# Sparring against Shotokan Black Belt



## Azulx

Haven't posted anything in a while. Here's a video of me sparring my friend who is a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate.


----------



## drop bear

nice. it is good to spar different systems


----------



## jks9199

Forgive me; I'm going to rant a little bit.  Before I do that -- kudos to both of you for training, for working out together...  My rant's not personal.

I'm linking two videos of some tournaments from maybe the 70s.  (Can't ask Bob easily just this moment).  My point about them is that you see competitors from several styles fight.  They LOOK different.  




and 




  (especially from about 1:00 to 9:00 minutes; there may be some repetition in the two links )

You guys... you're both in that side stance bouncing thing.  You look the same... and if you weren't in different colored uniforms, it'd be kind of hard to say who represented what style.  Now, I know there is some historical connection (  ) between Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do -- the two arts have gone their own way.  There should be some recognizable differences between you two -- and not just a few more punches.

Why the hell do we do forms, do you train various stances and tactics... then throw that out when we set down and spar?  I see one of two things in most "open" sparring: either that side stance, or a kind of poorly done boxing stance.  Now, I recognize that there are "fighting stances" and "formal stances" -- but different styles should have different fighting stances, reflecting their tactics and their strategies.  And those should show through in the fighting...

OK,  that's out of my system. 

Like I said, not personal.  You guys looked pretty sharp -- and you're out there working.  Maybe I've given you (and others) some food for thought in their training...


----------



## Headhunter

Good fight I think shotokan guy probably landed the better shots as he mixed it up with his punches and kicks and the different heights


----------



## Headhunter

jks9199 said:


> Forgive me; I'm going to rant a little bit.  Before I do that -- kudos to both of you for training, for working out together...  My rant's not personal.
> 
> I'm linking two videos of some tournaments from maybe the 70s.  (Can't ask Bob easily just this moment).  My point about them is that you see competitors from several styles fight.  They LOOK different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (especially from about 1:00 to 9:00 minutes; there may be some repetition in the two links )
> 
> You guys... you're both in that side stance bouncing thing.  You look the same... and if you weren't in different colored uniforms, it'd be kind of hard to say who represented what style.  Now, I know there is some historical connection (  ) between Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do -- the two arts have gone their own way.  There should be some recognizable differences between you two -- and not just a few more punches.
> 
> Why the hell do we do forms, do you train various stances and tactics... then throw that out when we set down and spar?  I see one of two things in most "open" sparring: either that side stance, or a kind of poorly done boxing stance.  Now, I recognize that there are "fighting stances" and "formal stances" -- but different styles should have different fighting stances, reflecting their tactics and their strategies.  And those should show through in the fighting...
> 
> OK,  that's out of my system.
> 
> Like I said, not personal.  You guys looked pretty sharp -- and you're out there working.  Maybe I've given you (and others) some food for thought in their training...


Honestly who cares what they look like as long as they fight that's all that matters. In a real fight you won't get bonus points for looking like a taekwondo fighter. Personally I don't care what I look like as long as what I do works when I need it


----------



## Tez3

We would be shouted at very loudly and irately for having our hands down. Doesn't matter what style...hands up!



Headhunter said:


> Honestly who cares what they look like as long as they fight that's all that matters.




It does matter what they look like, not from an aesthetic view point but from a technical one to get the most out of your training and the techniques. We train specifically to have techniques that work, it doesn't matter whether they are 'pretty' or not, it matters they are done so they are effective in their purpose.
Anyone can fight, most of us can fight without any training but fighting effectively is a different thing, that's why we train. the styles should look different, if they do it means their techniques are effective, if you can't tell what style they are by their sparring then it means the techniques are a mishmash and not done properly therefore are not effective.


----------



## O'Malley

Nice video!

Well, first of all I have no background in either art so take my comments with the proverbial grain of salt.

I do see a difference in stance and behaviour. The guy in white feels "squarer ", more "grounded" while the other has more dynamic kicks and throws them in combinations. I'm guessing that OP is the man in the black gi. 

The "issue" here is that the karate friend, even though he drops into a low stance, stays really "bouncy". Does he compete in Shotokan point fighting? I'd also keep in mind the fact that it was just light sparring where you both were trying out stuff.

IMHO it would have looked more like karate VS TKD if your friend had committed to the "one hit kill" approach with linear bursts. Then you would have had to be more careful about not letting him get into range and retaliating with kicks. And I agree with the others on the subject of keeping your hands up 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Azulx said:


> Haven't posted anything in a while. Here's a video of me sparring my friend who is a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate.


I have a lot to say but I'll just say 2 things.  Stop the bouncing.  It's a waste of energy and if you fight someone like me, then I'm going to time your bounce and put you on the ground or give you bruised shins and legs, or both.  Half way through the video you stopped bouncing (which is good) and it probably felt good to.

The other thing I have to say is to learn how to block kicks with your legs.  Reaching down is a bad habit and is a common mistake even with professional fighters who know better.  Create an imaginary boundary.  Anything in the top area is addressed with hands, anything in the bottom area is address with legs.  If you want to block low kicks with your hands then you need to lower your stance.  This way the low kicks are now in your top boundary.  This way you are always training better defensive habits.  Other than that you have come a long way from your first video. Great work.



jks9199 said:


> Why the hell do we do forms, do you train various stances and tactics... then throw that out when we set down and spar?


This gets to me too.  If anyone wants to piss me off do this.  People train forms and stances for 7 years and then when it comes to the fight none of that is present.  It means that the person wasted their time in training.  It's also the reason why traditional martial art systems are bashed so often as being useless.


----------



## Flatfish

JowGaWolf said:


> This gets to me too.  If anyone wants to piss me off do this.  People train forms and stances for 7 years and then when it comes to the fight none of that is present.  It means that the person wasted their time in training.  It's also the reason why traditional martial art systems are bashed so often as being useless.



I completely get what you and @jks9199 are saying but I think it boils down to what sparring especially in competition in the different arts has evolved into over the years. It's a constant gripe of mine in the Kukki TKD I train. It could be so much more but good luck finding someone who teaches something different from competition style sparring. I know they are out there but none in my area that I have found........


----------



## Dirty Dog

Flatfish said:


> I completely get what you and @jks9199 are saying but I think it boils down to what sparring especially in competition in the different arts has evolved into over the years. It's a constant gripe of mine in the Kukki TKD I train. It could be so much more but good luck finding someone who teaches something different from competition style sparring. I know they are out there but none in my area that I have found........



I'm happy to say you will not see this sort of sparring at our dojang. And I agree, it's a shame that so much of sparring has devolved in this way.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> Stop the bouncing.



Yes. Yes and yes again. A complete waste of energy, if you are young and skinny you won't use as much but dear me if you aren't you are using up so much. Besides, there's something pathetically funny about large people bouncing when they spar.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm happy to say you will not see this sort of sparring at our dojang. And I agree, it's a shame that so much of sparring has devolved in this way.



Or evolved. How do you fair sparring these guys?


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Or evolved. How do you fair sparring these guys?



Against people who spar with their hands down? Pretty well.
Last time I competed, I was 53. Because there was no geriatric age group, I sparred in the 30-35 year old black belt class. The people I sparred were from schools that typically do hands down WTF-style sparring. That tournament scored punches and allowed punches to the head. I took gold.

Against those two specific individuals? I don't know. I've never met them. But assuming a ruleset that doesn't force me to spar using only a tiny subset of what TKD teaches, I think I'd do pretty well.

How about you?


----------



## Headhunter

Dirty Dog said:


> Against people who spar with their hands down? Pretty well.
> Last time I competed, I was 53. Because there was no geriatric age group, I sparred in the 30-35 year old black belt class. The people I sparred were from schools that typically do hands down WTF-style sparring. That tournament scored punches and allowed punches to the head. I took gold.
> 
> Against those two specific individuals? I don't know. I've never met them. But assuming a ruleset that doesn't force me to spar using only a tiny subset of what TKD teaches, I think I'd do pretty well.
> 
> How about you?


Well since the ops only been training for about 3 years and you a lot longer I should hope so.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Headhunter said:


> Well since the ops only been training for about 3 years and you a lot longer I should hope so.



A black belt in 3 years is, like hands down sparring, not something that will be seen in our school.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Against people who spar with their hands down? Pretty well.
> Last time I competed, I was 53. Because there was no geriatric age group, I sparred in the 30-35 year old black belt class. The people I sparred were from schools that typically do hands down WTF-style sparring. That tournament scored punches and allowed punches to the head. I took gold.
> 
> Against those two specific individuals? I don't know. I've never met them. But assuming a ruleset that doesn't force me to spar using only a tiny subset of what TKD teaches, I think I'd do pretty well.
> 
> How about you?


Nice work on the win.

For me. It depends on the level of the guy. I mostly spar kuyokashin guys who are also pretty hands down. I have met some sporty TKD guys who were a handfull. And of course there are TKD sporty strikers doing well in MMA at the moment Moontasari comes to mind.

Who has developed from this.





to this





Havent sparred a traditional TKD guy.

The tiny subset forces a person to develop in a specific area. Which is a reasonable outcome of sparring. I feel there is benifit from sparring different sub sets of course as well as people from different systems.

I dont subscribe to the "I would have taken him if there were whatever rules" It is kind of not the point of the exercise.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Azulx said:


> Haven't posted anything in a while. Here's a video of me sparring my friend who is a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate.



Nice match. You both did pretty well. I'd concentrate a little more on fully extending your leg when you kick since it looked like some of them missed their target because the knee was bent. 

