate is the world's most popular in terms of practicing members.... but it is also the most pugilistic, and least grappling, grabbing, and throwing of the brands of karate.

Swarming a Shotokan stylist is an easy way to stifle and sweat them into realizing that fighting at maximum distance alone is a problem.

G. Funakoshi wasn't good at trapping, and defending close quarters. Which is part of why Choki Motobu was able to throw him 3 times. with a wrist throw.... in front of GFs students.

It could be argued... that Shotokan inherited this from GF.

_“When I first came to Tokyo, there was another Okinawan [Funakoshi] who was teaching Karate there quite actively. When in Okinawa I hadn’t even heard of his name! Upon guidance of another Okinawan, I went to the place he was teaching youngsters, where he was running his mouth, bragging. Upon seeing this, I grabbed his hand, took up a position of kake-kumite and said, ‘what will you do?'”
...
“He [Funakoshi] was hesitant and I thought to punch him would be too much, so I threw him with kote-gaeshi (a wrist throw also common to jujutsu and aikido) at which time he fell to the ground with a large thud. He got up, his face red and said ‘once more.’ And again I threw him with kote-gaeshi. He did not relent and asked for another bout, so he was thrown the same way for a third time.”_


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The guy in both clips is much better looking than Hwang Jang Lee.


but... I am talking about the kicking.. not the man. 

if you want to get into how men look at each other as better looking.... it can get weird.


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 16, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Did you mean kani basami?
> "crab leg takedown". It was adopted by Judo from karate.... and after it crippled a few Judoka in competition... be became banned in competition.
> 
> While I am not a huge fan of sacrifice throws, kicks or other things that leave me on the ground with my opponent (I would rather, just put him on the ground, and keep on my feet), I will say when applied in the correct moment... it is hard to defend against.
> ...



The crab leg takedown came from karate? That is so cool! I knew that grappling existed in Karate and TKD but not to that extent. Do you happen to know of some resource material to further look into grappling in Karate? I’ll be very interested in doing some research.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 17, 2018)

Obsidian Fury said:


> The crab leg takedown came from karate? That is so cool! I knew that grappling existed in Karate and TKD but not to that extent. Do you happen to know of some resource material to further look into grappling in Karate? I’ll be very interested in doing some research.



Patrick McCarthy, or Koryu Unchinade or the IRKRS has a lot of it. some of the very best.
the International Ryukyu Karate Research Society
has been doing the research to reincorporate the grappling that was left behind when karate was brought to Japan. they have great stuff.






Iain Abernethy has a fair bit





Karate's Grappling Methods
by Iain Stuart Abernethy
Amazon.com
4.3 out of 5 stars 10
Paperback
$90.95(15 used & new offers)

also look at stuff like...

https://www.amazon.com/Locks-Grappl...&sprefix=karate+grapp&sr=8-97&ref=mp_s_a_1_97


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 25, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Patrick McCarthy, or Koryu Unchinade or the IRKRS has a lot of it. some of the very best.
> the International Ryukyu Karate Research Society
> has been doing the research to reincorporate the grappling that was left behind when karate was brought to Japan. they have great stuff.
> 
> ...





Looks great thanks a bunch.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2018)

TSDTexan said:


> Patrick McCarthy, or Koryu Unchinade or the IRKRS has a lot of it. some of the very best.
> the International Ryukyu Karate Research Society
> has been doing the research to reincorporate the grappling that was left behind when karate was brought to Japan. they have great stuff.
> 
> ...



Frankly, there are far too many steps in those grappling vids. I would recommend studying MMA or Bjj grappling to see how they deal with strikes. It's far simpler and no where near complex and over the top.


----------



## PhilE (Feb 19, 2019)

The problem with traditional Chinese martial arts, is that no one knows what traditional Chinese martial arts actually are, as the Communist government killed all the monks.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 19, 2019)

PhilE said:


> The problem with traditional Chinese martial arts, is that no one knows what traditional Chinese martial arts actually are, as the Communist government killed all the monks.



This is a very naive statement to make.

The communst government did a lot to suppress the practice of traditional Chinese martial arts.  However, there are those who practiced in secret and have brought forth their methods after the government began to relax its persecution.  And don’t think for a moment that monks were the only ones practicing traditional martial arts.  I don’t know where you would have gotten such a notion.

In addition, plenty of folks emigrated to other parts of the world, both before the communists took over, and as an escape of that government, and took their training with them and are teaching in their adopted homelands.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 19, 2019)

PhilE said:


> The problem with traditional Chinese martial arts, is that no one knows what traditional Chinese martial arts actually are, as the Communist government killed all the monks.


How would you explain all of the different teaching lineages? There are lots, and they take them kinda seriously.


----------



## PhilE (Feb 19, 2019)

Well, if you support and believe a government that has treated Tibet like dirt, best of luck to you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 19, 2019)

REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:

Political discussion is not permitted on Martial Talk, per the terms of service. If you want to discuss political topics, please visit a forum that fosters such discussion.

__________
Gerry Seymour
Martial Talk Moderator


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 20, 2019)

PhilE said:


> Well, if you support and believe a government that has treated Tibet like dirt, best of luck to you.