FWIW, the stylistic differences between you and your friend were fairly evident.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Nice work on the win.
> 
> For me. It depends on the level of the guy. I mostly spar kuyokashin guys who are also pretty hands down. I have met some sporty TKD guys who were a handfull. And of course there are TKD sporty strikers doing well in MMA at the moment Moontasari comes to mind.
> 
> Havent sparred a traditional TKD guy.
> 
> The tiny subset forces a person to develop in a specific area. Which is a reasonable outcome of sparring. I feel there is benifit from sparring different sub sets of course as well as people from different systems.
> 
> I dont subscribe to the "I would have taken him if there were whatever rules" It is kind of not the point of the exercise.



I don't disagree with sparring with a focus on a specific skill. We've been known to spar punches only. Or kicks only. Or limit the total number of attacks a person can make during a round. It's when that sort of limited, small focus sparring is the ONLY thing you do that I see a problem.


----------



## Flatfish

Dirty Dog said:


> A black belt in 3 years is, like hands down sparring, not something that will be seen in our school.




Right and that gets to my point....there are schools out there that do things differently and that's great, but they are few and far between...for those that are not so lucky to have access to that training philosophy, but have a brain in their head we'll try to use it to the best of our abilities......I try to keep my hands up, don't bounce but I did get my BB in 3 years, so not sure where I fall there....


----------



## Azulx

Headhunter said:


> Well since the ops only been training for about 3 years and you a lot longer I should hope so.



I actually just made 2 years last month.


----------



## Azulx

@Dirty Dog so in 2 years at your school, what are you a yellow belt?


----------



## Azulx

Flatfish said:


> Right and that gets to my point....there are schools out there that do things differently and that's great, but they are few and far between...for those that are not so lucky to have access to that training philosophy, but have a brain in their head we'll try to use it to the best of our abilities......I try to keep my hands up, don't bounce but I did get my BB in 3 years, so not sure where I fall there....



From what I've seen on here 1-4 years for a BB puts you in the "too soon" category. 5-6 years puts you in the "ok, that's decent" category. 7-10 years puts you in the "legitimate" category.


----------



## Flatfish

Azulx said:


> From what I've seen on here 1-4 years for a BB puts you in the "too soon" category. 5-6 years puts you in the "ok, that's decent" category. 7-10 years puts you in the "legitimate" category.



Well I mean I get it, a BB with 7 years of experience is different from one with 2 years of experience, no argument there. I do have some issues when folks get a bit high and mighty because they have the opportunity to train somewhere where they can get the whole art, more realistic sparring scenarios, deadly in the street, etc etc, because for most folks those schools are hard to come by. 

If there was one like that in my area that would work with the rest of my life, I would happily train there and wouldn't give a flying rat's behind if it took me eight years to get to first Dan. As it is, I tried to find the best school I could and if they promote me to first Dan within three years I'm not going to apologize for it.....


----------



## Headhunter

Azulx said:


> From what I've seen on here 1-4 years for a BB puts you in the "too soon" category. 5-6 years puts you in the "ok, that's decent" category. 7-10 years puts you in the "legitimate" category.


It shouldn't matter. People can be good black belts who get it very quick. Thing is people are quick to judge I'm guilty of it myself I do it but really we can't say if those guys are good or bad we don't know them we don't watch them train and you can't blame the person for that if they get the belt they're going to take it anyone would and if they say they wouldn't they're a liar.


----------



## Azulx

Flatfish said:


> Well I mean I get it, a BB with 7 years of experience is different from one with 2 years of experience, no argument there. I do have some issues when folks get a bit high and mighty because they have the opportunity to train somewhere where they can get the whole art, more realistic sparring scenarios, deadly in the street, etc etc, because for most folks those schools are hard to come by.
> 
> If there was one like that in my area that would work with the rest of my life, I would happily train there and wouldn't give a flying rat's behind if it took me eight years to get to first Dan. As it is, I tried to find the best school I could and if they promote me to first Dan within three years I'm not going to apologize for it.....



     I completely understand this. We take what ever is the best available option. Black Belt is so personal, people get it at completely different time requirements. I don't think there is a 'legitimate' amount of time someone absolutely has to train to be one.



Headhunter said:


> It shouldn't matter. People can be good black belts who get it very quick. Thing is people are quick to judge I'm guilty of it myself I do it but really we can't say if those guys are good or bad we don't know them we don't watch them train and you can't blame the person for that if they get the belt they're going to take it anyone would and if they say they wouldn't they're a liar.



I completely agree it's impossible to judge someone skill without knowing them. Therefore it is difficult to judge how good a black belt by just how long it took him to get it. It could take you 7 years and you could still be pretty bad at whatever martial art you are in.


----------



## Headhunter

Azulx said:


> I completely understand this. We take what ever is the best available option. Black Belt is so personal, people get it at completely different time requirements. I don't think there is a 'legitimate' amount of time someone absolutely has to train to be one.
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree it's impossible to judge someone skill without knowing them. Therefore it is difficult to judge how good a black belt by just how long it took him to get it. It could take you 7 years and you could still be pretty bad at whatever martial art you are in.


Exactly I've seen guys who are 4th dans and been doing it for about 40 years who don't look any good and I don't think they could fight at all. That's my problem with a lot of older martial artists. Not all but some talk a great game and can talk for hours about technical stuff but when it comes down to it they can't fight for anything and get out of breath doing basic combinations. Sometimes when you spout on for hours about how to do a jab it becomes more of a ego trip to show how clever you are than about teaching students. Again that's not everyone but it defientely happens. Personally I can't explain things amazingly I'm not hugely experienced in the theory side and couldn't tell you amazing things about contouring or things like that. I know some but not huge amounts. And because of that some may say I'm no good or don't understand...well to me I don't care I know I can fight and handle myself if I get attacked that's all I care about being idea to recite a martial arts encyclopaedia isn't going to help when some punks trying to take my wallet


----------



## Ironbear24

Wow you have gotten much better. Use your hands more though!


----------



## Tez3

Azulx said:


> I actually just made 2 years last month.



Am I right in thinking you've only been training for two years and are a black belt already? Not that you've been a black belt for two years?


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> Am I right in thinking you've only been training for two years and are a black belt already? Not that you've been a black belt for two years?


I believe that is the case with the op could be wrong but that's how I've always taken it


----------



## Azulx

Tez3 said:


> Am I right in thinking you've only been training for two years and are a black belt already? Not that you've been a black belt for two years?



Been training for 2 years, have been a black belt for about 5 months.


----------



## Tez3

Azulx said:


> Been training for 2 years, have been a black belt for about 5 months.



Ah, I see.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Azulx said:


> @Dirty Dog so in 2 years at your school, what are you a yellow belt?



Lower ranks generally go faster. So after two years, the average student is probably 7th or 6th geup. Maybe 5th. Higher colored belts typically take longer, with people often spending 12-18 months at 3rd, 2nd, or 1st geup.



Azulx said:


> From what I've seen on here 1-4 years for a BB puts you in the "too soon" category. 5-6 years puts you in the "ok, that's decent" category. 7-10 years puts you in the "legitimate" category.



Not really. Most of us believe that rank only has meaning within the system that issued it. What "1st Dan" means in your school is clearly not the same as what it means in ours. 6-8 years is what it takes most people to reach 1st Dan in our system. If you got yours in a year in your school, that's fine. You're a legitimate 1st Dan in that system.



Flatfish said:


> Well I mean I get it, a BB with 7 years of experience is different from one with 2 years of experience, no argument there. I do have some issues when folks get a bit high and mighty because they have the opportunity to train somewhere where they can get the whole art, more realistic sparring scenarios, deadly in the street, etc etc, because for most folks those schools are hard to come by.
> 
> If there was one like that in my area that would work with the rest of my life, I would happily train there and wouldn't give a flying rat's behind if it took me eight years to get to first Dan. As it is, I tried to find the best school I could and if they promote me to first Dan within three years I'm not going to apologize for it.....



If you want the training, you will find it. Plenty of people have traveled hours to reach the teacher they wanted. Plenty of others have chosen not to. 
Nobody (that I have seen) has attacked you or your training. But you seem awfully touchy on the subject. Why is that?



Headhunter said:


> It shouldn't matter. People can be good black belts who get it very quick.



Well, no, not really, not by our definition of black belt, at least. I can train someone to be a good fighter in a matter of months. They will make rapid progress initially, and then slow down as things get more subtle. But they will not be a good black belt, since in our definition, a black belt requires a deeper knowledge, understanding, and ability to teach than can be gained in a year or two.
Again, maybe what you say is true of black belts _*in your system*_, but is absolutely not true of black belts in general.



Headhunter said:


> Thing is people are quick to judge I'm guilty of it myself I do it but really we can't say if those guys are good or bad we don't know them we don't watch them train and you can't blame the person for that if they get the belt they're going to take it anyone would and if they say they wouldn't they're a liar.



This is not really true. Were my KJN to show up at our dojang tonight and offer me a 9th Dan, I would refuse it. He's the head of our system. He has the right to promote anyone he wants to any rank he wants. But I would not accept. I am not ready for that rank. And no, I most certainly am not a liar.


----------



## Flatfish

Dirty Dog said:


> If you want the training, you will find it. Plenty of people have traveled hours to reach the teacher they wanted. Plenty of others have chosen not to.
> Nobody (that I have seen) has attacked you or your training. But you seem awfully touchy on the subject. Why is that?



I am really not in the least interested in an online argument. I have been on this board long enough to have seen your posts about your training (which sounds good) and I respect your expertise.

As I said in one of the posts above, I had to find a place to train that fits my life and at present that is not something that allows me to travel hours to get martial arts instruction. So I found the  best place I could in/for my area/schedule and train there with my son. I think my first post in this thread (post #9) shows that I have some issues with my training since our school definitely falls into the category I am talking about there and I wish some aspects of it would be better. No argument there. 
More than anything I found the following post a bit condescending:



Dirty Dog said:


> A black belt in 3 years is, like hands down sparring, not something that will be seen in our school.



Clearly, the hands down sparring, as was discussed in the preceding posts, is a negative and if you combine that with the statement about a 3 year BB the connotation is that this is a negative, too, or at least I took it that way. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, so this all moot.

To make a long story short. The reason I get a bit touchy is that I know that there is better training out there and I wish I had access to it (I am specifically talking about TKD, I might check out other systems at some point with maybe better options around here). On the other hand, I worked my butt off these 3 years since I started, with lots of training outside of class, trying to address some of the shortcomings of the training in the dojang, so when I come across a statement that seems to suggest that a 3 yr BB generally is as bad as sparring with your hands down I get a bit miffed.

But again maybe it's a misunderstanding, no interested in a fight.


----------



## Headhunter

Flatfish said:


> I am really not in the least interested in an online argument. I have been on this board long enough to have seen your posts about your training (which sounds good) and I respect your expertise.
> 
> As I said in one of the posts above, I had to find a place to train that fits my life and at present that is not something that allows me to travel hours to get martial arts instruction. So I found the  best place I could in/for my area/schedule and train there with my son. I think my first post in this thread (post #9) shows that I have some issues with my training since our school definitely falls into the category I am talking about there and I wish some aspects of it would be better. No argument there.
> More than anything I found the following post a bit condescending:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, the hands down sparring, as was discussed in the preceding posts, is a negative and if you combine that with the statement about a 3 year BB the connotation is that this is a negative, too, or at least I took it that way. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, so this all moot.
> 
> To make a long story short. The reason I get a bit touchy is that I know that there is better training out there and I wish I had access to it (I am specifically talking about TKD, I might check out other systems at some point with maybe better options around here). On the other hand, I worked my butt off these 3 years since I started, with lots of training outside of class, trying to address some of the shortcomings of the training in the dojang, so when I come across a statement that seems to suggest that a 3 yr BB generally is as bad as sparring with your hands down I get a bit miffed.
> 
> But again maybe it's a misunderstanding, no interested in a fight.


Yeah tbh that annoys me when people say stuff like oh well I travelled 50 miles to train. Yeah well good for you mate you want a cookie? Some people physically can't travel 50 miles simply to train they have other priorities or simply don't have the means to do it. No school is perfect not a single place is perfect you do what you have to do with what you have and if you enjoy it even if the school is bad then so what. Some people are to concerned about what other people if it takes me 10 years to get a black belt and then I see who got it in 3 years I don't care. It's not my business he did his thing ill do mine.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Flatfish said:


> Clearly, the hands down sparring, as was discussed in the preceding posts, is a negative and if you combine that with the statement about a 3 year BB the connotation is that this is a negative, too, or at least I took it that way. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, so this all moot.



In our school, both are negatives. In a pure KKW school, which focuses totally (or near-totally) on sport-TKD, neither would be considered a negative.

It appears that you're taking comments about the standards and expectations in our system and assuming I want them applied universally. I do not. I've stated so clearly and unequivocally on many occasions. Even, at least once, in this very thread.
Here's an easy way to read my posts:
Take what I say as exactly what I mean. Don't try to read into it. I'm not really particularly subtle.
If I say "You won't see that in our school", it means just that. It doesn't mean "you shouldn't see that in any school" for the very simple reason that if that were what I meant, that is what I would have said.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Azulx said:


> Been training for 2 years, have been a black belt for about 5 months.


This is one of the reason why I like non-belted systems.   I watched the conversation turn into about how fast you got a black belt.   From what I've seen of your videos you are about where most people are in sparring after 2 years.  They have a set of basic skills that they feel comfortable with. You have a little panic in your movement but that will change the more you spar and as you become comfortable with being hit and kicked.  By your third year you'll need to slowly start adding some of the other techniques that you do in forms into your sparring.  If you don't do that then where you are now is where you'll always be.


----------



## Ironbear24

JowGaWolf said:


> This is one of the reason why I like non-belted systems.   I watched the conversation turn into about how fast you got a black belt.   From what I've seen of your videos you are about where most people are in sparring after 2 years.  They have a set of basic skills that they feel comfortable with. You have a little panic in your movement but that will change the more you spar and as you become comfortable with being hit and kicked.  By your third year you'll need to slowly start adding some of the other techniques that you do in forms into your sparring.  If you don't do that then where you are now is where you'll always be.



I think he needs to spar against different arts. The shotokan guy seemed to fight a lot like a tae Kwon do guy with mostly kicks. I find that with kicking arts many keep their hands lower to block kicks to their midsection and chest, sometimes face too. 

With striking arts that punch a lot then you start seeing people bringing their hands up because now their face is in more danger. With me I often close the gap when it comes to kicks because I was pushed into that habit.

My sparring partners would do that to me all the time with my kicks so I began to doing to them out of spite lol.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> This is one of the reason why I like non-belted systems. I watched the conversation turn into about how fast you got a black belt. From what I've seen of your videos you are about where most people are in sparring after 2 years.





Ironbear24 said:


> I think he needs to spar against different arts.




Non belted systems can work well. You can judge only on 'performance'.
The problem though with training with people from other systems is that if you wear your black belt they tend to assume you are at the same point as they are. That can go two ways, people where promotion is slower, more involved and have taken a few more years to reach their first black belt will assume that you are at more or less the same standard as they are in which case you will lose, big style. Of course if it was you who reached your first black belt after a few years and think the black belt facing you is the same you will have a pleasant surprise to find them at the same standard as one of your lower grades however good he is. An interesting problem.


----------



## Ironbear24

Yeah nothing against tae Kwon do or against azulux as he does not do what I am about to mention. Many people in TKD get a black belt in like one year and they "spar" with all this gear on. Head gear, chest gaurd, gloves shin guards and foot pads and mouth piece, aaaaand they don't even seem to try to connect with their kicks. 

I think it is because they don't understand distance well and are afraid to get in close, because when you get in close you are more likely to get hit.


----------



## drop bear

By the way.  For all of those guys who are lazer focused on hands up.  Hopefully you are also focused on head movement footwork, correct entries and exits. 

Because hands are part of a defensive package. Not all of one. 

Top boxers dont always fight hands up. They know when to put hands up and why. So hopefully if the discussion turns to hands up don't bounce then the people discussing it should also explain the mechanics behind making that decision.

And hands up stops face punching really isnt the whole story. 

Especially if there isn't face punching being done in that sparring session.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Yeah nothing against tae Kwon do or against azulux as he does not do what I am about to mention. Many people in TKD get a black belt in like one year and they "spar" with all this gear on. Head gear, chest gaurd, gloves shin guards and foot pads and mouth piece, aaaaand they don't even seem to try to connect with their kicks.
> 
> I think it is because they don't understand distance well and are afraid to get in close, because when you get in close you are more likely to get hit.



If you can out kick the guy you are fighting. Why would you get in close?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> By the way.  For all of those guys who are lazer focused on hands up.  Hopefully you are also focused on head movement footwork, correct entries and exits.
> 
> Because hands are part of a defensive package. Not all of one.
> 
> Top boxers dont always fight hands up. They know when to put hands up and why. So hopefully if the discussion turns to hands up don't bounce then the people discussing it should also explain the mechanics behind making that decision.
> 
> And hands up stops face punching really isnt the whole story.
> 
> Especially if there isn't face punching being done in that sparring session.



One assumes that any black belt would know correct head movement, footwork etc etc.
We know that hands up isn't 'everything' but when the hands are never up it tends to be one of quite a few indicators that those sparring aren't as experienced as they think they are. Hands aren't necessarily up to stop a punch,  there's a number of reasons to have your hands up. I won't list them as I'm assuming everyone here is experienced enough to know why ( just as we assumed people knew about footwork etc and didn't labour the point) no point in teaching grandmother to suck eggs.


----------



## Headhunter

Ironbear24 said:


> Yeah nothing against tae Kwon do or against azulux as he does not do what I am about to mention. Many people in TKD get a black belt in like one year and they "spar" with all this gear on. Head gear, chest gaurd, gloves shin guards and foot pads and mouth piece, aaaaand they don't even seem to try to connect with their kicks.
> 
> I think it is because they don't understand distance well and are afraid to get in close, because when you get in close you are more likely to get hit.


Umm so what if they wear protective gear? Maybe they don't want to go to work next day with broken ribs or broken toes or bruised shins


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> By the way.  For all of those guys who are lazer focused on hands up.  Hopefully you are also focused on head movement footwork, correct entries and exits.
> 
> Because hands are part of a defensive package. Not all of one.
> 
> Top boxers dont always fight hands up. They know when to put hands up and why. So hopefully if the discussion turns to hands up don't bounce then the people discussing it should also explain the mechanics behind making that decision.
> 
> And hands up stops face punching really isnt the whole story.
> 
> Especially if there isn't face punching being done in that sparring session.


Agreed no one keeps their hands up all the time especially when kicking watch any pro kickboxing match or mma fight they'll drop their hands when kicking. Some fighters constantly have their hands down. Look at Anderson silva. I know it caught him out but that was more he was taunting than the actual hands down. Or Ali he used to fight hands down. Sure it's important to keep your hands up but it's not be all and end all of defence


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> Agreed no one keeps their hands up all the time especially when kicking watch any pro kickboxing match or mma fight they'll drop their hands when kicking. Some fighters constantly have their hands down. Look at Anderson silva. I know it caught him out but that was more he was taunting than the actual hands down. Or Ali he used to fight hands down. Sure it's important to keep your hands up but it's not be all and end all of defence




I love how keeping your hands up is mentioned and people jump on it saying how it's not necessary, how many fighters don't etc etc... Sure Ali could get away with it but how many of us are Ali? Keeping your hands up is a *cog *in the general engine of sparring not just defence, it's useful for a number of reasons.

Just because some pro fighters drop their hands when kicking doesn't mean that it's the optimum way to kick, others don't, they change their guard using the upper body movement to add extra power to the back leg kick which works very nicely. it depends on how and who taught you to kick in the first place, offering up that because pro fighters do something doesn't mean it's the way everyone should. Some pro fighters spit on the canvas, should we all just because they do?