This is a martial art forum take this crap somewhere else


----------



## PhilE (Feb 20, 2019)

Appreciate what you are saying moderator, however its impossible to discuss the issues with Chinese traditional martial arts, without mentioning that the Chinese traditional martial artists were largely affected by a historical event.

Its like trying to talk about the dinosaurs but omitting the asteroid, because you don't want to offend anyone.


----------



## PhilE (Feb 20, 2019)

Headhunter, if you wish to have an opinion you leave yourself open to begin offended.  That's the price of free speech.

It's just words on a forum, no one is trying to attack you.  You can simply ignore it, if it's upsetting you so much.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 20, 2019)

PhilE said:


> Appreciate what you are saying moderator, however its impossible to discuss the issues with Chinese traditional martial arts, without mentioning that the Chinese traditional martial artists were largely affected by a historical event.
> 
> Its like trying to talk about the dinosaurs but omitting the asteroid, because you don't want to offend anyone.



And yet, we've managed to do so for years. And will continue to do without the politics. You have my word on that.


----------



## PhilE (Feb 20, 2019)

Your free to be ignorant of Chinese martial arts history for years more, if you wish.

But others may disagree, and you must accept that.  

Editing people on a forum is one thing, this doesn't work in real life.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 20, 2019)

PhilE said:


> Well, if you support and believe a government that has treated Tibet like dirt, best of luck to you.


No..no you aren't weaseling out.

You said there are no Chinese martial arts left because China extinguished them all.

So how do you explain teaching lineages that extend in some cases for hundreds of years?

Do you think they are all lying?


----------



## PhilE (Feb 20, 2019)

If you've just gone and ignored general historical events all your life, I'm not even going to bother try with you.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 20, 2019)

PhilE said:


> If you've just gone and ignored general historical events all your life, I'm not even going to bother try with you.


Wow.

So you make a claim that is wrong, objectively, and when gently shown why you pull this nonsense?

If you aren't capable of adult discussion, this isn't the forum for you. Maybe try Reddit.


----------



## Bruce7 (Feb 20, 2019)

KPM said:


> There really is no need to post in such an adversarial tone.
> 
> I agree with Anarax to a large degree.   Like anyone who has a theme and is trying to make a point in a blog post, I think Rackemann is guilty of somewhat "overstating" his case in most of these blogs he writes.  But he does make some excellent points, and ones that do often apply to "traditional" schools.   I do believe that you can't generalize what he says to ALL "traditional" martial arts, and he would probably tell you the same thing.  And a lot of what he says could also apply to the local boxing gym or MMA gym.  But most of his points are well-founded.  Rackemann never said that he is the only one that "doesn't suck" and "has it all figured out."
> 
> Again, this article was all about the "mindset" of a lot of traditional martial arts. Obviously you can't generalize it to ALL of them, but I've seen it as well.  If you don't have this "mindset", then you have nothing to worry about.



You and the article make good points.

My teachers did not tell me my art was magic and it would allow me to beat others, their abilities convince me of that.  
I had the mistaken idea that ,because I was very good at MA, that I could beat an All Navy boxer.
I had not thought that only the best physically able people would be an All Navy boxer.
I had not thought that He trains 8 hours a day and I only train 2 hours a day.
He goes around the world fighting the best fighters once a month.
After he knock me out in the first round, I learn my MAs were not magic.
IMO winning a fight has to do with physical ability and hours of training, more than which Art you are train in.
IMO Mayweather in his prime could beat any martial artist in the ring. 
On the street fighting with someone like Jack Hwang in his prime, who had amazing abilities and fought in the Korean War, 
I am not as sure about the out come.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 20, 2019)

PhilE said:


> Appreciate what you are saying moderator, however its impossible to discuss the issues with Chinese traditional martial arts, without mentioning that the Chinese traditional martial artists were largely affected by a historical event.
> 
> Its like trying to talk about the dinosaurs but omitting the asteroid, because you don't want to offend anyone.


So...where did you come up with the belief that only monks were training Chinese martial arts?  And that nobody today even knows what real traditional Chinese martial arts look like?  

Why do you believe this?


----------



## Bruce7 (Feb 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> So...where did you come up with the belief that only monks were training Chinese martial arts?  And that nobody today even knows what real traditional Chinese martial arts look like?
> 
> Why do you believe this?



I agree with you.
Teachers do not want their knowledge to die.
So Traditional Chinese Martial arts did not die.
Most of the teachers left China, when the Communist took over,
because they did not want to be limited and controlled by Wushu.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 20, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> I agree with you.
> Teachers do not want their knowledge to die.
> So Traditional Chinese Martial arts did not die.
> Most of the teachers left China, when the Communist took over,
> because they did not want to be limited and controlled by Wushu.


The notion that only monks were training Chinese martial arts is rediculous in its face.  It’s just such a weird statement to make.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> The notion that only monks were training Chinese martial arts is rediculous in its face.  It’s just such a weird statement to make.



3 words... Kwai Chang Caine


----------