----------



## Flatfish

Ironbear24 said:


> Yeah nothing against tae Kwon do or against azulux as he does not do what I am about to mention. Many people in TKD get a black belt in like one year and they "spar" with all this gear on. Head gear, chest gaurd, gloves shin guards and foot pads and mouth piece, aaaaand they don't even seem to try to connect with their kicks.
> 
> I think it is because they don't understand distance well and are afraid to get in close, because when you get in close you are more likely to get hit.



Yeah, this is confusing to me....I don't see the connection between sparring gear and distancing. If you meant the connection between one year training (whether BB or not) and still learning distancing, then yeah sure. I remember very well how long it took me to get comfortable with stepping into a kick to jam it as opposed to jumping back to avoid it. And yes it also takes a while to not freak out about getting hit and getting used to it.

The good thing about sparring gear? Makes you sweat like a pregnant yak...good for your svelte physique


----------



## Ironbear24

Headhunter said:


> Umm so what if they wear protective gear? Maybe they don't want to go to work next day with broken ribs or broken toes or bruised shins



That's fine and all but if you are going to wear that gear then make use of it. Hit eachother hard because that is what the gear is meant for. Instead many tap eachother despite the gear is what I'm saying.


----------



## Flatfish

Ironbear24 said:


> That's fine and all but if you are going to wear that gear then make use of it. Hit eachother hard because that is what the gear is meant for. Instead many tap eachother despite the gear is what I'm saying.



Yeah, just depends. Sometimes we go light to try out new stuff, sometimes we go hard, also depends who you're sparring. Also, the protective gear is not all that, still plenty of bruises, sometimes real nice ones. I have been asked before to back off a bit on power and have taken a liver punch through the chest protector that nearly made me throw up, so.....


----------



## Headhunter

Ironbear24 said:


> That's fine and all but if you are going to wear that gear then make use of it. Hit eachother hard because that is what the gear is meant for. Instead many tap eachother despite the gear is what I'm saying.


The gear doesn't work as a magic shield it'll still hurt a bit maybe not as much without but you can still feel it. It's like wearing a groin guard it still hurts like hell when you get a low shot but it'd hurt a lot more if you weren't wearing it


----------



## Ironbear24

Flatfish said:


> Yeah, just depends. Sometimes we go light to try out new stuff, sometimes we go hard, also depends who you're sparring. Also, the protective gear is not all that, still plenty of bruises, sometimes real nice ones. I have been asked before to back off a bit on power and have taken a liver punch through the chest protector that nearly made me throw up, so.....



Then clearly you don't fall into what I am talking about.


----------



## Ironbear24

Headhunter said:


> The gear doesn't work as a magic shield it'll still hurt a bit maybe not as much without but you can still feel it. It's like wearing a groin guard it still hurts like hell when you get a low shot but it'd hurt a lot more if you weren't wearing it



In my opinion it's best to spar with little to no gear because that conditions your body better. I know it can still hurt but obviously it will hurt more without it which is why it is better. Gear can create a level of comfort that won't always be there while no gear can give you that higher confidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


> In my opinion it's best to spar with little to no gear because that conditions your body better. I know it can still hurt but obviously it will hurt more without it which is why it is better. Gear can create a level of comfort that won't always be there while no gear can give you that higher confidence.


That's how I look at sparring with little gear.  Part conditioning and part of me keeping a healthy sense that I can be hurt.  Unfortunately many people think they can't get hurt with the gear on and as a result they get lazy in their defense.  Take off the gear and you'll see students spar with more activity and more understanding of not wanting to get hit.  The other instructor always wants me to blast him with good shots so he can learn.  What he doesn't understand is, even with the head gear and gloves, I can still hurt him.  But I guess one day he'll just have to learn the hard way.  Not sure how long I can remain mature about not laying him out.  I mean he literally keeps asking for it as if he wants to see if he can withstand my punch.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure how long I can remain mature about not laying him out.* I mean he literally keeps asking for it* as if he wants to see if he can withstand my punch.



It would be rude to say no...


----------



## Ironbear24

JowGaWolf said:


> That's how I look at sparring with little gear.  Part conditioning and part of me keeping a healthy sense that I can be hurt.  Unfortunately many people think they can't get hurt with the gear on and as a result they get lazy in their defense.  Take off the gear and you'll see students spar with more activity and more understanding of not wanting to get hit.  The other instructor always wants me to blast him with good shots so he can learn.  What he doesn't understand is, even with the head gear and gloves, I can still hurt him.  But I guess one day he'll just have to learn the hard way.  Not sure how long I can remain mature about not laying him out.  I mean he literally keeps asking for it as if he wants to see if he can withstand my punch.



My sifu said it like this. "If you land a good hit on me being the big guy you are. I would be done. My goal is to break you before you can land that hit on me."

Another time he said this. "No matter who you are. You can get beat up. Humans are made of skin and bones and both are capable of breaking."

So no matter who you are that good hit can do damage to you. I don't know what to say to him other than no. You can and will get hurt just like anyone else can if they get hit clean and hard.


----------



## Ironbear24

JowGaWolf said:


> Unfortunately many people think they can't get hurt with the gear on and as a result they get lazy in their defense. Take off the gear and you'll see students spar with more activity and more understanding of not wanting to get hit.



Yeah this is why I prefer without gear. With the gear people become very confident, but when that gear comes of suddenly they are afraid. It's about defeating that fear so you an become confident. It also teaches control with sparring, we have to be more careful to not injur eachother but also need to hit just hard enough to fight back.

It basically helps you know your strength.


----------



## JP3

Dirty Dog said:


> Against people who spar with their hands down? Pretty well.
> Last time I competed, I was 53. Because there was no geriatric age group, I sparred in the 30-35 year old black belt class. The people I sparred were from schools that typically do hands down WTF-style sparring. That tournament scored punches and allowed punches to the head. I took gold.
> 
> Against those two specific individuals? I don't know. I've never met them. But assuming a ruleset that doesn't force me to spar using only a tiny subset of what TKD teaches, I think I'd do pretty well.
> 
> How about you?



I know this isn't directed to me but it hit me funny, so I'll act like it was. And I mean Funny-haha not funny as in irritated, to be clear. Ha!

At 48 with all the cross training, and having originally come up in the point-fighting TKD bouncy thing displayed, I think I could safely say to either of the young guys the same thing said to me when I went and sparred for the first time with a grizzled old guy who may have even posted in the "Aging and Older Martial Artists" thread we have going here on MT. Which, I find hilarious as we all laugh ina nd at each other's pain, I muight add.

"Bounce one more time and you'll be getting up."  Which, of course, I did not understand... so I had to get up to figure out what the old guy was trying to impart.  Note -- I'm a slow & stubborn learner, so he had to ... ahh... repeat himself three more times before I took his point to heart. Bruised butt, too.

Bounce up, and lose contact with the floor even for a moment with someone who has any sort of timing and the inclination to not put up with it and you end up not standing up any more.  It's the derndest thing.

Oh. Yes, keep your hands up. Or find out why.

Nowadays, I find that I'm torn on how to deal with kicks aimed at me, but I do agree... don't reach down to block kicks, that's what legs are for. Though, my "torn" is between the Muay Thai, which is straight-up leg blocking, and the aikido which is evasion.  I find the best combination is the evasion until they get frustrated then shift gears, or styles, when a tactical mistake is made. That works well and you end up having to eat only one kick and then fight over.  In the dojo anyway.  The only real world kick I've ever had to face, outside of a full-contact bout, was the traditional kick in the business, which missed as I slipped it, and that fight ended with my front elbow driving the guy back after which he decided he was done.  I've never had to fight a trained kicker "for real." Funny how that is, people growing humble and respectful by learnihngg the martial arts... what's that about...  Humility, Respect, Wisdom, Restraint... aren't those just words on that poster we walk past as we go into the dojo?


----------



## Headhunter

Ironbear24 said:


> In my opinion it's best to spar with little to no gear because that conditions your body better. I know it can still hurt but obviously it will hurt more without it which is why it is better. Gear can create a level of comfort that won't always be there while no gear can give you that higher confidence.


You need to realise that some people don't want that, they train for different reasons. Some don't want to condition there body by getting beaten up. Some do it simply for exercise or fun they don't care if they can take a beating.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> One assumes that any black belt would know correct head movement, footwork etc etc.
> We know that hands up isn't 'everything' but when the hands are never up it tends to be one of quite a few indicators that those sparring aren't as experienced as they think they are. Hands aren't necessarily up to stop a punch,  there's a number of reasons to have your hands up. I won't list them as I'm assuming everyone here is experienced enough to know why ( just as we assumed people knew about footwork etc and didn't labour the point) no point in teaching grandmother to suck eggs.



I wouldn't have assumed that. I know plenty of black belts who think hands up is the whole equation. And fight on rails.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I love how keeping your hands up is mentioned and people jump on it saying how it's not necessary, how many fighters don't etc etc... Sure Ali could get away with it but how many of us are Ali? Keeping your hands up is a *cog *in the general engine of sparring not just defence, it's useful for a number of reasons.
> 
> Just because some pro fighters drop their hands when kicking doesn't mean that it's the optimum way to kick, others don't, they change their guard using the upper body movement to add extra power to the back leg kick which works very nicely. it depends on how and who taught you to kick in the first place, offering up that because pro fighters do something doesn't mean it's the way everyone should. Some pro fighters spit on the canvas, should we all just because they do?



Hands up isn't the dogmatic rule that it has been presented as.

eg.

*"A black belt in 3 years is, like hands down sparring, not something that will be seen in our school."*

The same issue you have with a reason like "because pro fighters do it." I have with" because nobody in our school does it."

If you are going to give advice. It should be supported with real reasons.


----------



## Ironbear24

Headhunter said:


> You need to realise that some people don't want that, they train for different reasons. Some don't want to condition there body by getting beaten up. Some do it simply for exercise or fun they don't care if they can take a beating.



Conditioning is supposed to be part of martial arts training.


----------



## Headhunter

Ironbear24 said:


> Conditioning is supposed to be part of martial arts training.


Not really no martial arts is about many things. What conditioning do you do in things like tai chi


----------



## KangTsai

JowGaWolf said:


> Stop the bouncing. It's a waste of energy and if you fight someone like me, then I'm going to time your bounce and put you on the ground or give you bruised shins and legs, or both. Half way through the video you stopped bouncing (which is good) and it probably felt good to.



Bouncing is very common in striking, and it really doesn't do much detriment to the fighter when mixed with grappling, as bouncing can keep the fighter mobile and significantly impact the pace of the fight, depending on how good you are at pacing yourself, and controlling it. After a certain point, bouncing consumes virtually no energy at all, and the only reason you stop it becomes that you want to slow down to a feeling pace to set up attack. Of course, you don't have to bounce, nobody says that. But if you use it right, it's definitely an advantage over those who cannot. Wrestlers don't bounce, simply because, they are always "in the pocket." This means that leaning forward, front-heavy is advantageous, which eliminates the want for such footwork. This 





JowGaWolf said:


> if you fight someone like me, then I'm going to time your bounce and put you on the ground or give you bruised shins and legs, or both.


 should be taken with a grain of salt too - if it was that easy to time stand-up bounces (which really aren't even bounces, they're really just hip shifts) for a successful shot, one of the best wrestlers in the UFC couldn't possibly think of bouncing, ever - he should know better, right?




Nope. TJ Dillashaw bounces like a wallaby in training and between fences. Since he's so good at utilising such footwork, coupled with his speed, he can outpace and outstrike most opponents without a sweat, while being dominant in most of his wrestling exchanges.
I'm not saying you're a bad grappler or anything near that. But I think that's an exaggeration.

PS: this was a "touch-sparring" match, like point karate/tkd, so bouncing is pretty much metagame.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> Bouncing is very common in striking, and it really doesn't do much detriment to the fighter when mixed with grappling, as bouncing can keep the fighter mobile and significantly impact the pace of the fight, depending on how good you are at pacing yourself, and controlling it. After a certain point, bouncing consumes virtually no energy at all, and the only reason you stop it becomes that you want to slow down to a feeling pace to set up attack. Of course, you don't have to bounce, nobody says that. But if you use it right, it's definitely an advantage over those who cannot. Wrestlers don't bounce, simply because, they are always "in the pocket." This means that leaning forward, front-heavy is advantageous, which eliminates the want for such footwork. This  should be taken with a grain of salt too - if it was that easy to time stand-up bounces (which really aren't even bounces, they're really just hip shifts) for a successful shot, one of the best wrestlers in the UFC couldn't possibly think of bouncing, ever - he should know better, right?
> 
> Nope. TJ Dillashaw bounces like a wallaby in training and between fences. Since he's so good at utilising such footwork, coupled with his speed, he can outpace and outstrike most opponents without a sweat, while being dominant in most of his wrestling exchanges.
> I'm not saying you're a bad grappler or anything near that. But I think that's an exaggeration.
> 
> PS: this was a "touch-sparring" match, like point karate/tkd, so bouncing is pretty much metagame.





Just because one MMA fighter 'bounces' actually proves nothing, it doesn't mean bouncing is good it just means that one MMA fighter bounces. That you think it works for him means little, he may actually be a better fighter if he didn't do it but it's his shtick. Every fighter needs something that makes him different, noticeable so promoters pick him and people buy tickets to watch him fight.
I think you may need considerable more fighting experience to actually state that bouncing is good or that another poster isn't as good as he thinks he is.


----------



## KangTsai

Tez3 said:


> Just because one MMA fighter 'bounces' actually proves nothing, it doesn't mean bouncing is good it just means that one MMA fighter bounces. That you think it works for him means little, he may actually be a better fighter if he didn't do it but it's his shtick. Every fighter needs something that makes him different, noticeable so promoters pick him and people buy tickets to watch him fight.
> I think you may need considerable more fighting experience to actually state that bouncing is good or that another poster isn't as good as he thinks he is.


I think my main point was that it's not THAT much easier at all for a takedown to occur simply because of the fact the fighter is bouncing. It would have to do with the range, posture and reaction of the target.


----------



## Ironbear24

Headhunter said:


> Not really no martial arts is about many things. What conditioning do you do in things like tai chi



That depends on the form of tai chi. I am sure Tai chi chuan which is more combat oriented has some type of body conditioning.

Don't quote me on that because I have never trained in that.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> I think my main point was that it's not THAT much easier at all for a takedown to occur simply because of the fact the fighter is bouncing. It would have to do with the range, posture and reaction of the target.



'You think'?  How people have you taken down in a pro rules MMA fight? JKW is a very thoughtful poster, he tries things out, has a lot of experience and wouldn't say something about techniques he couldn't prove. I think basing your supposition on one MMA fighter and your own short experience in martial arts doesn't make you right about this. JKW isn't the only experienced martial artist saying bouncing isn't necessary, other very experienced martial artist are saying it too. Sure it works for the odd fighter, though as I said we haven't seen them fight without doing it there's a chance they could be better without it. As for it not using much energy that would be true when you are 16 I imagine but not true when you are older and have larger muscles to feed!


----------



## drop bear

steve vic back in the shiny pants kickboxing days could pull the TKD style off.






He meshed in some good hands though.


----------



## Flatfish

Just to throw this in there: about a year ago I had the pleasure of attending a sparring seminar with some members of the Korean Natl. TKD team.....I got constantly yelled at for not bouncing more


----------



## Tez3

Flatfish said:


> Just to throw this in there: about a year ago I had the pleasure of attending a sparring seminar with some members of the Korean Natl. TKD team.....I got constantly yelled at for not bouncing more



Watching the Olympic TKD you can see competitors bounce... doesn't make it a good thing though just makes it Olympic TKD. You don't see them punching much either.


----------



## Flatfish

Tez3 said:


> Watching the Olympic TKD you can see competitors bounce... doesn't make it a good thing though just makes it Olympic TKD. You don't see them punching much either.



I didn't mean to defend it. I just put it there to say that it's, as you point out, an Olympic TKD thing.

Edited to add: after a quick Youtube consultation it seems to also be an ITF sparring thing


----------



## JowGaWolf

KangTsai said:


> Bouncing is very common in striking, and it really doesn't do much detriment to the fighter when mixed with grappling, as bouncing can keep the fighter mobile and significantly impact the pace of the fight, depending on how good you are at pacing yourself, and controlling it


This may seem the case if you spar or fight where grappling and sweeps aren't allowed.  Bouncing means that you are not rooted.  It also means that you have given your opponent something to time you on.  As your opponent I now know when you will be off the ground and when you'll be sinking into your root. I don't bounce and you wouldn't have the advantage that you think you would have. 



KangTsai said:


> should be taken with a grain of salt too - if it was that easy to time stand-up bounces (which really aren't even bounces, they're really just hip shifts) for a successful shot, one of the best wrestlers in the UFC couldn't possibly think of bouncing, ever - he should know better, right


He knows better.  Here's his UFC fight.  Clearly there is no bouncing around like TKD





and other


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jks9199 said:


> Forgive me; I'm going to rant a little bit.  Before I do that -- kudos to both of you for training, for working out together...  My rant's not personal.
> 
> I'm linking two videos of some tournaments from maybe the 70s.  (Can't ask Bob easily just this moment).  My point about them is that you see competitors from several styles fight.  They LOOK different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (especially from about 1:00 to 9:00 minutes; there may be some repetition in the two links )
> 
> You guys... you're both in that side stance bouncing thing.  You look the same... and if you weren't in different colored uniforms, it'd be kind of hard to say who represented what style.  Now, I know there is some historical connection (  ) between Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do -- the two arts have gone their own way.  There should be some recognizable differences between you two -- and not just a few more punches.
> 
> Why the hell do we do forms, do you train various stances and tactics... then throw that out when we set down and spar?  I see one of two things in most "open" sparring: either that side stance, or a kind of poorly done boxing stance.  Now, I recognize that there are "fighting stances" and "formal stances" -- but different styles should have different fighting stances, reflecting their tactics and their strategies.  And those should show through in the fighting...
> 
> OK,  that's out of my system.
> 
> Like I said, not personal.  You guys looked pretty sharp -- and you're out there working.  Maybe I've given you (and others) some food for thought in their training...


A question (not an assertion) on this. Is it possible that a style's own primary stance is one of the better counters to that style's tactics? It seems likely practitioners would adopt a stance that best fits what they fight against the most (their own style). If that's true (a big "if"), then it would make sense that styles would start to adopt similar stances as there's more mixing (much more mixing today than there was in the '70's). There would also be some cross-pollination of tactics. These could make the styles look more similar, the more they have to deal with each other.

Whatcha think?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Nice video!
> 
> Well, first of all I have no background in either art so take my comments with the proverbial grain of salt.
> 
> I do see a difference in stance and behaviour. The guy in white feels "squarer ", more "grounded" while the other has more dynamic kicks and throws them in combinations. I'm guessing that OP is the man in the black gi.
> 
> The "issue" here is that the karate friend, even though he drops into a low stance, stays really "bouncy". Does he compete in Shotokan point fighting? I'd also keep in mind the fact that it was just light sparring where you both were trying out stuff.
> 
> IMHO it would have looked more like karate VS TKD if your friend had committed to the "one hit kill" approach with linear bursts. Then you would have had to be more careful about not letting him get into range and retaliating with kicks. And I agree with the others on the subject of keeping your hands up
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


One of my students has several years of Shotokan, and they spar like that (bouncing) even in class.


----------



## jks9199

gpseymour said:


> A question (not an assertion) on this. Is it possible that a style's own primary stance is one of the better counters to that style's tactics? It seems likely practitioners would adopt a stance that best fits what they fight against the most (their own style). If that's true (a big "if"), then it would make sense that styles would start to adopt similar stances as there's more mixing (much more mixing today than there was in the '70's). There would also be some cross-pollination of tactics. These could make the styles look more similar, the more they have to deal with each other.
> 
> Whatcha think?


It's a very easybtrap for a style to set itself up best against itself or similar styles.   But I actually suspect therevwas more free mixing in the past than today...  Profit oriented schools, liability concerns, even just time available to explore makes ot harder today, i think. (Outside of the special scope of MMA.) But there was a different understanding of mixing,  i think.  Rather than "I use BJJ on the ground, Thai knees and clinch, etc." There was more taking a piece or technique and incorporating it into your style than i see today.  But, that's also just my opinion, too...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Azulx said:


> From what I've seen on here 1-4 years for a BB puts you in the "too soon" category. 5-6 years puts you in the "ok, that's decent" category. 7-10 years puts you in the "legitimate" category.


That's just based on folks' conception of what BB "means". It would be true-ish within NGA, but I have little reason to be concerned about how others use those same colors for their ranks. So long as they are clear within their program what BB really means, that's all that really matters to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flatfish said:


> after a quick Youtube consultation


this is how I will refer to youtube from now on lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This is one of the reason why I like non-belted systems.   I watched the conversation turn into about how fast you got a black belt.   From what I've seen of your videos you are about where most people are in sparring after 2 years.  They have a set of basic skills that they feel comfortable with. You have a little panic in your movement but that will change the more you spar and as you become comfortable with being hit and kicked.  By your third year you'll need to slowly start adding some of the other techniques that you do in forms into your sparring.  If you don't do that then where you are now is where you'll always be.


I like belted systems, personally. I just wish we could leave the belts out of these discussions, for precisely the reasons you point to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Non belted systems can work well. You can judge only on 'performance'.
> The problem though with training with people from other systems is that if you wear your black belt they tend to assume you are at the same point as they are. That can go two ways, people where promotion is slower, more involved and have taken a few more years to reach their first black belt will assume that you are at more or less the same standard as they are in which case you will lose, big style. Of course if it was you who reached your first black belt after a few years and think the black belt facing you is the same you will have a pleasant surprise to find them at the same standard as one of your lower grades however good he is. An interesting problem.


This is, indeed, an issue with belt ranks. And it's why, when I travel to another school, I bring both my black belt and a white belt. If I can watch class a bit and confirm that BB means approximately the same thing there, I'll wear the black one (it's more what they'd expect and communicates my level appropriately). If their BB means something drastically different (at least in the context at hand, as it would in a BJJ school), I'll put on the white one to better communicate what they should expect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jks9199 said:


> It's a very easybtrap for a style to set itself up best against itself or similar styles.   But I actually suspect therevwas more free mixing in the past than today...  Profit oriented schools, liability concerns, even just time available to explore makes ot harder today, i think. (Outside of the special scope of MMA.) But there was a different understanding of mixing,  i think.  Rather than "I use BJJ on the ground, Thai knees and clinch, etc." There was more taking a piece or technique and incorporating it into your style than i see today.  But, that's also just my opinion, too...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I was thinking more about the likelihood that a given school will have students with significant experience in other arts. In the 70's, schools were farther apart, and there were fewer arts to be found in most towns. Today, finding a Karate school and a Tae Kwon Do school in the same area is pretty easy. And students are likely to occasionally leave one and go to the other. I would expect that to have an impact on the other students in the school.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> Is it possible that a style's own primary stance is one of the better counters to that style's tactics? It seems likely practitioners would adopt a stance that best fits what they fight against the most (their own style)



Great observation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Great observation.


I just couldn't help agreeing with that, Buka.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I like belted systems, personally. I just wish we could leave the belts out of these discussions, for precisely the reasons you point to.


This will always be a problem as long as people use it as an identifier or expectation of skill level or knowledge of a system.   



gpseymour said:


> I'll put on the white one to better communicate what they should expect.


This is where I think belted systems get into trouble.  I put myself in the same scenario that you described and I asked myself, what should they expect of me? The first answer was.  It doesn't matter, they will find out when I speak or will see it when I do the drills.

I like this video because this is a perfect example of how people let the belt determine their expectations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This will always be a problem as long as people use it as an identifier or expectation of skill level or knowledge of a system.
> 
> This is where I think belted systems get into trouble.  I put myself in the same scenario that you described and I asked myself, what should they expect of me? The first answer was.  It doesn't matter, they will find out when I speak or will see it when I do the drills.
> 
> I like this video because this is a perfect example of how people let the belt determine their expectations.


The expectation is not a problem, when applied appropriately. In NGA, a given belt rank (up to black) sets a reasonable range of expectations. I know what I should be able to expect in ability, control, and intensity at each rank. I lower the expectation slightly if the person is from a school I don't know (just for safety, to allow for the inevitable variations), but otherwise it's a fairly safe bet. The problem is if someone comes into an NGA school with a belt from a system the people there don't understand (Azulx's black belt in one direction, and a BJJ blue in the other, perhaps) and people don't adjust their expectation. If people react with the expectation they can safely use within the art, it can be problematic.

When I go to another style, I make no assumptions at first. I'll evaluate as quickly as I can to get some level-setting. Once I know what (for instance) an orange belt usually means at that school, I'll just keep that expectation for that group. I actually find the belts helpful in that context, once I have seen some examples to help set the expectation. It keeps me from having to start my assessment anew with each person. Instead, I can compare them to the mental model I've created for their rank, as I'm practicing with them (using that mental model as a staring point for safety).


----------



## Psilent Knight

Greetings Friends,

Concerning the idea that Azulx and his Shotokan opponent resembled each other in fighting style may be due to the agreed upon sparring rules. The sparring rules say which techniques can and cannot be used and which parts of the body are legal or illegal targets. Because of this there are only a handful of techniques you can use and only a handful of targets that you can attack. Then there is the confined sparring area and a couple of other factors. 

But with this you are going to have sparring matches in which two people from two different styles will not look distinctive from one another. If we take a Shaolin Kung Fu fighter and put him in the boxing ring, with boxing gloves and he agrees to abide by the rules of boxing, he too will look like an American boxer instead of a Shaolin Kung Fu practitioner.

Now if Azulx and his opponent in the video were fighting an actual death match where anything goes and they are free to do everything and use everything they have learned in their respective styles, I think that the differences between the two would become more apparent.


----------



## Tez3

Psilent Knight said:


> Now if Azulx and his opponent in the video were fighting an actual death match where anything goes and they are free to do everything and use everything they have learned in their respective styles, I think that the differences between the two would become more apparent.



If Azulx lost though we wouldn't get to see the video....


----------



## Psilent Knight

Tez3 said:


> If Azulx lost though we wouldn't get to see the video....



I think we would, just not on MT. The other guy would have posted it with pleasure for the bragging rights.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Psilent Knight said:


> The sparring rules say which techniques can and cannot be used and which parts of the body are legal or illegal targets. Because of this there are only a handful of techniques


I understand what you are saying about the rule, but if a martial arts practitioner is using the techniques that are found in his form and drills then there are more than a handful of techniques available. We usually only see "a handful of techniques" because many martial art practitioners don't practice beyond the jab in sparring and  the sloppy backfist (point sparring).

Not every hand strike in martial arts is a designated death blow and the majority of the people out there can't pull off the techniques in sparring even if they wanted to.  The reason why they can't pull off addition hand strikes is because they don't train them in sparring and not because they are deadly.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JowGaWolf said:


> I understand what you are saying about the rule, but if a martial arts practitioner is using the techniques that are found in his form and drills then there are more than a handful of techniques available. We usually only see "a handful of techniques" because many martial art practitioners don't practice beyond the jab in sparring and  the sloppy backfist (point sparring).
> 
> Not every hand strike in martial arts is a designated death blow and the majority of the people out there can't pull off the techniques in sparring even if they wanted to.  The reason why they can't pull off addition hand strikes is because they don't train them in sparring and not because they are deadly.



Actually, there is another reason; perhaps the most important reason of all and one which I should have pointed out in my prior post. I believe the reason is that under the agreed upon sparring rules certain techniques are preferable whereas others are non preferable. 

The reasons some techniques are preferred and utilized while others are not are many; such as high percentage vs low percentage rate of certain techniques, speed of delivery, economy, safety factors vs risk factors when using certain techniques, the best fighting stance to use, etc.

In Knockdown/Bare Knuckle Karate sparring elbow techniques are allowed to the body but I have *NEVER* seen it done in any sparring matches I've ever seen, I do not do it myself when I spar, I have *never* done it when sparring and it has *never* been done to me. I can assure you we drill various applications of elbow techniques all the time and most of us are quite adept at using them. 

So if elbow techniques to the body are allowed then why is it that they are never used? Because under those some rules *knees to the head and face* are also allowed. So what's going to happen if a person lowers his center of gravity and go in for an elbow attack to the body? 

That type of technique in knockdown rules sparring is low percentage scoring while also high risk at the same time. Not worth it. The safety while delivery factor is not good enough. Thus, another reason, perhaps the primary reason, that Azul and his opponent both stick to almost the same techniques and same fighting style under the agreed upon sparring rules.

Take Care Friends,
Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

*Edit: Meant to say under those _same_ rules.......*


----------



## JowGaWolf

Psilent Knight said:


> The reasons some techniques are preferred and utilized while others are not are many; such as high percentage vs low percentage rate of certain techniques, speed of delivery, economy, safety factors vs risk factors when using certain techniques, the best fighting stance to use, etc.


If a martial artist trains his techniques during sparring then those techniques will no longer be a low percentage technique.  The only way to get those techniques into the high percentage category is to train the application of those techniques in the context of sparring.  Speed of delivery, economy (not even sure that refers to), and safety factors can all be managed by training control as well as Power and Speed.  The only techniques they should stay away from is where  even the smallest slip can cause serious injury or permanent damage, like don't play around with techniques that target the eyes. Techniques that don't take much effort to destroy something should be avoided.
 Here are TKD hand techniques.  The majority of these techniques can be done with the exception of those that fit into what I stated.





All of this can be done in sparring without sending someone to the hospital. 





If a technique is low percentage then it's because the person didn't train it in sparring.



Psilent Knight said:


> I have *NEVER* seen it done in any sparring matches I've ever seen


 I do elbows in my sparring session. I just don't direct them to my sparring partners face and I don't try to blast them in.  I have video of me doing this, and people who know me well enough in this group will tell you, that I probably have a video of me using elbows if I say I have one.  lol.  

My opinion about sparring is that a person shouldn't spar to win.  The reason I say this is because if I have to "Win" a fight then I'm going to go all out.  Sparring gives students a unique opportunity to practice dangerous techniques while minimizing the risks of injury.  In other words your partner won't knock you out if you do a technique the wrong way.



Psilent Knight said:


> So if elbow techniques to the body are allowed then why is it that they are never used?


They probably aren't used because the people don't know how to use the elbows are they can't control the impact of the elbow.  For example,  At my school the beginners aren't allowed to use elbows because they don't control it well.  I've seen a brother elbow his sister right in the chest and it really hurt her.  Keep in mind this happened during drilling and not sparring.  I sparred with some of the  advanced students and they use their elbows as well, but they measure the distance so that I don't run into it, or that it doesn't land full force, or that it turns into more of a bump and not a full on strike.  



Psilent Knight said:


> Thus, another reason, perhaps the primary reason, that Azul and his opponent both stick to almost the same techniques and same fighting style under the agreed upon sparring rules.


I would be shocked if they had rules didn't allow rising blocks,  and blocks that looked like this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> If a technique is low percentage then it's because the person didn't train it in sparring.


I have to disagree with that. Techniques each have an appropriate arena of application. The elbows to the body Psilent mentioned have a very specific arena of application. They require both close proximity and a low approach. Is that possible in sparring? Sure. But there's not enough payoff to be worth the extra effort, especially if the opponent is vulnerable without doing that. Now, if the opponent is taller and closes recklessly? That might make those better choices, but that's finding the proper application arena. Forcing them when there are better-fitted techniques available doesn't make sense.

Not everything shows up well in sparring, because sparring doesn't often present a valid opportunity for the technique. I have some good grappling techniques I would not expect to get an opportunity for with a trained partner in randori.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> They probably aren't used because the people don't know how to use the elbows are they can't control the impact of the elbow. For example, At my school the beginners aren't allowed to use elbows because they don't control it well. I've seen a brother elbow his sister right in the chest and it really hurt her. Keep in mind this happened during drilling and not sparring. I sparred with some of the advanced students and they use their elbows as well, but they measure the distance so that I don't run into it, or that it doesn't land full force, or that it turns into more of a bump and not a full on strike.



You dont have to control the elbow. In KK you can hit people as hard as you want. If that elbow dropped people you are more likely to see it.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JowGaWolf said:


> If a martial artist trains his techniques during sparring then those techniques will no longer be a low percentage technique.  The only way to get those techniques into the high percentage category is to train the application of those techniques in the context of sparring.



I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this observation. Certain techniques in Martial Arts will always be either high percentage in scoring or low percentage in scoring. At the same time certain techniques will always be high in risk/low in safety or low risk/high safety. This is usually magnified by the speed, power and overall fighting IQ of the combatant's opponent. Going low and close for an elbow strike to the body of someone with excellent speed, reflexes, timing and a knee strike of death is high risk, low safety and low percentage chance of scoring and no amount of drilling that particular technique will remedy that. If it were that easy or simple then sport combatants who drill and train their techniques into the ground would all be invincible and untouchable. They would all be able to hit their opponents without ever getting hit themselves.



JowGaWolf said:


> Speed of delivery, economy (not even sure that refers to), and safety factors can all be managed by training control as well as Power and Speed.  The only techniques they should stay away from is where  even the smallest slip can cause serious injury or permanent damage, like don't play around with techniques that target the eyes. Techniques that don't take much effort to destroy something should be avoided.



By economy I meant economy of motion. A front jab has a better economy of motion than a jump spinning hook kick. A knee to the midsection with the front leg has a better economy of motion than a roundhouse kick to the head with the back leg.

And we already know that an agreement has been reached as to which techniques to stay away from during their (Azulx and his sparring partner) match which is why I brought up that they were participating under agreed upon sparring rules instead of a death match.



JowGaWolf said:


> If a technique is low percentage then it's because the person didn't train it in sparring.



I completely disagree with this. As I said above, certain techniques will always carry a heavier risk factor than other techniques and it is exacerbated by the physical attributes and fighting IQ of the opponent.



JowGaWolf said:


> My opinion about sparring is that a person shouldn't spar to win.  The reason I say this is because if I have to "Win" a fight then I'm going to go all out.  Sparring gives students a unique opportunity to practice dangerous techniques while minimizing the risks of injury.  In other words your partner won't knock you out if you do a technique the wrong way.



I agree with this. I myself do not spar to win. I approach sparring as a learning opportunity and I am not trying to win nor am I trying to not lose. I only want to find out what I am doing right and what it is that I need to improve.



JowGaWolf said:


> They probably aren't used because the people don't know how to use the elbows are they can't control the impact of the elbow.  For example,  At my school the beginners aren't allowed to use elbows because they don't control it well.  I've seen a brother elbow his sister right in the chest and it really hurt her.  Keep in mind this happened during drilling and not sparring.  I sparred with some of the  advanced students and they use their elbows as well, but they measure the distance so that I don't run into it, or that it doesn't land full force, or that it turns into more of a bump and not a full on strike.



The example I brought up was strictly under bare knuckle, knockdown Karate rules sparring which is what I do at my Dojo. Based upon personal experience and observation elbow techniques to the midsection are simply not done and it has absolutely nothing to do with the combatants' abilities (or lack thereof) to deliver elbow attacks to their opponents' bodies. It has everything to do with the fact that each of these combatants realize that the risk factor far, far, far outweighs the possibility of a successful attack.



JowGaWolf said:


> I would be shocked if they had rules didn't allow rising blocks



Rising blocks are allowed under knockdown rules sparring and I personally think that they have their place; particularly against attacks coming directly from above like the axe kick.

Take Care,

Osu!


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> But there's not enough payoff to be worth the extra effort, especially if the opponent is vulnerable without doing that. Now, if the opponent is taller and closes recklessly? That might make those better choices, but that's finding the proper application arena. Forcing them when there are better-fitted techniques available doesn't make sense.


I have used elbows on people who are my same height and smaller.  I've used elbows do defend against long range attacks like kicks, and punches.  I've used elbows as part of my long range advancing attacks when the distance goes from long distance fighting to close distance fighting.

There are multiple techniques and benefits to using elbows but a person isn't going to understand this unless they train it.  What is getting me is that this phrase "There's not enough payoff to be worth the extra effort" is being said without the understanding that the payoff is learning how to use the elbows correctly.  Learning that they can be used beyond the basic strike that most people think of elbow.  That is where your martial art growth benefits from it. I'm not the only one that has this perspective of learning to use the techniques.















If you aren't exploring your techniques in sparring then you are really stunting your growth as a martial artist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I have used elbows on people who are my same height and smaller.  I've used elbows do defend against long range attacks like kicks, and punches.  I've used elbows as part of my long range advancing attacks when the distance goes from long distance fighting to close distance fighting.
> 
> There are multiple techniques and benefits to using elbows but a person isn't going to understand this unless they train it.  What is getting me is that this phrase "There's not enough payoff to be worth the extra effort" is being said without the understanding that the payoff is learning how to use the elbows correctly.  Learning that they can be used beyond the basic strike that most people think of elbow.  That is where your martial art growth benefits from it. I'm not the only one that has this perspective of learning to use the techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't exploring your techniques in sparring then you are really stunting your growth as a martial artist.


I say again, some techniques don't present much payoff (or themselves, even) in the context of open sparring. It's not even necessarily whether the technique can be applied. Getting inside to deliver an elbow to the body doesn't make sense (except when exploring the technique) when an easier, higher-percentage, equally effective answer exists. The Tai Chi elbow is a good example. There were other options there that would have penetrated where those elbows didn't reach, because elbows don't have the best range for entering. Can they work? Sure. And they should be used where they are the best choice.

I'm not saying you can't choose to train them in sparring. That's something we've discussed before. But that's not the same as having them show up in open sparring (meaning your regular techniques are available). In open sparring, you go with what is the best fit for the situation, and that tends to not draw on some of the techniques.

You will probably not see many of my grappling techniques show up when I'm open sparring with another NGA practitioner. Why? Because they know the counters well enough that my striking is higher percentage than most of the grappling. If they give me an opening, I'll slip in a throw, because it is more effective than most strikes. Now, take the strikes out, or even just limit them the right way, and the priority to throws goes back up, because they better match the new openings and are a larger part of my remaining toolbox.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JowGaWolf said:


> I have used elbows on people who are my same height and smaller.  I've used elbows do defend against long range attacks like kicks, and punches.  I've used elbows as part of my long range advancing attacks when the distance goes from long distance fighting to close distance fighting.
> 
> There are multiple techniques and benefits to using elbows but a person isn't going to understand this unless they train it.  What is getting me is that this phrase "There's not enough payoff to be worth the extra effort" is being said without the understanding that the payoff is learning how to use the elbows correctly.  Learning that they can be used beyond the basic strike that most people think of elbow.  That is where your martial art growth benefits from it. I'm not the only one that has this perspective of learning to use the techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't exploring your techniques in sparring then you are really stunting your growth as a martial artist.



I think this video clip proves my point even further. Notice the many elbows thrown in this training session and _not a single one _is aimed at the chest or stomach. 

In fact, Nak Muay are the kings of elbows and are almost unmatched in that category. But I would like for anyone here to show me an authentic muay Thai fight in which the combatants are throwing elbows at the chest and stomach area. They always aim their elbows at the face and head instead. Why? That much sought after _PAYOFF_ that gpseymour has explained. 

While Nak Muay are the kings of elbows, they are also the kings of devastating knees. So I'll ask the question again that I asked earlier. What's going to happen if one of the combatants try to go close and low in order to deliver an elbow to their opponent's midsection?  Why would they elect to go for a high risk, low payoff target (the midsection) as opposed to a low risk, high payoff target (the face and head)?

Two more questions. Why do they *only* throw their elbows at their opponents' face and head? Why do they *not* throw their elbows at their opponents' midsection instead? 

This observation with muay Thai and the knockdown Karate example I brought up earlier are enough to basically end the entire argument in my estimation.

Take Care Friends and Enjoy Your Evening,

Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

By the way, I have trained muay Thai for about 5 months at an mma gym in Pittsburgh. And while we learned and drilled our elbow strikes numerous times we never, ever targeted the midsection. In the sparring matched that I have observed up close and personal I have never, ever seen a single elbow aimed at the midsection.

Take Care Friends,
Osu!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Psilent Knight said:


> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this observation. Certain techniques in Martial Arts will always be either high percentage in scoring or low percentage in scoring.



elbows used both in short and medium ranges







drop bear said:


> If that elbow dropped people you are more likely to see it.


We only see what people train. If they don't train it then they won't use it.  It's why Kung Fu practitioners always look like generic kick boxing because they don't train their techniques during sparring.  Instead of learning how the techniques works, and learning the timing and set up for the technique.  The techniques are automatically written off as "low percentage."  By default any technique that you don't train is a "low percentage" technique.  In the video above there are some elbows that struck the body and it knocked the opponent down.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Psilent Knight said:


> I think this video clip proves my point even further. Notice the many elbows thrown in this training session and _not a single one _is aimed at the chest or stomach.


If you want to aim the elbow to the chest then aim it to the chest.  What's up with all of this voluntary restriction that is being placed on techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

There are some muay thai elbows to the chest in this video.  You have to watch the first video closely because they are really quick. Play the video at a slower speed if you need to


----------



## JowGaWolf

Psilent Knight said:


> By the way, I have trained muay Thai for about 5 months at an mma gym in Pittsburgh


You are speaking 5 months of of Muay Thai at an MMA gym.  My guess is that with in those 5 months there are a lot of Muay Thai techniques that you didn't do.  5 months isn't long
Elbows to the body







gpseymour said:


> Getting inside to deliver an elbow to the body doesn't make sense (except when exploring the technique) when an easier, higher-percentage, equally effective answer exists.


When you are inside close to your opponent then your opponent can no longer use many of his punches. 
How does not not make sense?  If you and I are sparring, I close the distance to where you you can no longer punch, then for you that would only leave grappling.  If I land an elbow to your chest or ribs before you can grab me then that strike will interrupt any technique that you would use on me.  If you can grab me before my elbow strike then you will be able to interfere with my efforts to use my elbow.







Am I the only one that trains elbows?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JowGaWolf said:


> You are speaking 5 months of of Muay Thai at an MMA gym.  My guess is that with in those 5 months there are a lot of Muay Thai techniques that you didn't do.  5 months isn't long
> Elbows to the body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are inside close to your opponent then your opponent can no longer use many of his punches.
> How does not not make sense?  If you and I are sparring, I close the distance to where you you can no longer punch, then for you that would only leave grappling.  If I land an elbow to your chest or ribs before you can grab me then that strike will interrupt any technique that you would use on me.  If you can grab me before my elbow strike then you will be able to interfere with my efforts to use my elbow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that trains elbows?


What your describing in that second part is part of how I spar grapplers. I use punches to close the distance, get in close and throw elbows while they try to execute a technique (or strike in the now - close distance) then use punches to get out. Without the elbows I would end up on the floor each time.

It doesn't work for me as much as I would like, but I realize that's an issue with my own ability and timing, rather than with the existence of elbows to disrupt their movement.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> You are speaking 5 months of of Muay Thai at an MMA gym.  My guess is that with in those 5 months there are a lot of Muay Thai techniques that you didn't do.  5 months isn't long
> Elbows to the body
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are inside close to your opponent then your opponent can no longer use many of his punches.
> How does not not make sense?  If you and I are sparring, I close the distance to where you you can no longer punch, then for you that would only leave grappling.  If I land an elbow to your chest or ribs before you can grab me then that strike will interrupt any technique that you would use on me.  If you can grab me before my elbow strike then you will be able to interfere with my efforts to use my elbow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that trains elbows?



There is no range that puts you too close to punch. There is methods that stifle punches but they also stifle elbows.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Am I the only one that trains elbows?


No. In our movement, however, an elbow to the body is rarely a better answer than other tools in our bag.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JowGaWolf said:


> elbows used both in short and medium ranges



My observation was never that elbows could not be thrown in short and medium ranges, my observation is that trying to throw elbows *to the midsection *has a HIGH safety risk but LOW payoff. Notice how all of the elbow techniques thrown in the video clip are all aimed at and connecting with the head and face. None of them are to the midsection.



JowGaWolf said:


> We only see what people train. If they don't train it then they won't use it.  It's why Kung Fu practitioners always look like generic kick boxing because they don't train their techniques during sparring.  Instead of learning how the techniques works, and learning the timing and set up for the technique.  The techniques are automatically written off as "low percentage."



I cannot disagree more with this observation. All techniques have a window of opportunity and applicability when the circumstances are ripe for them. But when sparring under very restrictive rules many of those techniques become high risk and low payoff if you try to use them under such restrictions. This is why alot of the Judo throws go out the window in mma matches. Without the gi the vast majority of the Judo throws are null and void yet people like Karo Parisiyan are masters at the full syllabus of the Judo throws because he trained it into the ground. But the conditions in the mma cage nullify the applicability of most of those throws. I think I would have a much better chance of landing an elbow to my opponents midsection if he's out cold while still on his feet. And even then why elbow him in the midsection at that point? I would rather take advantage of the window of opportunity and put him away for the permanent count.



JowGaWolf said:


> By default any technique that you don't train is a "low percentage" technique.  In the video above there are some elbows that struck the body and it knocked the opponent down.



No, I didn't see that at all and I watched the video. The most you can hope for is an elbow aimed at the head but striking the person in the chest due to mistakes in distancing or timing or the movements of the opponent. But no I did not see any elbows to the chest in the video.



JowGaWolf said:


> If you want to aim the elbow to the chest then aim it to the chest. What's up with all of this voluntary restriction that is being placed on techniques.



Well, I don't want to aim my elbow at the chest because to me the slim chance of a payoff isn't worth it when I compare it to the high risk factor. Also, It's not so much as a voluntary restriction as it is a realization that certain techniques under sparring rules are my friends while others can be my foe. In BJJ and submission grappling matches you will see people regularly jump guard but you don't regularly see this in mma matches. The reason is because the rules in bjj and submission grappling allow them to do so with a much, much lower risk factor than than the rules of mma.



JowGaWolf said:


> You are speaking 5 months of of Muay Thai at an MMA gym. My guess is that with in those 5 months there are a lot of Muay Thai techniques that you didn't do. 5 months isn't long



Within those 5 months I was taught (and have drilled) the entire syllabus of the muay Thai arsenal. I trained four days a week and learned the full arsenal of the art of 8 limbs. Also, we should keep in mind that muay Thai is an altogether different ball game than muay boran.



JowGaWolf said:


> When you are inside close to your opponent then your opponent can no longer use many of his punches.



I was never talking about punches at close range. I was only talking about two things; elbows to the body and the retaliation of knees for attempting elbows to the body. I was never speaking on anything to do with punches or elbows to the face as high risk endeavors.



JowGaWolf said:


> If you and I are sparring, I close the distance to where you you can no longer punch, then for you that would only leave grappling. If I land an elbow to your chest or ribs before you can grab me then that strike will interrupt any technique that you would use on me. If you can grab me before my elbow strike then you will be able to interfere with my efforts to use my elbow.



I don't know what sparring rules you have in mind while stating that scenario but under muay Thai rules or knockdown Karate rules if you close the distance in an attempt to elbow to my body there is no way you are jumping back out to long range before getting intimately acquainted with my knees. 

One last thing, neither the video of the muay Thai fight you posted or the video clip of elbows used in mma show any elbow strikes to the chest or midsection. And the video of the people training elbows to the midsection is irrelevant since no one here has posted a fight where elbows are specifically aimed at the body. Not a training session, but a fight where the participants are putting it all on the line. As I noted earlier, it doesn't matter how many times one may drill certain techniques if they are low percentage under certain sparring rules against certain dangerous opponents.

Osu!


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> What your describing in that second part is part of how I spar grapplers. I use punches to close the distance, get in close and throw elbows while they try to execute a technique (or strike in the now - close distance) then use punches to get out. Without the elbows I would end up on the floor each time.
> 
> It doesn't work for me as much as I would like, but I realize that's an issue with my own ability and timing, rather than with the existence of elbows to disrupt their movement.


Thank you.. You understand what I'm getting at. The issue isn't with the technique but our own ability and not the technique.  People often say that something doesn't work or that it's a low percentage, but out of the entire elbow discussion you and I are the only ones that actually train and work on using them.  I'm pretty sure you that your elbows work better now than they first did when you were just starting out.  And the only reason your ability has improved is because you work on it.


----------

